THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 7, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] for the consideration of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024; and for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Percy Mockler, a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left please.
Senator Forest: Good morning. Éric Forest, senator for the Gulf senatorial division, Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good morning. Clément Gignac, independent senator, from Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Senator Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning and welcome. Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pate: Good morning and welcome. Kim Pate, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Montreal.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we will continue our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, which was referred to this committee by the Senate of Canada on March 7, 2023.
Today, we have the pleasure, honourable senators and viewers, to welcome senior officials from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, or SSHRC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC, and the National Research Council Canada, or NRC.
Welcome to all of you, senior officials, and thank you for accepting our invitation to be here in order to answer questions on your Main Estimates. Since there are so many of you, I’m going to introduce those who will be making opening remarks, and I’ll ask the others to please introduce themselves if you are invited to answer a question.
Therefore, I will name the officials who will be making comments, and we will proceed on the basis of one to four presentations. I understand that Tammy Clifford, Acting President, will make a short statement on behalf of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to be followed by Ted Hewitt, President, by video conference. He will make a short statement on behalf of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
[Translation]
Marc Fortin, Vice-President, Research Grants and Scholarships, will make a brief statement on behalf of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[English]
The fourth speaker will be Dale MacMillan of the National Research Council Canada. I will ask Ms. Clifford to make her comments, to be followed by Mr. Ted Hewitt.
[Translation]
Go ahead, Ms. Clifford.
Tammy Clifford, Acting President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the 2023-24 Main Estimates for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR.
As CIHR’s Acting President, it is my pleasure to share some of the important work our agency is delivering to advance health research and improve the health of Canadians.
[English]
At CIHR, Canada’s federal health research funding agency, we collaborate with partners and researchers to support the discoveries that improve the health of Canadians and that strengthen our health care systems. This includes investing in students and trainees. We employee a variety of mechanisms to develop scientific leadership within and beyond the health research enterprise.
As part of the 2023-24 Main Estimates, CIHR proposes key funding to enable the agency to deliver on its mandate with $1.35 billion in proposed spending, representing an overall net increase of $109.1 million compared to the 2022-23 Main Estimates. The majority of CIHR’s increased funding is for targeted, time-limited investments to continue advancing an ambitious health research agenda in priority areas.
This includes funding of $81.1 million in 2023-24 to fulfill the Budget 2022 commitment to support the implementation of a clinical trials fund as part of Canada’s Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy. This important funding allows for the reinforcement of Canada’s clinical trials ecosystem, and these investments are designed to support the Canadian clinical trials pipeline from discovery to implementation, ultimately improving the health of Canadians.
Similarly, dementia and brain health during aging remain top research priorities for Canadians. In fact, current trends show that by 2030, the number of people living with dementia will nearly double. To address this growing challenge, the government announced $20 million through Budget 2022 for CIHR to support Canada’s national dementia strategy, Together We Aspire. Investments of $3.1 million through these Main Estimates will enable CIHR to implement a research initiative to promote brain health during aging while addressing the complex care needs of people living with dementia and, importantly, their caregivers as well.
As you know, the COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating effects on the lives of countless Canadians. The virus can result in harms that may extend much further beyond the initial infection period. In response, Budget 2022 proposed investments of $20 million over five years that, through CIHR, is supporting a Canadian Post COVID-19 Condition Research Network. This network, called Long COVID Web, is creating a national platform to undertake, consolidate and coordinate research on the impacts of the post-COVID-19 condition.
As you will see in the Main Estimates, we are also contributing to the implementation of the government’s $1.5 billion commitment to support the first-ever National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Disease announced in Budget 2019. This $7.4 million investment in 2023-24 of a total investment of $32 million over six years enables CIHR to advance research in rare diseases, with a focus on establishing a robust Canadian rare disease clinical trials network.
As outlined in our strategic plan, we’re committed to pursuing health equity through research, and we’re advancing this priority, bolstered by a $20 million investment over five years through Budget 2021, to support a National Women’s Health Research Initiative. Through these estimates, we are accessing $4 million to address under-researched and high-priority areas of women’s health and building capacity for the next generation of researchers.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the proposed spending through the 2023-24 Main Estimates enables CIHR to support high-quality peer-reviewed research in support of key Government of Canada priorities and for the benefit of all Canadians.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Clifford.
[English]
I will now recognize Mr. Hewitt by video conference, to be followed by Mr. Fortin.
[Translation]
The floor is yours, Mr. Hewitt.
Ted Hewitt, President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Good morning, everyone. I would like to start by highlighting that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council — or SSHRC — is the federal research funding agency that promotes and supports research and research training in the humanities and social sciences, disciplines that range from economics to psychology to history.
With grants to researchers, fellowships and scholarships for students, and partnerships with community stakeholders, SSHRC advances knowledge and understanding of people and society, and contributes to a better future for Canada and the world. Through special initiatives such as Imagining Canada’s Future, we also aim to strengthen policy and decision-making to address global challenges such as health and wellness systems, work in the digital economy and effective governance.
A considerable part of our mandate also involves the delivery of several highly prestigious, globally recognized programs on behalf of the three federal research funding agencies, such as the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program, and the New Frontiers in Research Fund, among others. These programs cross all academic disciplines and drive Canadian research excellence and impacts.
[English]
It’s also important to note that SSHRC shares with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council a Common Administrative Services Directorate that oversees key corporate services for both agencies, including information technology, human resources and financial operations. Our colleague Dominique Osterrath oversees these functions for both agencies. She is with us today and happy to answer questions also.
SSHRC’s 2023-24 Main Estimates amount to $1.15 billion, which includes $1.1 billion in grants and $48.2 million in operating expenditures. This represents a net increase of $81.9 million from the previous year’s Main Estimates. The $1.1 billion grant authority includes $347 million for the delivery of SSHRC grants and scholarship programs to support researchers and trainees in the social sciences and humanities.
For the committee’s awareness, I will note that during the previous fiscal year, SSHRC supported more than 4,800 graduate students and post-doctoral fellows directly through scholarships and fellowships representing $125 million in funding for early-career researchers.
Our Main Estimates also include funds for several tri-agency programs administered at SSHRC. For example, $452 million for the Research Support Fund, which provides financial support to universities, colleges and their affiliated research hospitals and institutes to reimburse a portion of indirect costs associated with the funded research, such as maintaining labs and equipment, securing research from threats and providing administrative support.
It also includes $123 million for the New Frontiers in Research Fund, which supports world-leading interdisciplinary, international, high-risk, high-reward, transformative and rapid-response Canadian-led research in areas such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, artificial intelligence and cancer treatment.
