Appearance before the Standing Committee on Science and Research
Briefing material

Archived information

Archived information is provided for reference, research or record-keeping purposes. It is not subject to Government of Canada web standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Contact us to request a format other than those available.

Table of content

• Purpose
• Background
• Opening Remarks
• Responsive Lines
• Annex A—SRSR Committee Membership
  • Other Members
    • Liberal Party of Canada
    • Conservative Party of Canada
    • New Democratic Party
• Annex B—SRSR Committee Study On Scholarships And Fellowships
• Annex C—SRSR Committee Study On Top Talent, Research And Innovation (May 2022)
• Annex D—Advisory Panel On The Federal Research Support System
• Annex E—Select Breakdowns Of Sshrc And Tri-Agency Support For Graduate Students And Postdoctoral Fellow
• Annex F—Summary Of Application And Award Rates For Tri-Agency And Agency-Specific Talent Funding Opportunities

Purpose

On May 2, 2024, representatives from SSHRC (Ted Hewitt, Sylvie Lamoureux), NSERC (Alejandro Adem, Marc Fortin) and CIHR (Tammy Clifford) will appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR), to deliver opening remarks and answer questions in support of the committee’s study on:

• the distribution of federal government funding among Canada's post-secondary institutions

Also appearing before the committee during the same meeting, prior to the appearance of the granting agency representatives:

• Martin Maltais and Sophie Montreuil (Association Francophone pour le Savoir)
• Maydianne Andrade (Canadian Black Scientists Network)
• Gishleine Oukouomi (Canadian Federation of Students)

Background

The mandate of the committee includes, among other things, 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.

On April 25th, 2023, the committee elected a new Chair, MP Lloyd Longfield, who replaces the outgoing Chair, Hon. Kirsty Duncan (see Annex A for the committee membership).

The SRSR Committee has so far agreed to undertake studies on the following topics:

Study Topic	Study Status
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs)	Completed
Successes, challenges, and opportunities for science in Canada	Completed
Attracting and retaining top talent at Canadian post-secondary institutions	Completed
Research and scientific publication in French	Completed
International moonshot programs	Completed
Role and value of citizen scientists	Completed
Commercialization of intellectual property	Completed
Government of Canada graduate scholarship and post-doctoral fellowship programs	Completed
Integration of indigenous traditional knowledge and science in government policy development	Report pending
Long-term impacts of the gender and diversity pay gap for faculty at Canadian universities	Report pending
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	Report pending
The distribution of federal government funding among Canada’s post-secondary institutions	Ongoing
Big Science (site visits to large research infrastructure projects)	Not started

The first meeting of the study on the distribution of federal funding among Canada’s post-secondary institutions was on March 21st, 2024, and the committee held five meetings on this study prior to the appearance of the granting agencies. The witnesses who appeared before the committee as part of this study include:

• Post-secondary institutions:
  • Shannon Wagner (Thompson River University)
  • Edward McCauley (University of Calgary)
  • Penny Pexman (Western University)
  • Marc Nantel (Niagara College)
  • Pippa Seccombe-Hett (Aurora College)
  • Ben Cecil (Olds College)
  • Steven Murphy (Ontario Tech University)
  • Alice Aiken (Dalhousie University)
  • Dena McMartin (University of Lethbridge)
  • Céline Poncelin de Raucourt (Université du Québec)
  • Michelle Chrétien (Conestoga College Institute of Technology and Applied Learning)
  • Kari Kramp and Kalina Kamenova (Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology)
  • Neil Fassina (Okanagan College)
  • June Francis (Institute of the Black and African Diaspora Research and Engagement, Simon Fraser University)
  • Susan Blum (Saskatchewan Polytechnic)
• Organizations:
  • Nicole Vaugeois (Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities – ACCRU)
  • Chad Gaffield (U15)
  • Philip Landon (Universities Canada)
  • Pari Johnston (Colleges and Institutes Canada - CIC)
  • Sarah Watts-Rynard (Polytechnics Canada)
  • Philippe-Edwin Bélanger and Fahim Quadir (Canadian Association for Graduate Studies)
  • Robin Whitaker (Canadian Association of University Teachers)
  • Eric Weissman (Post-Secondary Student Homelessness Network)
  • Donna Strickland (Canadian Committee for Science and Technology)
• As individuals:
  • Vincent Larivière

Opening Remarks (Bilingual)

Opening Remarks for Ted Hewitt, President Social Science and Humanities Research Council

Appearance before the Standing Committee on Science and Research

Ottawa, Ontario
May 2, 2024

Check against delivery.

• Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to contribute to this important study. I’m here as the head of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council—SSHRC for short—one of Canada’s three primary research funding agencies. I’m accompanied by SSHRC’s (VP Research, Dr. Sylvie Lamoureux—TBD).
• Let me begin today by saying how pleased I am to see the new investments in research proposed in the latest federal Budget, and how positively this news has been received across the communities we serve.
• Our primary role at 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 programs, such as the Canada Research Chairs program, the New Frontiers in Research Fund, and the Research Support Fund, among several others. We also house the Secretariat for the Canada Research Coordinating Committee.
• Almost of SSHRC grants are awarded to students, researchers and research teams following expert or peer review conducted in accordance with global best practices.
• These awards are administered by Canada’s 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 are well aware, 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, as they often tend to have a higher concentration of social sciences and humanities researchers.
• Our funding programs at SSHRC are designed to support research across Canada at institutions of all sizes and missions. In some cases, our programming provides the necessary investments to 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 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 identified 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. The reasons for this are quite well known. Larger institutions that are well supported by their provincial governments have access to resources that allow them to recruit 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 that 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.
• And we haven’t stopped there. Representatives from smaller institutions have been well represented on our SSHRC Council, where issues regarding fairness and institutional size are frequently raised. This assists us in the development of further mechanisms to ensure fairness.
• 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 institutions.

