There weren’t too many highlights in the 2024 budget as far as I was concerned. Overall, it was a bread and butter budget concerned with housing, jobs, business, and prices along with the government’s perennial focus on climate change and the future for young people and Indigenous peoples. There was nothing particularly special about the funds allocated for research and, as for defence spending in the 2024 budget, that was and is nominally interesting.
“Boosting Research, Innovation, and Productivity” was found in Chapter Four: Economic Growth for Every Generation.
4.1 Boosting Research, Innovation, and Productivity
For anyone who’s not familiar with ‘innovation’ as a buzzword, it’s code for ‘business’. From 4.1 of the budget,
Key Ongoing Actions
Supporting scientific discovery, developing Canadian research talent, and attracting top researchers from around the planet to make Canada their home base for their important work with more than $16 billion committed since 2016.
Supporting critical emerging sectors, through initiatives like the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, [emphases mine] the National Quantum Strategy, the Pan-Canadian Genomics Strategy, and the Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy.
Nearly $2 billion to fuel Canada’s Global Innovation Clusters to grow these innovation ecosystems, promote commercialization, support intellectual property creation and retention, and scale Canadian businesses.
Investing $3.5 billion in the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership to strengthen the innovation, competitiveness, and resiliency of the agriculture and agri-food sector.
Flowing up to $333 million over the next decade to support dairy sector investments in research, product and market development, and processing capacity for solids non-fat, thus increasing its competitiveness and productivity.
The only ’emerging’ sector singled out for new funding was the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy and that is almost all ‘innovation’, from 4.1 of the budget,
Strengthening Canada’s AI Advantage
Canada’s artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem is among the best in the world. Since 2017, the government has invested over $2 billion towards AI in Canada. Fuelled by those investments, Canada is globally recognized for strong AI talent, research, and its AI sector.
Today, Canada’s AI sector is ranked first in the world for growth of women in AI, and first in the G7 for year-over-year growth of AI talent. Every year since 2019, Canada has published the most AI-related papers, per capita, in the G7. Our AI firms are filing patents at three times the average rate in the G7, and they are attracting nearly a third of all venture capital in Canada. In 2022-23, there were over 140,000 actively engaged AI professionals in Canada, an increase of 29 per cent compared to the previous year. These are just a few of Canada’s competitive advantages in AI and we are aiming even higher.
To secure Canada’s AI advantage, the government has already:
Established the first national AI strategy in the world through the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy;
Supported access to advanced computing capacity, including through the recent signing of a letter of intent with NVIDIA and a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.K. government; and,
Scaled-up Canadian AI firms through the Strategic Innovation Fund and Global Innovation Clusters program.
Figure 4.1 Building on Canada’s AI Advantage
AI is a transformative economic opportunity for Canada and the government is committed to doing more to support our world-class research community, launch Canadian AI businesses, and help them scale-up to meet the demands of the global economy. The processing capacity required by AI is accelerating a global push for the latest technology, for the latest computing infrastructure.
Currently, most compute capacity is located in other countries. Challenges accessing compute power slows down AI research and innovation, and also exposes Canadian firms to a reliance on privately-owned computing, outside of Canada. This comes with dependencies and security risks. And, it is a barrier holding back our AI firms and researchers.
We need to break those barriers to stay competitive in the global AI race and ensure workers benefit from the higher wages of AI transformations; we must secure Canada’s AI advantage. We also need to ensure workers who fear their jobs may be negatively impacted by AI have the tools and skills training needed in a changing economy.
To secure Canada’s AI advantage Budget 2024 announces a monumental increase in targeted AI support of $2.4 billion, including:
$2 billion over five years, starting in 2024-25, to launch a new AI Compute Access Fund and Canadian AI Sovereign Compute Strategy, to help Canadian researchers, start-ups, and scale-up businesses access the computational power they need to compete and help catalyze the development of Canadian-owned and located AI infrastructure.
$200 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, to boost AI start-ups to bring new technologies to market, and accelerate AI adoption in critical sectors, such as agriculture, clean technology, health care, and manufacturing. This support will be delivered through Canada’s Regional Development Agencies.
$100 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, for the National Research Council’s AI Assist Program to help Canadian small- and medium-sized businesses and innovators build and deploy new AI solutions, potentially in coordination with major firms, to increase productivity across the country.
$50 million over four years, starting in 2025-26, to support workers who may be impacted by AI, such as creative industries. This support will be delivered through the Sectoral Workforce Solutions Program, which will provide new skills training for workers in potentially disrupted sectors and communities.
The government will engage with industry partners and research institutes to swiftly implement AI investment initiatives, fostering collaboration and innovation across sectors for accelerated technological advancement.
Before moving to the part of budget that focuses on safe and responsible use of AI, I’ve got some information about the legislative situation and an omnibus bill C-27 which covers AI, from my October 10, 2024 posting,
You can find more up-to-date information about the status of the Committee’s Bill-27 meetings on this webpage where it appears that September 26, 2024 was the committee’s most recent meeting. If you click on the highlighted meeting dates, you will be given the option of watching a webcast of the meeting. The webpage will also give you access to a list of witnesses, the briefs and the briefs themselves.
November 2024 update: The committee’s most recent meeting is still listed as September 26, 2024.
AI has tremendous economic potential, but as with all technology, it presents important considerations to ensure its safe development and implementation. Canada is a global leader in responsible AI and is supporting an AI ecosystem that promotes responsible use of technology. From development through to implementation and beyond, the government is taking action to protect Canadians from the potentially harmful impacts of AI.
The government is committed to guiding AI innovation in a positive direction, and to encouraging the responsible adoption of AI technologies by Canadians and Canadian businesses. To bolster efforts to ensure the responsible use of AI:
Budget 2024 proposes to provide $50 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, to create an AI Safety Institute of Canada to ensure the safe development and deployment of AI. The AI Safety Institute will help Canada better understand and protect against the risks of advanced and generative AI systems. The government will engage with stakeholders and international partners with competitive AI policies to inform the final design and stand-up of the AI Safety Institute.
Budget 2024 also proposes to provide $5.1 million in 2025-26 to equip the AI and Data Commissioner Office with the necessary resources to begin enforcing the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act.
Budget 2024 proposes $3.5 million over two years, starting in 2024-25, to advance Canada’s leadership role with the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, securing Canada’s leadership on the global stage when it comes to advancing the responsible development, governance, and use of AI technologies internationally.
Using AI to Keep Canadians Safe
AI has shown incredible potential to toughen up security systems, including screening protocols for air cargo. Since 2012, Transport Canada has been testing innovative approaches to ensure that air cargo coming into Canada is safe, protecting against terrorist attacks. This included launching a pilot project to screen 10 to 15 per cent of air cargo bound for Canada and developing an artificial intelligence system for air cargo screening.
Budget 2024 proposes to provide $6.7 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, to Transport Canada to establish the Pre-Load Air Cargo Targeting Program to screen 100 per cent of air cargo bound for Canada. This program, powered by cutting-edge artificial intelligence, will increase security and efficiency, and align Canada’s air security regime with those of its international partners.
There was a small section which updates some information about intellectual property retention (patent box retention) but otherwise is concerned with industrial R&B (a perennial Canadian weakness), from 4.1 of the budget,
Boosting R&D and Intellectual Property Retention
Research and development (R&D) is a key driver of productivity and growth. Made-in-Canada innovations meaningfully increase our gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, create good-paying jobs, and secure Canada’s position as a world-leading advanced economy.
To modernize and improve the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax incentives, the federal government launched consultations on January 31, 2024, to explore cost-neutral ways to enhance the program to better support innovative businesses and drive economic growth. In these consultations, which closed on April 15, 2024, the government asked Canadian researchers and innovators for ways to better deliver SR&ED support to small- and medium-sized Canadian businesses and enable the next generation of innovators to scale-up, create jobs, and grow the economy.
Budget 2024 announces the government is launching a second phase of consultations on more specific policy parameters, to hear further views from businesses and industry on specific and technical reforms. This includes exploring how Canadian public companies could be made eligible for the enhanced credit. Further details on the consultation process will be released shortly on the Department of Finance Canada website.
Budget 2024 proposes to provide $600 million over four years, starting in 2025-26, with $150 million per year ongoing for future enhancements to the SR&ED program. The second phase of consultations will inform how this funding could be targeted to boost research and innovation.
On January 31, 2024, the government also launched consultations on creating a patent box regime to encourage the development and retention of intellectual property in Canada. The patent box consultation closed on April 15, 2024. Submissions received through this process, which are still under review, will help inform future government decisions with respect to a patent box regime.
Nice to get an update on what’s happening with the patent box regime.
The Tri-Council consisting of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) don’t often get mentioned in the federal budget but they did this year, from 4.1 of the budget,
Enhancing Research Support
Since 2016, the federal government has committed more than $16 billion in research, including funding for the federal granting councils—the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).
This research support enables groundbreaking discoveries in areas such as climate change, health emergencies, artificial intelligence, and psychological health. This plays a critical role in solving the world’s greatest challenges, those that will have impacts for generations.
Canada’s granting councils already do excellent work within their areas of expertise, but more needs to be done to maximize their effect. The improvements we are making today, following extensive consultations including with the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System, will strengthen and modernize Canada’s federal research support.
To increase core research grant funding and support Canadian researchers, Budget 2024 proposes to provide $1.8 billion over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $748.3 million per year ongoing to SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR.
To provide better coordination across the federally funded research ecosystem, Budget 2024 announces the government will create a new capstone research funding organization. The granting councils will continue to exist within this new organization, and continue supporting excellence in investigator-driven research, including linkages with the Health portfolio. This new organization and structure will also help to advance internationally collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and mission-driven research. The government is delivering on the Advisory Panel’s observation that more coordination is needed to maximize the impact of federal research support across Canada’s research ecosystem.
To help guide research priorities moving forward, Budget 2024 also announces the government will create an advisory Council on Science and Innovation. This Council will be made up of leaders from the academic, industry, and not-for-profit sectors, and be responsible for a national science and innovation strategy to guide priority setting and increase the impact of these significant federal investments.
Budget 2024 also proposes to provide a further $26.9 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $26.6 million in remaining amortization and $6.6 million ongoing, to the granting councils to establish an improved and harmonized grant management system.
The government will also work with other key players in the research funding system—the provinces, territories, and Canadian industry—to ensure stronger alignment, and greater co-funding to address important challenges, notably Canada’s relatively low level of business R&D investment.
More details on these important modernization efforts will be announced in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement.
World-Leading Research Infrastructure
Modern, high-quality research facilities and infrastructure are essential for breakthroughs in Canadian research and science. These laboratories and research centres are where medical and other scientific breakthroughs are born, helping to solve real-world problems and create the economic opportunities of the future. World-leading research facilities will attract and train the next generation of scientific talent. That’s why, since 2015, the federal government has made unprecedented investments in science and technology, at an average of $13.6 billion per year, compared to the average from 2009-10 to 2015-16 of just $10.8 billion per year. But we can’t stop here.
To advance the next generation of cutting-edge research, Budget 2024 proposes major research and science infrastructure investments, including:
$399.8 million over five years, starting in 2025-26, to support TRIUMF, Canada’s sub-atomic physics research laboratory, located on the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver campus. This investment will upgrade infrastructure at the world’s largest cyclotron particle accelerator, positioning TRIUMF, and the partnering Canadian research universities, at the forefront of physics research and enabling new medical breakthroughs and treatments, from drug development to cancer therapy.
$176 million over five years, starting in 2025‑26, to CANARIE, a national not-for-profit organization that manages Canada’s ultra high-speed network to connect researchers, educators, and innovators, including through eduroam. With network speeds hundreds of times faster, and more secure, than conventional home and office networks, this investment will ensure this critical infrastructure can connect researchers across Canada’s world-leading post-secondary institutions.
$83.5 million over three years, starting in 2026-27 to extend support to Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon. Funding will continue the important work at the only facility of its kind in Canada. A synchrotron light source allows scientists and researchers to examine the microscopic nature of matter. This specialized infrastructure contributes to breakthroughs in areas ranging from climate-resistant crop development to green mining processes.
$45.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, to support the Arthur B. McDonald Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute, a network of universities and institutes that coordinate astroparticle physics expertise. Headquartered at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, the institute builds on the legacy of Dr. McDonald’s 2015 Nobel Prize for his work on neutrino physics. These expert engineers, technicians, and scientists design, construct, and operate the experiments conducted in Canada’s underground and underwater research infrastructure, where research into dark matter and other mysterious particles thrives. This supports innovation in areas like clean technology and medical imaging, and educates and inspires the next wave of Canadian talent.
$30 million over three years, starting in 2024-25, to support the completion of the University of Saskatchewan’s Centre for Pandemic Research at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization in Saskatoon. This investment will enable the study of high-risk pathogens to support vaccine and therapeutic development, a key pillar in Canada’s Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy. Of this amount, $3 million would be sourced from the existing resources of Prairies Economic Development Canada.
These new investments build on existing federal research support:
The Strategic Science Fund, which announced the results of its first competition in December 2023, providing support to 24 third-party science and research organizations starting in 2024-25;
Canada recently concluded negotiations to be an associate member of Horizon Europe, which would enable Canadians to access a broader range of research opportunities under the European program starting this year; and,
The steady increase in federal funding for extramural and intramural science and technology by the government which was 44 per cent higher in 2023 relative to 2015.
…
Advancing Space Research and Exploration
Canada is a leader in cutting-edge innovation and technologies for space research and exploration. Our astronauts make great contributions to international space exploration missions. The government is investing in Canada’s space research and exploration activities.
Budget 2024 proposes to provide $8.6 million in 2024-25 to the Canadian Space Agency for the Lunar Exploration Accelerator Program to support Canada’s world-class space industry and help accelerate the development of new technologies. This initiative empowers Canada to leverage space to solve everyday challenges, such as enhancing remote health care services and improving access to healthy food in remote communities, while also supporting Canada’s human space flight program.
Budget 2024 announces the establishment of a new whole-of-government approach to space exploration, technology development, and research. The new National Space Council will enable the level of collaboration required to secure Canada’s future as a leader in the global space race, addressing cross-cutting issues that span commercial, civil, and defence domains. This will also enable the government to leverage Canada’s space industrial base with its world-class capabilities, workforce, and track record of innovation and delivery.
I found two responses to the budget from two science organizations and the responses fall into the moderately pleased category. Here’s an April 17, 2024 news release from Evidence for Democracy (E4D), Note: Links have been removed,
As a leading advocate for evidence-informed decision-making and the advancement of science policy in Canada, Evidence for Democracy (E4D) welcomes the budget’s emphasis on scientific research and innovation. Since its inception, E4D has been at the forefront of advocating for policies that support robust scientific research and its integration into public policy. To support this work, we have compiled a budget analysis for the science and research sector here for more context on Budget 2024.
“Budget 2024 provides an encouraging investment into next generation researchers and research support systems,” says Sarah Laframboise, Executive Director of E4D, “By prioritizing investments in research talent, infrastructure, and innovation, the government is laying the foundation for a future driven by science and evidence.”
The budget’s initiatives to enhance graduate student scholarships and postdoctoral fellowships reflect a commitment to nurturing Canada’s research talent, a cornerstone of E4D’s advocacy efforts through its role on the Coalition for Canadian Research. E4D is encouraged by this investment in next generation researchers and core research grants, who form the bedrock of scientific discovery and drive innovation across sectors. Additionally, the formation of a new capstone research funding organization and Advisory Council on Science and Innovation are signs of a strategic vision that values Canadian science and research.
While Budget 2024 represents a significant step forward for science and research in Canada, E4D recognizes that challenges and opportunities lie ahead.
“We note that funding for research in Budget 2024 is heavily back-loaded, with larger funding values coming into effect in a few years time,” adds Laframboise, “Given that this also includes significant structural and policy changes, this leaves some concern over the execution and roll-out of these investments in practice.”
As the details of the budget initiatives unfold, E4D remains committed to monitoring developments, advocating for evidence-based policies, and engaging with stakeholders to ensure that science continues to thrive as a driver of progress and prosperity in Canada.
The April 16, 2024 E4D budget analysis by Farah Qaiser, Nada Salem, Sarah Laframboise, Simarpreet Singh is here. The authors provide more detail than I do.
The second response to the 2024 budget is from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) is posted on a federal government website, from an April 29, 2024 letter, Note: Links have been removed,
Dear colleagues,
On April 16, 2024, the Government of Canada released Budget 2024 – Fairness for Every Generation – a Budget that proposes a historic level of investment in research and innovation. Most notably for CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC, this included $1.8 billion in core research grant funding over five years (starting in 2024-25, with $748.3 million per year ongoing). This proposed investment recognizes the vital role played by research in improving the lives of Canadians. We are thrilled by the news of this funding and will share more details about how and when these funds will be distributed as the Budget process unfolds.