There is $53 million for the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, which aims to boost the strengths of Canadian post-secondary institutions so they can achieve global success in research areas that create long-term social and economic advantages for Canada, and $37 million for the Canada Biomedical Research Fund, which was originally announced in Budget 2021 as part of Canada’s Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy and is designed to help ensure Canada is prepared for future pandemics by increasing domestic capacity through investments and partnerships across the academic, public, private and not-for-profit sectors to produce life-saving vaccines and therapeutics.
[Translation]
In addition, SSHRC is pursuing, in collaboration with the other federal research funding agencies and key stakeholders, a number of priorities that are enriching Canada’s research ecosystem. Some of the chief areas where SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR are making considerable progress together include ensuring research excellence through equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives and the engagement of early-career researchers in the research enterprise. In addition, they are advancing reconciliation through strengthening Indigenous research capacity, and promoting high-risk and high-reward, rapid response, interdisciplinary international research.
SSHRC is also working with other government departments in Canada and internationally on issues of global importance, such as research to promote sustainable agriculture and mitigate the effects of climate change.
[English]
On that note, I’m pleased to conclude but will happily answer questions with colleagues that you may have on the 2023-24 Main Estimates and our key priorities. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hewitt.
[Translation]
Marc Fortin, Vice-President, Research Grants and Scholarships, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada: Members of the committee, we are pleased to be appearing before you this morning. My name is Marc Fortin.
[English]
I am the Vice-President for Research Grants and Scholarships at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. I am here today with my colleagues Manal Bahubeshi, Vice-President of Research Partnerships, and Dominique Osterrath, Vice-President of our Common Administrative Services Directorate.
Since 1978, NSERC has been the funding organization to support research and researchers in the natural sciences and engineering in Canada. NSERC is a separate funding agency that reports to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
NSERC’s Main Estimates for 2023-24 amount to $1.36 billion. Over 90% of that funding is provided to support research and researchers. NSERC is a very lean organization with an operating ratio of approximately 4%. Of that 4%, 83% is used to support personnel and 17% is used for operating funds.
NSERC has two flagship programs that support knowledge discovery and knowledge transfer to industry partners, for example. The first program is Discovery Grants. These grants provide funding for discovery research, which is the foundation of all scientific advancements. NSERC’s Discovery Grants support 12,000 researchers across the country.
The second flagship program is the Alliance grants program, which provides support to researchers to partner with private sector, public sector and not-for-profit organizations to apply new knowledge and to create new products and services for Canada. Each year, NSERC’s Alliance grants support 7,500 partnerships with researchers and different organizations. These grants have facilitated $1.72 billion of leverage contributions from these partner organizations over the past five years.
These two programs together, Discovery Grants and Alliance grants, support 76% of Canada’s world-class national sciences and engineering researchers.
[Translation]
Approximately two thirds of NSERC grant support is used to support the development of the next generation of knowledge workers and innovators in Canada.
[English]
The majority of grant funds to researchers are used to provide stipends to trainees at all levels, from undergraduate to post-doctoral levels. An estimated 26,000 trainees annually are supported by these grants. In addition, NSERC supports directly through scholarships and fellowships another 7,000 trainees.
[Translation]
NSERC works closely with the other federal granting agencies to deliver tri-council programs such as the Canada Research Chairs, the Canada First Research Excellence Fund and the highly interdisciplinary New Frontiers in Research Fund. NSERC also manages the tri-agency College and Community Innovation program, through which we support collaborations between colleges and various local companies.
International collaboration is also imperative for NSERC.
[English]
NSERC funds collaborations that connect Canadian researchers to the global network of ideas and attract the world’s brightest minds to Canada. We have partnerships with leading funding agencies around the world: the U.S., France, Germany, the U.K. and other partnerships in development.
NSERC also invests in economic priority areas for Canada, such as quantum research, sustainable agriculture and a recently announced funding call in support of Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy. The people trained in these priority areas will be the ones who will implement new knowledge and technologies to make Canada successful in those areas.
[Translation]
NSERC supports a diverse and inclusive research ecosystem that expands the existing talent pool and welcomes researchers with a range of expertise.
[English]
We firmly believe at NSERC that the natural sciences and engineering are, and will continue to be, critical to responding to national and global challenges. Investing in the next generation of knowledge workers and innovators will support Canada’s global competitiveness. We are at a time in the history of this country where we need more knowledge, science and technology than ever before. NSERC will continue to support the research and researchers who will equip Canada to succeed.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. The last comments will be from Ms. MacMillan.
[Translation]
The floor is yours.
Dale MacMillan, Vice-President, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, National Research Council of Canada: Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today about the National Research Council of Canada, or NRC, and its expenditures, as part of your study on Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.
We would like to begin by acknowledging that the National Research Council’s facilities are on the traditional unceded territories of many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. We would also like to add that we are currently located on unceded Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.
[English]
We recognize our privilege to be able to conduct research and drive innovation on these lands, and we pay respect to the peoples who were here before us.
In my role, I am responsible for overseeing the operations of the finance and procurement services; client services; real property planning and management; health, safety and the environment; as well as security. Accompanying me today is Marcel Turcot, the Director General of Policy, Strategy and Performance at the NRC.
[Translation]
For more than a century, NRC has evolved continually to build and maintain a leadership role in the Canadian science, technology and innovation ecosystem in three core areas: advancing scientific and technical knowledge; supporting business innovation; and providing science-based policy solutions for the government. We have a national footprint that includes laboratories in 24 locations across Canada.
[English]
The NRC provides small- and medium-sized businesses with access to resources and infrastructure, as well as scientific and technical expertise. These are facilities they couldn’t build themselves and expertise they wouldn’t otherwise have. Thus, we enable them to test new products and grow their research and development knowledge to improve goods and services for Canada.
Our scientists, engineers and business experts partner with universities, colleges and Canadian industry to help take research and technologies from the lab to the marketplace. We serve a unique role connecting the diverse parts of Canada’s research ecosystem, responding to public service priorities and creating opportunities that benefit Canadians.
The 107-year-old National Research Council Canada is the country’s flagship R&D organization, and in recognition of that fact, the federal government in November 2022 invested over $962 million over eight years, with an ongoing $121 million, to renew NRC’s facilities. Hence, we are anticipating exciting opportunity that will turbocharge NRC’s contribution to Canada’s innovation ecosystem.
The NRC has over 118 large-scale facilities that range from ocean engineering to vaccines and life sciences to astronomy. We recently conducted a review of all of those facilities, resulting in a list of prioritized investments for high-impact facilities that need upgrades and replacements. These investments will make a difference for NRC’s cutting-edge science and research capabilities.
[Translation]
Our first wave of projects from this investment will range from hydrogen-safe labs working on fuel cells in Vancouver to replacing our Convair aircraft supporting research and testing related to aerospace, satellites, air quality, defence, green aviation and climate resilience, to our Canadian Photonics Fabrication Centre in Ottawa, supporting semiconductor fabrication.