Responsive Lines

Can you provide more details on the mechanisms through which SSHRC funds research?

• It might be helpful first to share the two broad categories of funding opportunities that we offer that shape this context: (1) grants to individual researchers, small teams, or students, which are by and large administered by postsecondary institutions; and (2) grants to institutions directly.
• By and large, grants and scholarships (in both categories) are awarded through national, competitive processes that rely on the expertise of members of the research community in the assessment of applications (“peer review”).
• Some institutional funding opportunities employ an allocation mechanism (like the Canada Research Chairs Program) or a funding formula (like the Research Support Fund grants, SSHRC Institutional Grants). In these, the allocation or formula is based proportionally on the research intensity of the institution, but weighted progressively to smaller institutions, to ensure that small institutions can participate in the program, access the funding and strengthen their research capacity.

Does Canada concentrate its public research funds too greatly in large institutions?

• The goal to invest in and cultivate world-class research centres is not in opposition to other goals like ensuring that communities across Canada, large and small, can host excellent research, train the next generation of thinkers and doers, and come up with great ideas to benefit the local community, the country and the world. I think Canada can do both, and even do both well.
• Here is one example:
  
  The large-scale Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF) is a highly competitive process and run only every 7 years. In 2023 the results of the latest competition were announced: $1.4 billion in support for 11 large-scale research initiatives in strategic areas. Perhaps it is not a surprise that the 11 projects were all hosted by large and medium-sized universities (note: a couple are not members of the U15), but we also see that several have smaller institutions among the partners. For example:
  • Dalhousie | Transforming Climate Action: Addressing the Missing Ocean: Université de Québec à Rimouski
  • Toronto Metropolitan University | Migrant Integration in the mid-21st Century: Bridging Divides: University of Northern British Columbia
  • University of Calgary | One Child Every Child: A Transformational Child Health Research Initiative: University of Lethbridge, Athabasca University
  • University of Victoria | Accelerating Community Energy Transformation: Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Yukon University, Royal Roads University
• The investment in a small number of very large projects led primarily by large universities does also engage smaller universities, helps to increase research capacity and train researchers in smaller communities, and distributes research funding wider than the headline numbers may suggest.

Witnesses have testified that the merit review process is a bias-free competitive process, while others have suggested that there is a systemic bias against researchers from small institutions. Can you speak to the comparative success rates of institutions according to their size, and to the existence of a systemic bias?

• While smaller institutions do have a smaller success rate than larger institutions within SSHRC programs, we interpret this as primarily reflecting different missions and realities of institutions rather than as systemic biases.
• However, recognizing the gap in success rates and following stakeholder engagement and discussions within SSHRC’s governing Council, SSHRC has taken stock of its current practices for taking size of institution into consideration within merit review processes, and in allocation or funding formulas.

Can you provide more details on the mechanisms to support smaller universities?

• There are many examples, from both SSHRC and tri-agency programs, where considerations are made for smaller universities. These can be found in program design, in guidelines for research assessment, in progressive allocation formulas.
• I’ll share one example related to program design, from Insight Grants, our flagship program to support individual and small team research:
• Insight Grants was initially designed to be as flexible as possible for the researcher, offering grants from $7,000 to over $350,000 – we invited researchers to make a proposal for whatever size grant would suit their purposes. After a few cycles, however, we were hearing from researchers and adjudication committee members who felt that smaller scale research projects had a hard time competing with larger projects. So in recent years SSHRC introduced two streams, one for projects requesting up to 100K, one for projects requesting between 100 and 400K.
• The smaller scale grants were introduced in part to allow researchers at smaller institutions, who may more often propose smaller scale research projects, to compete successfully and build research capacity within their institutions. As a result, we have seen some increased success rates for researchers from small institutions.
• A similar adjustment was recently made in the Canada Excellence Research Chairs program (a tri-agency institutional program). The 2022 competition offered two funding levels ($4M and $8M over 8 years) and removed its matching requirements, placing less emphasis on the research environment to increase access and incentives for smaller institutions to participate by nominating chairs. This change opened the door for support to both smaller-scale research and host institutions and allowing for a more diverse cadre of chairholders (and support for students and HQP) across different disciplines.

How are considerations for smaller institutions included in the merit review process?

• At the moment, several measures are already in place for the review of applications in SSHRC’s programs, including:
  • Directing committee members to consider the type of institution when considering the appropriateness of proposed budgets (e.g., researchers at geographically isolated institutions may assign a larger proportion of their budget to travel expenses than researchers located in major centres).
  • Allowing applicants to indicate heavy teaching loads and administrative duties as special circumstances, which is considered in the evaluation of applicants’ record of research.
  • When recruiting adjudication committees, aiming for representation from diverse institutions from across Canada, including from institutions serving Official Language Minority Communities (OLMCs).
  • In the New Frontiers in Research Fund, the emphasis of the assessment has been moved from the researcher and their accomplishments to the proposed research idea. This approach can reduce biases related to institution size, career stage, and identity of the members of the research team.

How are small institutions represented within merit review committees?

