Science and Research Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Martin Maltais]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

It's not complicated. Some researchers conduct research in a specific field, but the current ground rules are not in their favour. They do indeed favour research work in English.

However that may be, here is one of the things that Canada does well. When it wants to help a minority group, it establishes rules that will assist them. That's what has to happen. It's done in other areas. A few years ago, for example, it was agreed that universities were not doing enough work collegially, as a group. Rules were accordingly introduced and people began to work together as part of a team. That's how it became possible to decode the complete human genome so quickly, even though the period covered 3,000 years.

Rules promoting research in French have to be introduced to keep today's talented people interested and prepared to contribute. Allow me to repeat that 30,000 francophone researchers outside of Quebec are out of the loop. It's essential to introduce some rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

Finally, for two and a half minutes, we have Mr. Cannings.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have heard a lot today about the struggles that students face with living conditions and living costs. I heard someone—I forget who it was—who suggested that you could find accommodation for $300-something a month, which is remarkable. It would certainly be impossible in British Columbia.

Perhaps this is rather off topic, but could that be a drawing card for students and researchers to go to smaller institutions where they could live a decent life and have a roof over their head?

We hear about the food banks students are forced to use. When I look at costs, the biggest cost I see students facing is housing. I think they are going to food banks because they just don't have any money left over.

Could you comment on this being an advantage that smaller institutions might have?

[Martin Maltais]

You're right. In principle, it would benefit the smaller institutions in terms of quality, the environment and cost of living. However, the reality or corollary is that it's precisely in the smaller universities that researchers have to spend more time on things other than research, as was mentioned earlier.

That introduces a further problem when the time comes to prepare grant applications to obtain additional funding for research activities. Access to students is also a problem. There's a reason why there are more graduate and postgraduate students in the major universities in urban centres: it's because they can provide better access to scholarships and better financial arrangements.

In the regions, there's no money available for students. My institution does not systematically make university scholarships available to students beginning graduate or postgraduate studies in my field, unless they are in very specific fields of specialization. On the other hand, the large anglophone universities in major urban centres all have funds available. Much of the federal funding is used for that at the institutional level. If the rules enabled them to do what's being done in the major centres, funds could be distributed across the country in a much more effective manner and would be more inclusive of francophone settings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Great.

Thank you both, Madame Montreuil and Monsieur Maltais for being with us.

Unfortunately, Gishleine Oukouomi had another commitment she had to go to.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. If there is something we need in writing for clarification, please do submit that.

We'll do a quick change of panel. We don't have anybody online so as soon as we get people in the seats we'll resume our meeting.

I'll suspend for a minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Welcome back.

It's now my pleasure to welcome from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Dr. Tammy Clifford, acting president. From the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, we have Dr. Alejandro Adem, president; and Dr. Marc Fortin, vice-president, research grants and scholarships. Also, returning to us from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, we have Dr. Ted Hewitt, president; and Dr. Sylvie Lamoureux, vice-president, research.

You each have five minutes for your opening comments.

We will start with Dr. Tammy Clifford, please.

[Dr. Tammy Clifford, Acting President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee today. It's a privilege to take part in this meeting in support of your important work on the distribution of federal funds among post-secondary educational institutions.

As you know, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, is the largest funder of health research in Canada. It serves a vibrant health research community of up to 16,000 world-class researchers annually that is more diverse than ever before and excels across all pillars of health research, from biomedical and clinical research to research on health services and population and public health.

It is important for you to know that peer review underpins the fair and transparent process that we use to choose which applications to fund, protected from biases or conflicts of interest. This means that eligible applications submitted to competitions for funding are each reviewed by an independent panel of experts in that field. These experts volunteer their time to assess and score each application, guiding decisions on how to allocate the competition’s funding envelope.

Through its college of reviewers, CIHR is systematizing reviewer recruitment to identify and mobilize the appropriate expertise for the review of all funding applications, and provides reviewers with the knowledge and resources necessary to conduct consistent, fair and high-quality peer review.

As we know from the “Report from the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System”, otherwise known as the Bouchard report, for Canada to truly maintain research excellence, we must support world-class research across all regions of the country in institutions of all sizes. That is why the membership of CIHR’s college of reviewers and its peer review committees are assessed for demographic gaps, including regional representation, to balance the perspectives provided in the peer review process. Additionally, all peer reviewers are offered training to make them aware of and enable them to take actions to mitigate against several potential biases, including those related to institution size.

With regard to supporting health research in Canada, CIHR recognizes that research takes place in a wide array of institutions—and for us, this includes research hospitals. To facilitate that relationship, eligible research hospitals can apply directly to us, as opposed to relying on an affiliation to another institution such as a university. This enables research hospitals to lead world-class health research that stretches beyond the priorities of the universities with which they are affiliated, contributing to the diversification of research that we fund.

