Evidence of meeting #26 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 witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
We will now end this panel with MP Noormohamed for two minutes.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I want to go back to the original intent of this study. If I could, I will perhaps go to you, Professor Babul.
In the context of accountability, which I think is really important in grant-making and in the assessment of where support is going, can you talk a little about the importance of tying funding to specific deliverables, milestones and outcomes?
As you talk about this, perhaps reflect on your opening comments, which talked about the moon shot versus the more pedestrian.... I don't want to call it pedestrian, but it's the more observable, short-term outputs or outcomes of the research versus the investments in perhaps quantum mechanics that not long ago resulted in quantum computing today.
Can you talk to us about the importance of how we should look at accountability in this regard, how we should be thinking about measuring success and how we should be looking at outcomes rather than outputs in the very technical fields that you operate in?
Distinguished University Professor, As an Individual
It's important to go back to the four categories of research I highlighted. I will focus first on basic research.
Basic research is walking in the shadows, walking in the dark and stumbling around trying to find ideas. We are trying to understand the natural world. Often it is ill-defined, in many ways, when we're trying to do the research we're doing. The ideas that come out of it are the kind you just mentioned, such as the discovery of quantum mechanics and the ability to trap light, which I didn't get a chance to finish last time. Professor Sajeev John at the University of Toronto pioneered that. These discoveries eventually translate into applications and into such innovations as the CCD camera that we all walk around with in our iPhones. It takes time to do that.
In terms of measuring and quantifying discovery, it's very difficult to do so in some sort of mission-specific manner, because there is no mission to speak of. We are stumbling around, to be perfectly honest. People call it curiosity-driven. We're trying to discover.
On the other hand, innovation—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting. Time is up. Perhaps you can send the answer in writing to the committee. Then it can be circulated to all members.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
With that, this panel comes to an end.
Thanks to all the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.
We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes so the witnesses for the second panel can take their seats.
The meeting is suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I call the meeting to order. Welcome back.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French.
All comments should be addressed through the chair.
I would like to welcome our witnesses.
We are joined on this panel by Frédéric Bouchard, dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, Université de Montréal; and Anna Triandafyllidou, professor and Canada excellence research chair in migration and integration, Toronto Metropolitan University. She's joining us by video conference. We also have Martin Maltais, president, and Sophie Montreuil, executive director, both from the Association francophone pour le savoir.
Welcome to all the witnesses. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will proceed to the rounds of questioning.
We will start with Mr. Bouchard.
You will have five minutes. The floor is yours.
Frédéric Bouchard Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Thank you.
Members of the committee, I had the privilege of chairing the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System. Although my testimony today is based on our report, I am presenting it to the committee in a personal capacity.
Our report focused on the governance of research funding in the country. Several of our recommendations were implemented in budget 2024. In addition, measures related to the development of a capstone organization, whose creation we recommended, are included in budget 2025.
Other governments have already done this strategic work and can serve as inspiration. Quebec has done so with its Fonds de recherche du Québec and its 2022–2027 Quebec Strategy to Support Research and Investment in Innovation. The United Kingdom has done so with its UK Research and Innovation Organization and its UK Innovation Strategy. Several other countries are following suit.
In addition, our recommendations included three measures relevant to your study: the policy branch of the capstone organization, the establishment of a science and innovation council, and the development of a national science and innovation strategy.
As we explained in our report, although the current Canadian research funding ecosystem is efficient and well managed, it is fragmented and underfunded. It wasn't designed to support large international or interdisciplinary collaborations, and it lacks the means to support mission-oriented research. Furthermore, there is no coherent governance or strategy to guide its actions, yet this is exactly what the country needs right now.
Across the world, the volatility of international relations and trade is making science a pillar of national interest. We see this in various innovation-based industrial strategies, as we can see in Korea, in Japan or in Europe's Draghi report. We see it in how these strategies often support renewed defence commitments. Canada and Germany's recent defence industrial strategy announcements point that way. We also see the return of strategic science diplomacy based on favoured international partners, as we can see in the recent “A European Framework for Science Diplomacy” and so on.
Our mandate was not to assess program management. However, our impression is that the granting councils manage their programs effectively and with probity and that peer review remains the most rigorous method for assessing the quality of projects.
That said, it is entirely legitimate to ask whether the current program portfolio should be enhanced by adding programs that promote new types of benefits, whether they be new programs geared toward industrial policy missions, programs that support institutions outside major centres, programs focused on social innovation, or various means of supporting our cultural and digital sovereignty.
Here is how we could evaluate the performance of our programs over time. An external auditing office would provide post-hoc services. This would enable the new capstone organization's policy management team to continuously monitor programs to ensure they are achieving their objectives and to report to elected officials. It would also monitor science policies around the world to draw inspiration from best practices.
In addition, we recommend that this policy branch also facilitate links with the provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities and proactively and continuously monitor the vitality of French-language research. This approach would seek to guide program development in a manner that better reflects the legitimate aspirations of all our communities.