• Program officers consider the representation of institutions of various sizes in the committee member recruitment process and make efforts to obtain representation from diverse institutions from across Canada, including from institutions serving Official Language Minority Communities (OLMCs). Institutional size is one consideration among many that program officers use to ensure a diversity of societal perspectives and lived experiences, across Canada and internationally, within SSHRC’s independent peer review process.

Some witnesses talked about the fact that RSF funding is distributed through allocations, and that this reflected choices by the funding agencies. What is the difference between an allocation and a competition? How are RSF allocations calculated?

• The Research Support Fund assists Canadian postsecondary institutions with the overhead costs that come with managing research within their institutions. These are many: costs for research administrators, costs for regulatory compliance (like animal care), for data services, for knowledge transfer to other sectors of the economy.
• These costs are not chargeable to a single research project but are essential for maintaining a world-class research environment for the whole institution.
• RSF grants are determined by a formula, based primarily on the average total value of research grants received by an institution in the previous three years. A large university’s RSF grant will naturally be larger than that of a small university.
• The RSF formula provides higher rates of funding for the institutions that receive the least amount of money from the federal research funding agencies. In this way, the RSF helps smaller universities and colleges provide adequate support to their research programs and strengthen their research capacity. For instance, 80% on the first 100K, 50% on the next 900K, etc. Large institutions end up with about 18%.

How does SSHRC and the granting agencies support research in colleges and polytechnics?

• Colleges can have institutional eligibility allowing their faculty members to apply to SSHRC’s programs. However, eligibility to specific calls can vary between programs. College researchers are eligible to NFRF programs as well as to all of SSHRC’s ongoing core programs.
• Research at colleges is also supported through the College and Community Innovation Program, which is administered by NSERC on behalf of the three federal granting agencies. Colleges are contributors to social sciences and humanities research, and a large proportion of grants from the Community and Colleges Social Innovation funds are awarded for SSH research.

Why is funding to colleges (CCIP) excluded from the calculations for RSF? How are exclusions to RSF funding determined?

(NSERC should answer questions specific to CCIP)

• Many grants are excluded from this calculation, including some CCIP grants. The CCI Applied Research and Development Grants and the CCI Mobilize Grants are excluded, while other CCIP grants remain part of the calculation. A complete list of excluded programs is published on our website.
• Grants issued under some funding opportunities within the College and Community Innovation program include an amount equal to 20% of the annual grant amount for indirect costs. This amount is provided in addition to the requested funds. Because funds to cover indirect costs are included in the grants, and overhead costs are related to the research being conducted, the CCIP grant amounts are not used in calculations for RSF.
• This is not exclusive to grants under the CCIP program. Indirect costs are included as part of grants issued through the New Frontiers in Research Fund, the Canada Biomedical Research Fund, the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program and the Canada First Research Excellence Fund. As a result, the value of grants from these programs are also excluded in the calculations.

How does SSHRC support cégeps? Why is the financing to cégeps for certain program capped at lower amounts than colleges for the rest of Canada? Are Québec’s colleges penalized for the provincial investments in research at the college level?

• Cégeps are eligible for all funding opportunities under the CCIP, the same as any college or polytechnic outside of Québec. The value of the grants available does not change based on the provincial location of the institution for most funding opportunities. The eligibility of cégeps for other programs, such as the New Frontiers in Research Fund and SSHRC’s core programs, including Insight Grants and Insight Development Grants, is the same as for the rest of Canada. The funding available also does not differ between provinces.

How is the funding for students distributed? Some witnesses suggested that quotas based on enrollment would be fairer than the current formula which is based on previous successes of the institutions in accessing funding – what do you think of this suggestion?

• Funding opportunities for Masters and Doctoral awards do rely on allocations or quotas per eligible institution. The formulas are based on the relative research intensity of the institution – following the logic that the awards are meant to support training for research intensive careers. (Not all graduate programs are focused on research training – basing the allocation on enrollment numbers would capture non-research-focused graduate programs.)
• For Canada Graduate Scholarship - Masters awards, one initial allocation is granted to each eligible institution and remaining allocations are distributed based on each institution’s relative proportion of the total sum of grant funding received by all institutions in the previous three years.
• For CGS – Doctoral awards, each eligible institution has a quota, or the maximum number of candidates that the institution can forward to the national competition. The formula to calculate an institution’s quota is based on the institution’s average success in the national competition during the past three competition years, multiplied by a factor of 1.94. The minimum quota is three applications, which allows all qualifying institutions to forward at least three applications.
• In general, data from a recent umbrella evaluation of the agencies’ graduate student funding (scholarships, awards and indirect funding combined) indicates that SSHRC’s reach to graduate students is proportionate to their representation in the graduate student population.

The recent budget announced that the agencies’ Talent programs will be harmonized into a single program. Will this redesign provide an opportunity to revisit the way scholarships and fellowships are distributed across institutions, perhaps to allow more to flow to smaller or regional institutions?

• A redesign of the Talent program could indeed provide an opportunity to consider the issues discussed here today, but it is too early to be able to comment on how this could be implemented or on what the impact of such a redesign might be.

Will the recent cap on international students imposed on post-secondary institutions have an impact on how federal research funds are distributed across institutions?

• I understand that graduate students are not subject to the new caps on international students at Canadian institutions. While some faculty researchers may rely on upper-year undergraduate students to support research, in particular at smaller institutions, we do not anticipate that a cap on undergraduate international students will have a significant impact on how federal research funds are distributed across institutions.