Budget 2024 also proposes $825 million over five years (starting in 2024-25, with $199.8 million per year ongoing) to increase the annual value of master’s and doctoral student scholarships to $27,000 and $40,000, respectively, and post-doctoral fellowships to $70,000. This will also increase the number of research scholarships and fellowships provided, building to approximately 1,720 more graduate students or fellows benefiting each year. To make it easier for students and fellows to access support, the enhanced suite of scholarships and fellowship programs will be streamlined into one talent program. These proposals are the direct result of a coordinated effort to recognize the importance of students in the research ecosystem.
The Budget proposes other significant investments in health research, including providing:
a further $26.9 million over five years (starting in 2024-25, with $26.6 million in remaining amortization and $6.6 million ongoing) to the granting councils to establish an improved and harmonized grant management system.
$10 million in 2024-2025 for CIHR to support an endowment to increase prize values awarded by the Gairdner Foundation for excellence in health research.
$80 million over five years for Health Canada to support the Brain Canada Foundation in its advancement of brain research.
$30 million over three years (starting in 2024-25) to support Indigenous participation in research, with $10 million each for First Nation, Métis, and Inuit partners.
$2 billion over five years (starting in 2024-25) to launch a new AI Compute Access Fund and Canadian AI Sovereign Compute Strategy, to help Canadian researchers, start-ups, and scale-up businesses access the computational power they need to compete and help catalyze the development of Canadian-owned and located AI infrastructure.
As well, to help guide research priorities moving forward, Budget 2024 announces that the government will create an Advisory Council on Science and Innovation. This Council will be comprised of leaders from the academic, industry, and not-for-profit sectors, and will be responsible for a national science and innovation strategy to guide priority setting and increase the impact of these significant federal investments.
In addition to these historic investments, Budget 2024 includes a proposal to create a “new capstone research funding organization” that will provide improved coordination across the federally funded research ecosystem. This proposal stems directly from the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System, and recognizes the need for more strategic coordination in the federal research system. The Budget notes that the granting councils will each continue to exist within this new organization, and continue supporting excellence in investigator-driven research, including linkages with the Health portfolio. While the governance implications of this new organization are not known at this time, the CIHR Institutes will remain in place as an integral part of CIHR. As stated in the Budget, the timing and details with respect to the creation of this organization still need to be determined, but it did indicate that more details will be announced in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement.
As well, CIHR will be working closely with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Health Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada in the coming months to implement various Budget measures related to research. In the meantime, CIHR will continue its business as usual.
These announcements and investments are significant and unprecedented and will create exciting opportunities for the Tri-Agencies and other partners across the federal research ecosystem to contribute to the health, social, and economic needs and priorities of Canadians. They will also ensure that Canada remains a world leader in science. This is positive and welcome news for the CIHR community. We look forward to embarking on this new journey with Canada’s health research community.
Tammy Clifford, PhD Acting President, CIHR
Defence
I have taken to including information about the funding for the military on the grounds that the military has historically been the source of much science, medical, and technology innovation. (Television anyone?)
As the world becomes increasingly unstable, as climate change increases the severity and frequency of natural disasters, and as the risk of conflict grows, Canada is asking more of our military. Whether it is deploying to Latvia as part of Operation REASSURANCE, or Nova Scotia as part of Operation LENTUS, those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces have answered the call whenever they are needed, to keep Canadians safe.
On April 8 [2024], in response to the rapidly changing security environment, the government announced an update to its defence policy: Our North, Strong and Free. In this updated policy, the government laid out its vision for Canada’s national defence, which will ensure the safety of Canadians, our allies, and our partners by equipping our soldiers with the cutting-edge tools and advanced capabilities they need to keep Canadians safe in a changing world.
Budget 2024 proposes foundational investments of $8.1 billion over five years, starting in 2024-25, and $73.0 billion over 20 years to the Department of National Defence (DND), the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), and Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to ensure Canada is ready to respond to global threats and to protect the well-being of Canadian Armed Forces members. Canada’s defence spending-to-GDP ratio is expected to reach 1.76 per cent by 2029-30. These include:
$549.4 million over four years, starting in 2025-26, with $267.8 billion in future years, for DND to replace Canada’s worldwide satellite communications equipment; for new tactical helicopters, long-range missile capabilities for the Army, and airborne early warning aircraft; and for other investments to defend Canada’s sovereignty;
$1.9 billion over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $8.2 billion in future years, for DND to extend the useful life of the Halifax-class frigates and extend the service contract of the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel, while Canada awaits delivery of next generation naval vessels;
$1.4 billion over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $8.2 billion in future years, for DND to replenish its supplies of military equipment;
$1.8 billion over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $7.7 billion in future years, for DND to build a strategic reserve of ammunition and scale up the production of made-in-Canada artillery ammunition. Private sector beneficiaries are expected to contribute to infrastructure and retooling costs;
$941.9 million over four years, starting in 2025-26, with $16.2 billion in future years, for DND to ensure that military infrastructure can support modern equipment and operations;
$917.4 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $10.9 billion in future years and $145.8 million per year ongoing, for CSE and GAC to enhance their intelligence and cyber operations programs to protect Canada’s economic security and respond to evolving national security threats;
$281.3 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $216 million in future years, for DND for a new electronic health record platform for military health care;
$6.9 million over four years, starting in 2025-26, with $1.4 billion in future years, for DND to build up to 1,400 new homes and renovate an additional 2,500 existing units for Canadian Armed Forces personnel on bases across Canada (see Chapter 1);
$100 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, to DND for child care services for Canadian Armed Forces personnel and their families (see Chapter 2);
$149.9 million over four years, starting in 2025-26, with $1.8 billion in future years, for DND to increase the number of civilian specialists in priority areas; and,
$52.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $54.8 million in future years, to DND to support start-up firms developing dual-use technologies critical to our defence via the NATO Innovation Fund.
To support Our North, Strong and Free, $156.7 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, and $537.7 million in future years would be allocated from funding previously committed to Canada’s 2017 Defence Policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged.
Budget 2024 also proposes additional measures to strengthen Canada’s national defence:
$1.2 billion over 20 years, starting in 2024-25, to support the ongoing procurement of critical capabilities, military equipment, and infrastructure through DND’s Capital Investment Fund; and,
$66.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $7.4 billion in future years to DND for the Future Aircrew Training program to develop the next generation of Royal Canadian Air Force personnel. Of this amount, $66.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, would be sourced from existing DND resources.
Budget 2024 also announces reforms to Canadian defence policy and its review processes:
Committing Canada to undertake a Defence Policy Review every four years, as part of a cohesive review of the National Security Strategy; and,
Undertaking a review of Canada’s defence procurement system.
With this proposed funding, since 2022, the government has committed more than $125 billion over 20 years in incremental funding to strengthen national defence and help keep Canadians and our democracy safe in an increasingly unpredictable world—today and for generations. Since 2015, this adds up to over $175 billion in incremental funding for national defence.
Enhancing CSIS Intelligence Capabilities
As an advanced economy and an open and free democracy, Canada continues to be targeted by hostile actors, which threaten our democratic institutions, diaspora communities, and economic prosperity. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) protects Canadians from threats, such as violent extremism and foreign interference, through its intelligence operations in Canada and around the world.
To equip CSIS to combat emerging global threats and keep pace with technological developments, further investments in intelligence capabilities and infrastructure are needed. These will ensure CSIS can continue to protect Canadians.
Budget 2024 proposes to provide $655.7 million over eight years, starting in 2024-25, with $191.1 million in remaining amortization, and $114.7 million ongoing to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to enhance its intelligence capabilities, and its presence in Toronto.
Maintaining a Robust Arctic Presence
The Canadian Arctic is warming four times faster than the world average, as a result of climate change. It is also where we share a border with today’s most hostile nuclear power—Russia. The shared imperatives of researching climate change where its impacts are most severe, and maintaining an ongoing presence in the Arctic enable Canada to advance this important scientific work and assert our sovereignty.
Maintaining a robust research presence supports Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. Scientific and research operations in the Arctic advance our understanding of how climate change is affecting people, the economy, and the environment in the region. This is an important competitive advantage, as economic competition increases in the region.
To support research operations in Canada’s North, Budget 2024 proposes:
$46.9 million over five years starting in 2024-25, with $8.5 million in remaining amortization and $11.1 million ongoing, to Natural Resources Canada to renew the Polar Continental Shelf Program to continue supporting northern research logistics, such as lodging and flights for scientists; and,
$3.5 million in 2024-25 to Polar Knowledge Canada to support its activities, including the operation of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station.
…
Protecting Canadians from Financial Crimes
Financial crimes are serious threats to public safety, national security, and Canada’s financial system. They can range from terrorist financing, corruption, and the evasion of sanctions, to money laundering, fraud, and tax evasion. These crimes have real world implications, often enabling other criminal behaviour. Financial crime also undermines the fairness and transparency that are so essential to our economy.
Since 2017, the government has undertaken significant work to crack down on financial crime:
Investing close to $320 million since 2019 to strengthen compliance, financial intelligence, information sharing, and investigative capacity to support money laundering investigations;
Creating new Integrated Money Laundering Investigative Teams in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, which convene experts to advance investigations into money laundering, supported by dedicated forensic accounting experts;
Launching a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry for federal corporations on January 22, 2024. The government continues to call upon provinces and territories to advance a pan-Canadian approach to beneficial ownership transparency;
Modernizing Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework to adapt to emerging technologies; vulnerable sectors; and growing risks such as sanctions evasion; and,
Establishing public-private partnerships with the financial sector, that are improving the detection and disruption of profit-oriented crimes, including human trafficking, online child sexual exploitation, and fentanyl trafficking.
Budget 2024 takes further action to protect Canadians from financial crimes.
Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing
Criminal and terrorist organizations continually look for new ways to perpetrate illicit activities. Canada needs a robust legal framework that keeps pace with evolving financial crimes threats.
To combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion, Budget 2024 announces:
The government intends to introduce legislative amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), the Criminal Code the Income Tax Act, and the Excise Tax Act.
Proposed amendments to the PCMLTFA would:
Enhance the ability of reporting entities under the PCMLTFA to share information with each other to detect and deter money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion, while maintaining privacy protections for personal information, including an oversight role for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner under regulations;
Permit the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to disclose financial intelligence to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices to support efforts to seize property linked to unlawful activity; and, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to strengthen the integrity of Canada’s citizenship process;
Enable anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulatory obligations to cover factoring companies, cheque cashing businesses, and leasing and finance companies to close a loophole and level the playing field across businesses providing financial services;
Allow FINTRAC to publicize more information around violations of obligations under the PCMLTFA when issuing administrative monetary penalties to strengthen transparency and compliance; and,
Make technical amendments to close loopholes and correct inconsistencies.
Proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would:
Allow courts to issue an order to require a financial institution to keep an account open to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence; and,
Allow courts to issue a repeating production order to authorize law enforcement to obtain ongoing, specified information on activity in an account or multiple accounts connected to a person of interest in a criminal investigation.
Proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act would:
Ensure Canada Revenue Agency officials who carry out criminal investigations are authorized to seek general warrants through court applications, thereby modernizing and simplifying evidence gathering processes and helping to fight tax evasion and other financial crimes.
Canada Financial Crimes Agency
As announced in Budget 2023, the Canada Financial Crimes Agency (CFCA) will become Canada’s lead enforcement agency against financial crime. It will bring together expertise necessary to increase money laundering charges, prosecutions, and convictions, and the seizure of criminal assets.
Budget 2024 proposes to provide $1.7 million over two years, starting in 2024-25, to the Department of Finance to finalize the design and legal framework for the CFCA.
Fighting Trade-Based Fraud and Money Laundering
Trade-based financial crime is one of the most pervasive means of laundering money; it’s estimated that this is how hundreds of millions of dollars are laundered each year. To strengthen efforts to fight trade fraud and money laundering, the 2023Fall Economic Statement announced enhancements to the Canada Border Services Agency’s authorities under the PCMLTFA to combat trade-based financial crime and the intent to create a Trade Transparency Unit.
Budget 2024 builds on this work by proposing to provide $29.9 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $5.1 million in remaining amortization and $4.2 million ongoing, for the Canada Border Services Agency to support the implementation of its new authorities under the PCMLTFA to combat financial crime and strengthen efforts to combat international financial crime with our allies.
Supporting Veterans’ Well-Being
After their service and their sacrifice, veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve our full support. Veterans’ organizations are often best placed to understand the needs of veterans and to develop programming that improves their quality of life. In 2018, the federal government launched the Veteran and Family Well-Being Fund, which provides funding to public, private, and academic organizations, to advance research projects and innovative approaches to deliver services to veterans and their families.
Budget 2024 proposes to provide an additional $6 million over three years, starting in 2024-25, to Veterans Affairs Canada for the Veteran and Family Well-Being Fund. A portion of the funding will focus on projects for Indigenous, women, and 2SLGBTQI+ veterans.
Telemedicine Services for Veterans and Their Families
After serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, many veterans who previously received their health care from the Forces need to find a family doctor in the provincial system, which makes their transition to civilian life more stressful, especially if they need health care for service-related injuries.
To ensure veterans and their families have access to the care they deserve after their service to Canada:
Budget 2024 proposes to provide $9.3 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, to Veterans Affairs Canada to extend and expand the Veteran Family Telemedicine Service pilot for another three years. This initiative will provide up to two years of telemedicine services to recent veterans and their families.
The system of rules and institutions that were established in the wake of the Second World War unleashed an era of prosperity unprecedented in human history. This era generated a massive expansion of global trade, and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. As a trading nation with privileged access to more than two-thirds of the global economy, Canada has benefitted enormously from the stability and certainty that this system provided.
Supply chain disruptions and rising protectionism threaten this Canadian advantage that has been enjoyed for generations. Canada is taking action to make sure we preserve the rules-based international order. We are strengthening our trade relationships and making sure they reflect our values. We are ensuring our economy is resilient and secure, protecting Canadians and Canada from economic pressure from authoritarian regimes, and defending Canada’s economic interests.
Budget 2024 makes investments to ensure the opportunities and prosperity of trade, enjoyed by generations of Canadians, continue to be there for every generation.
Key Ongoing Actions
Launching in 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged, to maintain the Canadian Armed Forces as an agile, multi-purpose, combat-ready force, ensuring Canada is strong domestically, an active partner in North America, and engaged internationally.
Upholding Canada’s 15 free trade agreements with 51 countries. Canada is the only G7 country with comprehensive trade and investment agreements with all other G7 members.
Implementing the modernized Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and the United Kingdom’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Establishing a new Canada-Taiwan foreign investment promotion and protection arrangement in December 2023.
Launching Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy in November 2022, committing almost $2.3 billion to strengthen Canada’s role as a strong partner in the region. The strategy included:
$492.9 million over five years to reinforce Canada’s Indo-Pacific naval presence and increase Canadian Armed Forces participation in regional military exercises.
$227.8 million over five years to increase Canada’s work with partners in the region on national security, cyber security, and responses to crime, terrorism, and threats from weapons proliferation.
Canada is negotiating free trade agreements with Indonesia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to provide additional trade and investment opportunities in the Indo-Pacific region.
To further reinforce Canada’s role as a trusted supply chain partner, and its commitment to cooperate with like-minded partners in meeting emerging global challenges, including the economic resilience of the world’s democracies, Canada undertook the following actions:
Joined with the U.S. in the Energy Transformation Task Force to accelerate cooperation on critical clean energy opportunities and to strengthen integrated Canada-U.S. supply chains, which as announced in Chapter 4, has been extended for another year.
Canada signed a new agreement in May 2023 with South Korea for cooperation on critical mineral supply chains, clean energy transition, and energy security.
Canada endorsed the Joint Declaration Against Trade-Related Economic Coercion and Non-Market Policies and Practices with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S. in June 2023.
Protecting Canadian Businesses from Unfair Foreign Competition
Canadian companies and workers are able to do business around the world, selling their goods and expertise, because the government has delivered free trade agreements that cover 61 per cent of the world’s GDP and 1.5 billion consumers. This means Canadians can do business in Japan and Malaysia with the CPTPP; in Europe with CETA; in the United States and Mexico with the new NAFTA; and in Ukraine with a modernized CUFTA. These agreements mean good jobs and good salaries for people across the country.
However, this is only true when Canadian workers and businesses are competing on an even playing field, and countries respect agreed trade rules.
That is why the government has taken steps to ensure that Canada’s trade remedy and import monitoring systems have the tools needed to defend Canadian workers and businesses from unfair practices of foreign competitors. For instance, earlier this year, Canada introduced a system to track the countries steel imports are initially melted and poured in, to increase supply chain transparency and support effective enforcement of Canada’s trade laws.
