I'm sorry for interrupting.
Evidence of meeting #44 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 report.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #44 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 report.
A video is available from Parliament.
September 24th, 2026 / 3:55 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
This is especially true for colleges, which receive only 4% of research funding. They are the poor relations in the research funding family.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you. Your time is up. We have gone beyond our time.
We will now go to MP McKelvie for six minutes.
Please go ahead.
Liberal
Jennifer McKelvie Liberal Ajax, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My questions are for Ms. Cardinal.
How were francophones outside Quebec involved in your study? Do you have any recommendations specific to their needs?
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you. This gives me an opportunity to continue answering Mr. Godin's question.
Eight of the 10 members of the advisory panel belong to the Canadian francophonie, so I think the representation is very faithful to the reality of the Canadian francophonie. We have members from just about every province. We are attached to large or small universities, so the various members of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, for example, are well represented.
Moreover, as I was saying, training programs for the Canadian francophonie are very important. In our report, we recommend the creation of a pan-Canadian coordination table for the development of programs in French. The table has merit because it's pan-Canadian. It includes Quebec, since we want the Canadian francophonie and Quebec to work together on a pan-Canadian vision for research and training.
We also talk about review in committees, and we say that research in French outside Quebec gets less funding, but it should be noted that, in some cases, less than 1% of applications submitted are in French. There is the Service d'aide à la recherche en français—French-language research support service—which provides a lot of assistance to minority communities, but funding isn't guaranteed.
A major difficulty in minority communities is that a lot of research is done there on francophone issues, and those issues are devalued in research programs and by colleagues in anglophone communities. However, in minority communities, francophone issues are closely linked to the development of knowledge and the economic development of communities. Despite that, it's as if working on the francophonie isn't relevant. Some young people feel that, if they work on the Canadian francophonie, their doctorate won't be as valuable as if they work, for example, on the Belgian economy, the Swedish economy or the Canadian economy. This poses very difficult challenges for young people who want to study the Canadian francophonie, which, for us, is a very valid topic of study.
I hope that answers your question.
Liberal
Jennifer McKelvie Liberal Ajax, ON
Yes, thank you.
I have other questions. What role did the three granting agencies play in your study? Have they responded to your recommendations?
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
We consulted the granting agencies, including the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Some, including SSHRC, told us about positive measures they had put in place for the francophonie. It's the same thing at NSERC, among others. However, we realized that coherence was lacking. Each agency has its own positive measure. That's why we talk about an enabling framework in our report. We really need coherence, a strategy for developing positive measures to promote research in French.
Those are the discussions we've had with the granting councils. We've had very good exchanges with them. I think they all recognize that more needs to be done for research in French.
I can't say that they have begun to implement our recommendations. We look forward to your committee's support and the Canadian government's response to ensure that these recommendations are implemented. We obviously hope that we will be included in the next action plan for official languages.
Liberal
Jennifer McKelvie Liberal Ajax, ON
Thank you.
I have one last question.
Are there differences between sociological, scientific and medical studies? Do you have different recommendations for the various disciplines?
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
We don't.
Your question is an important one. We often see that, funding-wise, the success rate is higher in some disciplines than in others. In the field of history, for example, we see that more funding applications are submitted in French, compared with other disciplines where none of the applications are in French. There are definitely differences among the disciplines.
That said, we have noticed that the granting councils—for instance, CIHR—have very few reviewers who can review applications in French. Even if they say they are bilingual, when the time comes to review applications and submit them to the committees, we see that the reviewers do not have that ability. Only 26.8% of reviewers are able to review applications in French. This is something that could be improved within the research councils.
In terms of statistics, we don't have a breakdown by language. We are given percentages, but we don't know how to break them down. We don't know what really comes from the Canadian francophonie or from Quebec. We don't have the numbers. Recently, SSHRC released data indicating that success rates are very good for francophones, but we don't know what those rates are. We don't know how SSHRC obtained those results.
We would like to see more ongoing monitoring of the data so that we can determine if there are improvements or not, especially when it comes to the numbers. I can tell you that, in the case of CIHR, I was once the only one to submit an application in French.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.
Please go ahead.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to welcome the witnesses who are joining us.
My first question is for Ms. Niemann.
The advisory panel explicitly recommends increasing support for Érudit—including for metadata updates—and also describes your funding as fragile.
If the government really wanted to implement this recommendation properly, how much sustainable funding do you think the Érudit platform would actually need and what form should that funding take?
Executive Director, Consortium Érudit
Thank you very much for the question.
As I mentioned earlier, three granting agencies support us: SSHRC, the CFI and the Fonds de recherche du Québec. However, most of these funds have different renewal cycles. So these funding cycles aren't really aligned, except for some of them. We're actually putting a lot of effort into orchestrating these different funds.
If there was a strategy that could give us more predictability and stability regarding this funding, particularly by establishing longer cycles, such as 10-year cycles instead of five or six years, it would greatly help us increase our efficiency, since we wouldn't spend as much time on accountability and writing funding requests.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
In your opinion, should digital research infrastructure like Érudit be funded in the same way as the major physical infrastructure that is regularly funded?
Executive Director, Consortium Érudit
Yes, absolutely.
