Canada takes a “piecemeal approach” to managing its national-scale research infrastructure and is missing opportunities to draw greater value from critical assets that support scientific discovery, innovation and economic competitiveness, according to a new report from the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA).

There’s no clear coordination mechanism or role for national-scale research infrastructure to align and advance Canada’s participation in international research collaborations, says the CCA’s expert panel.

Many national-scale research infrastructure assets are institutionally owned and governed, despite a mission to advance national research priorities and serve pan-Canadian and international research communities.

“Canada has built a good, decent research ecosystem. It has some good research infrastructure. It has some great scientists,” expert panel chair Janet King (photo at right), chair of Polar Knowledge Canada and vice-chair of Canadian Light Source, said in an interview with Research Money. “But it can do better for the reasons we outlined.”

“We [the expert panel] say that Canada can't keep muddling through. We're doing okay. We keep making incremental decisions, responding to urgencies and the priorities of the day. But if we keep in that kind of reactive piecemeal approach, we miss the opportunities,” King said.

The expert panel’s report found that while Canada has considerable strengths and has made investments across its research ecosystem, more coordinated planning could help the country better align these assets with national priorities, participate strategically in international collaborations, and respond to a rapidly changing global context.

“National-scale research infrastructure is central to Canada's ability to address national priorities, participate in international collaborations, and remain globally competitive,” King said.

“An optimized system would help ensure these assets are collectively planned, governed and evaluated in ways that reflect Canada’s strengths, priorities and responsibilities,” she said.

Commissioned by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, the CCA report,  Enhancing Canada’s National-Scale Research Infrastructure, examines how Canada can optimize its national-scale research infrastructure, including large-scale science facilities, the human capital, digital platforms and collaborative networks, to support current and future needs.

National-scale infrastructure includes the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan (USask); the two-kilometre-deep SNOWLAB where scientists study subatomic particles; the TRIUMF national particle accelerator at the University of British Columbia; the Canadian Light Source accelerator at USask, a set of remote radars called SuperDarn that help predict solar storms; the Arctic research icebreaker CCGS Amundsen; and more.

“Canada's world-leading research facilities and infrastructure have long supported excellence in Canadian research,” said Tijs Creutzberg, president and CEO of the CCA.

“But the research landscape is changing quickly. This report shows how a coordinated approach can maximize impact, build long-term capacity, and position Canada to succeed in today’s knowledge-driven world,” he said.

The panel found that this suite of important assets “is not governed or strategically managed as a coherent portfolio designed to ensure it is responsive to Canada’s particular strengths and needs and can achieve the desired impacts.”

Canadian researchers have an excellent global reputation and are ready to step up, “but they have been let down by the country’s piecemeal approach to research facilities, which has not given them the best tools to do so,” King said in an introductory message to the report.

The current ecosystem is fragmented: many funding programs are not effectively connected, coordination is often ad hoc, and funding structures are dispersed across multiple programs and levels of government, she said. “Importantly, the lack of clear national intentions means that the impact of these infrastructures on Canada’s well-being cannot be fully realized.”

To enable Canada to meet the significant challenges and opportunities of the moment, “the panel feels strongly that national-scale research infrastructure must be viewed not as discrete assets, but an interdependent ecosystem whose effectiveness depends on coherent strategy, governance and portfolio management,” King said.

The panel’s report, as well as several decades of studies and reports, confirms a clear consensus that is there is an urgent need for strategic intent, alignment and ambition to ensure that the country’s national-scale research infrastructure is efficient, adaptable and capable of delivering sustained scientific, societal, and economic impact, she said.

Systems-level, portfolio management approach is needed

The expert panel agreed on the need to take a systems-level, portfolio approach to optimize Canada’s national-scale research infrastructure, King said. “Portfolio manage [the assets] with intent.”

The panel’s report noted that there’s no one model in terms of institutional governance of the infrastructure, she said. “The nature of research infrastructure, the ownership, the intent, the mandate, the time frame, it's all quite variable.”

There’s a need to strengthen the clarity of what the governance rules and accountability are, “clarifying the ground rules, make sure people understand their roles – the funders, the host institution, the advisory boards – clear ground rules so they can organize accordingly and have the discussions they need to have,” King said.

