Science and Research Committee on April 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Welcome to meeting number 82 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person, in the room and remotely using Zoom. Both of our witnesses are here virtually today.

For those participating virtually, there are a few rules. You can ask to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, French or English. If interpretation is lost, please notify me right away and we'll suspend until we can get the interpretation services restored.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole meeting is in person. .

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your mic will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

As always, try to make sure your earpiece doesn't come close to your microphone so that we don't create feedback in the earpiece and cause hearing damage to the interpreters as well as to the members who are participating here.

All comments should come through the chair, please.

Please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mic should be on mute.

With regard to the speaking list, the clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motions adopted by the committee on Tuesday, January 30, and Thursday, February 15, 2024, the committee resumes its study of the distribution of federal government funding among Canada's post-secondary institutions.

It's my pleasure now to welcome, from Dalhousie University, Dr. Alice Aiken, vice-president of research and innovation; as well as, from the University of Lethbridge, Dr. Dena McMartin, vice-president of research.

You each have five minutes for your opening statement.

We'll start with Dr. Aiken, from Dalhousie, please.

[Dr. Alice Aiken, Vice-President, Research and Innovation, Dalhousie University]

Thank you.

Good morning.

I am pleased to be here with you. I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you from Canadian researchers to this committee.

Your work has enabled the historic investment in research and graduate students that was announced yesterday, so thank you.

Canada's universities play an integral role in our national research ecosystem, supporting the development of highly skilled talent, the production of new ideas and technologies, and the transfer of new knowledge and innovations to industry and everyday life.

Canada's research-intensive universities, including Dalhousie, are foundational contributors to the pan-Canadian research and innovation ecosystem. We not only cultivate academic excellence and robust collaboration but also act as vital connectors between academia, industry and the international knowledge community.

Research funding from the federal government is awarded to researchers across post-secondary institutions through a competitive, impartial granting process. These funds support research and talent development at institutions large and small across the country. Research-intensive universities act as research hubs, housing crucial research infrastructure, such as labs and highly specialized equipment, that supports critical research initiatives. By facilitating the development of robust research networks, we ensure Canada's prominent position in global innovation and research, while also enhancing domestic capacity.

A larger proportion of funding flows to larger universities, in part because of the higher number of professors, the availability of critical infrastructure and equipment, and the access to talent through graduate and post-graduate programs. The combination of specialized infrastructure and research-focused programming creates the conditions for research intensiveness. As a research hub, Dalhousie University has research projects that involve researchers and students across multiple institutions and organizations locally and globally.

I'd like to highlight two examples of significant Dalhousie-led research initiatives that, through collaborations with other institutions, industry and communities, contribute to Canada's economic well-being.

The “transforming climate action: addressing the missing ocean” project, TCA, serves as a standout illustration of how the Canada first research excellence fund, CFREF, underpins significant research initiatives by leveraging institutional capabilities.

Supported by a $154-million grant through CFREF, the TCA activates a total investment of nearly $400 million in cash and in-kind contributions. The TCA research program is a collaborative effort involving more than 170 researchers from diverse academic disciplines, institutions, provinces and languages.

This endeavour, led by Dalhousie University, in collaboration with the Université du Québec à Rimouski, Université Laval and Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, showcases the strategic use of CFREF to foster a world-leading research network. The project focuses on the ocean's critical climate role, leveraging extensive collaborations with indigenous communities, government, industry and international partners.

I'd also like to speak about the common ground Canada network project. Funded by a $2-million SSHRC network on sustainable agriculture grant, this initiative brings together social scientists to share, grow and apply knowledge about the relationships necessary to transition Canada's agriculture and food systems to net zero. It enables multidisciplinary engagement to ensure that the costs and benefits of net-zero transition are equitably shared.

The network is led by Dalhousie and includes 49 academics and 22 not-for-profit organizations. Our partners are Carleton, Lakehead and Wilfred Laurier universities, and the universities of Victoria, Alberta and British Columbia.

I'll close by noting that research is a resource-intensive enterprise. It requires ongoing investment in people, infrastructure, robust academic programming that supports a steady pipeline of learners at the graduate and post-graduate level, as well as technical and operational expertise to manage unique facilities and processes. Canada's larger research-intensive universities are particularly well positioned to lead major research initiatives and to act as research hubs, engaging many collaborators from other institutions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll turn to Dr. McMartin from University of Lethbridge.

Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Dr. Dena McMartin, Vice-President, Research, University of Lethbridge]

Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to address the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

It's very encouraging to see this committee actively inviting voices that represent Canada's small and medium-sized universities.

For context, allow me to tell you a bit about my region and why the equitable distribution of research and special initiative funding is so important.