Budget 2024 proposes to provide $10.5 million over three years, starting in 2024-25, for the Canada Border Services Agency to create a dedicated Market Watch Unit to monitor and update trade remedy measures annually, to protect Canadian workers and businesses from unfair trade practices, and ensure greater transparency and market predictability.
Ensuring Reciprocal Treatment for Canadian Businesses Abroad
Canada is taking action to protect Canadian businesses and workers from additional global economic and trade challenges. These challenges include protectionist and non-market policies and practices implemented by our trading partners. When Canada opens its markets to goods and services from other countries, we expect those countries to equally grant Canadian businesses the access that we provide their companies.
As detailed in the Policy Statement on Ensuring Reciprocal Treatment for Canadian Businesses Abroad, published alongside the 2023 Fall Economic Statement, Canada will consider reciprocity as a key design element for new policies going forward. This approach builds on Canada’s commitment to implement reciprocal procurement policies, including for infrastructure and sub-national infrastructure spending, in the near term. A reciprocal lens will also be applied to a range of new measures including, but not limited to, investment tax incentives, grants and contributions, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, investment restrictions, and intellectual property requirements.
In pursuing reciprocity, Canada will continue working with its allies to introduce incentives for businesses to reorient supply chains to trusted, reliable partners, and will ensure that any new measures do not unnecessarily harm trading partners who do not discriminate against Canadian goods and suppliers.
Protecting Critical Supply Chains
Recent events around the world, from the pandemic to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, have exposed strategic vulnerabilities in critical supply chains, to which Canada and countries around the world are responding by derisking, or friendshoring, their supply chains. Canada is actively working with its allies to strengthen shared supply chains and deepen our economic ties with trusted partners, including in the context of accelerating the transition to a net-zero economy.
Ongoing efforts to build our critical supply chains through democracies like our own represent a significant economic opportunity for Canadian businesses and workers, and the government will continue to design domestic policies and programs with friendshoring as a top-of-mind objective.
To reinforce Canada’s role as a trusted supply chain partner for our allies, Budget 2023 took action to mobilize private investment and grow Canada’s economy towards net-zero. These investments are growing Canada’s economic capacity in industries across the economy, while simultaneously reducing Canada’s emissions and strengthening our essential trading relationships.
Eradicating Forced Labour from Canadian Supply Chains
Canada is gravely concerned by the ongoing human rights violations against Uyghurs and Muslim minorities in China, as well as by the use of forced labour around the world.
Budget 2024 reaffirms the federal government’s commitment to introduce legislation in 2024 to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and to strengthen the import ban on goods produced with forced labour. The government will also work to ensure existing legislation fits within the overall framework to safeguard our supply chains.
This will build on funding committed in the 2023 Fall Economic Statement that, starting January 1, 2024, supports the requirement for annual reporting from public and private entities to demonstrate measures they have taken to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour is used in their supply chains.
…
Before moving on to an interesting analysis of the defence portion of the 2024 budget by someone else, here’s a link to the national defence policy, Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence, which was released on April 8, 2024 just days before the April 16, 2024 release date for this latest federal budget.
It seems there was a shift in policy during the nine-day interval. From Murray Brewster’s April 16, 2024 article for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) news online website, Note: Links have been removed,
The new federal budget promises good things will happen at the Department of National Defence … next year, and hopefully in the years after.
The new fiscal plan, presented Tuesday by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, marks a subtle but significant shift from what was proposed in last week’s long-awaited defence policy [emphasis mine], which committed to spending an additional $8.1 billion on defence.
The funding envelope in the budget earmarks the same amount but includes not only the defence department but proposed spending on both the Communications Security Establishment — the country’s electronic spy agency — and Global Affairs Canada. [emphases mine]
While the overall defence budget is expected to increase marginally in the current fiscal year to $33.8 billion, defence experts told CBC News that when the internal cost-cutting exercise ordered by the Liberal government and the new defence policy are factored in, the military can expect roughly $635 million less this year [emphasis mine] than was anticipated before spending restraint kicked in.
Freeland’s fiscal plan projects a 30 per cent increase in defence spending in the next fiscal year, bringing it to $44.2 billion.
…
This is how I understand what Brewster is saying:
2024/25 defence budget as listed is $33.8B
Not all of this money is going directly to defence (the Communications Security Establishment and Global Affairs Canada will be partaking)
the defence department has been ordered to cut costs
so, there will be $635M less than defence might have expected
in 2025/26 defence spending will be increased to $44.2 billion, whatever that means
That’s quite the dance and Brewster’s April 16, 2024 article points out at least one more weakness,
Sahir Khan, the executive vice-president of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, said he would love to see the specifics.
“That’s one of the difficulties, I think, with this government is we have seen a lot of aspiration, but not always the perspiration,” said Khan, a former deputy parliamentary budget officer. “What is the plan to achieve the results?”
The politically charged promise to increase Canada’s defence spending to 1.76 per cent of the gross domestic product by the end of the decade could be left in doubt when the spending plans are laid alongside the budget’s economic projections during that time frame.
Generally, the better the economy does, the more the defence budget would have to be increased to meet the target.
“It’s really unclear how we actually get to 1.76 per cent of GDP, if you take the figures that are presented which outline how spending is going to increase,” said Dave Perry, a defence expert and president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
“You can’t put that against the nominal GDP projection provided in the budget” and then add in other government departments, such as Veterans Affairs Canada, “and get anywhere close” to the GDP projection in the defence policy, he said.
About five weeks after the budget was released, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau received a letter, from a May 23, 2024 article by Alexander Panetta for CBC News online,
Nearly one-quarter of the members of the United States Senate have sent an unusually critical letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressing dismay over Canada’s level of defence spending.
They pressed Trudeau to come to this summer’s NATO summit with a plan to fulfil Canada’s commitment to reach the alliance’s longstanding spending target.
The letter from 23 members of the U.S. Senate, from both parties, represents a dramatic and public escalation of pressure from Washington over a longstanding bilateral irritant.
…
That written critique [letter] comes just days after Defence Minister Bill Blair completed what he referred to as a productive trip to Washington to promote Canada’s new military strategy.
“We are concerned and profoundly disappointed,” says the letter, referring to the spending levels in the strategy Blair came to promote.
A bipartisan pair of U.S. senators say they expect Canada and the U.S. to work collaboratively on shared issues of defence and the border, but suggested Ottawa’s policies on military spending need to change to speed up progress.
Speaking to Mercedes Stephenson from the Halifax International Security Forum in an interview that aired Sunday on The West Block, Republican Sen. James Risch of Idaho and Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire downplayed concerns that incoming president-elect Donald Trump will penalize Canada on things like trade if it doesn’t step up on defence spending.
…
As far as I’m concerned, this budget offers some moderate gains from a science and technology perspective and with regard to military spending, it seems a little lacklustre overall and with regard to military research, that might be called nonexistent.
I almost missed the briefing but the folks at the US National Science Foundation (NSF) kindly allowed me to join the meeting despite being 10 minutes late. Before launching into my comments, here’s what we were discussing,
From a September 20, 2023 NSF media briefing (received via email),
U. S. National Science Foundation Media Briefing on the Inaugural Global Centers Awards
Please join the U.S. National Science Foundation this Wednesday September 20th from 12:30 – 1:30 p.m. ESTfor a discussion and Q&A on the inaugural Global Centers Competition awards. Earlier this week, NSF along with partner funding agencies from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom — announced awards totaling $76.4 million for the inaugural Global Centers Competition. These international, interdisciplinary collaborative research centers will apply best practices of broadening participation and community engagement to develop use-inspired research on climate change and clean energy. The centers will also create and promote opportunities for students and early-career researchers to gain education and training in world-class research while enhancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
NSF will have a panel of experts on hand to discuss and answer questions about these new Global Centers and how they will sync talent across the globe to generate the discoveries and solutions needed to empower resilient communities everywhere.
What: Panel discussion and Q&A on NSF’s Global Centers
When: 12:30 – 1:30 p.m. EST, Wednesday, September 20th, 2023
Where: This briefing [is over.]
Who: Scheduled panelists include…
Anne Emig is the Section Chief for the Programs and Analysis Section in the National Science Foundation Office of International Science and Engineering
Dr. Tanya Berger-Wolf is the Principal Investigator for the Global Centers Track 1 project on AI and Biodiversity Change as well as the Director of the Translational Data Analytics Institute and a Professor of Computer Science Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology at the Ohio State University
Dr. Meng Tao is the Principal Investigator for the Global Centers Track 1 project Global Hydrogen Production Technologies Center as well as a Professor, School of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering at Arizona State University
Dr. Ashish Sharma is the Principal Investigator for the Global Centers Track 1 project Clean Energy and Equitable Transportation Solutions as well as the Climate and Urban Sustainability Lead at the Discovery Partners Institute, University of Illinois System
Note: This briefing is only open to members of the media
I’m glad to have learned about this effort and applaud the NSF for its outreach efforts. By comparison, Canadian agencies (I’m looking at you, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada [NSERC] and Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada [SSHRC]) have a lot to learn.
Today [September 18, 2023], the U.S. National Science Foundation — along with partner funding agencies from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom — announced awards totaling $76.4 million for the inaugural Global Centers Competition. These international, interdisciplinary collaborative research centers will apply best practices of broadening participation and community engagement to develop use-inspired research on climate change and clean energy. The centers will also create and promote opportunities for students and early-career researchers to gain education and training in world-class research while enhancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
“NSF builds capacity and advances its priorities through these centers of research excellence by uniting diverse teams from around the world,” said NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan. “Global Centers will sync talent across the globe to generate the discoveries and solutions needed to empower resilient communities everywhere.”
Global Centers are sponsored in part by a multilateral funding activity led by NSF and four partner funding organizations: Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), and the United Kingdom’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
Both collectively and independently, the centers will support convergent interdisciplinary research collaborations focused on assessing and mitigating the impacts of climate change on society, people, and communities. Outcomes from Global Centers’ activities will inform and catalyze the development of innovative solutions and technologies to address climate change. Examples include: enhancing awareness of critical information; advancing and advocating for decarbonization efforts; creating climate change adaptation plans tailored to specific localities and groups; using artificial intelligence to study responses of nature to climate change; transboundary water issues; and scaling the production of next-generation technologies aimed at achieving net zero. Several projects include partnerships with tribal groups or historically Black colleges and universities that will broaden participation.
“The National Science Foundation Global Centres initiative provides students and researchers a platform to advance innovative and interdisciplinary research and gain education and training opportunities in world-class research while also enhancing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility,” said NSERC President Alejandro Adem. “We at NSERC look forward to seeing the outcomes of the work being done by some of Canada and the world’s best and brightest minds to tackle one of the biggest issues of our time.”
The awards are divided into two tracks. Track 1 are Implementation grants with co-funding from international partners. Track 2 are Design grants meant to provide seed funding to develop the teams and the science for future competitions. Many additional countries are involved in Track 2 and will increase global engagement.
There are seven Track 1 Global Centers that involve research partnerships with Australia, Canada, and the U.K. Each Track 1 Global Center will be implemented by internationally dispersed teams consisting of U.S. and foreign researchers. U.S. researchers will be supported by NSF up to $5 million over four to five years, while foreign researchers will be supported by their respective country’s funding agency (CSIRO, NSERC, SSHRC and UKRI) with a comparable amount of funds.
There are 14 Track 2 Global Centers that are at the community-driven design stage. These centers’ teams involve U.S. researchers in partnerships with foreign researchers from any country. NSF will provide the U.S. researchers up to $250,000 of seed funding over a two-year period. These multidisciplinary, international teams will coordinate the research and education efforts needed to become competitive for Track-1 funding in the future.
“Our combined investment in Global Centers enables exciting researcher and innovation-led international and interdisciplinary collaboration to drive the energy transition,” said UKRI CEO, Dame Ottoline Leyser. “I look forward to seeing the creative solutions developed through these global collaborations.”
Kirsten Rose, Acting Chief Executive of CSIRO, said as Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO is proud to be part of a strong national contribution to solving this critical global challenge. “Partnering with the NSF’s Global Centers means Australia remains at the global forefront of work to build a clean hydrogen industry, build integrated and equitable energy systems, and partnering with regions and industries for a low emissions future.”
Track 1 (Implementation)
Global Hydrogen Production Technologies (HyPT) Center Grant number: 2330525 Arizona State University and U.S. partner institutions: University of Michigan, Stanford University and Navajo Technical University. Quadrilateral research partnership with Australia, Canada, and the U.K. Critical and Emerging Tech: green hydrogen (renewable energy generation).
Electric Power Innovation for a Carbon-free Society (EPICS) Grant number: 2330450 The Johns Hopkins University and U.S. partner institutions: Georgia Institute of Technology, University of California, Davis, and Resources for the Future. Trilateral research partnership with Australia and the U.K. Critical and Emerging Tech: renewable energy storage.
Global Nitrogen Innovation Center for Clean Energy and Environment (NICCEE) Grant number: 2330502 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences and U.S. partner institutions: New York University and University of Massachusetts Amherst. Trilateral research partnership with Canada and the U.K. Critical & Emerging Tech: green ammonia (bioeconomy + agriculture).
Understanding Climate Change Impacts on Transboundary Waters Grant number: 2330317 University of Michigan and U.S. partner institutions: Cornell University, College of the Menominee Nation, Red Lake Nation and University of Wisconsin–Madison. Bilateral research partnership with Canada. Critical and Emerging Tech: N/A.
AI and Biodiversity Change (ABC) Grant number: 2330423 The Ohio State University and U.S. partner institutions: University of Pittsburgh and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bilateral Research partnership with Canada. Critical and Emerging Tech: AI.
U.S.-Canada Center on Climate-Resilient Western Interconnected Grid Grant number: 2330582 The University of Utah and U.S. partner institutions: University of California San Diego, The University of New Mexico, and The Nevada System of Higher Education. Bilateral Research partnership with Canada. Critical and Emerging Tech: AI.
Clean Energy and Equitable Transportation Solutions Grant number: 2330565 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and U.S. partner institutions: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and Arizona State University. Bilateral Research partnership with the U.K. Critical and Emerging Tech: N/A
Track 2 (Design)
Developing Solutions to Decarbonize Emissions and Fuels Grant number: 2330509 University of Maryland, College Park. International collaboration with Japan, Israel, and Ghana.
Enhanced Wind Turbine Blade Durability Grant number: 2329911 Cornell University. International collaboration with Canada, the UK, Norway, Denmark, and Spain.
Building the Global Center for Forecasting Freshwater Futures Grant number: 2330211 Virginia Tech. International collaboration with Australia.
Climate Risk and Resilience: Southeast Asia as a Living Lab (SEALL) Grant number: 2330308 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. International collaboration with Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and India.
Climate-Smart Food-Energy-Water Nexus in Small Farms Grant number: 2330505 The University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture. International collaboration with Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Panama, Cambodia, and Uganda.
Center for Household Energy and Thermal Resilience (HEaTR) Grant number: 2330533 Cornell University. International collaboration with India, the U.K, Ghana, and Singapore.
Enabling interdisciplinary wildfire research for community resilience Grant number: 2330343 Oregon State University. International collaborations with Australia and the U.K.
SuReMin: Sustainable, resilient, responsible global minerals supply chain Grant number: 2330041 Northwestern University. International collaboration with Chile.
Nature-based Urban Hydrology Center Grant number: 2330413 Villanova University. International collaboration with Canada, the U.K, Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, Chile, and Turkey.
A multi-disciplinary framework to combat climate-induced desert locust upsurges, outbreaks, and plagues in East Africa Grand number: 2330452 Georgia State University. International collaboration with Ethiopia.
US-Africa Research Center for Clean Energy Grant number: 2330437 Georgia Institute of Technology. International collaborations with Rwanda.
Equitable and User-Centric Energy Market for Resilient Grid-interactive Communities Grant number: 2330504 Santa Clara University. International collaboration with Canada.
Energy Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples (ESIP) Grant number: 2330387 University of North Dakota. International collaboration with Canada.
Blue Climate Solutions Grant number: 2330518 University of Rhode Island. International collaboration with Indonesia.
For Canadian researchers who are interested, there’s a National Science Foundation Global Centres webpage on the NSERC website, which answers a lot of questions about the programme from a Canadian perspective. The application deadline for both tracks was May 10, 2023 and there’s no information (as of September 20, 2023) about future competitions. Nice to see the social science and humanities included in the form of a funding agency. (I think this might be the one compliment I deliver to a Canadian funding initiative this year. 🙂
News about local and international affairs (see Seth Borenstein’s September 20, 2023 Associated Press article “UN chief warns of ‘gates of hell’ in climate summit, but carbon polluting nations stay silent”) and one’s own personal experience with climate issues can be discouraging at times so it’s heartening to see these efforts. Kudos to the organizers of the Global Centers programme and I wish all the researchers success.