This could include a framework or common set of principles that would include defining what is meant by national-scale research infrastructure, so that its institutional governance can be clear in purpose and accountability, “so that the participants understand how to work together in governing those [facilities],” she said.

“Giving them the tools to govern more effectively would be useful,” she said.

The 2023 Report of the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System (the “Bouchard Report”) strongly criticized the fragmented state of Canada's research architecture.

That report noted a severe lack of coordination across the ecosystem that prevents Canada from strategically deploying investments. It concluded that addressing these gaps requires a total "paradigm shift."

Frédéric Bouchard, professor of philosophy at the Université de Montréal who chaired the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System, was a member of this new CCA expert panel.

King said the CCA’s expert panel did see higher-level coordinated governance of national-level research infrastructure, through something like a capstone agency, as useful.

Federal government policy has been advancing such an agency for the last couple of years and signalling that in previous budgets, she noted.

She said that personally – not speaking as the panel’s chair – “I would hope to see a capstone-type entity set up in Budget 2026.”

A 2025 report by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada pointed out that 36 percent of 1,450 federal laboratories remain past their planned lifecycle in “poor or critical condition,” and chronic issues like staff vacancies, low career recommendation rates (26 percent), and funding shortfalls persist outside of the brick-and-mortar investments.

Since each organization has its own mandate and priorities, “there is too often a lack of coordination across the ecosystem that limits Canada’s ability to fully leverage investments and maximize scientific and socioeconomic impacts,” according to a 2025 article from the Canadian Science and Policy Centre.

“Addressing fragmentation requires a paradigm shift in how Canada envisions, plans, funds and manages its research infrastructure,” said the article, by Duncan Reston, assistant deputy minister of Laboratories Canada, and Sylvain Charbnneau, president and CEO of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.

This shift includes fostering cross-sectoral collaborations and co-investments in research infrastructure and exploring the idea of a cohesive national infrastructure strategy to ensure we have a well-integrated, future-ready ecosystem, they said.

“This cross-sectoral collaboration is especially critical to accelerate innovation, support commercialization, and generate breakthrough advancements in rapidly evolving, high-impact fields, such as quantum, defence technologies, and artificial intelligence,” Reston and Charbonneau said.

Roadmap needed to better manage Canada’s national-scale research infrastructure

The CCA’s expert panel pointed out that France, the United Kingdom, other G7 countries, and the European Union have fostered an environment of cross-sectoral collaboration through research infrastructure strategies and roadmaps that set priorities and support public‑private cooperation.

Some jurisdictions, like Australia and the U.K., have implemented dedicated, multi-year funding programs linked to national planning processes to support effective lifecycle management of research infrastructure from selection through decommissioning.

Canada, however, has not yet undertaken a systematic road-mapping exercise or landscape analysis of its national-scale research infrastructure, although there have been several calls to do so, the CCA’s report noted.

“The development of a national-scale research infrastructure roadmap could enable better strategic planning and priority-setting and identify future trends, needs and challenges,” the report said.

Canada’s national-scale research infrastructure exhibits several weaknesses, including the absence of a national strategic framework, which contributes to ad hoc planning, fragmented and short-term funding, and limited coordination among governments and institutions, according to the report.

There is no consistent, predictable funding across the full lifecycle of a national-scale research infrastructure – including decommissioning – to ensure it is properly maintained, utilized and adapted beyond current project cycles.

Funding mechanisms are often misaligned with ecosystem needs, while piecemeal and inadequate support for advanced research computing and data stewardship hinders competitiveness, the report said.

King said shifting to a lifecycle approach for national-scale research infrastructure doesn’t just involve “funding automatically, repeatedly, or for a certain length of time.”

Lifecycle funding requires lifecycle management, including strong impact analysis and performance and impact measurement, she said. “It requires frequent scanning and assessment to ensure that the particular infrastructure is thriving and functioning at its highest potential through the lifecycle.”

