Appearance at the Standing Committee on Science and Research
May 2, 2024 (12PM -1PM ET)
Room 035-B, West Block
111 Wellington St.

You have been invited by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR) to provide testimony on May 2, in support of its study on The Distribution of Federal Government Funding Among Canada’s Post-Secondary Institutions. The Vice-President for Research Grants and Scholarships, Marc Fortin, will join you in person. Also attending will be SSHRC President, Ted Hewitt, along with SSHRC Vice-President of Research, Sylvie Lamoureux, plus CIHR’s Acting President, Tammy Clifford.

You will give opening remarks and answer Committee members’ questions for the study on the Distribution of Federal Government Funding Among Canada’s Post-Secondary Institutions. The official wording for the study (dated January 30, 2024) directs SRSR to “conduct a study on the balance of federal government funding among Canada’s universities, and more specifically on the concentration of funding among U15 member universities in comparison with small and medium-sized universities”. The scope was later expanded (February 15, 2024) to direct the committee to “broaden the scope to include post-secondary institutions.”

The mandate of the SRSR Committee includes, among other matters, reviewing and reporting on all issues relating to science and research, including any reports of the Chief Science Advisor, and any other matter which the House refers to the standing committee. Recent additions to committee membership include the following new members:

• Hon. Arielle Kayabaga (Liberal MP for London West, ON), Co-Chair of the Global Cooperation Caucus, Chair of Liberal Black Caucus, and Vice-Chair of Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association.

MPs no longer on the committee include David Lametti (Liberal MP for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC and former Attorney General/Minister of Justice).

The SRSR Committee is working concurrently on the following studies which are in the final stages of report drafting:

• Integration of Indigenous traditional knowledge and science in government policy development.
• Use of Federal Government Research and Development Grants, Funds, and Contributions by Canadian Universities and Research Institutions in Partnerships with Entities Connected to the People’s Republic of China.

The Committee’s report (including recommendations) for its study on Gender Pay Gaps Among Faculty at Canadian Universities was tabled recently in the House of Commons and ISED has reached out to the granting agencies for input on responses to three recommendations where the councils were mentioned.

Since its formation in 2021, the Committee has completed studies on the following topics:

1. Successes, challenges, and opportunities for science in Canada
2. Top talent
3. Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs)
4. International moonshot programs
5. Research and scientific publication in French
6. Role and value of citizen scientists
7. Commercialization of intellectual property
8. Government of Canada graduate scholarships and post-doctoral fellowships

• The study began on March 21, 2024, and there have been 5 meetings to date.
• The tone of the meetings so far has been inquisitive and cordial.
• College/polytechnic and university representation has so far been fairly equal. Three U15 institutions have appeared.

Previous witnesses for the study have included representatives from: U15, Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities, Universities Canada, Colleges & Institutes Canada, Polytechnics Canada, Canadian Association of University Teachers, Canadian Association for Graduate Studies, Canadian Committee for Science and Technology (Nobel laureate in physics, Donna Strickland). A full list of witnesses is in Appendix A.

Witnesses appearing at the committee on May 2, in the hour prior to your appearance, represent ACFAS, the Canadian Black Scientists Network and the Canadian Federation of Students.

• Common topics: research funding to U15 vs. smaller institutions; administrative and other barriers for smaller institutions; EDI in research funding; college vs. university funding; value-for-money; Northern research, collaboration among institutions. References to Budget 2024 have been minimal – MP Cannings mentioned the new advisory committee, which was also the focus of comments by Donna Strickland (recommendations about make-up of council, focus on defining strategic goals for science and encouraging academic-industry partnerships).
• Some comments have made distinctions between the councils. For example, Vincent Larivière (UNESCO Chair for Open Science), noted NSERC’s successful model for providing minimum funding amounts. MP Blanchette-Joncas questioned how 90% funding from CIHR goes to the top 15 universities. Robin Whittaker (CAUT) noted that that majority of Canadian researchers work in the social sciences and humanities, yet SSHRC receives only about one-fifth of federal research funding. Whittaker also called for renewal of the Dimensions program.
• Multiple questions on the relationship between research funding and student training. NSERC could receive similar questions given recently announced top-ups to the Councils in Budget 2024.
• Chad Gaffield (U15) and Philip Landon (Universities Canada) approached the conversation as more about the whole ecosystem needing funding, rather than redistribution of granting council funding.
• Colleges/Polytechnics
  • Were more critical and advocated for more funding for their stakeholders and smaller institutions. They spoke of colleges/polytechnics being overlooked and stressed that funding is concentrated in urban centres.
  • Questioned about funding for the past 10 years and whether it has kept pace with inflation. Dr. Nantel (Niagara College) referenced the “injection for the CCI program at NSERC.”
  • Questioned influence of institution size and funding sources on assessment and funding decisions and how the funding structure for colleges and applied research could be improved.
• Witnesses from Canadian Association of Graduate Students proposed a model to distribute funds based on graduate student population.
• Other questions related to the agencies touched on how small and medium universities could be well represented on the granting committees; ways universities can guarantee equality in the granting system; what the federal government can do to help the process be better for the granting agencies to ease the burden; research funding for specific groups, including indigenous communities, francophones or minority groups; broadening criteria for student funding; creating programs to support college-level research vs adapting existing programs, target funding that could bridge universities and colleges. Also:
  • Is there some difference between social science and NSE research in terms of the capital cost of having a lab doing that sort of work?
  • Does "merit" depend on having access to a large university or being close to an urban centre, where Canada’s 15 largest universities are concentrated?
  • Do we need to review the way that research funding is distributed in order to fund a greater diversity of students and researchers?
  • Would rebalanced research funding eliminate the need to make distinctions between PSE institutions by “focusing more on the benefits for small and medium-sized businesses, and the local economy in particular”?
  • Can the DG process be improved in any way, e.g. reducing administrative hurdles, with MP Jaczek noting that “it seems to take a year for applications to be processed.”
  • MP Blanchette-Joncas and MP Cannings asked about smaller institutions and their limited capacity to apply for programs like CFREF, and how funding could be distributed for those. MP Blanchette-Joncas also asked about EDI, the Matthew effect, and conservative nature of current funding, plus funding to Francophone institutions.
  • MP Jaczek asked about the possibility of blinding the review panel to the institution.

Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, ON) (LPC)
Chair

Background: Previously a Mechanical Engineering Technologist, MP Longfield has been serving Guelph for 30 years including 7 years as the President of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce before being elected to Parliament in 2015. He has since served as a member of the Standing Committee for Industry, Science and Technology, as a member of the Standing Committee for Agriculture and Agri-Food, as Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and as a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Interests: Environment, housing, mental health, Indigenous reconciliation, early learning, childcare, entrepreneurship, and economic development.

Corey Tochor (Saskatoon – University, SK) (CPC)
Vice-Chair

Background: Elected as Member of Parliament in 2019. Key focus areas have been: government accountability, advancing Canada’s energy independence, and fighting against Internet censorship. Mr. Tochor was previously elected to the Saskatchewan legislature in 2011 and 2016. Before entering politics, he was an entrepreneur who owned and operated Health Conveyance.

Interests: Canadian nuclear energy; universities.

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette – Témiscouata – Les Basques, QC) (BQ)
Vice-Chair

Background: Obtained a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the Université du Québec à Rimouski. He briefly held a job at the Business Development Bank of Canada, then was hired as deputy director general of the municipality of L’Isle-Verte. Work in the House of Commons has focused on Public Accounts and Tourism.

Interests: Investments in R&D and biomanufacturing, support for French language research and publications.

Liberal Party of Canada

Valerie Bradford (Kitchener South – Hespler, ON)

Background: First elected in September 2021. Prior to entering politics, she was an economic development professional for the City of Kitchener. Spoke on panel at CSPC and supported NSERC prizes 2022.

Interests: Opportunities/gaps in research funding, robotics, sustainable aviation, economic development.

Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, NS)

Background: Nova Scotia’s first female Attorney General and Minister of Justice; served as Minister of Immigration, Minister of Labour and Advanced Education, and Minister of Acadian Affairs and Francophonie. She graduated from Saint Mary’s University with a Bachelor of Arts in economics and political science. She also obtained her Master of Public Administration and Bachelor of Laws.

Interests: Promoting advancements in science and research, EDI. Strong interest in science through her family (both children work in/study NSE).

Hon. Helena Jaczek (Markham- Stouffville, ON)

Background: Previously served as Minister for FedDev and as Vice-Chair of Treasury Board. Before her work at the federal level, she was the Member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament in which she served as Ontario’s Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Chair of Cabinet, Ontario’s Minister of Community and Social Services, and Vice-Chair of the Health, Education and Social Policy Cabinet Committee. Dr. Jaczek received her medical degree and Master of Health Sciences from the University of Toronto and a Master of Business Administration from York University. She spent many years in general practice on staff at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. She served on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU). During the COVID-19 pandemic, Jaczek was invited to take part in the Standing Committee on Health.

Interests: Healthcare, Health Data Collection, Individuals with Disabilities

Arielle Kayabaga (London West, ON) NEW MEMBER

Background: She is the first Black woman ever elected as Member of Parliament in London and to London City Council where she was awarded for her work in building a more equitable London. She was selected as a 2023 Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum and honoured as Politician of the Year by One Young World. She has a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and worked for the Liberal Research Bureau. She is the current Co-Chair of the Global Cooperation Caucus, Chair of Liberal Black Caucus, Vice-Chair of Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association and member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and many interdepartmental parliamentary groups. She has worked on global food security, women’s health, global economic and social development, and humanitarianism.