Given how new these centers are, it’s understandable that the panelists would be a little fuzzy about specific although they’ve clearly considered and are attempting to address issues such as sharing data, trust, and outreach to various stakeholders and communities.
I wish I’d asked about cybersecurity when they were talking about data. Ah well, there was my question about outreach to people over the age of 50 or 55 as so much of their planning was focused on youth. The panelists who responded (Dr. Tanya Berger-Wolf, Dr. Meng Tao, and Dr. Ashish Sharma) did not seem to have done much thinking about seniors/elders/older people.
I believe bird watching (as mentioned by one of the panelists) does tend to attract older people but citizen science or other hobbies/programmes mentioned may or may not be a good source for seniors outreach. Almost all science outreach tilts to youth including citizen science.
With the planet is not doing so well and with the aging populations in Canada, the US, many European countries, China, Japan, and I’m sure many others perhaps some new thinking about ‘inclusivity’ might be in order. One suggestion, start thinking about age groups. In the same way that 20 is not 30, is not 40, so 55 is not 65, is not 75. One more thing, perhaps take into account life experience. Something that gets forgotten is that a lot of the programmes that people take for granted and a lot of the technology people use today was developed in the 1960s (e.g. Internet). That old person? Maybe it’s someone who founded the UN’s Environment Program (I was teaching a nanotechnology course in a seniors programme and asked students about themselves; I was intimidated by her credentials).
In the end, this Global Center initiative is heartening news.
I have two news releases about this reseach, one from March 2023 focused on the technology and one from May 2023 focused on the graffiti.
Simon Fraser University (SFU) and the technology
While this looks like an impressionist painting (to me), I believe it’s a still from the spatial reality capture of the temple the researchers were studying,
Photo Credit: Simon Fraser University
A March 30, 2023 news item on phys.org announces the latest technology for research on Egyptian graffiti (Note: A link has been removed),
Simon Fraser University [SFU; Canada] researchers are learning more about ancient graffiti—and their intriguing comparisons to modern graffiti—as they produce a state-of-the-art 3D recording of the Temple of Isis in Philae, Egypt.
Working with the University of Ottawa, the researchers published their early findings in Egyptian Archaeology and have returned to Philae to advance the project.
“It’s fascinating because there are similarities with today’s graffiti,” says SFU geography professor Nick Hedley, co-investigator of the project. “The iconic architecture of ancient Egypt was built by those in positions of power and wealth, but the graffiti records the voices and activities of everybody else. The building acts like a giant sponge or notepad for generations of people from different cultures for over 2,000 years.”
As an expert in spatial reality capture, Hedley leads the team’s innovative visualization efforts, documenting the graffiti, their architectural context, and the spaces they are found in using advanced methods like photogrammetry, raking light, and laser scanning. “I’m recording reality in three-dimensions — the dimensionality in which it exists,” he explains.
With hundreds if not thousands of graffiti, some carved less than a millimeter deep on the temple’s columns, walls, and roof, precision is essential.
Typically, the graffiti would be recorded through a series of photographs — a step above hand-drawn documents — allowing researchers to take pieces of the site away and continue working.
Sabrina Higgins, an SFU archaeologist and project co-investigator, says photographs and two-dimensional plans do not allow the field site to be viewed as a dynamic, multi-layered, and evolving space. “The techniques we are applying to the project will completely change how the graffiti, and the temple, can be studied,” she says.
Hedley is moving beyond basic two-dimensional imaging to create a cutting-edge three-dimensional recording of the temple’s entire surface. This will allow the interior and exterior of the temple, and the graffiti, to be viewed and studied at otherwise impossible viewpoints, from virtually anywhere— without compromising detail.
This three-dimensional visualization will also enable researchers to study the relationship between a figural graffito, any graffiti that surrounds it, and its location in relation to the structure of temple architecture.
While this is transformative for viewing and studying the temple and its inscriptions, Hedley points to the big-picture potential of applying spatial reality capture technology to the field of archaeology, and beyond.
“Though my primary role in this project is to help build the definitive set of digital wall plans for the Mammisi at Philae, I’m also demonstrating how emerging spatial reality capture methods can fundamentally change how we gather and produce data and transform our ability to interpret and analyze these spaces. This is a space to watch!” says Hedley.
Did Hedley mean to make a pun with the comment used to end the news release? I hope so.
University of Ottawa and ancient Egyptian graffiti
Egypt’s Philae temple complex is one of the country’s most famed archeological sites. It is dedicated to the goddess Isis, who was one of the most important deities in ancient Egyptian religion. The main temple is a stunning example of the country’s ancient architecture, with its towering columns and detailed carvings depicting Isis and other gods.
In a world-first,The Philae Temple Graffiti Project research team was able to digitally capture the temple’s graffiti by recording and studying a novel group of neglected evidence for personal religious piety dating to the Graeco-Roman and Late Antique periods. By using advanced recording techniques, like photogrammetry and laser scanning, researchers were able to create a photographic recording of the graffiti, digitizing them in 3D to fully capture their details and surroundings.
“This is not only the first study of circa 400 figural graffiti from one of the most famous temples in Egypt, the Isis temple at Philae,” explains project director Dr. Jitse H.F. Dijkstra, a professor of Classics in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa (uOttawa). “It is the first to use advanced, cutting-edge methods to record these signs of personal piety in an accurate manner and within their architectural context. This is digital humanities in action.”
Professor Dijkstra collaborates in the project with co-investigators Nicholas Hedley, a geography professor at Simon Fraser University (SFU), Sabrina Higgins, an archaeologist and art historian also at SFU, and Roxanne Bélanger Sarrazin, a uOttawa alumna, now a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Oslo.
Temple walls reveal their messages
The newly available state-of-the-art technology has allowed the team to uncover hundreds of 2,000-year-old figural graffiti (a type of graffito consisting of figures or images rather than symbols or text) on the Isis temple’s walls. They have also been able to study them from vantage points that would otherwise have been difficult to reach.
Today, graffiti are seen as an art form that serves as a means of communication, to mark a name or ‘tag,’ or to leave a reference to one’s presence at a given site. The 2,000-year-old graffiti of ancient civilisations served a similar purpose. The research team has found drawings – some carved only 1mm deep – of feet, animals, deities and other figures meant to express the personal religious piety of the maker in the temple complex.
Using 3D renderings of the interior and exterior of the temple, the team gained detailed knowledge about where the graffiti are found on the walls, and their meaning. Although the majority of the graffiti are intended to ask for divine protection, others were playful gameboards; Old Egyptian temples functioned as a focus of worship and more ephemeral activities.
A first for this UNESCO heritage site, the innovative fieldwork is at the forefront of Egyptian archaeology and digital humanities (which explores human interactions and culture).
“What ancient Egyptian graffiti have in common with modern graffiti is they are left in places not originally foreseen for that purpose,” adds Professor Dijkstra. “The big difference, however, is that ancient Egyptian graffiti were left by individuals at temples in order to receive divine protection forever, which is why we find hundreds of graffiti on every Egyptian temple’s walls.”
The Philae Temple Graffiti Project was initiated in 2016 under the aegis of the Philae Temple Text Project of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research on Ancient Egypt, Cairo. It is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and aims to study the figural graffiti from one of the most spectacular temple complexes of Egypt, Philae, in order to better understand the daily practice of the goddess’ worship.
The study’s first findings were published in Egyptian Archeology
Fascinatingly for a project where new technology has been vital, the work has been published in a periodical (Egyptian Archaeology) that is not available online. It is published by the Egypt Exploration Society (EES) which also produces the similarly titled “Journal of Egyptian Archaeology”.
You can purchase the relevant issue of “Egyptian Archaeology” here. The EES describes it as a “… full-colour magazine, reporting on current excavations, surveys and research in Egypt and Sudan, showcasing the work of the EES as well as of other missions and researchers.”
Here’s a citation for the article,
Figures that Matter: Graffiti of the Isis Temple at Philae by Roxanne Bélanger Sarrazin, Jitse Dijkstra, Nicholas Hedley and Sabrina Higgins. Egyptian Archaeology, Spring 2022, [issue no.] 60.
Government of Canada launches Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System
Members to recommend enhancements to system to position Canadian researchers for success
October 6, 2022 – Ottawa, Ontario
Canada’s success is in large part due to our world-class researchers and their teams who are globally recognized for unleashing bold new ideas, driving technological breakthroughs and addressing complex societal challenges. The Government of Canada recognizes that for Canada to achieve its full potential, support for science and research must evolve as Canadians push beyond what is currently imaginable and continue to find Canadian-made solutions to the world’s toughest problems.
Today [October 6, 2022], the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Health, launched the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System. Benefiting from the insights of leaders in the science, research and innovation ecosystem, the panel will provide independent, expert policy advice on the structure, governance and management of the federal system supporting research and talent. This will ensure that Canadian researchers are positioned for even more success now and in the future.
As the COVID-19 pandemic and climate crisis have shown, addressing the world’s most pressing challenges requires greater collaboration within the Canadian research community, government and industry, as well as with the international community. A cohesive and agile research support system will ensure Canadian researchers can quickly and effectively respond to the questions of today and tomorrow. Optimizing Canada’s research support system will equip researchers to transcend disciplines and borders, seize new opportunities and be responsive to emerging needs and interests to improve Canadians’ health, well-being and prosperity.
Quotes
“Canada is known for world-class research thanks to the enormous capabilities of our researchers. Canadian researchers transform curiosity into bold new ideas that can significantly enhance Canadians’ lives and well-being. With this advisory panel, our government will ensure our support for their research is just as cutting-edge as Canada’s science and research community.” – The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry
“Our priority is to support Canada’s world-class scientific community so it can respond effectively to the challenges of today and the future. That’s why we are leveraging the expertise and perspectives of a newly formed advisory panel to maximize the impact of research and downstream innovation, which contributes significantly to Canadians’ well-being and prosperity.” – The Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Health
Quick facts
The Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System has seven members, including the Chair. The members were selected by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Health. The panel will consult with experts and stakeholders to draw on their diverse experiences, expertise and opinions.
Since 2016, the Government of Canada has committed more than $14 billion to support research and science across Canada.
Here’s a list of advisory panel members I’ve assembled from the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System: Member biographies webpage,
Frédéric Bouchard (Chair) is Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the Université de Montréal, where he has been a professor of philosophy of science since 2005.
Janet Rossant is a Senior Scientist Emeritus in the Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, the Hospital for Sick Children and a Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto’s Department of Molecular Genetics.
[Gilles Patry] is Professor Emeritus and President Emeritus at the University of Ottawa. Following a distinguished career as a consulting engineer, researcher and university administrator, Gilles Patry is now a consultant and board director [Royal Canadian Mint].
Yolande E. Chan joined McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management as Dean and James McGill Professor in 2021. Her research focuses on innovation, knowledge strategy, digital strategy, digital entrepreneurship, and business-IT alignment.
Laurel Schafer is a Professor at the Department of Chemistry at the University of British Columbia. Her research focuses on developing novel organometallic catalysts to carry out difficult transformations in small molecule organic chemistry.
Vianne Timmons is the President and Vice-Chancellor of Memorial University of Newfoundland since 2020. She is a nationally and internationally recognized researcher and advocate in the field of inclusive education.
Dr. Baljit Singh is a highly accomplished researcher, … . He began his role as Vice-President Research at the University of Saskatchewan in 2021, after serving as Dean of the University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (2016 – 2020), and as Associate Dean of Research at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan (2010 – 2016).
Nobody from the North. Nobody who’s worked there or lived there or researched there. It’s not the first time I’ve noticed a lack of representation for the North.
Canada’s golden triangle (Montréal, Toronto, Ottawa) is well represented and, as is often the case, there’s representation for other regions: one member from the Prairies, one member from the Maritimes or Atlantic provinces, and one member from the West.
The mandate indicates they could have five to eight members. With seven spots filled, they could include one more member, one from the North.
Even if they don’t add an eighth member, I’m not ready to abandon all hope for involvement from the North when there’s this, from the mandate,
Communications and deliverables
In pursuing its mandate, and to strengthen its advice, the panel may engage with experts and stakeholders to expand access [emphasis mine] to diverse experience, expertise and opinion, and enhance members’ understanding of the topics at hand.
To allow for frank and open discussion, internal panel deliberations among members will be closed.
The panel will deliver a final confidential report by December 2022 [emphasis mine] to the Ministers including recommendations and considerations regarding the modernization of the research support system. A summary of the panel’s observations on the state of the federal research support system may be made public once its deliberations have concluded. The Ministers may also choose to seek confidential advice and/or feedback from the panel on other issues related to the research system.
The panel may also be asked to deliver an interim confidential report to the Ministers by November 2022 [emphases mine], which will provide the panel’s preliminary observations up to that point.
it seems odd there’s no mention of the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy. It’s my understanding that the funding goes directly from the federal government to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), which then distributes the funds. There are other unmentioned science funding agencies, e.g., the National Research Council of Canada and Genome Canada, which (as far as I know) also receive direct funding. It seems that the panel will not be involved in a comprehensive review of Canada’s research support ecosystem.
Plus, I wonder why everything is being kept ‘confidential’. According the government news release, the panel is tasked with finding ways of “optimizing Canada’s research support system.” Do they have security concerns or is this a temporary state of affairs while the government analysts examine the panel’s report?
Imagine a summer camp where you can watch grizzly bears catch salmon in streams, while learning about the migration and preparation of the fish hovering in the water at your feet.
Welcome to the Salmon Science Camp for Nisga’a youth, run by Dr. Andrea Reid (she/her), principal investigator of the Centre for Indigenous Fisheries at UBC. With new funding from the multi-institutional $24 million Ărramăt Project, Dr. Reid plans to expand these camps and open doors to scientific learning.
What are the Salmon Science camps?
We started these camps in 2016, with funding from the Gingolx Village Government Education Department and NSERC [Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada] Indigenous Science Ambassadors Program, focusing on Nisga’a Nation youth aged four to 17 years old in Gingolx, my grandmother’s home village in British Columbia, at the base of the Alaska Panhandle. Each summer since, we charter boats and hire buses to get young people out onto the land and water where they follow the salmon life cycle, through all parts of the watershed from spawning grounds to the ocean and back again.
They learn to identify plants and animals, meet technicians working for the Nisga’a fisheries and wildlife department, learn from Elders who carry important stories about hoon (salmon) and how we care for them, and get to play and experiment with different scientific tools, from radio telemetry technology to underwater drones to water testing toolkits!
The Gingolx Village Government education manager Renee Garner said youth return from a day on the water feeling connected to one another. One student told her they had learned how the spirit bear got its name: fish cannot see their paws in the water, making them like ghosts and great hunters, something she would never forget.
What will the Ărramăt Project allow you to do?
Led by the University of Alberta, the Ărramăt Project is focused on strengthening human health and well-being through conservation and sustainable relationships with biodiversity. As one of 51 co-applicants from around the world on the recent New Frontiers in Research Fund Transformation grant awarded to this Indigenous-led project, my work will include expanding the camps to involve youth from the three other Nisga’a Nation villages: Gitlaxt’aamiks, Gitwinksihlkw, and Laxgalts’ap. We also want to create exchanges with neighbouring Nations, so camp attendees can learn about their different relationships with fish, including preparation methods and how they differ across cultures and environmental contexts. These exchanges will also promote cross-cultural learning and relationship building, bringing Indigenous youth together from across the province. All our activities build on the fundamental idea that salmon health and human well-being are inextricably linked, and we all need to do our part to ensure a better future for us all.
Why are these camps important?
These camps open a door to science and immersive learning experiences for Indigenous youth that might not necessarily be available due to the location of Gingolx, and they get to see a whole range of Nisga’a citizens as experts and scientists. This might mean they begin to see science as a future avenue for themselves, and view caring for salmon in the way Nisga’a have always done as not only an act of stewardship, but a truly scientific practice that is based on observation, experimentation, and other systematic ways of building knowledge about the world in which we all live. The camps demonstrate for youth that Indigenous science is science – it’s just as valid and important as conventional academic knowledge.
Interview language(s): English (Reid)
Congratulations to Dr. Reid!
Funding—have patience, it gets more interesting
Anyone who reads my postings with regularity will know I don’t often give compliments to funding agencies or the Canadian federal government for that matter. This time I have to offer kudos.
Breaking it down
As the news release notes, the salmon science camps got their start in 2016 with the Gingolx Village Government Education Department and the NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Indigenous Science Ambassadors Program.
(I found two different webpages for the Gingolx (Village Government) Education Department, this and this.)
It’s not clear as to whether the salmon science camps will continue getting the Gingolx/NSERC money now that a new agency and a new funding programme have become involved.