Lethbridge, Alberta, is a city of 105,000 people, and the main service hub of a region of more than 350,000 people. We are neighbours with the Blackfoot Confederacy, with whom we share close partnerships to the point that our university holds a Blackfoot name, Iniskim, meaning Sacred Buffalo Stone.

If you drive through Lethbridge, you will see the businesses that support Canada's premier food corridor of agriculture and food-processing industries. It will also become quickly apparent that Lethbridge is a university town, or really a post-secondary town, that is home to both the University of Lethbridge and Lethbridge College.

Our students, staff and faculty have significant economic and cultural impacts on our region. This context is important, because community leaders in 1967 understood the importance of a university to the success of the city and the region. That has not changed. Really, it's the same conversation this committee is having today.

Our researchers are working on issues that matter to the communities we serve and to Canada. What's important to our region right now? It's water, food security, mental health and addictions, and rural and indigenous health.

As a regional university, we're deeply connected to the communities most affected by our research outcomes. We live where we learn, and we affect where we work. The research that happens at the University of Lethbridge is of the highest quality. For example, we undertake neurosciences, RNA technology development, and mental health and addictions research by internationally recognized researchers who recruit, train and work hard to retain fresh talent in our region. This new talent helps to diversify the economy, create new businesses and jobs, improve quality of life and ensure access to services that are essential when people choose a place to live and raise a family.

We are the highest CIHR-funded institution in our category nationally, but even at that, the combined total of non-U15 institutions receives less than 5% of all CIHR funding available. That means enormous stress on our ability to compete for the best grad students, post-doctoral researchers and faculty, yet we do compete and we do succeed.

Part of how we succeed is through authentic and direct connections with our end-users, community partners and regional priorities. What is relevant to our region is relevant to Canada. A thriving small urban and rural Canada is essential for a healthy, strong and economically stable country.

With all of these exceptional benefits, we also need to acknowledge the challenges of being a small university. The growing number of important compliance requirements hit us disproportionately. We have to meet all of the same requirements as our larger counterparts with much lower capacity, fewer staff and single points of failure, and that gap is growing as requirements increase and access to funding to pay for those needs declines.

I want to clearly note that we are supportive of the Bouchard report and note that special attention must be paid to address inequities. Competitiveness for large investments reinforces the division of access.

For instance, with the Canada first excellence research fund, worth multiple millions of dollars, most smaller institutions don't have the staff capacity to compete. We have the facilities. We have the expertise. However, we don't have the administrative overhead. We can't pull faculty out of their assigned work to focus solely on building those application processes, and we don't have the resources to hire outside grant writers and project managers who create that success. Therefore, we partner rather than lead.

However, those partnerships and those programs come with administrative and operating funding that give the lead institutions ever more capacity to build to the next successful massive investment. Success begets success. For smaller and regional institutions, we often can't access that cycle.

Recently, some of the larger research funding programs included early-stage development funding that really helped to alleviate some of that disparity, so one recommendation I would make is that all of these large institutional research programs include development funding targeted specifically for smaller universities to level the playing field.

This committee must ask, when research funding is concentrated in Canada's largest universities and in the largest urban centres, are we addressing the needs of all citizens? Are we properly dealing with the issues that affect all Canadians when we disadvantage geographically located institutions across the country?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you, Dr. McMartin.

Thank you both for your testimonies.

We'll move to our questioning round for six minutes with Mr. Lobb, please.

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

Thanks very much.

Thank you to both the presenters here today.

My first question is for the University of Lethbridge and Ms. McMartin.

If we were to do what you had mentioned, do you think we should go through all the different grants that are provided and look at the results that we're getting first and then move forward in contemplating levelling the playing field?

Should we make sure we're getting value for our dollars and for all the research money invested in the universities?

[Dr. Dena McMartin]

That's a great question.

I think the tri-agencies, CFI and other federal funding agencies do an exceptionally good job of collecting that kind of data.

The universities are held accountable by both the federal government and provincial funders to ensure that we're making the best use of the research funds we receive—that we're impacting communities, influencing policy, generating economic activity and creating talent for the future of Canada.

I do think that we have a very efficient system in terms of the return on investment for research funding across the country.

There is always room for improvement, of course. I think that our current review processes, while extraordinarily robust and certainly internationally recognized and renowned, could still use some improvement in terms of determining where and how those funds are allocated.

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

I always go back to the one I brought up a few times on this committee, which is research dollars that were given to study Dolly Parton's lyrics. I'm sure that there are other ones like that out there—maybe not Dolly Parton's lyrics, but ones that everyday Canadians would wonder why the heck the government is spending money on that.

The question I would have for Ms. Aiken at Dalhousie University is the one that I think probably the smaller and mid-sized universities get frustrated with. It's the fact that they're kind of led to believe, or it's put on them, that they don't have the basis, the staff or have the infrastructure to do the research projects and to “play with the big guys”.