As a word of caution, we must ensure that reform is never at the expense of investigator-driven research and peer review. As the Naylor report and the Bouchard report point out, investigator-driven research in all fields is the essential foundation of talent training, research excellence, innovation and science diplomacy. This is as true for graduate students working on the history of the Peloponnesian War as it is for Nobel laureates working on solar neutrinos.
While new funding architecture and novel programs are necessary to help us meet emerging challenges, let us not jettison the best practices we already have. Peer review, while imperfect, has remained, from the days of Isaac Newton to today's Donna Strickland and Yoshua Bengio, our best means of assessing research excellence.
Canada must renew its research funding architecture to better support our prosperity, our security and our well-being. In this work, let us never forget that societies that are ambitious in their research enterprise thrive, while those that do not, falter.
Your committee is helping us further our research ambitions. We owe you a debt of gratitude.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
We will now proceed to Madame Triandafyllidou.
Please go ahead. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Anna Triandafyllidou Professor and Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual
Thank you very much for inviting me to this committee.
In my role as a Canada excellence research chair in migration and integration, but also in my role as scientific director of a CFREF-funded program called “Bridging Divides: Migrant integration in the mid-21st century”, I'd like to speak a bit about the internal governance of these programs, their accountability and their impact. That is how I have interpreted my invitation to bear witness. I will speak more about Bridging Divides, but a lot of the things I'll say will also refer to the excellence chair. My own excellence chair was approved back in 2018. I joined TMU in 2019, and it will come to a close next year.
In terms of governance, these programs, which are multi-million dollar and very ambitious programs, are really the jewel in the crown of global research. I come from a 25-year research career in Europe with international projects, and there is no equivalent to these programs. I think they're very important strategically for Canada.
Our governance has three pillars: One is internal, one is interinstitutional and the other is external. We have several levels of committees and internal procedures within our university and our consortium to guide us and make sure that in every decision we take, we have consulted with all levels, from graduate students all the way up to the most senior PIs.
We also engage very much with our vice-presidents for research on strategic priorities of the universities that are involved. There is a constant dialogue at all levels, both horizontally and vertically. However, we also engage inter intersectorally with civil society, with governments at different levels and with the private sector, because although, for instance, the programs that I direct are mainly social sciences programs, we engage very much and work together with our colleagues from health, from engineering and from data science.
In terms of accountability, there is very close co-operation and oversight from the tri-council agencies. There is a dedicated program officer. There were site visits at the beginning. We're preparing for a mid-term review site visit. There are annual financial and scientific reports that are being reviewed, and we received comments. There's a mid-term review report, which the current CFREF is going through—ours and everyone else's—and there are people to whom we can address any questions or comments we might have. As far as I know—because I also participated in the 2022 evaluation panel for excellence chairs—the programs are evaluated by Canadian and international experts, including by people from outside academia, to make sure their impact is there.
In terms of our accountability, we are accountable, of course, in the way we use our resources and in how we achieve our aims. We are asked to think about risk management proactively—all types of risks, from research to geopolitics—and we're asked to think about sustainability. The aim of these programs is to build capacity and to continue, not to finish when the funding is finished.
We have, particularly in the CFREF, a performance measurement plan, which sets clear targets and milestones and is followed precisely. There is, as I said, a constant channel of communication with the secretariat for any issue we may have, and certainly there is close oversight.
In terms of the impact on scientific excellence—which I also heard in the debate in the previous part of this session—there is an assessment of our scientific excellence through the usual metrics of academic excellence, but also through recognition at the global level, which comes with awards or with invitations to take institutional roles. Our impact is also measured through our knowledge mobilization. We work, as I said, with governments, civil society and the private sector, and usually with all of them together, to make sure that our research translates into real impact.
I'll give examples, but just give me a moment to say that we work to create the pipeline for the talent of tomorrow. Our mission is for inclusive excellence, and we make sure there's equality and equity of opportunity, not only because of the intersectional differences that exist in Canadian society, but also, for instance, for people who are the first generation to go to university. No talent has to be wasted. It is very important to create a research talent pipeline.
Looking at the impact, I want to give a couple of examples from our program, and I'd be happy to answer questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, but your time is up. Maybe you can talk further when we go into our rounds of questioning. Thank you.
With that, we will go to Mr. Maltais for five minutes.
I think you are sharing your time. Please go ahead. You have five minutes together.
Martin Maltais President, Association francophone pour le savoir
Yes, we will be on schedule.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for having us back as part of your study.
My name is Martin Maltais, president of Acfas and professor of education funding and policies at the Université du Québec à Rimouski. With me is Acfas's executive director, Sophie Montreuil.
Sophie Montreuil Executive Director, Association francophone pour le savoir
For 103 years, ACFAS has been working to promote knowledge in French and advance the French-speaking scientific community across Canada. We have six regional branches throughout the country and close to 6,000 members. We represent a wide range of disciplines, and we work daily to promote our country's prosperity and scientific influence.