New agency
As noted in the news release, the Ărramăt Project (led by the University of Alberta) is funded under the New Frontiers in Research Fund, which itself was launched in 2018. From the About the New Frontiers in Research Fund webpage, Note: Links have been removed,
Launched in 2018, the New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF) funds interdisciplinary, high-risk / high-reward, transformative research led by Canadian researchers working with Canadian and international partners. The NFRF is designed to support world-leading innovation and enhance Canada’s competitiveness and expertise in the global, knowledge-based economy.
This fund seeks to inspire innovative research projects that push boundaries into exciting new areas and that have the potential to deliver game-changing impacts.
To meet its goals, the NFRF program is innovative in its design and implementation. Its novel merit review processes reflect the objectives of each funding opportunity, and the program offers flexibility in the use of grant funds to support international collaboration.
The NFRF is under the strategic direction of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee. It is administered by the Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat, which is housed within the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), on behalf of Canada’s three federal research funding agencies: SSHRC, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR] and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
The NFRF has a budget of $275 million over five years (2018-19 to 2022-23), and will grow to have an annual budget of $124 million beginning in 2023-24.
The NFRF is split into four streams: Exploration, Transformation, International, and Special Calls. The Ărramăt Project has been funded as part of the Transformation stream. (For more about the Canada Research Coordinating Committee, the NFRF, and funding opportunities, go here, scroll down and you’ll see what you’re looking for on the right side of the screen.)
“There are very few places left on earth where nature and Indigenous Peoples are not under stress. We urgently need solutions that can ensure health and well-being for future generations.” (Danika Billie Littlechild)
Biodiversity decline is a major issue in Canada and globally. Species extinctions, along with problems of land and water quality, are not just environmental issues. These losses are also leading to impacts on human health and well-being, particularly for Indigenous Peoples. As more and more lands, rivers, plants, and animals are lost and degraded, disease risks and food insecurity will become more common. Indigenous cultural practices, languages, and knowledges are threatened; however, they can also guide us towards necessary transformation.
“Conventional policy approaches don’t help us understand and address the linkages between environmental losses and human health problems like zoonotic diseases (e.g., COVID19). We have to get out of our disciplinary and bureaucratic silos and recognize that these ecological losses are interconnected to human health. They also cause economic and social stresses on families and communities.” (Brenda Parlee)
Ărramăt is a new project funded for 2021-2027 by the New Frontiers Research Fund Transformations Program (NFRF-T) in Canada, that is being launched in response to this global biodiversity and health crisis.
“The Ărramăt Project is about respecting the inherent dignity and interconnectedness of peoples and Mother Earth, life and livelihood, identity and expression, biodiversity and sustainability, and stewardship and well-being. Arramăt is a word from the Tamasheq language spoken by the Tuareg people of the Sahel and Sahara regions which reflects this holistic worldview.” (Mariam Wallet Aboubakrine)
Over 150 Indigenous organizations, universities, and other partners will work together to highlight the complex problems of biodiversity loss and its implications for health and well-being. The project Team will take a broad approach and be inclusive of many different worldviews and methods for research (i.e., intersectionality, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary). Activities will occur in 70 different kinds of ecosystems that are also spiritually, culturally, and economically important to Indigenous Peoples.
The project is led by Indigenous scholars and activists Danika Billie Littlechild (Carleton University), Mariam Wallet Aboubakrine (former President of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues), and Sherry Pictou (Dalhousie University). John O’Neil (former Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University) and Murray Humphries (Co-Director for the Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition, and Environment at McGill University), are also Co- Principal Investigators of the project. The University of Alberta is the lead institution for the project (led by Brenda Parlee, Nominated Principal Investigator).
“The research builds on the momentum and opportunities created in Treaties, by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two-Spirit People (MMIWG2S), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). We want to harness that momentum in ways that can create fundamental change to the status quo around biodiversity and health.” (Sherry Pictou)
Over half of the $24 mil research budget will go directly to Indigenous governments and organizations to lead their own work in ways that respect, protect, and elevate the knowledges and Indigenous ways of life. Cultural security and social justice for women and those of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ and ancestral gender diverse communities, will be central to the work of this Team as they address fundamental questions of common concern. How can food security be strengthened for Indigenous Peoples? What are Indigenous-led approaches to conservation that support wild species and agrobiodiversity? What are the best practices for decolonizing education and science? How can we include the voices of Indigenous youth? How can we address the widespread and recurring violence against Mother Earth and Indigenous Peoples? Can we foster healthier relationships to nature? How can we emotionally and spiritually heal from the stresses and losses caused by colonial practices (e.g., residential schools), land and resource development, and climate change?
The diversity of Indigenous Peoples, knowledges, and interdisciplinary Team expertise will be mobilized through the project to produce action at local to global scales of decision-making. Dene, Nisga’a (Canada), and Batwa (Uganda) aim to produce new models of conservation for ‘species at risk’ [emphasis mine]. Other groups such as the peoples of Treaty 8 and Treaty 3 (Canada), Yawanawà (Brazil), and Aymara (Bolivia) will focus on improving land and water security. Alternative economic and livelihood strategies (e.g., Indigenous Guardians) that benefit people and nature will be a focus for Indigenous Peoples in regions such as northern Canada, the Sahara and Sahel regions, and Thailand. The knowledge and customary strategies of Māori (Aotearoa-New Zealand) will contribute to the reconnection communities to their land and seascapes and regeneration of their cultural-ecological systems. The knowledges of Nêhiyawak (Cree), Sámi, and Tribal Peoples of India will be a foundation for action to rewild or restore cultural values and uses of other degraded landscapes. More than 140 projects will be funded on these and other themes over the 6 years.
“It is an honour and a profound responsibility to be part of this Indigenous-led project. It is unique from many other large projects in its embrace of governance models like ethical space, Indigenous research methodologies, and Indigenous Knowledges.” (John O’Neil)
“I am excited to see the work reveal how Indigenous Knowledges and stewardship practices define both the origins and contemporary centres of ecological research, biodiversity science, and conservation biology.” (Murray Humphries)
By 2027, the project will have produced a diversity of holistic and actionable solutions for improved stewardship and care for people and the planet.
“Strategies for biodiversity conservation have not historically been positive for Indigenous Peoples. They have a very small voice, if any, at the tables of decision-making. We don’t just want to be token members of the colonial structures that currently exist, we want to decolonize and Indigenize decisions about nature and health. Everyone needs to be accountable. We will not give up on Mother Earth and the possibility of renewing, strengthening, and elevating the health and well-being of Indigenous Peoples, their lands and waters, and all beings who rely upon them.” (Danika Billie Littlechild)
The compliments and getting back to the salmon science camps
The Ărramăt Project’s scope is breathtaking and necessary. Bravo!
I want to recognize the funding agencies (SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR). Bravo!
Plus the Gingolx Village Government Education Department. Bravo!
Federal support for research is an investment by the people of Canada [emphasis mine]. It is important for taxpayers to know how research dollars are being spent. By demonstrating the value of your research, New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF) award recipients help strengthen public understanding of and support for high-risk, high-reward, interdisciplinary and international research.
…
Finally, Brava Dr. Reid! I don’t imagine it was easy to start your project and keep it running.
Canadians and their government have a great deal to grapple with in regard to indigenous people and much of it quite ugly. This funding doesn’t negate the past or absolve anyone of their sins but it does point to new possibilities for our relationships with each other and with our planet. (For anyone unfamiliar with the history of the relationship between the Canadian government and its Indigenous peoples there’s this essay on Wikipedia. Also, here’s the Residential Schools in Canada essay in the Canadian Encyclopedia and and there’s more here on the federal government’s Residential schools in Canada webpage.)
Not to get too carried away with grand visions, here’s a science salmon camp video,
There seems to be an explosion (metaphorically and only by Canadian standards) of interest in public perceptions/engagement/awareness of artificial intelligence (see my March 29, 2021 posting “Canada launches its AI dialogues” and these dialogues run until April 30, 2021 plus there’s this April 6, 2021 posting “UNESCO’s Call for Proposals to highlight blind spots in AI Development open ’til May 2, 2021” which was launched in cooperation with Mila-Québec Artificial Intelligence Institute).
Now there’s this, in a March 31, 2020 Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) news release, four new projects were announced. (Admittedly these are not ‘public engagement’ exercises as such but the reports are publicly available and utilized by policymakers.) These are the two projects of most interest to me,
Information and communications technologies have profoundly changed almost every aspect of life and business in the last two decades. While the digital revolution has brought about many positive changes, it has also created opportunities for criminal organizations and malicious actors to target individuals, businesses, and systems.
This assessment will examine promising practices that could help to address threats to public safety related to the use of digital technologies while respecting human rights and privacy.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in science and engineering has the potential to radically transform the nature of scientific inquiry and discovery and produce a wide range of social and economic benefits for Canadians. But, the adoption of these technologies also presents a number of potential challenges and risks.
This assessment will examine the legal/regulatory, ethical, policy and social challenges related to the use of AI technologies in scientific research and discovery.
Sponsor: National Research Council Canada [NRC] (co-sponsors: CIFAR [Canadian Institute for Advanced Research], CIHR [Canadian Institutes of Health Research], NSERC [Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council], and SSHRC [Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council])
…
For today’s posting the focus will be on the AI project, specifically, the April 19, 2021 CCA news release announcing the project’s expert panel,
The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) has formed an Expert Panel to examine a broad range of factors related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in scientific research and discovery in Canada. Teresa Scassa, SJD, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy at the University of Ottawa, will serve as Chair of the Panel.
“AI and machine learning may drastically change the fields of science and engineering by accelerating research and discovery,” said Dr. Scassa. “But these technologies also present challenges and risks. A better understanding of the implications of the use of AI in scientific research will help to inform decision-making in this area and I look forward to undertaking this assessment with my colleagues.”
As Chair, Dr. Scassa will lead a multidisciplinary group with extensive expertise in law, policy, ethics, philosophy, sociology, and AI technology. The Panel will answer the following question:
What are the legal/regulatory, ethical, policy and social challenges associated with deploying AI technologies to enable scientific/engineering research design and discovery in Canada?
“We’re delighted that Dr. Scassa, with her extensive experience in AI, the law and data governance, has taken on the role of Chair,” said Eric M. Meslin, PhD, FRSC, FCAHS, President and CEO of the CCA. “I anticipate the work of this outstanding panel will inform policy decisions about the development, regulation and adoption of AI technologies in scientific research, to the benefit of Canada.”
The CCA was asked by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), along with co-sponsors CIFAR, CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC, to address the question. More information can be found here.
The Expert Panel on AI for Science and Engineering:
Teresa Scassa (Chair), SJD, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law (Ottawa, ON)
Julien Billot, CEO, Scale AI (Montreal, QC)
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Canada 150 Research Chair in New Media and Professor of Communication, Simon Fraser University (Burnaby, BC)
Marc Antoine Dilhac, Professor (Philosophy), University of Montreal; Director of Ethics and Politics, Centre for Ethics (Montréal, QC)
B. Courtney Doagoo, AI and Society Fellow, Centre for Law, Technology and Society, University of Ottawa; Senior Manager, Risk Consulting Practice, KPMG Canada (Ottawa, ON)
Abhishek Gupta, Founder and Principal Researcher, Montreal AI Ethics Institute (Montréal, QC)
Richard Isnor, Associate Vice President, Research and Graduate Studies, St. Francis Xavier University (Antigonish, NS)
Ross D. King, Professor, Chalmers University of Technology (Göteborg, Sweden)
Sabina Leonelli, Professor of Philosophy and History of Science, University of Exeter (Exeter, United Kingdom)
Raymond J. Spiteri, Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon, SK)
Who is the expert panel?
Putting together a Canadian panel is an interesting problem especially so when you’re trying to find people of expertise who can also represent various viewpoints both professionally and regionally. Then, there are gender, racial, linguistic, urban/rural, and ethnic considerations.
Statistics
Eight of the panelists could be said to be representing various regions of Canada. Five of those eight panelists are based in central Canada, specifically, Ontario (Ottawa) or Québec (Montréal). The sixth panelist is based in Atlantic Canada (Nova Scotia), the seventh panelist is based in the Prairies (Saskatchewan), and the eighth panelist is based in western Canada, (Vancouver, British Columbia).
The two panelists bringing an international perspective to this project are both based in Europe, specifically, Sweden and the UK.
(sigh) It would be good to have representation from another part of the world. Asia springs to mind as researchers in that region are very advanced in their AI research and applications meaning that their experts and ethicists are likely to have valuable insights.
Four of the ten panelists are women, which is closer to equal representation than some of the other CCA panels I’ve looked at.
As for Indigenous and BIPOC representation, unless one or more of the panelists chooses to self-identify in that fashion, I cannot make any comments. It should be noted that more than one expert panelist focuses on social justice and/or bias in algorithms.
Network of relationships
As you can see, the CCA descriptions for the individual members of the expert panel are a little brief. So, I did a little digging and In my searches, I noticed what seems to be a pattern of relationships among some of these experts. In particular, take note of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) and the AI Advisory Council of the Government of Canada.
Individual panelists
Teresa Scassa (Ontario) whose SJD designation signifies a research doctorate in law chairs this panel. Offhand, I can recall only one or two other panels being chaired by women of the 10 or so I’ve reviewed. In addition to her profile page at the University of Ottawa, she hosts her own blog featuring posts such as “How Might Bill C-11 Affect the Outcome of a Clearview AI-type Complaint?” She writes clearly (I didn’t seen any jargon) for an audience that is somewhat informed on the topic.
Mr. Billot is a member of the faculty at HEC Montréal [graduate business school of the Université de Montréal] as an adjunct professor of management and the lead for the CreativeDestructionLab (CDL) and NextAi program in Montreal.
Julien Billot has been President and Chief Executive Officer of Yellow Pages Group Corporation (Y.TO) in Montreal, Quebec. Previously, he was Executive Vice President, Head of Media and Member of the Executive Committee of Solocal Group (formerly PagesJaunes Groupe), the publicly traded and incumbent local search business in France. Earlier experience includes serving as CEO of the digital and new business group of Lagardère Active, a multimedia branch of Lagardère Group and 13 years in senior management positions at France Telecom, notably as Chief Marketing Officer for Orange, the company’s mobile subsidiary.
…
Mr. Billot is a graduate of École Polytechnique (Paris) and from Telecom Paris Tech. He holds a postgraduate diploma (DEA) in Industrial Economics from the University of Paris-Dauphine.
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun (British Columbia) has a profile on the Simon Fraser University (SFU) website, which provided one of the more interesting (to me personally) biographies,
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun is the Canada 150 Research Chair in New Media at Simon Fraser University, and leads the Digital Democracies Institute which was launched in 2019. The Institute aims to integrate research in the humanities and data sciences to address questions of equality and social justice in order to combat the proliferation of online “echo chambers,” abusive language, discriminatory algorithms and mis/disinformation by fostering critical and creative user practices and alternative paradigms for connection. It has four distinct research streams all led by Dr. Chun: Beyond Verification which looks at authenticity and the spread of disinformation; From Hate to Agonism, focusing on fostering democratic exchange online; Desegregating Network Neighbourhoods, combatting homophily across platforms; and Discriminating Data: Neighbourhoods, Individuals and Proxies, investigating the centrality of race, gender, class and sexuality [emphasis mine] to big data and network analytics.
…
I’m glad to see someone who has focused on ” … the centrality of race, gender, class and sexuality to big data and network analytics.” Even more interesting to me was this from her CV (curriculum vitae),
Professor, Department of Modern Culture and Media, Brown University, July 2010-June 2018
.•Affiliated Faculty, Multimedia & Electronic Music Experiments (MEME), Department of Music,2017.
•Affiliated Faculty, History of Art and Architecture, March 2012-
.•Graduate Field Faculty, Theatre Arts and Performance Studies, Sept 2008-.[sic]
….
[all emphases mine]
And these are some of her credentials,
Ph.D., English, Princeton University, 1999. •Certificate, School of Criticism and Theory, Dartmouth College, Summer 1995.
M.A., English, Princeton University, 1994.
B.A.Sc., Systems Design Engineering and English, University of Waterloo, Canada, 1992. •first class honours and a Senate Commendation for Excellence for being the first student to graduate from the School of Engineering with a double major
It’s about time the CCA started integrating some of kind of arts perspective into their projects. (Although, I can’t help wondering if this was by accident rather than by design.)