It is true that post-secondary institutions account for the largest share of CIHR funding, including important research being conducted in smaller institutions across our country. However, in an effort to remove systemic barriers to accessing research funding, we have recently encouraged non-traditional institutions that have mandates to use research knowledge to improve the lives of Canadians, such as community and not-for-profit organizations, to become eligible to receive CIHR funding. We have done this by simplifying the process to become eligible to administer funding, reducing the administrative burden and harmonizing the process across the three granting agencies.

These non-traditional institutions may be eligible to hold CIHR funding, depending on the criteria of the particular funding competition. For example, following consultations with representatives of indigenous communities, CIHR updated the eligibility criteria for its flagship program, the project grant competition. Since the fall of 2020, individuals affiliated with indigenous, non-governmental organizations in Canada with a research or knowledge translation mandate have been eligible to apply directly to the competition. As of right now, there are currently 11 such organizations eligible to hold funding and to host funded researchers.

We know that a broad and inclusive health research ecosystem is a strength and advantage for Canadian innovation, and we are proud of the steps we have taken to broaden this eligibility. Taken together, these institutions enable the Government of Canada to support a diverse portfolio of health research.

To conclude, the CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, continue to adapt to changing conditions. We are also committed to capacity building for research excellence in all its diversity, both within and beyond the traditional university community.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much, Dr. Clifford.

Now, we'll go over to Dr. Adem from NSERC.

[Dr. Alejandro Adem, President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am pleased to be here in my capacity as president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, commonly referred to as NSERC.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, alongside my colleagues from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

I'd like to begin by briefly explaining how the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council—SSHRC for short—invests its funds and the purpose of its investments. This should provide some background to the issue being studied by your committee.

NSERC's vision is to help make Canada a country of discoverers and innovators for the benefit of all Canadians. We invest in talent, discovery-focused research and innovation through partnerships and programs that support post-secondary research in the fields of natural sciences and engineering, and provide support through grants and scholarships, with the majority of NSERC awards being allocated to individual researchers or trainees. Applications are evaluated on their own merit, and the process focuses on factors such as the excellence of the researcher, the quality of the scientific proposal and the plan for training students at all levels in preparation for research-intensive and research-centric occupations across numerous sectors.

The experts brought in by the SSHRC follow a strict peer review process regardless of variables like the language of the application, the career stage of the applicant or the size of the institution.

SSHRC complies with an international reference standard for research assessment. We are nevertheless aware of the fact that differences in institution size may have an impact on the application assessment process.

To ensure fairness and representation during peer review, NSERC solicits expert input from domestic and international reviewers from institutions of all sizes and regions, who are at various stages in their careers. How reviewers evaluate contributions also helps safeguard against potential biases in the review process that could favour larger institutions. In their applications, researchers are encouraged to highlight items such as service to and engagement with the community, mentoring and promoting the importance of science to youth and under-represented groups, or even public policy work that informs decision-makers. This expanded scope of contributions being assessed reduces barriers and enables researchers to highlight the importance of their work, regardless of their geographical location or size of their institution.

SSHRC closely monitors the allocation of funds awarded and applications received. We closely study applicant profiles to identify factors like the language of the application, the career stage of the applicants and whether they are members of an under-represented group.

As is the case with peer assessment, our goal is to ensure that all Canadians benefit from our grants and awards and contribute to maintaining a level playing field.

Finally, I will briefly mention NSERC's internal standing committees, such as the committee on discovery research and the committee on research and technology partnerships. These committees provide strategic advice and direction on pressing issues facing the agency. The committees intentionally comprise representatives from institutions that vary, as examples, in size, primary language and geographic location. A diverse committee membership helps ensure that input is balanced, fairly represents feedback from the research community and, pertinent to the question being studied by the committee, ensures that all institutions have a say.

NSERC has been proactive in recognizing that the realities of small institutions may differ from larger institutions.

We have developed programs to provide additional support to applicants from smaller institutions. For example, the discovery development grants provide resources to researchers from small universities. Each award has a two-year duration and provides recipients with resources to build their research program. The undergraduate student research awards program, which supports more than 3,000 students annually, has awards set aside specifically for small institutions. Lastly, the equity, diversity and inclusion institutional capacity-building grants were only made available to small institutions and colleges.

I hope the information that I have provided today will help you in your deliberations.

I would be happy to address any additional questions or comments about NSERC's mandate and its programs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much.

Now we go to Dr. Hewitt for five minutes, please.

[Ted Hewitt, President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to contribute to this important study.

Let me begin today by saying how pleased I am to see the new sign in front of my place, and also the new investments in research proposed in the last federal budget and how positively this news was received across the communities we serve.

Our primary role at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC, is to support research, research training, and knowledge mobilization in the humanities and social sciences. In addition, we have been mandated to deliver a suite of prestigious tri-agency programs, such as the Canada Research Chairs program, the New Frontiers in Research Fund and the Research Support Fund, among several others.

Almost 100% of SSHRC of grants are awarded to students, researchers and research teams, following expert or peer review conducted in accordance with global best practice. These awards are administered by Canada's post-secondary institutions—the central pillars of the Canadian research ecosystem—which receive their mandates and operating funds primarily from the provinces or territories. Research is just one component of their mandate, albeit an extremely important one.