How do the granting agencies support institutions to compensate for the increasing demands placed on them in relation to research security?

• The Research Support Fund, administered at SSHRC on behalf of the three granting agencies, is awarding additional funding provided by Budget 2022 to build capacity within postsecondary institutions to identify, assess and mitigate potential risks to research security. For institutions that don’t receive support through the new fund, research security related expenses are still allowable under the (general) Research Support Fund.

How do the granting agencies support institutions to compensate for the increasing demands placed on them in relation to data management policies?

• Individuals can apply for Connection grants in the Research Data Management Capacity Building Initiative, which reserves funding to support at least 10 proposals per competition to support the research community’s development, adoption and dissemination of research data management standards, practices, tools and skills.
• RDM is an eligible expense in the Research Support Fund grants that institutions receive. Incremental Project Grants funding is also available for institutions eligible for the RSF and are at the highest funding levels in the current RSF formula, receiving $7 million or more in eligible direct research funding. Institutions with less than $7 million in eligible direct research funding are not eligible for IPG funding but continue to benefit from the current progressive RSF funding formula.

What measures are in place to ensure the fair access to granting agency funds by equity-deserving populations?

• SSHRC is committed to increasing equitable and inclusive participation in the research system. The agency has ongoing activities focused on identifying and mitigating barriers faced by underrepresented groups, including but not limited to, women and gender minorities, Indigenous Peoples, racialized individuals, and persons with disabilities.
• Since 2023, SSHRC has been providing designated awards for Black students and Black postdoctoral researchers. This funding is designed to fund about 130 students and postdoctoral fellows in the social sciences and humanities per year.
• Through the Indigenous Scholars Awards and Supplements Pilot Initiative, SSHRC provides financial support to meritorious Indigenous students who have applied to the Canada Graduate Scholars – Master’s program (CGS-M).
• SSHRC collects self-identification information from applicants, collaborators and merit review committee members and publishes aggregate data on the participation of women and gender minorities, Indigenous Peoples, racialized people and persons with disabilities in our programs. This data is used to help identify where there may be systemic barriers across our agency’s research programs.

The Université du Québec network is constituted of medium and small-sized institutions. How does the current concentration of funding in large institutions impact the UdQ?

• While the UdQ institutions are indeed small and medium-sized, the network is successful in obtaining funding from SSHRC. During the last 5 years, the UdQ has received what amounts to between 6.2% and 6.7% of all funding distributed by SSHRC (SSHRC and TIPS programs), which is comparable to the funding levels obtained by the largest universities (McGill 7%, UBC 7.79%, Université de Montréal 5.25%, University of Alberta 4.42% - only UofT stands apart with 12.26%). This speaks to the importance of looking at the ecosystem as a whole when looking at the distribution of research funds.

Most of the U15 institutions are English-speaking – what is the impact of the concentration of funding on the support of research and publication in French?

• Overall, French-language institutions obtain around 18% of the funding distributed by SSHRC, which is 3 points below the demographic weight of the French-speaking population of Canada broadly. However, we know that language of institution does not necessarily determine language of application. The language of application remains an individual decision, and researchers can apply to SSHRC programs in the official language of their choice.

What kind of impact can investment in the research capacity of small institutions bring to Canada?

A measure like the “special chairs” allocation to small institutions within the Canada Research Chairs program can have big impact for the university and the region – attracting graduate students, bringing special initiatives to the campus, and addressing real local, regional and global issues.

For instance, just this week, CBC did a short piece on food security, highlighting the rising costs of infant formula and the difficult choices that families are finding themselves having to make. Bringing research to this important issue, the reporter interviewed Lesley Frank, the Canada Research Chair in food, health and social justice at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, who has looked closely at family and early childhood food security in Nova Scotia and in Canada.

Some other CRCs at small institutions I could mention:

• Juanita-Dawne Bacsu, who is looking at equitable access to health care, at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops BC.

  • Tier 2  (Thompson Rivers allocation is 1 Tier 2 NSERC and 1 special Tier 1 and 1 special Tier 2)
  • Thompson Rivers University, British Columbia https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/chairholders-titulaires/profile-eng.aspx?profileId=5526
  • Dr. Janita-Dawne Bacsu, Canada Research Chair in Nursing and Population Health, aims to improve the ability of older adults with dementia in rural areas to “age in place” by giving them better access to information about health and support services. She and her research team hope to develop and evaluate individual, community, policy and societal-level interventions that would lead to better health equity and quality of life for seniors. They will also enhance dementia care in rural areas by creating an educational program for rural health care practitioners, such as nurses and physicians.
  • Rural dementia care focus of new Canada Research Chair – TRU Newsroom

• Paulette Steeves, CRC in Indigenous History at Algoma University, is creating a data base of oral histories, rock art and petroglyph sites, supporting narratives that date from more than 9000 years ago.

  • Tier 2 (Algoma allocation is 1 special Tier 1 and 1 special Tier 2)
  • Algoma University, Ontario https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/chairholders-titulaires/profile-eng.aspx?profileId=5305
  • Research Story - Reclaiming Indigenous history to create a path to reconciliation (sshrc-crsh.gc.ca)
  • As Canada Research Chair in Indigenous History—Truth and Reconciliation, Dr. Paulette Steeves aims to develop a holistic view of the Indigenous past across thousands of years. To do this, she and her research team are creating a database of oral histories, rock art and petroglyph sites in North and South America that date from more than 9,000 years ago. Ultimately, the information they gather will be used to counter Western narratives of Indigenous histories, address issues that remain critical to Indigenous people, and support sovereignty, healing and reconciliation.