[English]
After the first wave, we will start a call for proposals to allocate additional capital investments every two years, starting in fiscal year 2024-25. That will include prioritizing proposals involving and benefiting external partners, such as universities and industry. Therefore, the cyclical investments will further integrate collaborative partnerships into the fabric of the NRC. These transformative investments will result in the NRC spending $1 billion on recapitalization of large-scale research facilities every 10 years through a competitive internal process with our partners.
NRC’s Industrial Research Assistance Program, or IRAP, has been a key part of the NRC since 1962. It currently accounts for about a third of NRC’s spending overall by providing $480 million in grants and contributions and assisting over 9,600 firms. Our 260 industrial technology advisors work in over 100 points of service across Canada and have funded over 500 projects last year alone.
As such, IRAP provided the perfect basis for the establishment of the Canadian Innovation Corporation, or CIC. It was set out as such in the government’s blueprint document describing a vision for the CIC. According to that document, IRAP will transition to the CIC within a period of 24 months, to be completed in February 2025. By then, IRAP’s entire funding, including grants and contributions, as well as operational funding, will come out of the NRC budget and be transferred to the CIC budget, as set out by the funding profile.
[Translation]
In terms of impacts, the NRC is an experienced organization in nurturing spin-offs. If you look at our history, many parts of the federal innovation and research system began as part of the NRC. Examples include Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canadian Health Research Institutes, and the Canadian Space Agency.
In that sense, this transition will be a tremendous opportunity for the Industrial Research Assistance Program, or IRAP, to evolve as part of a greater entity with additional resources and mandates, in order to play an even more critical role in contributing to Canada’s innovation ecosystem.
Thank you for your time. My colleague and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. MacMillan.
[English]
Now, honourable senators, we will proceed to questions. In order to have all senators ask a question, please try to stay within the timeline of five minutes.
Senator Marshall: I’m going to start with Ms. Clifford because you’re the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, but I’d be interested in hearing the views of other panel members also.
I know you’re doing research into health care. Is there any work being done on private health care? It’s becoming a big part of the health care system now. What interested me was the recent announcement of the $26 million to advance integrated health care in Canada.
Is the private health care being integrated with our universal health care system or is it just something that’s unfolding? Every day, I see something in the paper about more private health care. I’d be very interested in hearing your views on that, as well as the views of any other panellist who might want to respond.
Ms. Clifford: I appreciate the question. At the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the funding you’re talking about as to integrated health services and the private health care system would likely be conducted through our Institute of Health Services and Policy Research. That is one of our 13 virtual institutes. I don’t have at my fingertips what specific funding we have in that domain, but I would be pleased to look that up and provide it for you.
At the end of November, a conference will take place in Toronto focused on primary health care. Certainly, this group would be quite familiar with the fact that many Canadians do not have a primary care practitioner, and this is at the forefront of many people’s minds as we move forward. This particular conference is sponsored by CIHR’s Institute of Health Services and Policy Research.
On the integrated side of things, we have been funding research in child and adolescent mental health —
Senator Marshall: If you could send something on private health care because it is becoming a big part of our health care system. I am very interested in whether the government is actually channelling it or doing something with it or whether it is just unfolding as it is.
I have a general question for all the panellists. I have read what’s on your website and all about the grants and transfers. I’m a member of the Banking Committee, and we have been looking at Canada’s economic performance.
Is any or all your funding supposed to increase or improve Canada’s economic performance or is it more research for the sake of research?
I would be interested in hearing the views of all the panellists. Perhaps I can start with Mr. Fortin and proceed to Mr. Hewitt.
Mr. Fortin: Thank you very much for the question. It is a very interesting question. At NSERC, we fund curiosity-driven research through what I referred to earlier, the Discovery research program. We also fund the transfer of that knowledge that has been developed through fundamental or curiosity-driven research.
We also fund through alliance grants — which I mentioned earlier — the transfer of that knowledge to knowledge users. This could be industry, public sector, not-for-profit or government organizations. It is a two-pronged approach. It is knowledge discovery that will fuel the innovation pipeline and then support the transfer of that knowledge to knowledge users.
Senator Marshall: Is there a way to measure the transfer part? It sounds like that would be the area I would be interested in, measuring the contribution to economic performance. Is there a way to measure that?
Mr. Fortin: We do measure the number of partner organizations we work with. I referred earlier to 7,500 partnerships. These are innovative organizations that are partnering with researchers to utilize the knowledge that these researchers are developing or have developed in the past.
In terms of measurement of success, those 7,500 partners have invested $1.7 billion in matching contributions to accelerate and support those projects. The people who are investing $1.7 billion over five years, I’m sure they see value in these projects if they are investing that much money.
Senator Marshall: But is there a way to measure the impact it has on the economy? This goes back to my question: Are all of your organizations just doing research for the sake of doing research?
Mr. Fortin: We are doing research and we accelerate the transfer of that knowledge to users of the knowledge.
Senator Marshall: I will ask the question about how in the second round, please.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for joining us.
My first question is about marine science. As you know, Rimouski has a high concentration of research institutes, university-related training and oceanography departments. There’s the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, which is one of the federal marine science institutions, and the Marine Biotechnology Research Centre.
Has the NRC, which is a member of Technopole maritime du Québec, been supporting research activities on marine biotechnologies and the sustainable development of biological resources for a number of years through its Oceans program?
I’d like to know how your marine science budgets have evolved over the past few years, and what the outlook is, according to your planning, in this area of research. This is an extremely important area for the future, given the ocean’s potential for biotechnologies and the environment.
Ms. MacMillan: Thank you for the question. I would ask Mr. Turcot to join us at the table to answer questions.
During the pandemic, we did a lot of work in science and biology. Last year, we opened the new Biologics Manufacturing Centre in Montreal. Now we have this facility manufacturing biologics in Montreal, right next to our research centre in Mont-Royal. We have a research centre working on vaccines, but also on a number of biologics.
With regard to the policies we discussed, perhaps Mr. Turcot can answer that question.
Marcel Turcot, Director General, Policy, Strategy and Performance, National Research Council Canada: Thank you very much.
[English]
I understand your question was about ocean research. Is that correct?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Mr. Turcot: Thank you, Ms. MacMillan, for answering on the biologics.
With respect to ocean research, we have two research centres that perform research in these areas. One of our research centres, the Ocean, Coastal and River Engineering Research Centre, performs research in ocean technologies in areas, for example, for the protection of coastlines. They work with firms on adapting to climate change as well in terms of oceanic effects of erosion, et cetera, and changes in ocean temperatures.