Your study on the governance and accountability of federal science policies and institutions comes at a crucial time. The creation of a new agency integrating the three granting councils is a major reform. However, the legislative context has changed. The modernization of the Official Languages Act now requires federal institutions to take positive measures to support scientific life in French. The regulations currently under review concerning part VII of the act clarify that these measures apply to all government initiatives, the modification of existing initiatives and measures to mitigate negative effects when required.
This obligation is not symbolic. It also applies to the new capstone organization, which will bring together the three councils. The future organization cannot be linguistically neutral. It must incorporate explicit and measurable targets to ensure the preservation of our nation's identity and the full economic prosperity of each of its members.
President, Association francophone pour le savoir
In the current context, where 23% of the Canadian population is francophone, we propose that at least 25% of federal grants be allocated, in each of the major fields of natural sciences and engineering, health, and humanities and social sciences, to French-speaking researchers, French-language universities, and French-speaking students. Such a target would be a concrete lever for bringing the two official languages closer to substantive equality, and it is a matter of economic prosperity. The proportion should be publicly tracked, field by field, and integrated into the new accountability mechanisms of the new entity.
Executive Director, Association francophone pour le savoir
Therefore, let us be clear: It is not only legitimate but necessary to better understand and govern how public research funding is allocated. Transparency, accountability and strategic consistency are vital to public trust and Canada's international credibility. Ensuring the full scientific vitality of the country's two official languages in the context of strategically repositioning our international and economic relationships is a unique opportunity that must be seized.
President, Association francophone pour le savoir
Furthermore, scientific governance cannot be limited to the granting phase. In this regard, we eagerly await the report of the External Advisory Panel on the Creation and Dissemination of Scientific Information in French, which will be released in March. This governance must also address the dissemination of results. We invite you to consider ensuring that funding criteria include an obligation or, at the very least, a strong incentive to make research results available in both of the country's official languages, across all disciplines.
In this regard, some people sometimes claim that the humanities and social sciences are less necessary or useful, but let us be clear: The current context of disruption—in which we are facing challenges in terms of security, digital and scientific sovereignty, demographics, the environment, defence, the ability to distinguish between truths and falsehoods and maintaining trust between nations—gives us no other choice than to continue investing in all scientific disciplines.
Acfas looks forward to collaborating with you and is pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
With that, we will proceed with our first round of questioning of six minutes each. We will start with MP DeRidder for six minutes.
Please go ahead.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Dr. Bouchard, these questions are for you.
SR and ED is one of our largest programs. It has roughly $4 billion per year. We've heard testimony at this committee that about half of those SR and ED dollars—about $2 billion—go towards companies that are Canadian in name only. Effectively, we're subsidizing large foreign internationals. It sounds a bit like philanthropy to me.
To you, where does the accountability lie in the management of these programs to ensure taxpayer dollars are going towards Canadian firms instead of foreign firms like the U.S. ones, for example?
Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
SR and ED tax credits were beyond the purview of our committee report. We did hear a lot about SR and ED tax credits, because a lot of universities have intensive R and D activities with Canadian companies. It came up multiple times. I can't address the details of your question.
Let me just point out that, given the very high participation of small and medium enterprises in Canada, the fact is that many of them have difficulty attaining SR and ED tax credits. The question of the country of origin is beyond my expertise.
In the structure of the Canadian economy, SR and ED tax credits are not accessible to or are difficult to obtain for SMEs, which are a large part of the Canadian economy. When looking at the innovation portfolio and how to better support innovation for Canadian companies, it would be important to think about instruments that are designed for or work very well with Canadian SMEs. SR and ED tax credits do that to some extent, but a revised approach to supporting innovation for SMEs is probably warranted.
Help them to have R and D projects with universities and colleges, because a lot of HQP comes from universities, polytechnics and colleges. Trying to build the links between those academic institutions and SMEs is something that needs to be looked at very seriously, beyond existing SR and ED tax credits.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I agree completely. There's definitely a missing link between the SMEs being able to commercialize where applied research could do a better job of that.
Right now, only 3% of funding is going to colleges, compared to universities, where they do more of the applied research side of things. Do you think that percentage needs to increase?
Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
To me it's not so much about fundamental versus applied. The question of which institutions get what types of funding does correlate a bit with applied versus fundamental. To me the main issue is privileged access to HQP—highly qualified personnel—even more than IP. In some sense, inventions are great, but inventors are better.
Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Focusing on the people instead of the intellectual property is a way that we could increase the connections between a greater diversity of academic institutions and SMEs.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm going to challenge you a bit on that, because intellectual property is very important to making sure that we maintain commercialization here in Canada. When we partner through universities, we're seeing that 87% of our IP is going to foreign multinationals instead of staying here in Canada.
While I agree that we need talent, we have to ensure that we're also retaining our IP and making sure that we're commercializing in Canada. Do you think the government is doing a good job of that right now?
Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
I don't have enough information to address that. I did not want to suggest that IP wasn't an issue or that control of IP wasn't an issue.
The issue for a lot of SMEs is getting top-notch talent and having productivity gains. That may not translate into patents or new commercialization product, but it enhances the capacities of those SMEs. This is done via talent more directly than the acquisition of IP.
The IP question is fully legitimate, but I can't address it in further detail.