I think that, in 2026, the question is no longer whether there is research infrastructure, buildings and physical equipment like a telescope. A lot of infrastructure is based on digital technology, research data and the physical infrastructure that must support all that. It is entirely normal, in 2026, to have ongoing support for this type of infrastructure, as it must be maintained over time, not in two- or three-year project cycles.
You're absolutely right.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Understood.
You talked about instability in funding. There also seem to be gaps. In the report, we see that NSERC and CIHR provide no support for scholarly journals or comparable dissemination platforms. SSHRC, on the other hand, does provide support. That links this gap to the lack of francophone or bilingual journals in the natural sciences or even in health.
I'm trying to understand. In your opinion, should these two agencies also provide concrete funding to Érudit, as SSHRC does?
Executive Director, Consortium Érudit
I think that the production of health, science or engineering research is funded by NSERC or CIHR, but publication and dissemination in French are not funded at this time. That's something we note in the system. At this point, the last link in the chain is missing. I think that, for science in French to flourish, it must be available in all disciplines. So the answer to your question is yes.
Érudit has had very good meetings with the NSERC and CIHR management teams. One of the things they recognized is the great work the platform does. They also recognize the importance of open-access dissemination and open science in this field, as well as the importance of the digital availability of research results in French. However, there is currently no firm commitment or aligned support strategy among these three agencies.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Understood.
We know that the Érudit platform was created in Quebec. The Fonds de recherche du Québec, in particular, already supports the platform. Quebec also has the Circé network.
In implementing the report's recommendations, how do you think we can ensure that new federal investments will strengthen existing Quebec infrastructure, rather than create parallel structures?
Executive Director, Consortium Érudit
It's this whole issue of alignment in which Érudit is immersed, often using Quebec funds as a lever to have funding added at the federal level. However, we're often in a situation where that alignment has to be done operationally for us. We actually don't have a strategy or vision for developing this infrastructure in a more aligned or harmonious way.
This often requires re-explaining where we come from and what we do, reasserting our position, reaffirming who we are in the research ecosystem, the value we have as a Canadian platform, as a national platform, and the influence that Canada has thanks to these initiatives, even internationally.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
I understand.
The report describes open access as a double-edged sword, meaning that it increases the visibility of research in French, but it also destabilizes the economic model of journals. The report also recommends funding the transition to full open access now.
In your opinion, what funding model would be needed for this transition to strengthen francophone journals instead of weakening them further?
Executive Director, Consortium Érudit
We follow the diamond open access model. This means that there are no costs for authors or readers and that the dissemination of knowledge and the production of scientific articles are supported by public funds.
Right now, other models are in use, commercial-type models, where large commercial publishers charge researchers for publishing these articles. On the other hand, these publication fees fund open access. As a result, a lot of money from research funds and public funds is given to commercial publishers. In addition, less money is invested in the cycle. It's not at the same level and not at all to the same extent in diamond open access. This puts Canadian journals, non-profit journals with which we mostly collaborate, at a disadvantage by default.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
We will now start our second round of questioning for five minutes and two and a half minutes, starting with MP Baldinelli for five minutes.
Please go ahead.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being with us this afternoon.
I'm going to begin with Ms. Cardinal.
The advisory panel's report recommends that the federal government improve federal institutions' compliance with the Official Languages Act. In what area is the federal government falling short when it comes to implementing the Official Languages Act, particularly with respect to scientific research?
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you very much for your question.
I think our report makes it quite clear that the federal government has a lot of work to do when it comes to implementing the new Official Languages Act in the area of research. The concept of substantive equality is a concept that we have adopted and turned into the lens through which we study the situation of French in the field of research. The federal government is lacking a great deal when it comes to the granting agencies, where we've seen that improvements have been made.
We also know that the federal government has departments with research responsibilities. There are research offices in departments, but there are also departments that conduct research, such as the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, through CIHR in particular, as well as Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. When we met with the various departments with research responsibilities and Treasury Board, we realized that they had no idea what we were talking about when we asked them what positive measures they had taken to advance research in French. They told us they were waiting for the new regulations or Treasury Board directives. However, when we met with Treasury Board, we weren't very satisfied with its answers.
You've seen the regulations that were proposed. I myself testified that the drafters of the regulations had to go back to the drawing board. We even asked the Commissioner of Official Languages to take charge of this issue. I feel like we opened a Pandora's box when we met with officials.
There is important work to be done. We have clearly seen that the task is considerable when it comes to intramural research.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
Thank you for that.
I'd like to follow up with regard to other agencies in the various departments.
One of the actions under measure eight—compliance and accountability—which is in recommendation three, to “Strengthen Government of Canada Leadership”, is to task the Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada with leading a coordination table to promote French within the federal scientific community with the support of the secretariat for the coordination of research in French and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
What has been the response to this recommendation so far?
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Let's just say that, in general, the responses have been quite positive. However, we'll learn of the Canadian government's official response largely through your committee. We're eagerly awaiting that response.
If you look at the newspapers, the media or the responses in Quebec—such as the feedback from researchers, the Université de Montréal and the University of Ottawa—you'll see that our report has been quite positively received. This is certainly the case with Érudit, whose representative is here with us today.
On the government side, we've generally received positive feedback so far in our informal discussions with officials. However, we really expect your committee to do the necessary work to elicit this official response from the Canadian government.