I always go back to the University of Guelph. I just can't believe there's another university in Canada that does as much top-quality agricultural research as the University of Guelph, yet it's not in the U15 gang.

What do we do to level this playing field?

It doesn't seem right that Guelph would not be considered as one of the top research universities or at least be eligible for doing important ag research.

[Dr. Alice Aiken]

I think you would find that Guelph probably does receive the bulk of agricultural research funding, right up there with Alberta and Saskatchewan, in terms of funding dollars for agricultural research.

The U15 group, in my understanding—it predates me, as a university executive—was formed in 2012 in order to bring views of common interest across research-intensive universities to the government.

I would think we would all recognize that there are many research-intensive universities that aren't necessarily part of the U15. We see Sherbrooke, Guelph, Concordia, Memorial and lots of other universities in that category. They are all research-intensive universities as well, based on their infrastructure.

At some point—I think my colleague, Dena, mentioned this very well—sometimes it's a size issue. We're the smallest of the U15 universities and certainly some on the non-U15 group are even a bit bigger than us, student-body-wise.

The research intensity, I think, deals with how you prioritize within the university and within your operating budget. I do think sometimes that the smaller universities don't have the capacity to apply for really large-scale grants.

I'll give you an example. We're all looking at Horizon Europe. Dalhousie wouldn't consider leading a Horizon Europe application. We'll partner, but we don't have the size or the infrastructure to lead that.

We might see U of T or UBC do something like that, but we wouldn't see another university in Canada have the capacity to do that.

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

Does Dalhousie receive agricultural research grant dollars?

[Dr. Alice Aiken]

Yes, we do. We have a faculty of agriculture.

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

How do they determine, then, what Dalhousie should do versus what Guelph should do? You were saying that Guelph receives the bulk of the agricultural research.

[Dr. Alice Aiken]

The vast majority of Guelph's agricultural research money comes from the Ontario government. However, I would say, looking at the various tri-agencies, that Guelph still receives high levels of agricultural funding—more than we would receive, certainly.

A lot of agricultural research, though, is funded through industry partnerships and industry organizations, such as the dairy farmers and the Wheat Board. They are a lot of the funders of agricultural research and certainly are supportive of work at all of the institutions.

Guelph is a standout in agriculture, though; there's no question about it. I don't think anyone would question that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you so much.

As the member from Guelph, I appreciate the conversation around my hometown.

I will now turn the floor over to Ms. Diab from Halifax.

The floor is yours for six minutes, please.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We'll now talk about my hometown.

Welcome to both of our witnesses. It's fabulous to have the two perspectives and see how they link together.

Dr. Aiken, it's great to have you representing Dalhousie. For the record, it is the only U15 university in the Atlantic provinces.

Today's study is important. We're talking about the distribution of federal government funding among Canada's post-secondary institutions.

Nova Scotia has slightly more than one million people, and it has 10 universities. Six have their main campuses in Halifax. Four are outside the Halifax municipality. We also have the fabulous Nova Scotia Community College that has 14 campuses throughout Nova Scotia.

I speak from experience. Not only have I lived there most of my life—with the exception of a number of years when I was small and living outside the country—but I was also the provincial minister of labour and advanced education at one time. There is fabulous work going on there.

I want to congratulate you and Dalhousie for launching your Bringing Worlds Together campaign that was just launched this month. This is Dalhousie's vision. It's a $750-million fundraising push to strengthen student experiences, expand research and its impact, and intensify your service to both local and global communities. It is the largest university campaign in Atlantic Canada's history, but you're also the largest university in Atlantic Canada.

In your opening remarks, you highlighted two of the great things that you're doing with universities throughout the country. Can we go back to just talking about Atlantic Canada and the smaller universities we have in Atlantic Canada? As I said, there are 10 in Nova Scotia, which has slightly more than one million people. Can you tell the committee what Dalhousie's relationship is with those other universities and with the community college, just so that we also have that perspective?

[Dr. Alice Aiken]

We have wonderful partnerships with our other Nova Scotia universities and the Nova Scotia Community College. We currently have 52 projects with 70 funders. We have partnerships with all of the universities and with the Nova Scotia Community College right now. Some of those are multiple on the same file.

We do take that very seriously. We understand that we're a research-intensive university in a province with an outstanding post-secondary sector.

Ms. Diab mentioned the ecosystem here. About five years ago, New York University's business school did a study on the rise of the mid-sized city for the start-up economy. It did a global reach to look at the top 50 start-up cities globally. They said the cities had to have a research-intensive university and excellent post-secondary education for the workforce. There were only two Canadian cities that ended up on that list, and Halifax was one of them.