Marc Antoine Dilhac, an associate professor at l’Université de Montréal, he, like Billot, graduated from a French university, in his case, the Sorbonne. Here’s more from Dilhac’s profile on the Mila website,
Marc-Antoine Dilhac (Ph.D., Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) is a professor of ethics and political philosophy at the Université de Montréal and an associate member of Mila – Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute. He currently holds a CIFAR [Canadian Institute for Advanced Research] Chair in AI ethics (2019-2024), and was previously Canada Research Chair in Public Ethics and Political Theory 2014-2019. He specialized in theories of democracy and social justice, as well as in questions of applied ethics. He published two books on the politics of toleration and inclusion (2013, 2014). His current research focuses on the ethical and social impacts of AI and issues of governance and institutional design, with a particular emphasis on how new technologies are changing public relations and political structures.
In 2017, he instigated the project of the Montreal Declaration for a Responsible Development of AI and chaired its scientific committee. In 2020, as director of Algora Lab, he led an international deliberation process as part of UNESCO’s consultation on its recommendation on the ethics of AI.
In 2019, he founded Algora Lab, an interdisciplinary laboratory advancing research on the ethics of AI and developing a deliberative approach to the governance of AI and digital technologies. He is co-director of Deliberation at the Observatory on the social impacts of AI and digital technologies (OBVIA), and contributes to the OECD Policy Observatory (OECD.AI) as a member of its expert network ONE.AI.
He sits on the AI Advisory Council of the Government of Canada and co-chair its Working Group on Public Awareness.
Formerly known as Mila only, Mila – Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute is a beneficiary of the 2017 Canadian federal budget’s inception of the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, which named CIFAR as an agency that would benefit as the hub and would also distribute funds for artificial intelligence research to (mainly) three agencies: Mila in Montréal, the Vector Institute in Toronto, and the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (AMII; Edmonton).
Consequently, Dilhac’s involvement with CIFAR is not unexpected but when added to his presence on the AI Advisory Council of the Government of Canada and his role as co-chair of its Working Group on Public Awareness, one of the co-sponsors for this future CCA report, you get a sense of just how small the Canadian AI ethics and public awareness community is.
Add in CIFAR’s Open Dialogue: AI in Canada series (ongoing until April 30, 2021) which is being held in partnership with the AI Advisory Council of the Government of Canada (see my March 29, 2021 posting for more details about the dialogues) amongst other familiar parties and you see a web of relations so tightly interwoven that if you could produce masks from it you’d have superior COVID-19 protection to N95 masks.
These kinds of connections are understandable and I have more to say about them in my final comments.
B. Courtney Doagoo has a profile page at the University of Ottawa, which fills in a few information gaps,
As a Fellow, Dr. Doagoo develops her research on the social, economic and cultural implications of AI with a particular focus on the role of laws, norms and policies [emphasis mine]. She also notably advises Dr. Florian Martin-Bariteau, CLTS Director, in the development of a new research initiative on those topical issues, and Dr. Jason Millar in the development of the Canadian Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Ethical Design Lab (CRAiEDL).
Dr. Doagoo completed her Ph.D. in Law at the University of Ottawa in 2017. In her interdisciplinary research, she used empirical methods to learn about and describe the use of intellectual property law and norms in creative communities. Following her doctoral research, she joined the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Coordination Office in New York as a legal intern and contributed to developing the joint initiative on gender and innovation in collaboration with UNESCO and UN Women. She later joined the International Law Research Program at the Centre for International Governance Innovation as a Post-Doctoral Fellow, where she conducted research in technology and law focusing on intellectual property law, artificial intelligence and data governance.
Dr. Doagoo completed her LL.L. at the University of Ottawa, and LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law [a law school at Yeshiva University in New York City]. In between her academic pursuits, Dr. Doagoo has been involved with different technology start-ups, including the one she is currently leading aimed at facilitating access to legal services. She’s also an avid lover of the arts and designed a course on Arts and Cultural Heritage Law taught during her doctoral studies at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.
It’s probably because I don’t know enough but this “the role of laws, norms and policies” seems bland to the point of meaningless. The rest is more informative and brings it back to the arts with Wendy Hui Kyong Chun at SFU.
Doagoo’s LinkedIn profile offers an unexpected link to this expert panel’s chairperson, Teresa Scassa (in addition to both being lawyers whose specialties are in related fields and on faculty or fellow at the University of Ottawa),
Soft-funded Research Bursary
Dr. Teresa Scassa
2014
I’m not suggesting any conspiracies; it’s simply that this is a very small community with much of it located in central and eastern Canada and possible links into the US. For example, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, prior to her SFU appointment in December 2018, worked and studied in the eastern US for over 25 years after starting her academic career at the University of Waterloo (Ontario).
Abhishek Gupta provided me with a challenging search. His LinkedIn profile yielded some details (I’m not convinced the man sleeps), Note: I have made some formatting changes and removed the location, ‘Montréal area’ from some descriptions
Experience
Microsoft Graphic Software Engineer II – Machine Learning Microsoft
Jul 2018 – Present – 2 years 10 months
Machine Learning – Commercial Software Engineering team
Serves on the CSE Responsible AI Board
Founder and Principal Researcher Montreal AI Ethics Institute
May 2018 – Present – 3 years
Institute creating tangible and practical research in the ethical, safe and inclusive development of AI. For more information, please visit https://montrealethics.ai
Visiting AI Ethics Researcher, Future of Work, International Visitor Leadership Program U.S. Department of State
Aug 2019 – Present – 1 year 9 months
Selected to represent Canada on the future of work
Responsible AI Lead, Data Advisory Council Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
Jun 2020 – Present – 11 months
Faculty Associate, Frankfurt Big Data Lab Goethe University
Mar 2020 – Present – 1 year 2 months
Advisor for the Z-inspection project
Associate Member LF AI Foundation
May 2020 – Present – 1 year
Author MIT Technology Review
Sep 2020 – Present – 8 months
Founding Editorial Board Member, AI and Ethics Journal Springer Nature
Jul 2020 – Present – 10 months
…
Education
McGill University Bachelor of Science (BS)Computer Science
2012 – 2015
…
Exhausting, eh? He also has an eponymous website and the Montreal AI Ethics Institute can found here where Gupta and his colleagues are “Democratizing AI ethics literacy.” My hat’s off to Gupta getting on an expert panel for CCA is quite an achievement for someone without the usual academic and/or industry trappings.
Richard Isnor, based in Nova Scotia and associate vice president of research & graduate studies at St. Francis Xavier University (StFX), seems to have some connection to northern Canada (see the reference to Nunavut Research Institute below); he’s certainly well connected to various federal government agencies according to his profile page,
Prior to joining StFX, he was Manager of the Atlantic Regional Office for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), based in Moncton, NB. Previously, he was Director of Innovation Policy and Science at the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa and also worked for three years with the National Research Council of Canada [NRC] managing Biotechnology Research Initiatives and the NRC Genomics and Health Initiative.
Richard holds a D. Phil. in Science and Technology Policy Studies from the University of Sussex, UK; a Master’s in Environmental Studies from Dalhousie University [Nova Scotia]; and a B. Sc. (Hons) in Biochemistry from Mount Allison University [New Burnswick]. His primary interest is in science policy and the public administration of research; he has worked in science and technology policy or research administrative positions for Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Privy Council Office, as well as the Nunavut Research Institute. [emphasis mine]
I don’t know what Dr. Isnor’s work is like but I’m hopeful he (along with Spiteri) will be able to provide a less ‘big city’ perspective to the proceedings.
(For those unfamiliar with Canadian cities, Montreal [three expert panelists] is the second largest city in the country, Ottawa [two expert panelists] as the capital has an outsize view of itself, Vancouver [one expert panelist] is the third or fourth largest city in the country for a total of six big city representatives out of eight Canadian expert panelists.)
Ross D. King, professor of machine intelligence at Sweden’s Chalmers University of Technology, might be best known for Adam, also known as, Robot Scientist. Here’s more about King, from his Wikipedia entry (Note: Links have been removed),
King completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Microbiology at the University of Aberdeen in 1983 and went on to study for a Master of Science degree in Computer Science at the University of Newcastle in 1985. Following this, he completed a PhD at The Turing Institute [emphasis mine] at the University of Strathclyde in 1989[3] for work on developing machine learning methods for protein structure prediction.[7]
…
King’s research interests are in the automation of science, drug design, AI, machine learning and synthetic biology.[8][9] He is probably best known for the Robot Scientist[4][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] project which has created a robot that can:
hypothesize to explain observations
devise experiments to test these hypotheses
physically run the experiments using laboratory robotics
… a laboratory robot created and developed by a group of scientists including Ross King, Kenneth Whelan, Ffion Jones, Philip Reiser, Christopher Bryant, Stephen Muggleton, Douglas Kell and Steve Oliver.[2][6][7][8][9][10]
…
… Adam became the first machine in history to have discovered new scientific knowledge independently of its human creators.[5][17][18]
…
Sabina Leonelli, professor of philosophy and history of science at the University of Exeter, is the only person for whom I found a Twitter feed (@SabinaLeonelli). Here’s a bit more from her Wikipedia entry Note: Links have been removed),
…
Originally from Italy, Leonelli moved to the UK for a BSc degree in History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science at University College London and a MSc degree in History and Philosophy of Science at the London School of Economics. Her doctoral research was carried out in the Netherlands at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam with Henk W. de Regt and Hans Radder. Before joining the Exeter faculty, she was a research officer under Mary S. Morgan at the Department of Economic History of the London School of Economics.
Leonelli is the Co-Director of the Exeter Centre for the Study of the Life Sciences (Egenis)[3] and a Turing Fellow at the Alan Turing Institute [emphases mine] in London.[4] She is also Editor-in-Chief of the international journal History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences[5] and Associate Editor for the Harvard Data Science Review.[6] She serves as External Faculty for the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research.[7]
…
Notice that Ross King and Sabina Leonelli both have links to The Alan Turing Institute (“We believe data science and artificial intelligence will change the world”), although the institute’s link to the University of Strathclyde (Scotland) where King studied seems a bit tenuous.
Do check out Leonelli’s profile at the University of Exeter as it’s comprehensive.
Raymond J. Spiteri, professor and director of the Centre for High Performance Computing, Department of Computer Science at the University of Saskatchewan, has a profile page at the university the likes of which I haven’t seen in several years perhaps due to its 2013 origins. His other university profile page can best be described as minimalist.
Raymond Spiteri is a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Saskatchewan. He performed his graduate work as a member of the Institute for Applied Mathematics at the University of British Columbia. He was a post-doctoral fellow at McGill University and held faculty positions at Acadia University and Dalhousie University before joining USask in 2004. He serves on the Executive Committee of the WestGrid High-Performance Computing Consortium with Compute/Calcul Canada. He was a MITACS Project Leader from 2004-2012 and served in the role of Mitacs Regional Scientific Director for the Prairie Provinces between 2008 and 2011.
Spiteri’s areas of research are numerical analysis, scientific computing, and high-performance computing. His area of specialization is the analysis and implementation of efficient time-stepping methods for differential equations. He actively collaborates with scientists, engineers, and medical experts of all flavours. He also has a long record of industry collaboration with companies such as IBM and Boeing.
Spiteri has been lifetime member of CAIMS/SCMAI since 2000. He helped co-organize the 2004 Annual Meeting at Dalhousie and served on the Cecil Graham Doctoral Dissertation Award Committee from 2005 to 2009, acting as chair from 2007. He has been an active participant in CAIMS, serving several times on the Scientific Committee for the Annual Meeting, as well as frequently attending and organizing mini-symposia. Spiteri believes it is important for applied mathematics to play a major role in the efforts to meet Canada’s most pressing societal challenges, including the sustainability of our healthcare system, our natural resources, and the environment.
Another biographical note: I obtained my B.Sc. degree in Applied Mathematics from the University of Western Ontario [also known as, Western University] in 1990. My advisor was Dr. M.A.H. (Paddy) Nerenberg, after whom the Nerenberg Lecture Series is named. Here is an excerpt from the description, put here is his honour, as a model for the rest of us:
The Nerenberg Lecture Series is first and foremost about people and ideas. Knowledge is the true treasure of humanity, accrued and passed down through the generations. Some of it, particularly science and its language, mathematics, is closed in practice to many because of technical barriers that can only be overcome at a high price. These technical barriers form part of the remarkable fractures that have formed in our legacy of knowledge. We are so used to those fractures that they have become almost invisible to us, but they are a source of profound confusion about what is known.
The Nerenberg Lecture is named after the late Morton (Paddy) Nerenberg, a much-loved professor and researcher born on 17 March– hence his nickname. He was a Professor at Western for more than a quarter century, and a founding member of the Department of Applied Mathematics there. A successful researcher and accomplished teacher, he believed in the unity of knowledge, that scientific and mathematical ideas belong to everyone, and that they are of human importance. He regretted that they had become inaccessible to so many, and anticipated serious consequences from it. [emphases mine] The series honors his appreciation for the democracy of ideas. He died in 1993 at the age of 57.
So, we have the expert panel.
Thoughts about the panel and the report
As I’ve noted previously here and elsewhere, assembling any panels whether they’re for a single event or for a longer term project such as producing a report is no easy task. Looking at the panel, there’s some arts representation, smaller urban centres are also represented, and some of the members have experience in more than one region in Canada. I was also much encouraged by Spiteri’s acknowledgement of his advisor’s, Morton (Paddy) Nerenberg, passionate commitment to the idea that “scientific and mathematical ideas belong to everyone.”
Kudos to the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) organizers.
That said, this looks like an exceptionally Eurocentric panel. Unusually, there’s no representation from the US unless you count Chun who has spent the majority of her career in the US with only a little over two years at Simon Fraser University on Canada’s West Coast.
There’s weakness to a strategy (none of the ten or so CCA reports I’ve reviewed here deviates from this pattern) that seems to favour international participants from Europe and/or the US (also, sometimes, Australia/New Zealand). This leaves out giant chunks of the international community and brings us dangerously close to an echo chamber.
The same problem exists regionally and with various Canadian communities, which are acknowledged more in spirit than in actuality, e.g., the North, rural, indigenous, arts, etc.
Getting back to the ‘big city’ emphsais noted earlier, two people from Ottawa and three from Montreal; half of the expert panel lives within a two hour train ride of each other. (For those who don’t know, that’s close by Canadian standards. For comparison, a train ride from Vancouver to Seattle [US] is about four hours, a short trip when compared to a 24 hour train trip to the closest large Canadian cities.)
I appreciate that it’s not a simple problem but my concern is that it’s never acknowledged by the CCA. Perhaps they could include a section in the report acknowledging the issues and how the expert panel attempted to address them , in other words, transparency. Coincidentally, transparency, which has been related to trust, have both been identified as big issues with artificial intelligence.
As for solutions, these reports get sent to external reviewers and, prior to the report, outside experts are sometimes brought in as the panel readies itself. That would be two opportunities afforded by their current processes.
Anyway, good luck with the report and I look forward to seeing it.
This world-class symposium, the sixth event of its kind, will bring together a record number (1000+) of renowned Canadian and international experts from across the nanomedicines field to:
highlight the discoveries and innovations in nanomedicines that are contributing to global progress in acute, chronic and orphan disease treatment and management;
present up-to-date diagnostic and therapeutic nanomedicine approaches to addressing the challenges of COVID-19; and
facilitate discussion among nanomedicine researchers and innovators and UBC and NMIN clinician-scientists, basic researchers, trainees, and research partners.
Since 2014, Vancouver Nanomedicine Day has advanced nanomedicine research, knowledge mobilization and commercialization in Canada by sharing high-impact findings and facilitating interaction—among researchers, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and life science and startup biotechnology companies—to catalyze research collaboration.
[downloaded from https://www.nanomedicines.ca/nmd-2020/]
I have a few observations, First, Robert Langer is a big deal. Here are a few highlights from his Wikipedia entry (Note: Links have been removed),
Robert Samuel Langer, Jr. FREng[2] (born August 29, 1948) is an American chemical engineer, scientist, entrepreneur, inventor and one of the twelve Institute Professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[3]
…
Langer holds over 1,350 granted or pending patents.[3][29] He is one of the world’s most highly cited researchers, having authored nearly 1,500 scientific papers, and has participated in the founding of multiple technology companies.[30][31]
…
Langer is the youngest person in history (at 43) to be elected to all three American science academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. He was also elected as a charter member of National Academy of Inventors.[32] He was elected as an International Fellow[2] of the Royal Academy of Engineering[2] in 2010.
It’s all about commercializing the research—or is it?
(This second observation is a little more complicated and requires a little context.) The NMIN is one of Canada’s Networks of Centres of Excellence (who thought that name up? …sigh), from the NMIN About page,
The NCEs seem to be firmly fixed on finding pathways to commercialization (from the NCE About page) Note: All is not as it seems,
Canada’s global economic competitiveness [emphasis mine] depends on making new discoveries and transforming them into products, services [emphasis mine] and processes that improve the lives of Canadians. To meet this challenge, the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) offers a suite of programs that mobilize Canada’s best research, development and entrepreneurial [emphasis mine] expertise and focus it on specific issues and strategic areas.
