It was very good to see the items in the April 2024 budget providing better support and organization of academic research in Canada. The actions followed recommendations from the Naylor and Bouchard committees and are being welcomed by the academic community for their potential impact. Statements like “Canada’s skilled hands and brilliant minds are our greatest resource” and “They also train and hire younger Canadians who will become the next generation of innovators” indicate that the government has understood the messages that have been communicated steadily by the academic community and summarized in the specialized reviews.

A number of specific initiatives that are proposed will be valuable in this regard. The creation of an “advisory Council on Science and Innovation, made up of leaders from the academic, industry, and not-for-profit sectors, and responsible for a national science and innovation strategy,” was recommended by both review committees. This will provide transparent advice on priorities and define a national strategy that has been missing for a number of years. Having such a strategy will greatly assist the review of future research and research infrastructure proposals, and therefore, it is particularly important that this strategy includes a balance between fundamental research and “mission-oriented” research, both of which are essential for healthy, innovative progress.

The provision of more funding for the research councils will be very important for Canada’s future success, as will the increase in the salaries of directly-federally-funded graduate students and post-doctoral fellows.

The recognition of the need for more coordination among the councils is also welcome. This was first noted in the Naylor Committee recommendations, but the formation of the Canada Research Coordination Committee (CRCC) did not go far enough to create the degree of coordination needed. The proposal of a capstone organization to “maximize the impact of federal research support across Canada’s research ecosystem” is welcome, together with specific funding to streamline the process for grant applications, particularly multi-council requests.

However, a notable exception to the desired coordination is the omission of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) in the discussion to date. Clearly, its existence as a foundation makes its inclusion in the capstone organization of councils of the government more difficult. However, its role as the principal provider of capital and direct operational funding for research equipment requires that it be integrated closely with the related research work supported by the councils. CFI must be closely coupled with the new capstone organization that supports students and post-doctoral fellows. Otherwise, the capital funding provided by CFI will fail to be utilized to its full potential for research and education. There are other sources of federal funding that should also be coordinated, but this is particularly apparent for CFI. The Canadian community did see this coordination through the Canada Biomedical Research Fund and Biosciences Research Infrastructure Fund and so such coordination is not unprecedented.

A further element of the original recommendation by the Naylor committee was not followed in the establishment of the CRCC but should be included in the coordination work of the capstone organization. It had been recommended that several active members of the research community be included in the CRCC. This should be implemented for regular discussions of coordination within the new capstone organization. Individuals, such as academic Vice Presidents for Research, are dealing with the lack of coordination daily at their institutions and can provide well-informed information as the new organization attempts to address this important problem. The advisory boards for the councils provide regular reviews of progress on all matters, but the direct inclusion of active people who face the problems daily can assist the management of the councils in the formation of solutions for coordination.

A further topic that is under active consideration by the government is a framework for funding Major Research Facilities (MRF). This will be a very valuable element for improved organization and government attention in an area where it is much needed. Both review committees recommended that the government should take a lifecycle and portfolio approach to Major Facilities (loosely defined as greater than $100 million capital) as National Assets. CFI announced in a June update that it was asked to submit an implementation plan to the government before April 2025. “The MRF framework will be rolled out in phases over the coming years and is subject to availability of resources. It aims to enhance federal decision-making on MRF by introducing coordinated capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) funding and embedding lifecycle and portfolio-based approaches into investment decisions. The framework designates a group of research facilities currently supported through the Major Science Initiatives Fund (MSIF) as MRF. They are the Canadian Light Source (CLS), CCGS Amundsen research icebreaker, Ocean Networks Canada (ONC), the Ocean Tracking Network (OTN), the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Laboratory (SNOLAB), and the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO).”

It is certainly welcome to see action on such a framework. It has been under discussion since 2006, when it was put forward by Art Carty as National Science Advisor, following extensive consultation with the academic research community and federal and provincial officials. It will be valuable to include provincial research organizations in the development of this framework, particularly in the definition of any matching for capital and operating, which should be strongly weighted towards the federal contribution for such National Assets.

Lifecycle is taken to mean a framework to consider and recommend upon: new proposals, potential seed money to develop a credible engineered and costed proposal, oversight of construction, commissioning, operation, possible upgrades and provisions for determining the final termination and decommissioning. A secretariat dedicated to this area under the relevant Ministry, a Strategic Review Committee, an appropriate funding stream with a long-term perspective and mechanisms for international collaboration at these Canadian national assets, are essential parts of a successful framework.

This approach is also what is needed for Canadian involvement in Major International Experiments, either situated at these Canadian MRFs or at international locations. Such experiments, with Canadian researchers playing a substantial role, are a further important part of an internationally competitive research landscape. The life-cycle decision-making process for Canadian participation in Major International Experiments situated in Canada or internationally (again above a criterion such as $100 million capital cost) is so similar to the process for MRF situated in Canada that such Major International Experiments should be included in the framework being developed.

At present, Canadian involvement in such experiments is difficult, either involving smaller sequential CFI grants that limit the ability for Canadians to take a major role, or ad hoc governmental decisions outside the normal funding agency processes. Individual university quotas for such major expenditures often limit Canadian participation.

A final important aspect of a successful coordinated approach to funding larger-scale facilities or experiments is the support of academic research related to this area where substantial capital investments have been made. Community building so that Canadian scientists can lead breakthrough work at MRFs is crucial. Support from the capstone organization for students, Post Docs, and local university groups that are closely involved in experiments at MRF should be coordinated with CFI for maximum success.

The April budget contained much good news for Canadian researchers across all disciplines. The government is now seeking feedback from the community on the capstone organization and on a framework for Major Research Facilities. This note is focused on areas where I am active. I encourage others to put forward such detailed suggestions for their own areas so that we benefit from this important year for Canadian research.