We are moving it.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Science and Research in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Science and Research in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I just wanted to be clear.
We have a motion on the floor.
Ms. Jaczek, go ahead.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Again, we laboured long and hard and came to some very interesting conclusions, so, yet again, I would concur that we would like to have a government response.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you. Is there any other discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
Is there any other discussion?
Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair. Congratulations on your election.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Science and Research during the 44th Parliament, I would like us to continue a study that was obviously dropped when Parliament dissolved.
I move the following motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the impact that the various criteria for awarding federal funding have on research excellence in Canada; that the Committee evaluate whether the criteria used are still appropriate within the evaluation committees, allow for the achievement of program objectives, strengthen the development of knowledge, and contribute to innovation, research and science in Canada; that the Committee assess whether modifications should be made to these criteria; That the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the 1st session of the 44th Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session. Furthermore, that the Committee devote at least 4 meetings to this study and report its findings to the House.
Liberal
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
I will agree with MP Blanchette-Joncas that it was a very interesting study. I would say that we can continue with it. It was fairly controversial in terms of some of the witness testimony that we had here, and we will have an opportunity to ask for some more witnesses to round out some of that discussion.
I would concur that we would need probably four more meetings of this committee to really have a well-balanced report to present to the House. I concur with that motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
The motion is being distributed to all of the members.
Do the members need a few minutes to go through the motion, or is everyone okay to have a discussion on that?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'll suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that members can have a look.
The meeting is suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I call the meeting to order.
We have a motion, and it has been distributed to all of the members of the committee in both official languages.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Madam Chair, obviously being new to this committee, I have been given to understand that we've already had, I think, five meetings on this important study. I think we all recognize the importance of this study. There are other things I suspect are going to come our way in the fall and other areas of interest that we're going to want to cover. If there is a willingness, we would be open to amending this to suggest two meetings. Then hopefully we can move forward to other things that we will want to discuss and ensure that we can get the response to this done in a timely fashion as well.
Liberal
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I would simply keep it the same and change the number four to two. That's really it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
We have an amendment proposed by Mr. Noormohamed, so we will have to deal with that right now.
Is there any discussion?
We have Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just like to clarify a few things.
Unless I'm already suffering from amnesia at my age, I thought that I heard a few minutes ago that our colleague, Ms. Jaczek, decided that we would hold four committee meetings to carry out this important study.
I can appreciate that my colleagues in the government have slightly different opinions. However, I did hear earlier that we would be holding four meetings.
I'm perfectly willing to listen to my colleague's amendment. However, I would just like him to explain why he's talking about two meetings instead of four.
What's his rationale?
Liberal
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
I agree with my Bloc colleague. The governing party's experienced member, who was on the committee previously, had indicated her support for four meetings earlier and indicated it was an interesting study that needed to be investigated. I would suggest that we keep this to four meetings, and I support the Bloc motion to do so.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
With all great respect for my colleague here, he wasn't here to hear the discussion and I was, as was Mr. Blanchette-Joncas. Quite honestly, to even refresh our memory of what had occurred, I think that four meetings is quite reasonable. I do understand the need for efficiency, but I think quite honestly that members of this committee will find it very interesting. There are so many criteria involved in the allocation of research funding. It is a complicated subject, and we certainly had a good sense of the diversity of opinion, but I don't think we got anywhere near to making recommendations or feeling able to do so. With all due respect to my colleague, I would say that four more meetings would not be unreasonable.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I find myself in a particularly interesting and perplexing situation here where I think we should do six meetings. Look, I think this is a very important topic and discussion. I am fully in support of the motion, as I said. The rationale for proposing two is that I suspect we're going to have an extremely busy fall, given that there are a number of new things that this committee is going to have the opportunity to discuss, particularly around artificial intelligence, digital transformation, digital innovation, things that are going to be coming its way. My thinking, when I made the suggestion, was that we would be able to address this important matter, given that we have had lots of discussions about it, and then ensure that there is sufficient time for other things.
What I would hate to see is for this study to, yet again, get hung up because there's something else that's important; then another motion comes up and the work never gets done on this. If the will of the committee is to do four, who the heck am I to argue? I just don't want us to see this thing end up hanging, because there's something urgent that replaces the important. That's all.
