Industry Committee on April 17th, 2008

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

SARS is another example. We needed to have the preparedness, but we couldn't predict in advance that we'd have the problem.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Would you comment, Mr. Knight?

[James Knight]

Thank you very much for your question, which goes to the heart of our argument.

We strongly support investments in universities. We believe in discovery research, but indeed there is a more applied side of research, in which our institutions have developed a very great success. There's really very little investment there. There is a new program, as I mentioned, that will support some work in one in five or one in six of our institutions. We think that should be ramped up.

We also think that while we have access to a variety of federal funding sources, the criteria clearly are weighted in favour of universities. I think our colleagues from the Government of Canada have pretty well underlined that. We're not against that; it's just that there's this whole important component of ties with industry and commercialization that we're almost completely neglecting. It's a huge oversight on the part of the Government of Canada.

My job is to persuade you that there's another side of the coin that is very important to Canada's future economic prospects.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

When I looked at your statistics, I saw six to one. When we did our manufacturing study, we went across Canada and we heard repeatedly about the need for human resources and how the whole system isn't getting that in there. Is there another way we can help to get this kick-started, do you think?

[James Knight]

My argument in the long term is that we need to recapitalize these institutions. They were all built--not all, but an overwhelmingly number--in the 1960s. They haven't been adequately recapitalized or supported over time with additional resources. In fact, in some jurisdictions they're losing resources. Despite an effort on the part of the Government of Canada in some cases to increase resources, they're in fact declining.

The system is not entirely smooth, and there are regional differences, but fundamentally.... Let me just tell you about one institution, Red River College. There are about three applicants for every position in the college. Everybody gets a job right away; employers fight over the outputs, and they have a job fair that's totally oversubscribed. Wouldn't it be sensible to make an investment in that institution that would allow it to increase its outputs? That's on the skill side.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With the provinces, are you seeing some leadership in this issue?

[James Knight]

Certainly. I'm not being negative about the provincial effort. In some cases I could be, but there are clearly successes. We're facing a national skills shortage, a crisis of significant proportions, and I could list the industries that are pleading for more graduates from our institutions. Yet we don't have the means to produce them. In my judgment, this is a national issue that requires national leadership.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Carrie.

We go now to Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

Mr. Knight, you and I have pasts that collide in the municipal area. I come to Parliament with a municipal background. Municipal backgrounds invariably lead to discussions of infrastructure--bricks and mortar and all that sort of thing. I notice in your submission you talk about institutions that are four decades old and were intended to last 40 years, so I did the math and figured that was pretty much the same, so you're facing an infrastructure crisis, essentially, at the community college level, a capitalization crisis.

I've talked to numerous university presidents in Atlantic Canada, and to students on the street whom we meet with quite frequently as parliamentarians, and we've come to learn there is a tuition crisis. University tuition is very high, and university presidents smartly say that part of this, at least in Atlantic Canada, which has an awful lot of older universities and declining populations as well, has to do with lack of recapitalization of their assets.

So, true to my background, I would like to know--and maybe flesh out a little more from you and the other members--what you see as adequate recapitalization in the community college context. Perhaps we can speak to it generally, rather than just about buildings, science and technology infrastructure. All members of the panel would be interested in speaking to it, I think.

[James Knight]

Thank you for that.

Indeed, it's more than bricks and mortar. We're talking about equipment. That's really important. If we don't have the latest, we can't train the students in the highest and most current technologies.

Also, we're facing a really big challenge with human resources in faculty infrastructure. As you can see from the time span we've been operating as institutions, we're going to lose huge numbers of people. I can't put a dollar figure in front of this. I can't tell you specifically where to make these investments, but I think we have to take a very serious look at this.

One of my recommendations is that our sector establish an advisory group or a think group involving different governments and different institutions to really try to get our thoughts around this and come up with some specific suggestions. If we fail, many industries are going to seriously slow down--the construction industry, health services. Most health professionals come out of community colleges--nurses, technicians of many kinds. The railways are crying for people to run them, and they want us to double our outputs of railway technicians. There isn't a sector that doesn't have a problem, and this becomes a national issue.

We have to get our heads around this and we have to make some investments. If we fail to do that, the country will pay a big price in its economic prospects.