Interests: Homelessness prevention, civic engagement, Inclusive communities.

Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, ON)

Serves as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. Also a member of the INDU committee.

Background: MP Turnbull has a master’s degree in philosophy. Previously Turnbull founded a management consulting company focused on social innovation and ethics targeting systemic problems like systemic poverty, racism, and gender equality.

Interests: Social services, environment.

Conservative Party of Canada

Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, AB)

Background: First elected in 2019. Prior to entering politics, served as Mayor of Yellowhead County. Served on the Standing Committee for COVID-19 Pandemic.

Interests: Public safety, freedom of speech.

Ben Lobb (Huron-Bruce, ON)

Background: MP Lobb holds a Bachelor of Science in business administration from Lee university in Cleveland, Tennessee. Ben currently serves as the shadow minister for digital government and special advisor to the Leader of the Opposition on blockchain technologies and crypto assets. Previously worked in finance for desire2lean (d2l), an online education platform.

Interests: Blockchain technology.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, AB)

Background: MP Garner holds a degree in economics and previously worked at the University of Calgary as director of the Institutional Programs Division. She also worked in the technology commercialization division of the University of Manitoba, where she assisted in administering commercialization strategies for emerging technologies. In 2011 served as Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. Michelle previously served as the Shadow Minister for Natural Resources, Shadow Minister for Health, Shadow Minister for Industry and Economic Development.

Interests: Innovation and technology commercialization.

New Democratic Party

Richard Cannings (South Okanagan – West Kootenay)

Background: Biologist specializing in birds; taught at the UBC for 17 years; current NDP Critic for Emergency Preparedness (Climate Adaptation), as well as Deputy Critic for Natural Resources and Deputy Critic for Innovation, Science and Industry; previously appointed NDP critic for Post-Secondary Education and Deputy Critic for Natural Resources. His father was also renowned environmentalist Stephen Cannings.

Interests: Climate change, energy, oil and gas, fossil fuel subsidies, softwood lumber and forestry, natural resources.

Table 1: Witnesses for the study

Opening remarks by: Professor Alejandro Adem, President
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR)

May 2, 2024

• 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 this opportunity to appear before you again, along with my colleagues from SSHRC and CIHR.

• Let me start by outlining how NSERC invests its funds and our investment objectives. This will help provide more context for the question being studied by the 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.
• We 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.
• Experts assembled by NSERC follow a rigorous peer-review process. Evaluation is carried out irrespective of variables like language of the application, career-stage of the applicant, and, institution size.
• NSERC follows an international gold standard for research evaluation. That said, we do understand that differences in institution size can have a potential impact on the adjudication 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, and 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 underrepresented 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 institution.

• NSERC closely monitors the distribution of its funding awarded and applications received.
• We actively look at the profile of applicants for factors such as the language of application, the career-stage of the applicant, and whether they are from an underrepresented group. As with peer review, the goal is to ensure that awards benefit a diversity of Canadians and do not create or amplify any widespread gaps.

• 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, for example, 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 (USRA) 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.

House of Commons Science and Research (SRSR) Committee
Thursday, May 2, 2024, at 12pm-1pm ET
Appearance by Alejandro Adem and Marc Fortin

How do the granting agencies decide on funding amounts of funding for institutions depending on their size?

• Most NSERC grants are awarded to individual researchers not institutions. All individual applications are assessed on their own merit, regardless of the applicant’s institution size.
• Assessment of applications typically focuses on evaluating the excellence of the researcher, the quality of the scientific proposal, and how the next generation of researchers, namely students, will be trained should the proposal be funded. For the most recent Discovery Research program competition, over 700 members sat on NSERC’s peer review committees and over 5,000 external reviewers submitted reports assessing the applications.
• As is the gold standard for research funders across the world, the assessment is carried out by experts through a rigorous peer-review process. Variables like language of the application, career-stage of the applicant, and, pertinent to the issue being studied, institution size, are not usually considered at this point in the process.
• NSERC does not actively consider institution size when awarding funding, however, we are aware that differences in institution size can have a potential impact on the adjudication process, and we are always monitoring to mitigate potential biases.

How does NSERC make sure large institutions are not favoured more than small and medium ones?

• NSERC provides training to reviewers to mitigate the likelihood of biases surfacing during the assessment process.
• In May 2022, we revised the types of contributions that researchers can include for assessment in their applications. 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 institution.
• Rather than focusing on outcomes that have traditionally be valued in research, such as the number of journal articles published or grants previously held, researchers are encouraged to include items such as engagement with their communities, mentoring and science communication to youth and underrepresented groups.

How does NSERC support smaller institutions?