We also have a centre called the Aquatic and Crop Resource Development Research Centre. They perform research in the aquatic space, in particular, on crops and biologics and how we can work to better integrate those, particularly given climate adaptation.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: So there’s an erosion research chair at the Université du Québec à Rimouski. Does your organization participate in it or support it financially?
My other question is this: Are your programs accessible to all university centres, as well as those on the fringes of universities? There are also high-calibre private centres — I’m thinking of the Marine Biotechnology Research Centre, which is one of the two most renowned centres in Canada for marine biotechnology research. It’s a private, not-for-profit company; does it also have access to your organization’s programs?
[English]
Mr. Turcot: I would have to look into the organization in question and perhaps bring that back to you in writing.
In terms of not-for-profit organizations, all organizations in Canada are eligible to work with the National Research Council. We partner with not-for-profits, academics and the private sector. Any organization doing research in these areas can partner with the National Research Council and utilize our facilities and research expertise.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’d like to ask you about French in science, following a Radio-Canada analysis of grant applications over the past 30 years. According to the results, 95% of all grants awarded by granting agencies from 2019 to 2022 went to research projects written in English.
What is being done to prevent francophone researchers from feeling penalized, disadvantaged or harmed when they choose French as their research language?
Mr. Turcot: This is a question for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Mr. Fortin: I’m pleased to answer on behalf of NSERC. I can tell you that the success rate for applications submitted in French to NSERC is 73%, whereas overall, it’s 66% for all applications. So there’s a slightly higher success rate for applications submitted in French.
However, you are quite right to point out that few grant applications are submitted to us in French, despite the fact that NSERC is equipped to process applications in both official languages. We welcome researchers who want to submit applications in French, and the success rate is slightly higher.
Senator Forest: Well done, so you’re top of the class. However, there may be an awareness-raising exercise to be done with the country’s francophone research community.
Mr. Fortin: Absolutely. We need to demystify the fact that an application submitted in French would be at a disadvantage. The figures show the opposite. There’s still work to be done with the research community to raise awareness.
Senator Gignac: I welcome the witnesses. I’m a big believer in research and everything you do. Before I ask my question, I’d like to make a short preamble so that you understand why I’m making this comment.
About 10 years ago, I was the Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade in the Quebec government, and there were three separate research funds. When I would interact with them at the time, I realized that they were rather three silos that didn’t communicate much with each other. I noticed that there were problems with synergy and maybe even duplication, especially when the research was cross-sectoral.
At that time, the position of Quebec’s chief scientist, which Rémi Quirion still holds today, was created to ensure coordination between the various research funds.
Mr. Fortin and Ms. MacMillan talked about business innovation, and I’m trying to see what kind of synergy you have or at least what kind of discussions you are having to make sure there’s complementarity in what each of you do, not duplication.
On the business side, as Senator Marshall mentioned, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce did a study on innovation. Canada invests a lot in research, but we’re at the bottom of the class when it comes to innovation compared with other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I’m trying to understand why Canada does so much research, yet that doesn’t translate into results in terms of competitiveness and productivity.
I apologize for the long preamble. My question is for Ms. MacMillan and Mr. Fortin. You both talked about business innovation. How do you ensure that there is no duplication and that your respective funds act in a complementary fashion?
Mr. Fortin: I can start and I’ll ask my colleague to add to my answer.
First, statutes have created the various organizations. Whether it’s SSHRC, NSERC, CIHR or NRC, these statutes define each organization’s specific mandate. NRC, NSERC and SSHRC all report to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. We all report to the same minister, so policy coordination takes place at the departmental level. We carry out, within our organizations and under the legislation, the mandate given to us.
The three agencies — SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR — also work together on substantial programs that are interdisciplinary. It’s perfectly coordinated, in the sense that decisions are made by all three, and programs are carried out by a tri-council secretariat. Coordination is at a high level despite the challenges that separate pieces of legislation can present.
Ms. MacMillan: Thank you for the question.
[English]
We have three different pillars that we would look at. We do research, scientific research and engineering. We do partnerships, and we do business support. We do those collectively with partners such as other government departments, with academia and with the private sector.
We are in the middle of a five-year planning cycle to ensure that what we offer at the NRC is unique and adds value to Canadians be it from public or private sectors or individual companies going forward.
We work with all three levels, and we do that in an integrated fashion. Many of our projects have multiple partners. We make sure that what we offer is a unique value and moves forward. Sometimes with partner with our colleagues who are at the table; sometimes we partner with other colleagues in the other government departments. We also have collaboration research centres and funding.
To speak to the earlier questions, we have had over 1,000 projects on R&D where people come to the NRC because we add the value they don’t normally have. We have a unique offering. If people weren’t coming to us, we would pivot and do something else that would add value to Canada. We have had over 1,000 unique research and development projects that we attributed with a success rate of over 90% client satisfaction.
To answer your previous question with respect to IRAP, we estimate that our total revenue growth from the value of IRAP is about 35% to the Canadian economy over the course of the year. I think we’re adding a lot of value, and we pivot, respond and re-evaluate our strategic plan every five years.
I hope that gives you an insight to how we operate in a multi-dimensional area.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Thank you for your answers. It’s reassuring for me to see that there is good synergy between the funds.
I’d like to come back to the study by the Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy. We heard from many witnesses and spent many hours on the study we published on innovation. One of the recommendations is:
that...federal research grants be conditional on significant intellectual property rights being retained in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian economy;
We note that a lot of public money is entrusted to universities. Obviously, there’s some basic research going on and some intellectual property coming out of that. However, it seems that much of this benefits foreign companies, as there is no minimum time of retention in the country. There are a lot of Chinese companies in our universities.
My question would be: What is your reaction to the recommendation of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy that we should start tying our grants to intellectual property research so that it would remain in Canada while we maintain foreign corporate participation?
Ms. MacMillan: For the NRC there are two answers. In terms of intellectual property generated by the NRC, it stays at the NRC, in Canada, and it’s for all Canadians.
For the Industrial Research Assistance Program, one of the contribution criteria is the retention of intellectual property in Canada. This is a mechanism we have put in place for Canadian funds to ensure that intellectual property remains in Canada.
Senator Gignac: This is true for intellectual property, but according to testimony, when it comes to artificial intelligence, 7% of intellectual property remains in Canadian companies.
[English]
Ms. MacMillan: For grants and contributions, one of the criteria for IRAP is for the funding of projects. Any intellectual property is going to stay in Canada in the foreseeable future. What happens down the road, I can’t speak to but for the Main Estimates.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Fortin, would you like to add a few comments? You have 30 seconds.
Mr. Fortin: I’ll be brief. Intellectual property is generated by researchers and owned by universities and colleges. It’s a complex environment where you’re dealing with a variety of institutional policies, as not all universities have the same intellectual property retention policies.