As you're all well aware, post-secondary institutions come in all sizes and are oriented to diverse missions, from our very large and complex research institutions that offer extensive graduate training, to smaller universities and colleges that focus primarily on undergraduate or vocational education. Indeed, SSHRC has a special relationship with these smaller institutions in particular, as they often tend to have a higher concentration of social sciences and humanities researchers and faculty.

Our funding programs at SSHRC are designed to support research across Canada at postsecondary institutions of all sizes and missions. In some cases, our programming provides the necessary investments to build world-class centres of research expertise that compete on the world stage. In others, SSHRC funding can play an important role in addressing regional issues or strengthening services to local communities.

In all of this, SSHRC works to ensure that the research we fund contributes to Canada's innovation agenda by building a more inclusive and representative research community, enhancing support for early career researchers, promoting research conducted in both official languages, and strengthening indigenous research and research training capacity.

SSHRC closely monitors the distribution of its funding to ensure that all Canadians benefit from public investments in research. Periodically, we adjust to new realities and identify gaps in the research ecosystem.

One such gap we have identified relates to differences in application and success rates for smaller institutions relative to larger ones. Larger institutions that are well supported by their provincial governments have access to resources that allow them to recruit research-intensive faculty, graduate student support and assistance in preparing research grant applications, both domestically and internationally.

On the other hand, in accordance with institutional priorities or missions, teaching loads at smaller institutions can limit the time that faculty may engage in research. Faculty also may have more limited access to graduate students and other trainees who support the research process.

To help level the playing field, SSHRC has introduced a range of practices over the years. For example, to ensure fairness in adjudication, we routinely work to ensure that expert review panels and committees include representatives from a range of institutional types. We also provide block grants to institutions that they may use to help build research capacity, as well as special supplements to smaller institutions.

Within the Canada research chairs program and the research support fund, progressive formulae are applied to make sure that minimum allocations or funding are reserved for smaller institutions.

I can provide more details on these and other mechanisms we employ to support research at institutions from coast to coast to coast. And, of course, I would be happy to answer any other questions you may have about SSHRC's mandate, programs and relationship with postsecondary institutions.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you, Dr. Hewitt.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here and for staying with us for the meeting. This will be our last hour of this study, and it will be important for your testimony to be part of the study.

We'll start with Ms. Rempel Garner for the first six minutes, please.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here and for your work.

Removing barriers to equality of opportunity for diverse researchers is important to me. I'll begin by focusing my questions on the tri-council's self-identification questionnaire, which was established in 2018 and is now a requirement, I believe, for applicants to be eligible for federal research funding.

In filling out this form, could an applicant's race, gender or sexual orientation be used to either disqualify them or qualify them for a federally funded position or research funding?

[Ted Hewitt]

The short answer to that is no. This is a tool that we use to collect information on applicants. It is completely voluntary. You can refuse to respond to the questions in it if you wish. It is not used in the peer review process, but it helps us better understand who is applying, what their background is and how the outcome of the peer review process turned out for them so that we can better monitor or better understand where there are systemic biases in the system.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

There have been several high-profile cases of complaints related to the Canada research chair program using, essentially, race-based hiring processes. In those positions, are gender or sexual orientation or race used to either qualify or disqualify candidates from those positions?

[Ted Hewitt]

In these cases, as you may be aware, members of the committee, we pursue policies that were established in law by the Federal Court and subject to a mediation that was overseen by the Canada Human Rights Commission.

Those policies are contained in an addendum to the program and are set to ensure that by the year 2030 the Canada research chair program will look more like Canada in terms of the distribution of—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That's a perfect bridge to my next question.

Those targets state that by December 2029, women and gender minorities must make up close to 51%, and 22% must be visible minorities, 7.5% must be people with disabilities, and 4.9% must be indigenous.

As of September 2023, roughly 48% were held by women and gender minorities, 28.6% by racial minorities, 7% by people with disabilities, and 4.1% by indigenous scholars. So, we're close.

Is there a plan to remove race-based or gender-based hiring practices once those targets are hit?

[Ted Hewitt]

That's a very good question, because we are under the mandate of the Federal Court, under the mediated settlement that was overseen by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I would say that would be a very happy outcome, and I would be the first person to entertain the discussions that might see the elimination of the need to be doing that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Has the tri-council undertaken any work to articulate what conditions would have to be established for those hiring practices to be eliminated, and has that work been communicated to the federal government?

[Ted Hewitt]

Right now, we operate under the terms and conditions that were set by the Federal Court and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'm asking you if any work has been done by the tri-council to set the conditions by which race-based hiring targets or practices would be eliminated.

[Ted Hewitt]

I think we want to get to the targets first and then have the conversation about whether we would need them.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

However, we're close. We're there.

[Ted Hewitt]

Well, we're not quite there.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

We're really close.