• Yves Frenette –  CRC in Migrations and Francophone Communities at Université de Saint-Boniface in Winnipeg is looking at historic migrations of francophones in North America, and making links to the issues of existing francophone communities in Manitoba and beyond.

  • Tier 1 (St-Boniface allocation is special Tier 1 and 2 special Tier 2
  • Canada Research Chair - Yves Frenette (chairs-chaires.gc.ca)
  • The Canada Research Chair in Migrations, Transfers and Francophone Communities makes a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge of the historic migrations of francophones in North America and the related transfer of culture and oral history. The research will shed light on the central role these factors played in the genesis and development of francophone communities. News - A Second Mandate For USB’s Canada Research Chair (August 2020) - Université de Saint-Boniface (ustboniface.ca)

Should research funding to institutions be tied to deliverables in terms of measures to address the current housing and affordability crisis?

• While SSHRC acknowledges the impact of the housing and affordability crisis on both faculty and students, the funding that is delivered by the granting council is focused on research and research training at institutions. Institutions themselves have the important role of providing the institutional environment for that research and research training, and are seeking solutions to the problems of housing and affordability by engaging in conversation with appropriate stakeholders and governments.
• However, as was pointed out by witnesses before this committee, SSHRC also funds research on housing and affordability, to try to find the best solutions to address these pressing issues.

---

Annex A – SRSR Committee Membership

• 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 Blachette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette – Témiscouata – Les Basques, QC) (BQ)
  Vice-Chair

  Background: Obtained a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Quebec in 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

Other Members

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. Sooke on panel at CSPC and supported NSERC prizes 2022.

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

• Hon. Helena Jaczek (Markham - Stoufville, ON)

  Background: First elected in 2019. Minister Responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and Vice-Chair of the Treasury Board of Canada. Before her work at the federal level, she was the Member of Provincial Parliament for the riding of Oak Ridges-Markham from 2007 to 2018. During that time, Helena served as Ontario’s Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Chair of Cabinet, Ontario’s Minister of Community and Social Services, Vice-Chair of the Health, Education and Social Policy Cabinet Committee and, from 2011 to 2014, Chair of Liberal Caucus. She also served on the Standing Committee on General Government, the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, and the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

  Interests: Health, public health, people living with disabilities.

• 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, et Ministre des Affaires acadiennes et de la 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)

• Arielle Kayabaga (London West, ON)

  Background: Elected in 2021, MP Kayabaga is also member of the committee on citizenship and immigration, and was previously a member of the committee on official languages. She was previously elected as Member of Parliament in London and to London City Council. She is Co-Chair of the Global Cooperation Caucus, and the Chair of Liberal Black Caucus.

  Interests: Housing and homelessness, immigration and citizenship, marginalized populations.

• Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, ON)

  Background: First elected in 2019, MP Turnbull is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. He is currently also member of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology and of the Committee on Science and Industry.

  Interests: Entrepreneurship, social innovation, community development, sustainable development.

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: First elected to parliament in 2011, MP Rempel Garner held the positions of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and of Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification) while within the Conservative government. She has served in a number of committee over the years, including the committees on Natural Resources, Citizenship and Immigration, Health, Industry, Science and Technology, and Environment and Sustainable Development.

  Interests: Innovative academic and business partnerships, technology commercialization, intellectual property management.

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

Annex B – SRSR Committee Study on the distribution of federal government funding to post-secondary institutions

Meeting 78 - Thursday, March 21, 2024

Witnesses:

• Nicole Vaugeois (Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities – ACCRU)
• Chad Gaffield (U15)
• Philip Landon (Universities Canada)
• Pari Johnston (Colleges and Institutes Canada - CIC)
• Sarah Watts-Rynard (Polytechnics Canada)

Summary of Opening remarks from witnesses:

Nicole Vaugeois (ACCRU)

Presented stats on the imbalance of the distribution of funding among universities of various sizes (large universities receiving 79% of federal funding), as well as on the concentration of funding in large urban centers. Pointed out that the importance of research being done in smaller universities, of alignment with regional needs, language of choice for researchers, local training opportunities, ties with industry, while also contributing to world-class expertise. Small universities can punch above their weight but are more susceptible to fluctuations because of smaller capacity. Current funding formulas to support costs of research (such as RSF) are based on previous successes in obtaining funding and some programs exclude institutions which do not reach a threshold of previously obtained funding (specifically mentioned the IPG threshold of $2M for research security). Student support if embedded in investigator-driven grants, so student support is limited when faculty from smaller universities have less success in their applications.

Overall, ACCRU suggest a redistribution of available fund if more funding is not available. They point to a systemic bias against researchers from small institutions in the granting agencies’ merit review process.

Chad Gaffield (U15)

World-class universities compete on the global scale, attracting experts and acting as catalysts within the Canadian ecosystem. Funding to large universities also benefit other institutions, such as institutions, research centers, not-for-profits, smaller universities, through collaborations. The current funding model is based on the merit of the work, without bias as to the institution of the researcher. Supports the recommendation of the Bouchard report as to a need to close the gap between current funding level and the needs to promote innovation. Supports an increase to the annual core funding of the granting agencies.