Now, in terms of security and research, you know that the government has mandated the three councils to put policies in place. These policies are now in place to ensure that certain companies or countries do not benefit from Canadian investments.
The Chair: Mr. Fortin, if you wish to add any comments in reply to Senator Gignac’s question, you may do so in writing through the clerk, Ms. Aubé.
[English]
Senator Smith: Ms. Clifford, you were getting wound up to talk about mental health. I wanted to follow up on that.
Can you give us some background regarding what you are doing in that particular area? Is your organization allocating any of its funding? If so, how much is going to mental health research? In what ways are you working with partner organizations, including folks in the room, to advance research in that critical field?
Ms. Clifford: Thank you so much for the question.
Again, CIHR recognizes the urgent importance of funding research in mental health, including children’s and youth mental health, in order to improve health outcomes for those who are currently living with as well as those supporting those with mental illness.
Over the past five years, CIHR has invested over $569 million in mental health and behavioural disorders research. I was excited and wound up to talk about one major area of focus for us, which is in children’s and youth mental health, specifically in integrated youth services for mental health and substance abuse. That is in partnership with the Graham Boeckh Foundation, based in Montreal, but, of course, with many partners across the country, too.
In order to further strengthen this integrated youth strategy, working with partners, we do have a presence in all provinces and territories. So we are truly speaking about a pan-Canadian push to improve the situation.
Senator Smith: Thank you. What types of initial outcomes have you received that are leading to further advancements?
Ms. Clifford: That is a great question. For this particular integrated youth services net, it is fairly new — probably within the past couple of years — but it was building on groundwork laid well before then.
I would have to get back to you about some specific outcomes. I do know that the teams involved, including with Foundry BC, have been able to track immediate outcomes. Of course, we also want to see sustained outcomes going into the future as well as being able to prevent and reduce the impacts of mental illness and substance abuse.
Senator Smith: If you could follow up, that would be great. We would like a snapshot of what you have achieved on that particular point.
Ms. Clifford: Absolutely.
Senator Smith: Ms. MacMillan or Mr. Fortin, to follow up on Senator Gignac, in addition to the risk of overlap between operations, I am wondering if you have identified any other key risks to your operations. If you have, what are they, and how are you mitigating those risks?
Ms. MacMillan: We have a very active corporate risk profile, which we look at on a quarterly basis. Due to the evolution of what’s happening in Canada and around the world, we want to make sure it is always on a refresh basis.
We are also looking at where our partners are. Obviously, things are always dynamic, and with the many sectors that we deal with, things work at different paces. We are in avionics, automotive and astronomy. We are constantly looking at the system and seeing what our risks are. Do we have them clearly identified, and are we mitigating and managing them accordingly? Are we leveraging our opportunities?
Senator Smith: Do you have a top three so we could see? I’m talking about a snapshot of them.
Ms. MacMillan: We have a top three. If you are a researcher versus a corporate person like me, you might have a different answer. The financial stability of us and partners is always a top concern to us. Cybersecurity is one of our top risks that we manage at a more corporate level. Then I would say making sure we are aligned to government policies and practices and delivering on what we have promised to do.
Those are the top three that we keep our eyes on and have a conversation about on a quarterly basis.
Mr. Fortin: Briefly, I will add that corporate risk analysis is an exercise we conduct every year to take into account changes in the environment around us.
Two main concerns for us include our infrastructure, which are the IT systems and having the people who continue to deliver the mission or mandate that we have.
A second overall risk that we keep monitoring is to be able to continue to support Canadian competitiveness, to continue to make sure we have the talent we need in the country, to continue to be an innovative country and to continue to fund the research that will fuel innovation in the coming years.
Senator Smith: How do you keep your key researchers?
Mr. Fortin: That’s an interesting question. We actually don’t employ any researchers, technically speaking; the institutions do. One way to make sure we keep researchers in Canada is to provide them with sufficient funding because researchers are passionate about their research. They want to contribute, and to do so, they need funding and people. That’s something we continuously monitor relative to other countries.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Welcome to all of our witnesses.
My first question is for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. In your strategic plan for 2021-31, you said that it is a priority to pursue health equity through research. The plan acknowledges that:
. . . as a result of systemic discrimination, including racism, and other determinants of adverse health outcomes, there remain too many serious disparities amongst population groups in Canada. . . .
You have committed to developing and implementing an action plan on reducing health inequities through research, with development work ongoing in 2023-24. Given your commitment to exploring social determinants of health, the number one of which is income, how are you developing a focus on the link between poverty and health in your action plan? What are your anticipated outcomes in terms of reducing poverty-related health inequities? How will you measure them? What kinds of performance outcomes and expectations do you have?
Ms. Clifford: Thank you very much for your question. It’s a topic I’m very passionate about. I’m an epidemiologist by training, so I fully understand the upstream determinants of health.
You picked something up in our strategic plan, so thank you for reading through it and noticing what we are doing each year. It is important and challenging work because we are working with partners — that is not the challenging part, but it is the fact that we want to go far here. We know that, in order to go far, we need to be working with others. So we have been engaging with a variety of members within the communities, and we have also been looking at partners in order to come up with this particular action plan you have referenced.
It’s currently a work-in-progress. I am excited that it is getting close to completion — and perhaps I shouldn’t say completion because it will never be completed. We will present the action plan. There will be activities attached to it, as well as those important metrics you mentioned. Importantly, given that we are a science-based organization, we will be looking at those metrics and likely evolving that plan over time because we know there is so much work to do.
Again, maybe that is not as specific an answer as you would like, but I would be very happy to provide you with additional details in terms of what is to come and when it is to come. We’re very excited about it because, again, equity is at the core of that strategic plan and is a recognition of the upstream determinants of health.
Senator Pate: The more details, the better. That would be fantastic.
This question is for Ms. MacMillan at National Research Council Canada. Your departmental plan indicates that Gender-based Analysis, or GBA Plus, was one measure taken into account to enable firms that worked to develop plans for adoption of equity, diversity and inclusion principles and promote inclusive culture within those firms.
Can you please elaborate on what concrete achievements the NRC has made with respect to this measure and provide some examples? Perhaps if it’s too much for this time, provide some in writing.
Ms. MacMillan: A fulsome answer to your question will require a written response. The important thing is the criteria. As we evolved our programs and our funding criteria, these are things that are actually specifically asked and documented as part of what we go through. We’re putting in the measures and the results that we’ve done over the last few years in order to better understand our groups and where it is that we need to focus attention. When you’re doing well, you want to make sure you continue on those trends and you can also learn in the areas you’re not.
Perhaps we can provide you with some of the statistics offline as to what we’ve been doing and where we’ve made improvements. I would never say we’re perfect. This is always an evolving process. It is key in our list of things we do and is included in all the proposals we put together now.
