Fiscal pressures mounting as massive impact of Canada Foundation for Innovation felt throughout research community

With the creation and funding of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), the federal government has unleashed a $4-billion research colossus that has transformed Canada’s scientific landscape. With money and talent flowing into universities and colleges across the country, the post-secondary research enterprise has blossomed, but that dramatic expansion in research activity is not occurring in isolation.

Now it’s become increasingly evident that the CFI’s unprecedented spending power on university-based research infrastructure has spawned a new set of growing fiscal pressures that Ottawa is being encouraged to quickly address. In addition to holding its standard competitions for research infrastructure, the CFI also has responsibility for directing its funding in three other areas: international research, infrastructure operating costs for its own funded projects and operating support for the Canada Research Chairs (CRC). But those funds are set to expire at varying times over the next three years, raising concern within the research community that research support will vanish just as the initiatives are beginning to bear fruit.

“It’s a question of sustainability,” says one university research executive. “The granting councils need the proper level of funding to account for the impact of CFI funding on their areas of responsibility. And we need to institutionalize the CFI’s one-off programs to ensure that the needs they are addressing continue to be met.”

To date, the CFI has disbursed $1.75 billion to more than 2,000 projects is a wide variety of areas. The arm’s length agency has received $3.15 billion in total from the government (rising to $4 billion when interest is factored in), leaving $2.25 billion remaining for future competitions up to 2010 when its current mandate runs out.

And the CFI also has a mandate to run competitions for two international research funds, each worth $100 million. But there are no official plans or money to hold a second competition, and no word on whether they will be renewed and re-financed.

“The government wanted to see what the appetite was for international research. The response in terms of numbers of applications has been excellent,” says Dr Howard Alper, Univ of Ottawa VP research and president of the Royal Society of Canada. “Canada really needs to enhance its participation internationally.”

“It may roll out differently if there is a phase II,” says CFI president Dr David Strangway. “There are a lot of questions about whether this is the best way to do it. Right now there’s no provision for student exchanges or operating costs.”

Operating funds for CFI projects will ultimately total $400 million and are allocated to universities in proportion to the research funding they receive from the three granting councils. This support is set to expire by 2005 or sooner, and no decision on further support has been announced.

For the CRC program, CFI support will total $250 million once the full 2000 chairs are awarded. Those chairs are supposed to be turned over after an initial five-year term, and once again government has not decided on a second funding phase.

The presence of CFI on the national research scene has also placed considerable pressure on the three granting councils, with more researchers to support but no additional funding from government. All have repeatedly expressed concern to government, but no action has been taken.

Strangway says it’s too early to speculate on the prospects of continuing the one-off programs. But he notes that he has raised the issue for the first time before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. During that May 28 appearance, Strangway noted that:

“Much has been accomplished. The job is not finished yet. CFI is responding to needs and will need further attention in the coming months – including infrastructure operating costs, Canada Research Chairs and the International Program as these programs come to an end in the near future.”

Strangway’s Finance committee presentation also stressed the need for the federal government to continue supporting the full costs of research at the institutions covered by the CFI, as well as providing increases to the granting councils at the researcher level.

THEME PAPERS ISSUED

Since the last major round of awards earlier this year (R$, February 11/02), CFI has spent considerable time reflecting on its track record and future direction. With more than 2000 competitively-based grants already awarded, a number of theme papers have been prepared to demonstrate where CFI funding is going and how it is contributing to the build-up of capacity in key areas of research. Five papers have been released in draft form — agriculture, water and water quality, imaging, disability and aging and high performance computing — and they will be circulated for comment. Another five are in preparation and up to 40 will eventually be produced. Strangway says it’s important that CFI, government and the public have a clear picture of how their money is being spent, and the papers help provide a basis for future strategy.

“This will give us a comprehensive inventory of these themes with a description of each project. We’ll be sending them out to the institution for comment and to see if we’ve got it right,” he says. “The whole process will take some months. Some are straightforward but others are not easy, for example information technology, which crosses over into many areas.”

The exercise is important for several reasons, not the least of which is establishing a framework going forward as CFI evolves along with the changing nature and needs of the research community. Strangway says CFI is adopting an evolutionary approach to the remaining part of its mandate. By developing a roadmap of sorts, institutional research trends can be brought into relief and compared to those in the government and private sectors.

The theme papers are also important in terms of accountability. CFI and other arm’s length research organizations recently came under the scrutiny of the Office of the Auditor General (AG) which questioned the government’s ability to ensure the proper expenditure of public funds. AG Sheila Fraser has recommended that the government place CFI, Genome Canada and other “delegated arrangements” under her office’s authority to ensure proper scrutiny — a request the government has yet to respond to. The AG has noted, however, that the CFI has changed its reporting to Parliament, and now tables an annual report.

R$