Philip Landon (Universities Canada)

Investments in post-secondary institutions has economic returns through R&D, employment, regional development. Canada is falling behind on this investment, and PhDs are more often leaving Canada to work abroad, representing a loss. Warns against a mindset of redistributing a shrinking pie and asks for an increase in funding (core grants, value of scholarships). Supports recommendations of the Bouchard report and of other studies by the SRSR committee. Points out that the ever more cumbersome applications have a bigger impact on smaller institutions because of their smaller capacity (example of research security). Merit and excellence have to be the standard while also building capacity for smaller institutions.

Pari Johnston (Colleges and Institutes Canada)

Researchers at colleges work a lot with external partners. Their research is efficient, providing local expertise, applied research, prototypes and services which are adapted to needs. Investment in colleges provide tangible impacts. Only 2.9% of Tri-council funding goes to colleges. Colleges are an essential part of the ecosystem, but they were forced into a funding structure for universities. The funding system must be adapted to the reality or research in colleges. Large scale investments are required.

International students make an important contribution to our country. They are being blamed for a wider public underinvestment issue.

Advocating for adjustment to the merit review so that college researchers who do not publish can still be competitive, and to allow for course releases to be eligible expenses.

Sarah Watts-Rynard (Polytechnics Canada)

Colleges and polytechnics receive a very small part of the federal funding. They are very active and efficient at leveraging what they receive with other partners, including private industry. Their research is generally applied, and market-driven. Student training often leads to employment. Colleges and polytechnics can provide on-ramp to R&D for smaller businesses which do not have the capacity on their own, promoting local economic development. They can also translate the result of investigator-led research to the market.

CCIP funds include funds for supporting and administering research, up to 20%, which is not sufficient. CCIP is not considered in the calculations to determine RSF funding. Changes are needed so that colleges and polytechnics are not excluded from funding opportunities. These changes are important so that Canada can benefit from what colleges can offer. CCIP was developed 20 years ago to develop capacity. Colleges and polytechnics now have capacity for research, but this now must be recognized and leveraged. Need broader eligibility within programs. Evaluation metrics must be adapted to recognize that college researchers do not generally publish as much. The current expansion of CCIP in the recent budget does not support long-term growth.

Meeting 80 - Thursday, April 11, 2024

Witnesses

• Shannon Wagner (Thompson River University)
• Edward McCauley (University of Calgary)
• Penny Pexman (Western University)
• Marc Nantel (Niagara College)
• Pippa Secombe-Hett (Aurora College)

Summary of Opening remarks from witnesses

Shannon Wagner (Thompson River University)

Ms. Warner discussed how small and medium-size universities have carved a niche in research creation and dissemination. She proposed several enhancements to the federal funding to the committee to aid in this work:

• Rethinking funding models – refocused the merit-based funding system to prioritize the quality and impact of research proposal by democratizing access to funding and reducing emphasis on previous research successes. Create funding calls that focus on those who have not been funded before.
• Level the research environment – address disparities that favour applications from institutions where research infrastructure and ecosystems are more plentiful.
• Focus on regional needs - Focus on regional needs and the unique strengths, including having close relationships with communities, which are factors that are not currently accounted for.
• Promote collaboration – intra-institutional partnerships to tackle national and global challenges.

Edward McCauley (University of Calgary)

Expressed gratitude for the federal funding. He also stated that industry and not-for-profit funding from different entities provided great value to his educational institution and its students. He stated that Federal funding promotes talent and innovation but is not sufficient; particularly when the challenges are now more global in nature. He expressed the need to retain talent and allocate funding based on merit.

Dr. McCauley spoke about collaboration and its importance in achieving results. He explained that increased federal funding will help foster innovation growth. From his perspective, the issue with Federal funding is not how it is distributed. The problem lies in the fact that funding amounts are declining.

Penny Pexman (Western University)

Ms. Pexman spoke about how her London location opened opportunities for great partnerships and unique access to leading facilities in which to complete research. She also stated that as a member of the U15 research intensive university, Western is a significant contributor to advancing knowledge, driving innovation and developing the next generation of discoveries that will improve local and global health, economies, culture and societies.

She asserted that innovation take time and sustained investment is required to maintain partnerships with industry, hospitals, academia and indigenous partners. She provided a number of examples where university research is making strides in a number of life-saving medicine.

Ms. Pexman echoes’ U 15 recommendations to maintain the principle of the independent expert review process for research grant applications based on the excellence and rigour of fed the granting councils; to invest in the core funding budgets of the fed granting councils; to increase fed funding for grant scholarships, increase doctoral fellowships by 50 %; and, in general, implement the recommendations of the Bouchard report.

Marc Nantel (Niagara College)

Marc Nantel spoke about how college research is often about applying knowledge to solve immediate regional problems. He highlighted how by collaborating with local/regional companies to develop new products, we can continue to provide college students with a richer education. It provides students with opportunities to test their knowledge and to learn in context including areas of advanced manufacturing, agriculture, the environment, food and beverage and business management. He spoke about how together, with industry partners and students, they have increased the commercialization of multiple projects leading to faster economic development and job creation. But colleges could do more if they had access to larger funding. He spoke about the need to differentiate between outcomes generated by universities and those achieved through college institutions. If the objective of federal funding is to promote economic development and commercialization, then we should be evaluated against that indicator.