Senator Pate: As part of that, could you please include the number of firms you’re working with that have adopted the principles and what the practical impact has been on marginalized and equity diverse seeking groups, such as women, Black, Indigenous and other racialized individuals, those below the poverty line and those with disabilities?
Ms. MacMillan: Yes, we will include that for our funding programs.
Senator Galvez: Thank you for being here. First, thank you from the bottom of my heart because three out of your four organizations funded my research over my 30-year career. Thank you very much.
I know the funds are never enough. My colleagues know that a PhD has to live on $24,000 a year. That’s where I was, and it hasn’t increased. That’s just a little above the poverty line. We have a family, and we have to be there taking care of labs and things. It’s important we mention that. The money is never enough.
But now I’m in a different seat. You have mentioned how it is important in your mission that we help the economy. Many of my colleagues sit on the Banking Committee where we talk about competitiveness. We know about the new economy, the knowledge economy, the circular economy, the low-carbon economy and the care economy. We are seeing a lot of research and programs nicely described, very beautiful, but we don’t see the real impact in our daily lives.
For example, I work with Doctors for the Environment. They are saying wildfires are impacting respiratory illnesses in children. How can we make a link between what you are doing and improving this situation?
A Canadian was the inventor of the solar panel. We don’t own that intellectual property. I developed a process used in South America. I couldn’t find the money — $150,000 — that my university was asking from me in order to have this. How do we do it?
There is an interesting program you’re funding on plastics, yet Canada is exporting plastics that are now in the patch floating in the Pacific and found in China, Indonesia, many places. What’s going on? We have very nice ecoplastics, but we export our plastic waste.
The last point is with respect to epidemics and the pandemics. We used to have vaccine development capacity, and we found out during the pandemic that this capacity was non-existent. How do we recover this capacity for vaccine production?
My last question is about paying a lot towards oil and gas research and decarbonization. The oil and gas companies don’t belong to Canada. They belong to foreign interests. Again, with the developed intellectual property, or IP, that doesn’t stay here, it is used somewhere else — in refineries in New Orleans. How can we keep the IP here? How can we make the link with our research and entrepreneurship?
Lastly, how do we increase the dialogue between politicians and scientists? Thank you. You can give some ideas and then provide written remarks as well.
Ms. Clifford: That was a very fulsome question. Thank you very much, Senator Galvez.
Senator Galvez: My colleagues think they’re not brave to say what you have to say.
Ms. MacMillan: I was talking to the senator beforehand. She has been a good spokesmodel for women in science. That has been something all of our researchers do look for. You have a very fulsome question and I don’t think I can answer some of it, but let me answer a few things.
With respect to the pandemic and the realization of what we had and didn’t have, the NRC built a new biological manufacturing centre in 10 months from grass to grass. That’s on our Royalmount facility, and today it’s a not-for-profit partnership. The Government of Canada owns the facility, and we have an independent, not-for-profit company who is currently producing vaccines in Canada. That is an operational fact that is there right now.
We have also invested into a clinical trial material facility to help that gap between the research and the production of vaccines where this sort of testing can be done. That is currently being finalized and is in operational mode, and will come online next year. We are working to make those things happen. Some things are happening now; some things are coming.
With respect to making value for Canadians, the NRC produces the National Building Code of Canada. We are constantly looking at what are the things. The environmental aspects of the building code are some of the things we are looking at right now, the climate resilience, how to make things carbon neutral in the building process, developing the codes and working with the provinces and territories, which are the ones that implement the codes, to make these real for Canada. Those are some of the things that we’re concretely doing in order to support that.
Then with IRAP, we’re looking at those businesses that are ready to take it to the next step and funding those projects. As I said previously, we are looking to fund projects where the IP will stay in Canada. Those are some of the examples of what we are doing in order to help the ecosystem. I will turn it over to my colleagues if they want to add anything.
The Chair: I’ll recognize Mr. Hewitt because we haven’t heard from you in the last 30 minutes. Do you want to provide a comment on that question from Senator Galvez?
To the other public servants, I will ask you to send your answers in writing, specifically going back to the questions asked by Senator Galvez. We would appreciate getting it in writing. Before I say that, Mr. Hewitt, any comments?
Mr. Hewitt: Just on the last question with respect to IP — and I think my colleagues would agree with the other granting agency — we are funding an amazing array of research in a number of areas across Canada, from the highly technical to our areas in social sciences, humanities and health. That IP is being protected by institutions and by the inventors themselves through the institutions.
Quite often what we find, though — and as a former vice-president of research at a major Canadian university — there is no uptake, possibility or capacity for further development of that IP in this country. Then you’re left with the question, as a researcher, of where you go. Do you sit with it and don’t do anything or do you try and exploit it and find some use for it in some other place that might come back and benefit Canada?
We have a somewhat similar situation in my area — social sciences and humanities — where we contribute and our research contributes to policy across the array of areas that the government is involved with. In fact, we work closely with 15 departments on issues that are important to them — from immigration to housing, the opioid crisis, all of the things important to Canadians in policy-making. We bring those ideas to the table. We bring the best of our research to the Department of Finance or other departments.
How that gets used and developed to policy is a question for the policy-makers themselves. We see our role as primarily bringing the results of that discovery research and translating the results of the research that we do so they can be applied. Ultimately, it’s up to us, as Canadians and through esteemed bodies such as this, to take that and to make sure that it’s being used to the benefit of Canada. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Hewitt, thank you very much. I will be asking Ms. Clifford and Mr. Fortin to answer the questions of Senator Galvez in writing through the clerk. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our panellists for being here this morning. My question is for the National Research Council Canada.
The warming temperatures and melting ice in Canada’s Far North are creating many new and interesting questions for Canadians, many of which are quite troublesome and urgent. Surely, the National Research Council Canada can play an important role in trying to address some of these issues. In the NRC’s 2023-24 departmental plans, the department places Arctic and northern issues as a subject of high priority for Canadians and looks to develop domestic and international collaboration to investigate the subject.
What kind of projects are the NRC currently engaged in involving Arctic and northern issues? Could you provide some examples of some specific projects and what benefits they may provide for Canadians and, most importantly, for northern residents?
Ms. MacMillan: Thank you very much for the questions. It is a subject matter that is one of the NRC’s priorities moving forward.
I mentioned the building codes, where we are looking at the impacts of climate change and climate resilience on some of the building structures. More importantly, we have a Challenge program. With the Challenge program, we’re investing $16.8 million from our grants and contributions with our partners, along with $5 million from NRC resources, into looking at projects on housing, health, food and water in support of the challenges that you exemplified in the Arctic. These could be sustainability or related to how to live in the Arctic with a higher quality of life than currently. We could submit some detailed examples on the work we’re currently doing and some of the results that we have achieved to date.