• NSERC has programs that provide additional support to applicants from small institutions:
  • 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. In 2024-25, this amounts to $1.8 million in funding.
  • The Undergraduate Student Research Awards (USRA) program, which supports more than 3,000 students annually, has awards set aside specifically for small institutions. For 2024-25, the amount for smaller institutions is estimated at $2-3 million.
  • The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Institutional Capacity-Building grants were made available exclusively to small institutions and colleges. The program had a budget of $10 million over four years.

How can small and medium universities be well represented on the granting committees?

• NSERC’s Standing Committees, which serve as advisory bodies for the agency, and its Evaluation Groups or Selection Committees have criteria which aim to make them representative of the Canadian population.
• Several variables, such as institution size, language of the researcher, region, career stage, sector, etc., are examined when NSERC staff nominate and recruit members for these committees.
• Therefore, NSERC’s committees are established to ensure all voices in the research community are heard and that the potential for systemic barriers against a particular group are mitigated.

How does NSERC programming support colleges and polytechnics and is there sufficient funding to meet demand from this sector?

• The federal government launched the College and Community Innovation (CCI) Program in 2004 as a pilot to support the growth of research capacity in the college sector. The College and Community Innovation (CCI) Program is a tri-agency program, supporting research across all tri-agency domains.
• Five funding streams support college applied research – two streams for “project” grants and three streams for “enabling” grants. NSERC administers this program on behalf of the tri-agencies.
• CCI has a base funding level of $86M annually. Budget 2023 provided an additional $108.6 million over three years, starting in 2023-24, to expand the program to help more Canadian businesses access the expertise and research and development facilities they need.
• We have witnessed significant growth in college applied research over the last two decades. The sector has demonstrated potential to sustain this growth and increase returns to Canada’s innovation ecosystem.

How is the current funding system benefiting students?

• The recent Tri-agency Talent Evaluation found that the agencies’ investment through the training portfolio contributes to the richness and variety of opportunities for research training and to research capacity within academic institutions. The funding and support provided by the agencies means that Canada’s most promising students can actively participate in research projects and programs which provide opportunities to develop technical and non-technical skills and research-related experience.
• Students who receive direct funding (such as scholarships or fellowships) from the agencies report an increase in control or independence over their research. Prestige associated with these awards increased students’ own confidence and motivation to pursue research and opened doors to further opportunities.
• These direct awards also have world-class features that facilitate and enable research training, for example:
  • qualifying students benefit from 12 months of Paid Parental Leave,
  • students can interrupt or defer their awards for a variety of reasons and awards can be held on a part-time basis,
  • many awards are entirely portable (including internationally in some cases) and can be held at virtually any institution that is most appropriate for the student’s research training.
• The Talent Evaluation also found that students receiving agency support felt their research project had well prepared them for careers both within and outside of academia. Some students who received agency support report a shorter time to degree completion, greater career aspirations among first-generation students, and more research-intensive employment post degree.
• For students, some equity-deserving groups are represented at levels comparable to their estimated representation in the graduate student population. For other groups under-representation remains. The agencies are working to address this through the Tri-agency EDI Action Plan for 2018-2025.

Would a funding model based on graduate student population provide a more equitable distribution of funding to this population?

• Student population data often includes students that are ineligible for funding due to their program of study (e.g., non-research-based degree programs, such as an MBA). This means a model based on student populations would inadvertently add funding to institutions that have the greatest number of ineligible students to the detriment of those institutions with a high concentration of research-based programs.
• The current approach varies from one funding opportunity to the next but is largely a function of ‘research intensity’ which is a proxy the agencies use to quantify need across the sector. The approach used for graduate student funding programs (i.e. scholarships and fellowships) largely mirrors the one used by other Tri-agency programs such as the Canada Research Chairs program, which is considered as a best practice. 

What was the reason for discontinuing the Dimensions program and how will NSERC continue to help the post-secondary education sector build capacity to deliver on EDI goals?

• Although the Dimensions pilot program ended in March 2023, NSERC, along with SSHRC and CIHR, continue to take lessons from the pilot and remain committed to embedding EDI considerations in all aspects of research funding and to addressing the obstacles and inequities faced by underrepresented groups.
• In addition to its recognition element, where institutions could apply and be assessed on how their actions have transformed institutional EDI efforts, a Dimensions handbook was developed and made widely available to Canadian postsecondary institutions looking to achieve research cultures and practices that are equitable, diverse and inclusive.
• The funding agencies will continue to be guided by the Tri-Agency EDI Action Plan which outlines measures to increase equitable and inclusive access to granting agency funding opportunities and to promote a more inclusive post-secondary research ecosystem and culture.
• The Tri-Agency Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan will adapt to new realities and insights gained through feedback, literature, and national and international promising practices. It is the foundation for a concerted long-term commitment to enhancing EDI in the Canadian research landscape. The funding agencies will continue to listen to and engage with the community to support concrete change.