Report on the January 5 meeting of the Mathematics/NSERC Liaison
Committee (Feb 4, 1996)

Present: Jon Borwein, Tom Brzustowski, John Chadam, Nassif Ghoussoub,
Steve Halperin, Jacques Hurtubise, Nigel Lloyd, Danielle Menard.

(also present for the discussion of the National Network for Research
in the Mathematical Sciences (NNRMS): Luc Vinet, Ed Perkins)

        The meeting started with a summary of the activities of the
Liaison Committee over the last year.  While the Committee was created
under difficult circumstances, unexpected benefits, in the form of
much more vigorous communications both within the mathematics
community itself and between the community and NSERC, have resulted.
The community is also much more active than in the past in working
together and with NSERC to establish priorities and develop new
initiatives.  The proposal for a National Network for Research in the
Mathematical Sciences (NNRMS) is an example of this new vision and
mode of operation.

        In the presence of the directors of CRM, the Fields
Institute and PIMS, the letter of intent for the NNRMS was discussed.
It was made clear that the proponents wish to engage in a dialogue
with NSERC to find the best way to seek new federal funding for this
initiative and that this dialogue is not intended to circumvent
the peer review process.  The principal elements of the proposal were
described and all of the math representatives stressed the
considerable efforts that have taken place so far and the momentum
that has been built around the proposal.  Feedback was sought from
NSERC on the proposal and it was agreed that many of the network's
objectives are closely aligned with NSERC's objectives and directions.
Possible program vehicles under which NSERC could consider the
proposal were discussed. It was agreed that NSERC would discuss
internally how to consider this new initiative and advise the
proponents on what mechanism would be used to adjudicate it. The
proponents were encouraged to proceed with detailed planning within
the discipline and with related disciplines in preparation for such an
adjudication.

It was agreed that if the Research Networks  component of the RPP was
to be the mechanism to review NNRMS, 'receptor communities' for the
NNRMS could appropriately include, for example, schools and other
disciplines that use mathematics' results, and that the success of the
network might be measured in part by the development of more
traditional industrial receptors.

In view of the recent program changes and the possible cancellation of
the CSP program, mechanisms for the future funding of
the math institutes were discussed. The members of the Liaison
committee recommended that such funding be transferred to an envelope
that would be specifically identified with the mathematical sciences.
They also recommended that the evaluation of these institutes be
performed by a multidisciplinary panel consisting of distinguished
Canadian and international scientists.
Proposed changes to the Allocations process were discussed.
The community as a whole will be consulted about these changes before
the June Council meeting.

It had been agreed at earlier meetings that consultation should take
place between NSERC and the Liaison committee about possible
mathematicians who could serve on relevant NSERC committees and
taskforces. This has happened in the interim on an ad hoc basis. It
was agreed that the consultation process should take place on a more
regular basis.

Finally, a document outlining the objectives, terms of reference and
process of the upcoming Mathematics Review was discussed. It was
agreed that Dr Richard Kane (University of Western Ontario) would be
asked to be the scientific convenor for the review and that the review
should be conducted by a distinguished panel consisting of
mathematicians from outside Canada, and mathematical scientists and
researchers from other disciplines where mathematics is important
from Canada and/or abroad.
Suggestions for the membership of the Review Committee were made.
Further details of the information to be collected for the review will
be developed.  If possible, the process will take advantage of the CMS
and CAMS meetings in June.  While consideration of the NNRMS proposal
will not await the results of the review, it was agreed that the
review should also deal with the impact of this initiative on
mathematical and scientific research in Canada and that coherence
between the results of the review and this initiative would have to be
ensured.