VISITS TO THE PMO WITH PETER NICHOLSON AND ART CARTY

Dr. Bruce H. Sells, FRS(C)
Executive Director

Posted:October 20, 2005

On October 5 members of CCR met with Peter Nicholson, Senior Advisor to the Prime Minister and Art Carty, Scientific Advisor to the PMO. The most significant issues discussed included:

1. Federal Science Departments;
   
2. Post Secondary Education and
   
3. support for Federal Granting Agencies

1. Federal Science Departments
   Dr. Carty has held a number of meetings with Federal Deputy Ministers in which they discussed cooperation among various departments in area of common interest. We learned that the DM were very much on-side with this approach. They have been asked by Dr. Carty to identify mission-critical-science within each of their Departments and to explore ways of enhancing inter-departmental and agency collaboration. It was suggested that a CFI type of fund be created for focused area of interest and directed to where it would be most productive. In attempting to develop partnerships, to realize their mission, we were told that problems arise from interpretation of rules and regulations. This has become a sensitive issue because of risk emanating in part from the Gomery enquiry.
   
   
   
2. Post-Secondary Education
   The question was raised concerning the Federal role in post-secondary education and partnership with the Provinces. In particular dedicated transfers were discussed. The Feds are particularly concerned that money given to the provinces without a mechanisms for determining where the money ends up is just “not on”. The Provinces have a problem with this since education is a Provincial jurisdiction. Currently, therefore, the Feds seem unwilling to approach the dedicated transfers as a mechanism to support post-secondary education. The Federal Government has instead directed its attention to the Research Chairs and the Indirect Costs Programs in addition to efforts to provide student support.

   The program supporting “indirect costs of research” has helped the universities as has the Research Chairs program. An increase from ~ 20% to 40% would be even more helpful in the “indirect costs program”. At the same time, however, it is critical that the Provinces do not claw back equivalent funds and that there is transparency in the way the funds are spent. The ball, therefore, is in the court of the universities on this issue. Faculty members should ensure that the administration in their universities do not deposit the funds covering “indirect costs” into General Revenues but document how the money is spent supporting the research enterprise within their institutions.

3. Support for Federal Granting Agencies
   There appeared to be a recognition that the Federal Government is committed to increasing the funding of the Granting Agencies. Also recognized was that creation of CFI and Research Chairs program has put additional stress on the Granting Agencies in their ability to fund the increasing numbers of good researchers. When it was pointed out that the success rate had not increased in CIHR because of these stresses we were told that it was to be expected and reflected in one sense our being able to attract and retain quality researchers in Canada. We were told, also, that in the recent past CFI has experienced increased quality in the applications they have received.
   

   The question was raised concerning what was sustainable. It would be difficult, we were told, to expect the same level of increases we have experienced over the past 7-8 years. There appeared to be a belief that a 5-6% annual increase could be sustainable. We have argued, however, in the CFBS brief, that a 7-9% increase should be a minimum. Even an 8% increase would represent a “stand-pat” budget for the granting agencies with little opportunity to initiate new programs.