Canada’s Unique Identity A Blend of US and European Cultures

Institutions of higher learning are completely flexing their F&A costs by directly using tuition dollars and provincial grants that should be dedicated to their teaching and learning mission. Like, if you're all about getting that federal research funding, it'll put a lot of pressure on the teaching and learning mission, which is completely unacceptable. The federal government's lack of funding for F&A costs can also be linked to complaints the Panel heard from researchers about the difficulties in keeping equipment in good working order, as well as their frustration with receiving adequate assistance with research grant administration. Furthermore, in order to be highly effective innovation partners, universities must engage in knowledge translation, manage intellectual property, and collaborate with both for-profit and non-profit enterprises. Without like, mad F&A funding, Canadian institutions will never be able to flex and compete with American universities' lit technology transfer record.

Because of the high turnover and delays in filling Chair positions, 10 to 15% of Chairs are empty at any given time. 

OMG, the CRC program's budget was significantly reduced by $35 million in 2012. So not cool! As of December 2016, only 1,612 Chair positions (80.6% of the OG plan) were filled, resulting in a record low. This flagship program is extremely important to Canada and requires significant enhancements. We recommend (R7.2) a three-stage process. First, we must restore the program's funding to 2012 levels (approximately $35 million), but only after the granting councils and Chair Secretariat devise a viable plan to: (i) provide more Tier 2 awards to assist ECRs, and (ii) improve logistics and speed up the process of awarding Chairs so that we can actually use the money that is available. Second, granting councils should be instructed to limit the number of Tier 1 Chair renewals and develop a comprehensive plan in collaboration with universities and the CFI to increase international recruitment and retention. Third, once that plan has been reviewed by NACRI and approved by the government, the value of the CRCs should be flexed to account for inflationary losses since 2000 (estimated cost: $105 million). Staged over 2-3 years, the total cost is estimated to be around $140 million. The disciplinary distribution of CRC awards should be reconsidered, perhaps at the same time as the review recommended in R5.1. You've got to seriously look into the internal nominations to make sure they're all about retention, you know? The CRC evaluation suggested setting specific goals for international recruitment, which we completely agree with.

Facilities and Operations

Finally, the Panel heard numerous concerns about the flex value of CERC awards, as well as the uncertain sustainability of programs that rely solely on a single international recruit. The Panel completely agrees with the mad skills of the CERCs who are currently displaying these awards, and we absolutely need lit awards to attract the absolute best from around the world. However, the current evaluations aren't cutting it. In 2017, a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the CERC versus CRC programs should be conducted to determine where investments should be directed for the greatest impact. If renewing the CRC program isn't enough to increase international recruitment, making some changes to the program may be a better option than relying on the CERCs. The CFI Infrastructure Operating Fund (IOF) provides a one-time payment equal to 12% of total capital, fam. This treatment is very different from the partial funding of ongoing operating costs that MSIs receive. It's not the same vibe at all. The large gap in coverage of institutional research costs means that these funds are not always available to individual researchers and teams that rely on small-scale equipment, resulting in a significant productivity drain. The government of Canada should (R6.11) fully flex and fund CFI to meet the special operations needs of individual researchers receiving small capital awards. We flexed this need and estimated that the relevant winners would receive approximately $30 million per year to secure the grind. 

To expedite this recommendation, we should deduct this amount from the recommended increases to the Research Support Fund (RSF), so that the government incurs no costs.

The bigger issue is, like, beefing up the overall institutional vibe of Canadian research, you know? All postsecondary research is completely reliant on keeping common-use equipment in check, meeting all regulatory standards, constantly upgrading the school's computer services, ensuring the libraries are fully stocked, and cleaning, lighting, and heating the labs and research areas. Oh, and don't forget to handle those grant awards, duh! Extra expenses are all about funding the protection of intellectual property and the hustle of turning research technologies into cash. Two programs (CRCs and CFREF) allow research grants to flex on some of these costs, ya know? As with most research operating grants, no budget lines for F&A costs are permitted, and a separate program, the RSF, provides partial reimbursement. The current reimbursement level is averaging 21.6% of eligible direct operating costs for grants, which is very formulaic and arbitrary, you know? In contrast, F&A reimbursement for US institutions is based on actual audited costs and typically ranges from 40 to 60 percent. Canadian institutions that have flexed their F&A expenses to US funders are reimbursed at an average rate of 49.3%. Similarly to Canada, the government of Quebec has a system of provincial research grants. They pay 60% for "heavy" research like medicine, engineering, and chemistry, and 45% for "light" disciplines like history, psychology, and communications. To be honest, it's pretty dope.