Senator Loffreda: Is it research on security concerns and results from this research that are public or could be made public?
Ms. MacMillan: The results of all of our programs are made public. Some of them are in the process of unfolding at this point in time. We’re doing this with collaborative partners. We publish an annual report every year, and all of these reported results are in our departmental plan.
This Arctic and Northern Challenge program is a relatively new program. It has a seven-year life span, and I think we’re in year two of it. This will be work that will be unfolding over time. We’d be happy to share some of the early results that we’ve had.
Senator Loffreda: I have a question for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It is vital for the advancement of Canadian health care, and thus the health and safety of Canadians, that we work together with our international partners to help keep Canadians healthy. Currently, the Main Estimates expect Canadian taxpayers to invest $1.3 billion into funding health research and training, which is about the same as the last few years. However, the number of international collaborations that Canada have been making to health research is diminishing. In 2019-20, Canada funded 151 research projects with an international partner. In 2021-22, that number dropped to 117.
With international research so important to health care advancement, why are we spending about the same on funding health research and training but funding significantly less international research projects?
Ms. Clifford: Thank you very much for the question. As I mentioned earlier in my responses, partnerships are extremely important to us at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. You know the amount of funding that we have, but we can go much further when we partner with others.
I will note that in our strategic plan that was referenced earlier, we are in the midst of developing a new international partnership strategy. There are countless opportunities to partner with others, but, as you might expect, the geopolitical situation is changing and has been changing quite a bit. We would also encourage the group to look not only at the number of grants and engagements that we have with others, but also at the value and the impact of those engagements.
We may have seen a reduction in the number of partnerships, but I would encourage us to look at the outcomes and the impact of those partnerships with a view to knowing that we are currently in the midst of revising our international partnership strategy.
Senator MacAdam: My questions are related to health research. You mentioned targeted research. How do you decide on priority areas? For example, you mentioned dementia. What about other medical diseases and conditions like diabetes, Crohn’s and colitis, just to name a few? I’m trying to understand how you select the priority areas.
Ms. Clifford: That’s a wonderful question. The CIHR has two tranches of funding, if you will. The largest is called an open Project Grant competition, which is where researchers put their best ideas forward and we peer review them. You will see a lot of research areas covered within that tranche of funding.
The second tranche relates to research and priority areas. I only mentioned a few of those areas today, but if I were to give you a list of all of the conditions, diseases and circumstances that fall into that research and priority area, you would see that most, if not all, areas are covered there.
How do we decide? It’s often in response to working with partners — including provincial and territorial research funders, charities and patient groups — and, of course, taking the opportunity to put forward a budget ask in different cycles. All of these research and priority areas are considered to be ring-fenced funding. I should also note the value of our 13 virtual institutes, each of which represents a particular population or domain, diabetes being one, aging being another and child and youth health. They are also our strategic arm to ensure that they are keeping abreast of the latest needs with a variety of advisory boards and councils.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you. I would like to get a list of priority areas.
How much health-related research is done by Canadian universities as opposed to other partners and facilities?
Ms. Clifford: That’s a wonderful question. I might not be the right person to be able to answer that because at CIHR all of our funding goes to academic researchers. That would be those based at universities, hospitals and research institutes.
That said, we recognize the importance of the research that is done intramurally within the government as well as with those in the private sector.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Fortin, you mentioned that you have invested in research on sustainable agriculture. I’d like to know how much money and what proportion of the budget is allocated to this extremely important economic sector for the Canadian economy.
Also, have research topics been modified to better address our farmers’ apprehensions as they face climate change?
Mr. Fortin: Thank you for the question. We are actively working with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian department that has the mandate to manage the issue of agriculture and the environment.
We recently started an initiative, jointly with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to fund research in this sector. We would be pleased to provide the committee with the exact figures and research themes that have been put forward with the federal department.
Senator Dagenais: I have a question for Ms. Clifford.
I’d like to hear your comments on researchers as human beings. Can you tell us a little about the state of the workforce? Have you lost any researchers who went to work elsewhere because the conditions offered were better?
Ms. Clifford: Thank you for the question.
[English]
May I ask for a clarification? Are you getting at the brain drain, if you will, where scientists trained in Canada are then maybe moving internationally to work in other countries?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: So they may wish to work elsewhere because conditions are better. That was the point of my question.
Have you lost any researchers or are you managing to keep them here?
[English]
Ms. Clifford: That is an excellent question. As was alluded to a little earlier during our discussion, there certainly has been quite concerted efforts put into supporting the entire pipeline of scientists in this country, particularly for Canadian Institutes of Health Research health scientists. This would recognize those who are currently doing their training — whether it’s at the master’s, doctoral or post-doctoral levels — and, of course, throughout the early, mid and senior stages of their careers.
I do not have specific numbers in terms of how many may have left and how many may have returned, but, certainly, we would be able to provide some numbers in that regard. That said, it is very well recognized that without highly qualified personnel in this country to do the work, we will not be able to get that work done. Thus, people are at the core of our plan.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Do you have a way of measuring research results in relation to the investments made? In other words, what kind of financial return does CIHR expect when it collaborates on research through grants in the pharmaceutical industry, for example?
[English]
Ms. Clifford: Again, that is a wonderful question. You must have been hanging out in my office recently because we’ve been having a lot of discussions about the importance of being able to quantify the impact, the value for money and the return on investment of research. It goes further than simply saying we have invested X number of dollars and trained X number of people.
Again, it’s an imperfect answer from me. I recognize this. I have made note of the reference to the Banking Committee’s report, and I’m certainly going to take a look at it. However, rest assured that I’m happy to provide you with some maybe outdated data concerning the real-world impact of research. But I want to reassure the group that we are on this actively in order to be able to translate that large investment into numbers that matter for Canadians.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Ms. MacMillan, you talked about your involvement in the development of open aviation.
Who are the main players in this industry? Is there as much money and energy involved in this research as you are putting into the automotive battery sector? What’s your vision of the results to come for aviation, which, according to some research, contributes 6% to global warming?
[English]
Ms. MacMillan: I don’t have 30 seconds to answer that big question. There are many facets to this. With respect to our aerospace, we are doing an investment — as I said in my opening statement — into our Convair, where we actually do research in the air. It’s like a flying lab where we can do this. We just recently did our first green fuel test with one of our planes successfully.
We’re doing a lot of work in partnership with Canadian companies and other research areas. Other government departments like National Defence and Transport Canada are partners with us on these sorts of things, and then we extend that into the battery and work that we’re doing on the energy side in order to capitalize and optimize that work.