Pippa Secombe-Hett (Aurora College)

Representing Aurora College, a Community College of the Northwest Territories, she stated that her institution serves her community and hundreds of external researchers every year from regional, national and international origins. She highlighted how the North has always generated a tremendous amount of research interest, but still, the science and research historically have been historically led by researchers primarily located in federal government departments and universities across southern Canada. However, she expressed concern about the significant gap between big-picture science and regional research concerns and priorities.

Meeting 81 - Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Witnesses

• Philippe-Edwin Bélanger and Fahim Quadir (Canadian Association of Graduate Studies)
• Eric Weissman (Post-secondary Student Homelessness Research Network)
• Robin Whitaker (Canadian Association of University Teachers)
• Ben Cecil (Olds College)
• Steven Murphy (Ontario Tech University)

Summary of Opening remarks from witnesses

Philippe-Edwin Bélanger and Fahim Quadir (Canadian Association of Graduate Studies)

Made a case that the current funding models are outdated, concentrating resources in large universities. Pointed out that this is also a problem between supporting institutions in large urban centres in relation and others regional institutions, where there also exist centers of excellence.  There are less staff in smaller institutions to support the development of competitive applications.  They suggest that the funding model should be balanced to be more equitable on the institutional level, while remaining based on merit. CAGS suggest reworking the system for attribution of talent bursaries so that the allocations of quotas would be based on enrollment rather than on previous success in obtaining funding. They also highlight the importance of encouraging mobility of student and faculty across universities and provinces.

Eric Weissman (Post-secondary Student Homelessness Research Network)

Support a better integration of lived experience within merit review criterion and in research in general. Points to an implicit bias against smaller institutions within the distribution of funding. Presented data on homelessness and housing precarity of post-secondary students and on the importance to not only support researchers, but also research trainees through their learning experience.

Robin Whitaker (Canadian Association of University Teachers)

Dr. Whitaker opened by pointing out the importance that federal funding for researchers benefits Canadians and that considerations must continue be given to fundamental research and not only towards applied research. She called for an increase in core funding to the granting agencies, pointing out that research projects that are recommended for funding but remained unfunded are missed opportunities. She indicated that among the granting agencies, SSHRC had the smallest budget and could benefit from an increase in funding. Dr. Whitaker also pointed out that the application processes can be cumbersome, such as with the Common C.V. She acknowledged that seeking to adjust the distribution of funding without jeopardizing the integrity of the merit review process could be difficult.

Ben Cecil (Olds College)

Spoke on the context for colleges, and Olds College in particular, where innovation is driven by partnerships with industry and other private partners. He asked the committee to consider issues of Equity, Eligibility, and Impact. He asks that colleges be considered as equal partners to universities within the research ecosystem, and that obstacles for colleges to obtain funding be removed as much as possible. The current metrics to evaluate performance does not apply to colleges, where impact is more relevant than publication records. He asks if the current distribution of funding addresses the needs of Canadians.

Steven Murphy (Ontario Tech University)

Mr. Murphy presented Ontario Tech University, pointing out that it is a focused STEM-based institution which is not seeking to become a comprehensive research university, but that it excels in its fields of expertise. Discussed the issue from the perspective of productivity within the research sector, indicating that Canada is behind other comparable countries in relation to productivity.

Meeting 82 - Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Witnesses

• Alice Aiken (Dalhousie University)
• Dena McMartin (University of Lethbridge)
• Vincent Larivière (as an individual)
• Céline Poncelin de Raucourt (Université du Québec)

Summary of Opening remarks from witnesses

Alice Aiken (Dalhousie University)

Recognized the recent budget announcements and thanked the committee for its activities. Pointed out that large research-intensive universities are connectors and hubs for research partnerships. The costs at large universities are higher because of the number of faculty and because of the infrastructure that they maintain, including medical schools. Presented examples of collaborations that are led by Dalhousie, but which involve many partners from multiple sectors, including the smaller Nova-Scotia post-secondary institutions.

Dena McMartin (University of Lethbridge)

Presented on the role of the University of Lethbridge in Lethbridge and southern Alberta, on how University of Lethbridge research work on issues that matter to the community, while also conducting leading research in several disciplines. Acknowledging that it is difficult to compete with larger universities.  She was supportive of the Bouchard report. She suggested that while small universities are considered as partners within initiatives that are led by large universities, they cannot reap the same benefits from the funding that the lead partners obtain, which stunts the development of capacity. Proposes more emphasis on early-stage development grants focused on smaller universities.

Vincent Larivière (as an individual)

Presented on his own research on distribution of funding in science. Recognized that the current concentration of funding in large institutions in Canada follows the trend in most comparable countries, and that it is even less pronounced in Canada than in some other countries, such as in the United States. His analysis suggest that the economy of scale obtained from investing in large universities is less effective than the spread of the funding across more researchers. The return on investment for funding (based on cost per publication) is better in smaller universities. He suggests that while there is a need to concentrate funding in large institutions, a better balance of the distribution may be more productive.

Céline Poncelin de Raucourt (Université du Québec)

Presented on the Université du Québec network, which has institutions of various sizes which occupy different niche of expertise. Their institutions have had success despite the unbalanced distribution of funding. Points to a systemic bias against small institutions which creates a vicious cycle that should be interrupted. Reminded the committee that research in French now receives less than the demographic weights of Canadian French-speakers. Injecting more money into the system is not as effective as it could be unless the funds are distributed in a more equitable fashion.