NCE programs meet Canada’s needs to focus a critical mass of research resources on social and economic challenges, commercialize [emphasis mine] and apply more of its homegrown research breakthroughs, increase private-sector R&D, [emphasis mine] and train highly qualified people. As economic [emphasis mine] and social needs change, programs have evolved to address new challenges.
The fund will invest $275 million over the next 5 years beginning in fiscal 2018-19, and $65 million ongoing, to fund international, interdisciplinary, fast-breaking and high-risk research.
NFRF is composed of three streams to support groundbreaking research.
Exploration generates opportunities for Canada to build strength in high-risk, high-reward and interdisciplinary research;
Transformation provides large-scale support for Canada to build strength and leadership in interdisciplinary and transformative research; and
International enhances opportunities for Canadian researchers to participate in research with international partners.
As you can see there’s no reference to commercialization or economic challenges.
Personally
Here at last is the second observation, I find it hard to believe that the government of Canada has given up on the idea of commercializing research and increasing the country’s economic competitiveness through research. Certainly, Langer’s virtual appearance at Vancouver Nanomedicine Day 2020, suggests that at least some corners of the Canadian research establishment are remaining staunchly entrepreneurial.
After all, the only Canadian government ministry with science in its name is this one: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), as of Sept. 11, 2020.. (The other ‘science’ ministries are Natural Resources Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.) ISED is not exactly subtle. Intriguingly the latest review on the state of science and technology in Canada was released on April 10, 2018 (from the April 10, 2018 Council of Canadian Academies CCA] news release),
Canada remains strong in research output and impact, capacity for R&D and innovation at risk: New expert panel report
…
While Canada is a highly innovative country, with a robust research base and thriving communities of technology start-ups, significant barriers—such as a lack of managerial skills, the experience needed to scale-up companies, and foreign acquisition of high-tech firms—often prevent the translation of innovation into wealth creation.[emphasis mine] The result is a deficit of technology companies growing to scale in Canada, and a loss of associated economic and social benefits.This risks establishing a vicious cycle, where successful companies seek growth opportunities elsewhere due to a lack of critical skills and experience in Canada guiding companies through periods of rapid expansion.
…
According to the CCA’s [2018 report] Summary webpage, it was Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada which requested the report. (I wrote up a two-part commentary under one of my favourite titles: “The Hedy Lamarr of international research: Canada’s Third assessment of The State of Science and Technology and Industrial Research and Development in Canada.” Part 1 and Part 2)
I will be fascinated to watch the NFRF and science commercialization situations as they develop.
This is the final commentary on the report titled,(INVESTING IN CANADA’S FUTURE; Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research). Part 1 of my commentary having provided some introductory material and first thoughts about the report, Part 2 offering more detailed thoughts; this part singles out ‘special cases’, sums up* my thoughts (circling back to ideas introduced in the first part), and offers link to other commentaries.
Special cases
Not all of the science funding in Canada is funneled through the four agencies designed for that purpose, (The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) are known collectively as the tri-council funding agencies and are focused on disbursement of research funds received from the federal government. The fourth ‘pillar’ agency, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) is focused on funding for infrastructure and, technically speaking, is a 3rd party organization along with MITACS, CANARIE, the Perimeter Institute, and others.
In any event, there are also major research facilities and science initiatives which may receive direct funding from the federal government bypassing the funding agencies and, it would seem, peer review. For example, I featured this in my April 28, 2015 posting about the 2015 federal budget,
The $45 million announced for TRIUMF will support the laboratory’s role in accelerating science in Canada, an important investment in discovery research.
While the news about the CFI seems to have delighted a number of observers, it should be noted (as per Woodgett’s piece) that the $1.3B is to be paid out over six years ($220M per year, more or less) and the money won’t be disbursed until the 2017/18 fiscal year. As for the $45M designated for TRIUMF (Canada’s National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics), this is exciting news for the lab which seems to have bypassed the usual channels, as it has before, to receive its funding directly from the federal government. [emphases mine]
The Naylor report made this recommendation for Canada’s major research facilities, (MRF)
We heard from many who recommended that the federal government should manage its investments in “Big Science” in a more coordinated manner, with a cradle-to-grave perspective. The Panel agrees. Consistent with NACRI’s overall mandate, it should work closely with the CSA [Chief Science Advisor] in establishing a Standing Committee on Major Research Facilities (MRFs).
CFI defines a national research facility in the following way:
We define a national research facility as one that addresses the needs of a community of Canadian researchers representing a critical mass of users distributed across the country. This is done by providing shared access to substantial and advanced specialized equipment, services, resources, and scientific and technical personnel. The facility supports leading-edge research and technology development, and promotes the mobilization of knowledge and transfer of technology to society. A national research facility requires resource commitments well beyond the capacity of any one institution. A national research facility, whether single-sited, distributed or virtual, is specifically identified or recognized as serving pan-Canadian needs and its governance and management structures reflect this mandate.8
We accept this definition as appropriate for national research facilities to be considered by the Standing Committee on MRFs, but add that the committee should:
• define a capital investment or operating cost level above which such facilities are considered “major” and thus require oversight by this committee (e.g., defined so as to include the national MRFs proposed in Section 6.3: Compute Canada, Canadian Light Source, Canada’s National Design Network, Canadian Research Icebreaker Amundsen, International Vaccine Centre, Ocean Networks Canada, Ocean Tracking Network, and SNOLAB plus the TRIUMF facility); and
• consider international MRFs in which Canada has a significant role, such as astronomical telescopes of global significance.
The structure and function of this Special Standing Committee would closely track the proposal made in 2006 by former NSA [National Science Advisor] Dr Arthur Carty. We return to this topic in Chapter 6. For now, we observe that this approach would involve:
• a peer-reviewed decision on beginning an investment;
• a funded plan for the construction and operation of the facility, with continuing oversight by a peer specialist/agency review group for the specific facility;
• a plan for decommissioning; and
• a regular review scheduled to consider whether the facility still serves current needs.
We suggest that the committee have 10 members, with an eminent scientist as Chair. The members should include the CSA, two representatives from NACRI for liaison, and seven others. The other members should include Canadian and international scientists from a broad range of disciplines and experts on the construction, operation, and administration of MRFs. Consideration should be given to inviting the presidents of NRC [National Research Council of Canada] and CFI to serve as ex-officio members. The committee should be convened by the CSA, have access to the Secretariat associated with the CSA and NACRI, and report regularly to NACRI. (pp. 66-7 print; pp. 100-1 PDF)
I have the impression there’s been some ill feeling over the years regarding some of the major chunks of money given for ‘big science’. At a guess, direct appeals to a federal government that has no official mechanism for assessing the proposed ‘big science’ whether that means a major research facility (e.g., TRIUMF) or major science initiative (e.g., Pan Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy [keep reading to find out how I got the concept of a major science initiative wrong]) or 3rd party (MITACS) has seemed unfair to those who have to submit funding applications and go through vetting processes. This recommendation would seem to be an attempt to redress some of the issues.
Moving onto the third-party delivery and matching programs,
Three bodies in particular are the largest of these third-party organizations and illustrate the challenges of evaluating contribution agreements: Genome Canada, Mitacs, and Brain Canada. Genome Canada was created in 2000 at a time when many national genomics initiatives were being developed in the wake of the Human Genome Project. It emerged from a “bottom-up” design process driven by genomic scientists to complement existing programs by focusing on large-scale projects and technology platforms. Its funding model emphasized partnerships and matching funds to leverage federal commitments with the objective of rapidly ramping up genomics research in Canada.
This approach has been successful: Genome Canada has received $1.1 billion from the Government of Canada since its creation in 2000, and has raised over $1.6 billion through co-funding commitments, for a total investment in excess of $2.7 billion.34 The scale of Genome Canada’s funding programs allows it to support large-scale genomics research that the granting councils might otherwise not be able to fund. Genome Canada also supports a network of genomics technology and innovation centres with an emphasis on knowledge translation and has built domestic and international strategic partnerships. While its primary focus has been human health, it has also invested extensively in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, environment, and, more recently, oil and gas and mining— all with a view to the application and commercialization of genomic biotechnology.
Mitacs attracts, trains, and retains HQP [highly qualified personnel] in the Canadian research enterprise. Founded in 1999 as an NCE [Network Centre for Excellence], it was developed at a time when enrolments in graduate programs had flat-lined, and links between mathematics and industry were rare. Independent since 2011, Mitacs has focused on providing industrial research internships and postdoctoral fellowships, branching out beyond mathematics to all disciplines. It has leveraged funding effectively from the federal and provincial governments, industry, and not-for-profit organizations. It has also expanded internationally, providing two-way research mobility. Budget 2015 made Mitacs the single mechanism of federal support for postsecondary research internships with a total federal investment of $135.4 million over the next five years. This led to the wind-down of NSERC’s Industrial Postgraduate Scholarships Program. With matching from multiple other sources, Mitacs’ average annual budget is now $75 to $80 million. The organization aims to more than double the number of internships it funds to 10,000 per year by 2020.35
Finally, Brain Canada was created in 1998 (originally called NeuroScience Canada) to increase the scale of brain research funding in Canada and widen its scope with a view to encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration. In 2011 the federal government established the Canada Brain Research Fund to expand Brain Canada’s work, committing $100 million in new public investment for brain research to be matched 1:1 through contributions raised by Brain Canada. According to the STIC ‘State of the Nation’ 2014 report, Canada’s investment in neuroscience research is only about 40 per cent of that in the U.S. after adjusting for the size of the U.S. economy.36 Brain Canada may be filling a void left by declining success rates and flat funding at CIHR.
Recommendation and Elaboration
The Panel noted that, in general, third-party organizations for delivering research funding are particularly effective in leveraging funding from external partners. They fill important gaps in research funding and complement the work of the granting councils and CFI. At the same time, we questioned the overall efficiency of directing federal research funding through third-party organizations, noting that our consultations solicited mixed reactions. Some respondents favoured more overall funding concentrated in the agencies rather than diverting the funding to third-party entities. Others strongly supported the business models of these organizations.
We have indicated elsewhere that a system-wide review panel such as ours is not well-suited to examine these and other organizations subject to third-party agreements. We recommended instead in Chapter 4 that a new oversight body, NACRI, be created to provide expert advice and guidance on when a new entity might reasonably be supported by such an agreement. Here we make the case for enlisting NACRI in determining not just the desirability of initiating a new entity, but also whether contribution agreements should continue and, if so, on what terms.
The preceding sketches of three diverse organizations subject to contribution agreements help illustrate the rationale for this proposal. To underscore the challenges of adjudication, we elaborate briefly. Submissions highlighted that funding from Genome Canada has enabled fundamental discoveries to be made and important knowledge to be disseminated to the Canadian and international research communities. However, other experts suggested a bifurcation with CIHR or NSERC funding research-intensive development of novel technologies, while Genome Canada would focus on application (e.g., large-scale whole genome studies) and commercialization of existing technologies. From the Panel’s standpoint, these observations underscore the subtleties of determining where and how Genome Canada’s mandate overlaps and departs from that of CIHR and NSERC as well as CFI. Added to the complexity of any assessment is Genome Canada’s meaningful role in providing large-scale infrastructure grants and its commercialization program. Mitacs, even more than Genome Canada, bridges beyond academe to the private and non-profit sectors, again highlighting the advantage of having any review overseen by a body with representatives from both spheres. Finally, as did the other two entities, Brain Canada won plaudits, but some interchanges saw discussants ask when and whether it might be more efficient to flow this type of funding on a programmatic basis through CIHR.
We emphasize that the Panel’s intent here is neither to signal agreement nor disagreement with any of these submissions or discussions. We simply wish to highlight that decisions about ongoing funding will involve expert judgments informed by deep expertise in the relevant research areas and, in two of these examples, an ability to bridge from research to innovation and from extramural independent research to the private and non-profit sectors. Under current arrangements, management consulting firms and public servants drive the review and decision-making processes. Our position is that oversight by NACRI and stronger reliance on advice from content experts would be prudent given the sums involved and the nature of the issues. (pp. 102-4 print; pp. 136-8 PDF)
I wasn’t able to find anything other than this about major science initiatives (MSIs),
Big Science facilities, such as MSIs, have had particular challenges in securing ongoing stable operating support. Such facilities often have national or international missions. We termed them “major research facilities” (MRFs) xi in Chapter 4, and proposed an improved oversight mechanism that would provide lifecycle stewardship of these national science resources, starting with the decision to build them in the first instance. (p. 132 print; p. 166 PDF)
So, an MSI is an MRF? (head shaking) Why two terms for the same thing? And, how does the newly announced Pan Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy fit into the grand scheme of things?
The last ‘special case’ I’m featuring is the ‘Programme for Research Chairs for Excellent Scholars and Scientists’. Here’s what the report had to say about the state of affairs,
The major sources of federal funding for researcher salary support are the CRC [Canada Research Chair]and CERC [Canada Excellence Reseach Chair] programs. While some salary support is provided through council-specific programs, these investments have been declining over time. The Panel supports program simplification but, as noted in Chapter 5, we are concerned about the gaps created by the elimination of these personnel awards. While we focus here on the CRC and CERC programs because of their size, profile, and impact, our recommendations will reflect these concerns.
The CRC program was launched in 2000 and remains the Government of Canada’s flagship initiative to keep Canada among the world’s leading countries in higher education R&D. The program has created 2,000 research professorships across Canada with the stated aim “to attract and retain some of the world’s most accomplished and promising minds”5 as part of an effort to curtail the potential academic brain drain to the U.S. and elsewhere. The program is a tri-council initiative with most Chairs allocated to eligible institutions based on the national proportion of total research grant funding they receive from the three granting councils. The vast majority of Chairs are distributed based on area of research, of which 45 per cent align with NSERC, 35 per cent with CIHR, and 20 per cent with SSHRC; an additional special allocation of 120 Chairs can be used in the area of research chosen by the universities receiving the Chairs. There are two types of Chairs: Tier 1 Chairs are intended for outstanding researchers who are recognized as world leaders in their fields and are renewable; Tier 2 Chairs are targeted at exceptional emerging researchers with the potential to become leaders in their field and can be renewed once. Awards are paid directly to the universities and are valued at $200,000 annually for seven years (Tier 1) or $100,000 annually for five years (Tier 2). The program notes that Tier 2 Chairs are not meant to be a feeder group for Tier 1 Chairs; rather, universities are expected to develop a succession plan for their Tier 2 Chairs.
The CERC program was established in 2008 with the expressed aim of “support[ing] Canadian universities in their efforts to build on Canada’s growing reputation as a global leader in research and innovation.”6 The program aims to award world-renowned researchers and their teams with up to $10 million over seven years to establish ambitious research programs at Canadian universities, making these awards among the most prestigious and generous available internationally. There are currently 27 CERCs with funding available to support up to 30 Chairs, which are awarded in the priority areas established by the federal government. The awards, which are not renewable, require 1:1 matching funds from the host institution, and all degree-granting institutions that receive tri-council funding are eligible to compete. Both the CERC and CRC programs are open to Canadians and foreign citizens. However, until the most recent round, the CERCs have been constrained to the government’s STEM-related priorities; this has limited their availability to scholars and scientists from SSHRC-related disciplines. As well, even though Canadian-based researchers are eligible for CERC awards, the practice has clearly been to use them for international recruitment with every award to date going to researchers from abroad.
Similar to research training support, the funding for salary support to researchers and scholars is a significant proportion of total federal research investments, but relatively small with respect to the research ecosystem as a whole. There are more than 45,000 professors and teaching staff at Canada’s universities7 and a very small fraction hold these awards. Nevertheless, the programs can support research excellence by repatriating top Canadian talent from abroad and by recruiting and retaining top international talent in Canada.
The programs can also lead by example in promoting equity and diversity in the research enterprise. Unfortunately, both the CRC and CERC programs suffer from serious challenges regarding equity and diversity, as described in Chapter 5. Both programs have been criticized in particular for under-recruitment of women.
While the CERC program has recruited exclusively from outside Canada, the CRC program has shown declining performance in that regard. A 2016 evaluation of the CRC program8 observed that a rising number of chairholders were held by nominees who originated from within the host institution (57.5 per cent), and another 14.4 per cent had been recruited from other Canadian institutions. The Panel acknowledges that some of these awards may be important to retaining Canadian talent. However, we were also advised in our consultations that CRCs are being used with some frequency to offset salaries as part of regular faculty complement planning.