Lifecycle funding involves a process of “how to bridge the funding in a competitive fiscal environment, which is [moving] away  from just requesting the next five years of funding, to what exactly the facility will accomplish for Canada and what's needed to accomplish it,” King said.

Such an approach also includes a thoughtful, transparent way to navigate an off-ramp for a research facility that’s no longer meeting national goals and priorities, she added.

The CCA expert panel noted that Canada’s national-scale digital research infrastructure faces challenges that limit the country’s ability to conduct timely research and meet growing demand, including low investment in advanced research computing compared to comparator countries, an ad hoc and uncoordinated approach to research services, and fragmented data governance and management that limit interoperability, linkage, sharing, discoverability and security of vital datasets.

 “Gaps in digital infrastructure and research data management highlight broader system-level inefficiencies and missed opportunities for impact,” the report said. “Governance issues persist at the institutional level.”

Also, the report said, Canada lacks a recognized high-level voice to represent and provide lead responsibility for its involvement in international research collaborations, resulting in missed opportunities for international partnerships and investments.

“Without reform, Canada faces missed opportunities, talent loss and weakened research and innovation performance,” the report said.

“Canada cannot keep muddling through without diminishing its global competitiveness and domestic resilience,” King said.

“I personally, as a taxpayer and someone participating in that research infrastructure [and] research ecosystem, would like to know that we're getting the biggest bang for our buck.”

More than just “an incremental adjustment” is required

Optimizing Canada’s national-scale research infrastructure will require deliberate attention to strategic portfolio-based planning, governance, funding mechanisms, integration of impact assessment, national-scale digital research infrastructure capacity, and a pointed focus on talent to enable continued excellence, alignment with national priorities, and an ability to respond to emerging challenges, the panel’s report said.

National-scale research infrastructure plays a vital role in contributing to Canada’s scientific sovereignty. Canada’s sovereignty objectives could be incorporated into national-scale research infrastructure planning and funding, the report suggested.

Optimizing northern research infrastructure, for example, presents a significant opportunity to strengthen Canada’s leadership in Arctic, ocean, and climate research, while addressing challenges related to geopolitics, climate impacts, high logistics costs, and fragmented coordination.

Some of the panel’s observations of how to optimize Canada’s national-scale research infrastructure “would help Canada be more competitive, more resilient, and build our national capabilities in the current environment. So it's about opportunity and seizing it,” King said.

The optimization of national-scale research infrastructure also requires predictable lifecycle funding, a flexible approach to matching funding requirements, and coordination across capital, operating and research funding streams, according to the panel’s report.

“Iterative, ongoing impact assessments that enable learning and course correction are essential for optimizing Canada’s national-scale research infrastructure.”

Adopting a strategic approach to assessing and communicating the performance and impact of national‑scale research infrastructure will enable optimization, adaptive management and social licence of Canada’s national-scale research infrastructure ecosystem, the report said.

“This moment calls for more than an incremental adjustment,” the expert panel noted.

A portfolio-based approach to national-scale research infrastructure overseen by a specialized governance body (e.g., a capstone organization) and enabled by periodically updated landscape analyses and roadmaps, is a key mechanism for supporting deliberate choices about the balance, complementarity, and scale of investments in physical and digital research infrastructure, the panel said.

Having a national science, technology and innovation strategy “would provide important context for a national-scale research infrastructure portfolio.”

To fully realize the potential of Canada’s national-scale research infrastructure, it is essential to optimize the conditions that support the people who design, manage, operate, and use these assets, the report said.

This includes fostering enabling work environments, providing sustained resources, and leveraging national-scale research infrastructure as a unique training environment that offers hands-on, interdisciplinary learning opportunities.

With decisive, focused action, Canada can catch up – and, in key areas, become a leader – in innovation, global partnerships and societal impact because the underlying capacity already exists, the CCA’s expert panel said. “What’s missing is a willingness to set priorities, make deliberate choices and sustain them over time.”

Change will require resolve among governments and the research community alike, the panel said. “Failure to act risks locking in systemic weakness at precisely the moment when an optimized national-scale research infrastructure is most needed.”

“What is now at stake is whether Canada can and will act in time to position its national-scale research infrastructure for success.”

R$