It’s a very big answer to a very big question, but we actually have facets that come together with the partnerships that we’re dealing with in academia and the private sector. This is work where we have with a lot of big companies in Canada as well as some of the smaller companies that are coming up and developing through our IRAP. They are coming to us in order to use our wind tunnels and climate chambers to test some of the material they have.
The Chair: Honourable senators, there will not be a second round due to the other items on the agenda, of which I will inform you very shortly.
On behalf of the National Finance Committee, as chair, I would like to thank the officials very much. You have been very informative. There is no doubt that we will follow very closely the answers you will provide us in writing through our clerk. In the event that we are not satisfied, we will come back with other questions. With that said, to the witnesses, please submit written responses to the clerk by the end of the day Tuesday, November 21, 2023.
Honourable senators, we will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-241.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons)?
Senator Marshall: Mr. Chair, I know that we’re here to do clause by clause of Bill C-241 today, but I always felt that we didn’t do a thorough job with regard to hearing from witnesses.
I would like to read a motion into the record. I move:
That the committee not proceed with clause by clause of Bill C-241 at this time and proceed to hear from other witnesses, including Mr. Chris Lewis, the sponsor of the bill, and also the unions and associations which represent the workers who would be affected by this bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall. Do you have any additional comments to make?
Senator Marshall: I would like to hear from Mr. Lewis, the sponsor of the bill. I would like to hear what research he did. It’s a very short bill. I would like to hear what research he did and why there are no details in the bill with regard to the distance that a worker would have to travel; there is no reference to the $4,000, whether it would be higher or not; and the time limits in terms of when an employee would have to be at their work location before they would be entitled to claim this amount.
I would like to hear from — I don’t know whether it would be unions or associations or maybe both. I’m from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have a lot of workers who commute to other provinces to work. I would like to hear from the unions and associations that could speak on behalf of the members who would be impacted by the bill.
When Mr. LeBlanc was here from the Department of Finance, he mentioned that when the amendment to the Budget Implementation Act was made a couple of years ago, the department met with either representatives of the unions or the associations. That’s how they determined the $4,000. I would like to hear directly from those same unions or associations.
The Chair: Honourable senators, collectively, we have a lot of experience around the table. As a parliamentarian, I know that when we move to clause by clause of a bill, it is in the nature of the process to ask the question that I did ask, as chair, to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in question, Bill C-241. That said, when that question is posed and there is a senator who objects to proceeding with clause by clause of a bill — in this case, Bill C-241 — we cannot proceed to clause by clause.
As chair, I did recognize Senator Marshall. She brought forward a motion to hear from additional witnesses. According to the rules and procedures, the fact that we did not have unanimous consent to move to clause by clause means that we cannot do it this morning.
With the indulgence of all senators, I would like to hear comments, as we have always done in the past. In doing our due diligence, I would like to ask for comments from senators on the motion of Senator Marshall. Honourable senators, do not repeat what you have heard from other senators. Let us be succinct.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I agree with Senator Marshall’s motion. On the one hand, it’s a bill that affects an existing act. So I think it’s highly relevant to hear from the bill’s sponsor, as well as from the unions.
I support the motion, but I don’t think that prevents us from possibly looking at the proposed amendment, if it’s still relevant, in due course.
Senator Gignac: I am open to supporting this motion. However, I would draw Senator Marshall’s attention to the fact that the bar will be very high. I don’t know what that will really change in terms of our position on this bill.
For my colleagues, I’d like to mention that, according to the research we commissioned from the library, only once in the last 20 years has a bill resulted in amendments to the Income Tax Act without the agreement of the Minister of Finance. At the time, even the government was divided. That’s why the bill was passed. It had to do with business transfers. I can give you the name of the bill at a future meeting if you like.
Yes, we can analyze more, but you’ve heard from witnesses like me, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and representatives from the Department of Finance. We’re close to a duplication of the tax act. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Smith: My concern since the start is that we had Bill C-19 and Bill C-241, and there were slight differences between the two. If we were able to consolidate, somehow, and have one bill that would service the needs of workers, I would be thrilled to participate in that.
Senator Pate: I have nothing to add. I’m happy to go to more witnesses.
Senator Galvez: I have nothing to add.
Senator Loffreda: I would agree to have additional witnesses. We can address our concerns to them, especially to the sponsor of the bill. It is always nice to hear from the sponsor of the bill.
Senator MacAdam: I agree with the motion, and I don’t have anything further to add.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: First of all, I spoke in the House in favour of the bill, but I would say that, as a former union leader, I think it’s a must to get the point of view of unions and associations. As Senator Marshall mentioned — and I agree with her motion — we need to hear from the bill’s sponsor and, above all, from the labour organizations that will clearly be affected by this bill.
[English]
The Chair: I will now recognize Senator Martin as ex officio of the committee.
Senator Martin: Thank you to the members of the committee.
As you know, I am the sponsor of this bill in the chamber. Today, I was very keen to take part in the clause by clause. I want to express my support to what Senator Marshall has said. I was surprised when I reviewed Hansard of what happened during the study of this bill with testimony from the officials and the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the sponsor of the bill was not part of that list of witnesses. I think it is very important. I don’t recall any other bill in my time as a senator where the sponsor would not have been heard. I am thankful to Senator Marshall for bringing in this motion, and it would be absolutely important to hear from the sponsor as well as those who will be affected by the bill. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Martin.
Honourable senators, collectively around this table, we have a lot of experience when it comes to being parliamentarians, in the budgeting and receiving of witnesses. As a matter of fact, the National Finance Committee is the leader when it comes to the most number of witnesses of any committee in tabling reports.
Second, I also want to bring to the attention of senators, because you make this happen, that we do have many hours compared to other committees in the Senate. That is appealing to the fact that the reports are very important in the procedures of looking at legislation and policies.
[Translation]
That said, as chair, I’ve just listened carefully to both Senator Marshall’s proposal and her comments.
[English]
The other senators have had an opportunity to comment. As chair, it makes my job very easy because it’s a team effort. We have the same objective, which is about transparency, accountability, predictability and reliability for all Canadians when we look at budgets, policies and legislation.
On that, honourable senators, I will declare the motion of Senator Marshall adopted. As a majority?
An Hon. Senator: Yes.
The Chair: So the motion of Senator Marshall is unanimously accepted by the Finance Committee.
On this, honourable senators, thank you very much. This item will be added to our next meeting, which is steering. Therefore, Senator Forest, Senator Gignac and Senator Smith, please stay for another 15 minutes so we can address three items of the next agenda for steering committee. Bill C-241 will be part of our agenda in the next few minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’d like to recognize the important work of Senator Martin. She was only with us for a short time, but her impact was crucial.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for that, Senator Forest.
(The committee adjourned.)