Our ecosystem working together has been what has made us strong. At Dalhousie, we recognize that. We love working with our partners across Nova Scotia and across Canada.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I cannot agree more.

Given that it's budget week this week, I cannot but ask this question.

I know you made a comment in your opening remarks about what we've seen in the budget: increases in the value of graduate scholarships and post-doctoral fellowships, which we've been studying in this committee since I came to Parliament, or for the last two years, anyway; major investments in strategic research infrastructure; and the creation of a new capstone research funding organization to help advance internationally collaborative, multidisciplinary and mission-driven research.

Can you tell us how these investments will impact the research ecosystem at Dalhousie and in Atlantic Canada?

[Dr. Alice Aiken]

As my colleague Dr. McMartin said, we're also supportive of the Bouchard report and think the announcements in the budget on Tuesday were absolutely outstanding.

The community across Canada and Nova Scotia is extraordinarily grateful for this funding for mission-driven research, the capstone committee and the new Canadian science committee that will oversee the Canadian science strategy. I think the funding for the granting agencies is absolutely essential, as well. A rising tide floats all boats. I think all universities will benefit from this announcement. Of course, graduate students will, as well. That vaults us into any league, internationally, for attracting graduate students.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Dr. Aiken. I know it made my heart...and my eyes tear up when I saw that in the budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you. It was great to see the work of all the members of SRSR reflected in the budget.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses who are joining us for this first hour of the meeting.

My first questions are for Ms. McMartin.

Ms. McMartin, you mentioned that your university has expertise, including in health programs, but that the inability to access funding particularly hinders the improvement of various programs, as well as your university's research activities.

We know the striking data on funding, according to which 90% of the funding that goes to the Canadian Institute for Health Research is distributed to the 15 largest universities in Canada. So we can agree that only crumbs are left for the other universities.

I would like to hear your opinion on that data.

I would also like you to tell me about your ability to develop being compromised owing to a lack of access to equitable funding, which you mentioned in your presentation.

[Dr. Dena McMartin]

I always say that I can put my researchers up against anyone in this country. We do exceptional work here. The phrase is overused, but we punch above our weight.

We have incredible facilities, expertise and people. In particular, our long-standing tradition of being one of the two best universities in the country for neuroscience research is striking. We do more work with dementia, Alzheimer's and intergenerational memory loss issues, genetic and trauma-based. It's very important here. Some of that is hard to get out into the user communities and end-user groups, in part because we don't always have access to the same venues and services that our larger counterparts do. Regardless, we continue to succeed. I think that's a real testament to the resilience and power of knowledge and the way the Canadian funding infrastructure system has worked, for the most part.

What I would say is this: The merit review process in our tri-agencies is very strong. It is exceptional. However, the one area I struggle with in that particular review process is review committee members being asked to make judgments on whether there is sufficient institutional capacity for success. When I sign that grant, I'm telling you there's institutional capacity for success. I think it's inappropriate for people who have never been to my university or don't know my university to be asked to make that kind of judgment. If I'm saying we're going to do it, we're going to do it. That kind of capacity question sometimes gets asked in an inappropriate way. We're asking review members to make judgments they can't possibly know the answer to, in some cases.

This has, I think, led to some funding inequities because there's a perception that we can't do the work we say we're going to do.

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

Ms. McMartin, I want to come back to the issue of access to funding. In particular, I commend the important work you are doing at your university and the expertise that stems from it. One of the things you talked about was the neuroscience programs.

I want to come back to what you said about the Canada first research excellence fund. As we know, that fund concentrates programs, and months, if not years, of preparation are required before the required documents can be submitted to the government. You did mention your university's lack of capacity, not a lack of will, when it comes to resources.

From what I understand, it's almost as if these programs were focused on a certain group of universities, namely those that are large and better able to respond to this type of program based on their history in terms of research and related funding.

[Dr. Dena McMartin]

That is true. Thank you for raising that again.

The tri-agencies and the coordinating committee, in shifting the way that the CFREF is distributed, opened the door to smaller institutions in the last round of applications. The challenge now is I can see the door, but I can't quite open it.

As you've said, we don't necessarily have the administrative overheads, the staff or the ability to pull faculty out of their teaching workloads for a year, which is what it takes to pull these together. These are massive grants; Dr. Aiken in particular will know this. These take multiple international relationships, partnership building and really strategic thinking. I think all of the universities in Canada have that ability and that expertise, we just don't all have the capacity on our staff side to pull it together and make sense.

The challenge then, of course, is that when a lead institution receives those funds, they also receive significant overhead funding that provides that boost in project management and administrative supports that can lead to the next big grant. Our challenge has been that if we can't get on that hamster wheel it's impossible to become part of that cycle. Once you're in that cycle, it's easier. It's not easy, but it's easier to stay on that funding cycle. It's really hard to break in.