The evaluation further found that 28.1 per cent of current chairholders had been recruited from abroad, a decline from 32 per cent in the 2010 evaluation. That decline appears set to continue. The evaluation reported that “foreign nominees accounted, on average, for 13 per cent and 15 per cent respectively of new Tier 1 and Tier 2 nominees over the five-year period 2010 to 2014”, terming it a “large decrease” from 2005 to 2009 when the averages respectively were 32 per cent and 31 per cent. As well, between 2010-11 and 2014-15, the attrition rate for chairholders recruited from abroad was 75 per cent higher than for Canadian chairholders, indicating that the program is also falling short in its ability to retain international talent.9
One important factor here appears to be the value of the CRC awards. While they were generous in 2000, their value has remained unchanged for some 17 years, making it increasingly difficult to offer the level of support that world-leading research professors require. The diminishing real value of the awards also means that Chair positions are becoming less distinguishable from regular faculty positions, threatening the program’s relevance and effectiveness. To rejuvenate this program and make it relevant for recruitment and retention of top talent, it seems logical to take two steps:
• ask the granting councils and the Chairs Secretariat to work with universities in developing a plan to restore the effectiveness of these awards; and
• once that plan is approved, increase the award values by 35 per cent, thereby restoring the awards to their original value and making them internationally competitive once again.
In addition, the Panel observes that the original goal was for the program to fund 2,000 Chairs. Due to turnover and delays in filling Chair positions, approximately 10 to 15 per cent of them are unoccupied at any one time.i As a result, the program budget was reduced by $35 million in 2012. However, the occupancy rate has continued to decline since then, with an all-time low of only 1,612 Chair positions (80.6 per cent) filled as of December 2016. The Panel is dismayed by this inefficiency, especially at a time when Tier 2 Chairs remain one of the only external sources of salary support for ECRs [early career researchers]—a group that represents the future of Canadian research and scholarship. (pp. 142-4 print; pp. 176-8 PDF)
I think what you can see as a partial subtext in this report and which I’m attempting to highlight here in ‘special cases’ is a balancing act between supporting a broad range of research inquiries and focusing or pouring huge sums of money into ‘important’ research inquiries for high impact outcomes.
Final comments
There are many things to commend this report including the writing style. The notion that more coordination is needed amongst the various granting agencies, that greater recognition (i.e,, encouragement and funding opportunities) should be given to boundary-crossing research, and that we need to do more interprovincial collaboration is welcome. And yes, they want more money too. (That request is perfectly predictable. When was the last time a report suggested less funding?) Perhaps more tellingly, the request for money is buttressed with a plea to make it partisan-proof. In short, that funding doesn’t keep changing with the political tides.
One area that was not specifically mentioned, except when discussing prizes, was mathematics. I found that a bit surprising given how important the field of mathematics is to to virtually all the ‘sciences’. A 2013 report, Spotlight on Science, suggests there’s a problem(as noted my Oct. 9, 2013 posting about that report, (I also mention Canada’s PISA scores [Programme for International Student Assessment] by the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], which consistently show Canadian students at the age of 15 [grade 10] do well) ,
… it appears that we have high drop out rates in the sciences and maths, from an Oct. 8, 2013 news item on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website,
… Canadians are paying a heavy price for the fact that less than 50 per cent of Canadian high school students graduate with senior courses in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) at a time when 70 per cent of Canada’s top jobs require an education in those fields, said report released by the science education advocacy group Let’s Talk Science and the pharmaceutical company Amgen Canada.
Spotlight on Science Learning 2013 compiles publicly available information about individual and societal costs of students dropping out STEM courses early.
…
Even though most provinces only require math and science courses until Grade 10, the report [Spotlight on Science published by Let’s Talk Science and pharmaceutical company Amgen Canada) found students without Grade 12 math could expect to be excluded from 40 to 75 per cent of programs at Canadian universities, and students without Grade 11 could expect to be excluded from half of community college programs. [emphasis mine]
While I realize that education wasn’t the panel’s mandate they do reference the topic elsewhere and while secondary education is a provincial responsibility there is a direct relationship between it and postsecondary education.
On the lack of imagination front, there was some mention of our aging population but not much planning or discussion about integrating older researchers into the grand scheme of things. It’s all very well to talk about the aging population but shouldn’t we start introducing these ideas into more of our discussions on such topics as research rather than only those discussions focused on aging?
Continuing on with the lack of imagination and lack of forethought, I was not able to find any mention of independent scholars. The assumption, as always, is that one is affiliated with an institution. Given the ways in which our work world is changing with fewer jobs at the institutional level, it seems the panel was not focused on important and fra reaching trends. Also, there was no mention of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, that could affect basic research. One other thing from my wish list, which didn’t get mentioned, art/science or SciArt. Although that really would have been reaching.
Weirdly, one of the topics the panel did note, the pitiifull lack of interprovincial scientific collaboration, was completely ignored when it came time for recommendations.
Should you spot any errors in this commentary, please do drop me a comment.
Other responses to the report:
Nassif Ghoussoub (Piece of Mind blog; he’s a professor mathematics at the University of British Columbia; he attended one of the roundtable discussions held by the panel). As you might expect, he focuses on the money end of things in his May 1, 2017 posting.
You can find a series of essays about the report here under the title Response to Naylor Panel Report ** on the Canadian Science Policy Centre website.
There’s also this May 31, 2017 opinion piece by Jamie Cassels for The Vancouver Sun exhorting us to go forth collaborate internationally, presumably with added funding for the University of Victoria of which Cassels is the president and vice-chancellor. He seems not to have noticed that Canadian do much more poorly with interprovincial collaboration.
*ETA June 21, 2017: I’ve just stumbled across Ivan Semeniuk’s April 10, 2017 analysis (Globe and Mail newspaper) of the report. It’s substantive and well worth checking out.*
Again, here’s a link to the other parts:
INVESTING IN CANADA’S FUTURE; Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research (Review of fundamental research final report) Commentaries
The euphoria is dying down and, on balance, there was surprisingly little, the tone being more one of optimism laced with caution on the occasion of the Conservative’s defeat at the hands of the Liberal party in the Oct. 19, 2015 Canadian federal election.
Of course the big question for me and other Canadian science bloggers is:
What about science in the wake of the 2015 Liberal majority government in Canada?
I’ve gathered bits and pieces from various published opinions on the topic. First, there’s Brian Owen, a freelance writer in St. Stephen, New Brunswick (there’s more about him in my Aug. 18, 2015 posting about the upcoming Canadian Science Policy Conference to be held Nov. 25 -27, 2015 in Ottawa [Canada’s capital]) in an Oct. 20, 2015 opinion piece for ScienceInsider,
Many Canadian scientists are celebrating the result of yesterday’s federal election, which saw Stephen Harper’s Conservative government defeated after nearly 10 years in power.
The center-left Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau won an unexpected majority government, taking 184 of the 338 seats in the House of Commons. The Conservatives will form the opposition with 99 seats, while the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) fell to third place with just 44 seats.
“Many scientists will be pleased with the outcome,” says Jim Woodgett, director of research at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. “The Liberal party has a strong record in supporting science.” [emphasis mine]
I don’t think the Liberal record is that great. If I understand it rightly, the first muzzle placed on government scientists was applied by a then Liberal government to Health Canada. That’s right the Conservatives got the idea from the Liberals and it’s not the only one they got from that source. Omnibus bills were also pioneered by the Liberal government.
However, hope still springs in mine and others’ bosoms as can be seen in an Oct. 21, 2015 essay in the Guardian (UK newspaper) by Michael Halpern of the Center for Science and Democracy at the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists (Note: Links have been removed),
There was a palpable outpouring of relief from Canadian scientists as the Liberal Party won a majority on Monday night [Oct. 19, 2015], bringing to an end nine years of escalating hostility by the Harper government towards its own research base. Drastic cuts to funding and constraints on scientific freedom have significantly damaged Canadian research and its capacity to develop science-based public health and environmental policies.
…
Eight hundred scientists from thirty-two countries wrote an open letter urging the prime minster to ease restrictions on scientists and data. In October 2014, a Ryerson University professor wrote in Science magazine that the election presented an “opportunity to reboot the federal government’s controversial approach to science policy and research.”
All of this advocacy worked. Science became a major campaign issue during the election. There were all-party debates on science policy and extensive media coverage. The Green, Liberal and NDP platforms included significant commitments to restore science to its rightful place in society and public policy.
“We’ll reverse the $40 million cut that Harper made to our federal ocean science and monitoring programs,” said Liberal leader Justin Trudeau at a September campaign stop. “The war on science ends with the liberal government.” In tweet after tweet after tweet, opposition candidates argued that they were best positioned to defend scientific integrity.
Now that it’s been elected with a healthy majority, the Liberal Party says it will make data openly available, unmuzzle scientists, bring back the long form census, appoint a chief science officer, and make the agency Statistics Canada fully independent.
In the United States, many celebrated the end of the Bush administration in 2008, thinking that its restrictions on science would evaporate the moment that the Obama administration took office. It wasn’t true. There has been significant progress in protecting scientists from political influence. But the public has still lacked access to scientific information on multiple environmental and public health issues.
So who will keep watch over the new government, as it’s forced to choose among its many priorities? Canadian unions, scientists, policy experts and activists need to continue to push for real change. It’s up to those who care most about science and democracy to keep Trudeau on his toes.
Returning to Owen’s article, there are more pledges from the new Liberal government,
… Trudeau has also said his party will embrace “evidence based policy” and “data-driven decision-making,” do more to address climate change, protect endangered species, and review the environmental impact of major energy and development projects.
Woodgett welcomes those pledges, but warns that they would not address the larger issue of what he sees as the government’s neglect of basic research funding. “I hope we will see less short-term thinking and much greater support for discovery research going forward,” he says. “We are at serious risk of a lost generation of scientists and it’s critical that younger researchers are given a clear indication that Canada is open to their ideas and needs.”
Science advocates plan to watch the new government closely to ensure it lives up to its promises. “Great to see Harper gone, but another majority is an awfully big blank cheque,” wrote Michael Rennie, a freshwater ecologist at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, on Twitter.
… Only one of the four party representatives at the recent science and technology debate managed to win a seat in the upcoming Parliament. MP Marc Garneau will remain in Parliament, and his experience in the Canadian Space Agency means he may be able to better manage the changes sought in official government (as opposed to Parliamentary) policy.
The Conservatives will now shift to being the Official Opposition (the largest party not in power). However, the current cabinet minister responsible for science and technology, and at least two of his predecessors, lost their seats. The party that was the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party (NDP), lost several seats, returning to the third largest party in Parliament. (However, they appear to be a more natural ally for the Liberals than the Conservatives) MP Kennedy Stewart, who has championed the establishment of a Parliamentary Science Officer, barely retained his seat. He will likely remain as the NDP science critic.
… While the policies on media access to government scientists are part of this trend, they may not be the first priority for Trudeau and his cabinet. It may turn out to be something similar to the transition from the Bush to the Obama Administrations. Changes to policies concerning so-called political interference with science were promised, but have not gotten the thorough commitment from the Obama Administration that some would have liked and/or expected.
As David notes. we lost significant critical voices when those Conservative MPs failed to get re-elected.
In a post-election Oct. 24, 2015 posting, Sarah Boon offers a call to action on her Watershed Moments blog (Note: Links have been removed),
I think it’s important to realize, however, that the work doesn’t end here.
Canadian scientists found their voice in the run up to the election, but they’d better not lose it now.
In a pre-election editorial on the Science Borealis Blog, Pascal Lapointe suggested that – after the election – the organizations that worked so hard to make science an election issue should join forces and keep pushing the government to keep science as a top priority. These groups include Evidence for Democracy, the Science Integrity Project, Get Science Right, Our Right to Know, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and more.
Finally, there’s an Oct. 20, 2015 posting by Canadians Julia Whidden and Rachel Skubel on the Southern Fried Science blog explaining the Canadian election to American colleagues in what begins in a facey style which, thankfully and quickly, switches to informative and opinionated (Note: They have nothing good to say about the Conservatives and science),
Up until this past year, the thought of Canadian politics had probably never crossed your mind. For some of you, your introduction to the topic may have been via the astute criticisms of John Oliver published this past weekend. His YouTube video currently skyrocketing at just under 3 million views in less than 48 hours, may have even been the introduction to Canadian politics for some Canadians. Let’s face it: in comparison to the flashy and sometimes trashy race of our neighbors to the south (ahem, you Americans), Canadian politics are usually tame, boring, and dry. …
…
We present a few major issues related to marine science and conservation that Harper either dragged down or destroyed, and the complementary response by our new PM Trudeau from his platform. …
…
Based on the Liberals party’s platform, and their statements throughout the last year, here’s a taste of the contrasts between old and new:
Proposed MPAs have been stalled by inaction, failure to cooperate by the federal government or stakeholders, and overall a system which needs an infusion of resources – not cuts – to meet ambitious goals.
“We will increase the amount of Canada’s marine and coastal areas that are protected from 1.3 percent to 5 percent by 2017, and 10 percent by 2020.” Liberal Party’s Protecting our Oceans mandate
There is a bit of misinformation in the Southern Fried Science posting,
The National Research Council (NRC) is Canada’s equivalent of America’s National Science Foundation (NSF).
The closest analogue to the US National Science Foundation is Canada’s Tri-Council Agencies comprised of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
Next step: appointing a cabinet
Oddly, I haven’t found anyone speculating as to what will happen to science when Justin Trudeau announces his cabinet. He has already stated that his cabinet will be significantly smaller than Stephen Harper’s cabinet of 39 ministers. Numbers for the new cabinet range from 25 to 28 to 30. The largest proposed Trudeau cabinet (30) is almost 25% less than the previous one. Clearly, some ministries will have to go or be combined with other ones.
I’m guessing that Science, which is considered a junior ministry, will be rolled into another ministry, possibly Industry, to be renamed, Industry and Science. Or, by appointing a Chief Science Advisor, Trudeau trumpets the new importance of science with this special status and disburses the Science Ministry responsibilities amongst a variety of ministries.
In any event, I look forward to finding out later this week (Nov. 2 – 6, 2015) whether either or neither of my predictions comes true.
*Canadian cabinet update: To see how I got it both wrong and right see my Nov.4, 2015 posting.
ETA Nov. 5, 2015: I found one more piece for this roundup, an Oct. 22, 2015 article by Helen Carmichael for Chemistry World published by the UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry (Note: Links have been removed),
There will likely be a shift in the Canadian government’s target research areas towards areas such as green energy and away from fossil fuels, observers say. In addition, they expect that the Trudeau government will be more hands off when it comes to the science that it funds – giving money to the granting councils and trusting them to disburse those funds via peer review. …
The way that science is funded – the politicisation of science – will be less of an issue for the next while,’ says John Brennan, a chemistry and chemical biology professor at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, who directs the school’s Biointerfaces Institute.
Trudeau and his Liberal party have promised to appoint a chief science officer similar to the national science adviser position that the Harper government eliminated in 2008. Canada’s new chief science officer would report to the prime minister and ensure that government science is available to the public, that all the country’s scientists are able to speak freely about their work and that scientific analyses are considered when the Canadian government develops policy. The Trudeau government has also said that it will create a central online portal for government-funded scientific research to enable greater public access.
…
The Liberals offer quite a different vision for the Canadian economy than the Conservatives, planning to run short-term budget deficits to increase government spending on public infrastructure, and to return the country to a balanced budget in 2019–20. The party has committed to C$25 million (£12 million) in funding for National Parks and reversing budget cuts to government ocean science and monitoring programmes.
In addition to proposing initiatives to increase business investment in research and development, the Liberals want a tax credit, and will invest C$200 million annually to support innovation in the forestry, fisheries, mining, energy and agriculture sectors. Public science is particularly important in Canada, where the private sector funds a much lower proportion of research than most industrialised nations.
…
Provincial governments own Canada’s natural resources, with fossil fuel production largely in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Energy production is a major part of the Canadian economy. Trudeau has committed to set up a C$2 billion fund to help the country transition to a low carbon economy, but meanwhile he is not expected to withdraw support for the proposed Alberta to Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline.
…
Incoming president and chief executive of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), Bob Masterson, recently told Chemistry World that rapid policy decisions by Canadian governments and retailers, without sufficient consultation with industry, are not advantageous or based on sound science. He described missed opportunities for the Canadian chemical industry to engage with regulators, coupled with a lack of coordination between various tiers of Canada’s national and regional regulations. On key issues, such as Canada’s Chemical Management Plan, global trade and maintaining competitive corporate tax rates, Masterson says the CIAC believes the liberal positions represent continuity rather than change from the previous government.
Carmichael’s offers a good overview and is the only one of *three* (the others* being from David Bruggeman *and Michael Halpern*) analyses I’ve found, that are being written by people who are not navel gazing.
*’two’ changed to ‘three’, ‘other’ changed to ‘others’, and ‘and Michael Halpern’ added 1250 PST on Nov. 5, 2015.