Meeting 83 - Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Witnesses

• Michelle Chrétien (Conestoga College Institute of Technology and Applied Learning)
• Kari Kramp and Kalina Kamenova (Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology)
• Neil Fassina (Okanagan College)
• June Francis (Institute of the Black and African Diaspora Research and Engagement, Simon Fraser University)
• Donna Strickland (Canadian Committee for Science and Technology)
• Susan Blum (Saskatchewan Polytechnic)

Summary of Opening remarks from witnesses

Michelle Chrétien (Conestoga College Institute of Technology and Applied Learning)

Focused on the role of colleges within the research ecosystem through the lens of impact and suggested to orient the reflection on what do Canadians expect from investments in research. Colleges do collaborator-driven applied research. The current lack of funding going to colleges impair their ability to translate innovation to impact. The current funding model undervalues certain type of research.

Kari Kramp and Kalina Kamenova (Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology)

Small colleges are deeply aligned with regional priorities and benefit regional development. Loyalist College has been able to develop through existing mechanisms, but the current funding levels are not sufficient. They suggest that colleges should receive 6% of current funding to institutions, (from the current 2.9%). More money should go to programs which benefit colleges, such as the technology access centers (TAC), administered by NSERC.

Neil Fassina (Okanagan College)

Pointed out that different types of establishments have different roles, and that colleges are embedded in communities. Laments that the high impact of applied research is not adequately recognized.  Colleges need to be supported differently than universities, and support colleges in scaling up their capacity for impact.

June Francis (Institute of the Black and African Diaspora Research and Engagement, Simon Fraser University)

Black and racialized researchers are in all types of institutions, so an improvement to the distribution of funding would increase access to funding in general for those populations. The commitment to address racism must be embedded in all decisions and strategies. Racialized people are underrepresented in universities as well as in their access to funding in part because some of the research interests of those communities are not as valued within the review system.

Donna Strickland (Canadian Committee for Science and Technology)

[Lost connection during the meeting, so summary is incomplete]. Made a case that Canada is being other OECD countries in supporting the capacity for R&D, that decision-making by the government should be supported by science. Considers that the total amount of funding is the issue, and not its distribution.

Susan Blum (Saskatchewan Polytechnic)

The role of polytechnics withing the research ecosystem must be better recognized, and the disparities in the distribution of funding should be addressed, as this disparity impairs the colleges’ mission to tackle real world problems with practical solutions. Need to be able to better support partners with the development of IPs and commercialization.

Overview of questions asked by committee members

Committee members asked a wide range of questions. Many questions were regarding the concentration of the funding in large institutions, the reasons behind this, the problems this causes, and potential solutions. Members also questioned in relation the different roles that institutions of various sizes have in the research ecosystem and in the Canadian economy.

• How does federal funding support specific sectors, such as the agrifood industry?
• How does funding to large institutions create research hubs which benefit the entire research ecosystem?
• Is the distribution of federal funding to post-secondary institutions equitable?
• What could be done to better support smaller institutions?
• Should large universities, who receive large endowments, do more with what they already have?
• What is the impact of the concentration of funding on rural areas?
• What are the obstacles for smaller institutions and colleges to obtain funding?
• Could universities and colleges develop new incomes stream through retaining IPs?
• Could smaller institutions and colleges be leads on large grants? Do they have the capacity to manage such grants?
• Is there a bias against smaller institutions, or researchers from smaller institutions, within the merit review system?
• Should funding to universities be tied to measures to improve the availability of student housing?
• What is the impact of the current funding models and distribution of funding on students?
• Most of the U15 institutions are English-speaking – what is the impact of the concentration of funding on the support of research and publication in French?
• Is SSHRC under-funded in comparison to the other granting agencies?
• What can be done to improve the current merit review system?

Annex C – Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System

The panel made the following recommendations in its report:

• The creation of the Canadian Knowledge and Science Foundation (CKSF) which would deliver scholarships and fellowships and would be responsible to simplify and harmonize them.
• the creation of an independent advisory body to provide the government with strategic policy advice on science, research and innovation, and evaluate and publicly report on the support for, and performance of these activities in Canada.
• a national road-mapping exercise to guide priority-setting and planning for large-scale research infrastructure investments, as part of the national science, research and innovation strategy.
• Significantly increase investments in the granting councils, starting with an increase of at least ten percent annually for five years.
• Funding for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows should be increased to an internationally competitive level
• Several recommendations to advance Equity Diversity and Inclusion, and support for Indigenous and Francophone research and talent

Annex D – Success rates of SSHRC programs by institution size (2015-2020)

Annex E – SSHRC expenditures* to universities by institution size (last 10 fiscal years)

Alternate description

SSHRC Funding to Universities

Institution Size	SSHRC Programs	TIPS Programs	All Programs	% SSHRC Programs	% TIPS Programs	% All Programs	SSHRC Label	TIPS Label	All Programs Label
Small/ Other	$ 0.24B	$ 0.42B	$ 0.66B	7.6%	8.1%	7.9%	$ 0.24B (7.6%)	$ 0.42B (8.1%)	$ 0.66B (7.9%)
Medium	$ 0.89B	$ 1.06B	$ 1.96B	28.8%	20.2%	23.4%	$ 0.89B (28.8%)	$ 1.06B (20.2%)	$ 1.96B (23.4%)
Large	$ 1.97B	$ 3.76B	$ 5.73B	63.6%	71.7%	68.7%	$ 1.97B (63.6%)	$ 3.76B (71.7%)	$ 5.73B (68.7%)

Annex F – Applications to SSHRC programs by researchers at colleges (last 10 Fiscal years)