[Dr. Nigel Lloyd]

On the research infrastructure for universities, of course the big player in that is the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Since the arrival of the CFI on the scene 10 or 11 years ago, there's been a dramatic and very positive transformation of our research infrastructure in the universities. That has completely changed the climate. Because of that we've gone from a situation where people were leaving Canada because they didn't have access to top-class equipment to being a magnet now for talent from around the world. It's going to be really important to sustain that.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

One quick point I'd like to make is that these questions are pointing to the many pieces of this puzzle in terms of the post-secondary university research landscape and the different players in it. I think there are some encouraging signs. For example, we like to say at all the councils that excellence has no fixed address. We welcome proposals from across the country. One of the most interesting ones has been an initiative out of Yukon College related to the north and so on. I think there are some promising signs that we're beginning to connect across and think of better ways to help ourselves in a pan-Canadian sense, but as has been suggested, we also have a way to go.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Knight, with respect to the weight tilted in favour of universities, you danced around it fairly nicely, but in my own province community colleges are more into applied studies, as you put it. I would be more apt to describe them as adaptable. Would you agree that community colleges are best at adapting to provincial skills needs?

[James Knight]

They're rooted in their communities, which is why they call them community colleges. They have boards made up of local business leaders. They have advisory groups on the various areas that define the needs and the teaching. That's their greatest strength. They can change gears relatively quickly and meet changing market conditions in local communities. They have the mechanisms to ensure that this is done. I think that's their greatest strength.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Knight, I would like to carry along in a similar vein, just so that I'm clear on where you see the barriers to expanding your capacity to get some of these needs dealt with. Is this about funding for community college programs—capacity, infrastructure, and resources to put programs in place? Or are you talking about funds for research and technology advancement?

[James Knight]

I touched on both. I admitted that we have to work at increasing our knowledge of the problems surrounding infrastructure and output capacity. We need to do some profound research to understand these matters.

I won't say it's come upon us quickly, but we're rather taken aback by the number of applicants for courses. We're surprised by the large number of university students who now want to go to college. That's putting a huge strain on the system. There are opportunities we would recommend in research and development, commercialization, and innovation.

We have a small innovation program dealing with colleges and communities. I think we should look at making it bigger. It's very tiny. It can support only one in five or six institutions. We would like to see a more independent and flexible program.

We also put forward the notion of a national advisory committee for infrastructure and innovation in small and medium enterprises. We work closely with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

When you're faced with excess demand, one response is to bring in the backbone of your community colleges. I agree that it's the right thing to do. You commented favourably about the response of the provinces. We understand that for community colleges the decisions are made mainly at the provincial and territorial level. In budget 2007, the federal government increased the post-secondary transfer by some $850 million, with 3% accelerated each year. I hope your association continues to make this situation known.

I have a general question to the granting council representatives. Mr. Gaffield, you mentioned that there are enough undergraduates in the system. I wonder if Canada is doing as well as other countries in fuelling the pool of science and technology graduates coming up through the system. Are we doing enough at the introductory levels of science to get the people we need? We want to get the best and brightest from the world, but the world needs these people too. Are we doing enough to get our own people up to PhD level?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

I have one quick qualification. There's no doubt that the demand for people with undergraduate degrees is increasing in our knowledge economy. Even though, internationally speaking, we're competitive, everybody is moving up on that score.

We are behind at the graduate level. That's why we were so pleased to see the addition of the Vanier scholarships and more resources coming from the Canada graduate scholarships. The key for us is the role of these graduates across the public, private, and non-for-profit sectors. The expectation and hope is that folks with graduate degrees will be able to help Canada move forward. Our people in the social sciences are getting jobs soon after graduation.

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

I think it is very important to foster the interest at the secondary level and even before that.

We have a program called Synapse. It's a mentoring program; the researchers in particular are very keen in doing that part of the mentoring. I think we need to tap into these people for help, because they are the ones who will foster a career in research among younger people.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

We'll go to Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. I have one question that I just have to ask. You say that there is a terrible lack of investment on the part of the federal government, but do you get anything in return for the money you invest in people? Is your investment paying off?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

This is a great time to once more stress what I call the three key concrete outcomes of our investments. It brings up the question that has already been mentioned today: the development of talent. We invest in the future, in Canadian society and in the people who are going to help us move forward.

The investments allow us to understand our present reality and the world around us.

The investments also help us to understand future reality and the world as it will be in the years to come.

I feel that these investments provide us with understanding, with knowledge, and that forms the basis of what is going to protect us from the future. They allow us to mobilize people, to develop talent and to build knowledge and understanding both for today and tomorrow.

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

In the area of health, I would say that there are clear economic benefits. Think of the development of biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. Those are what I would categorize as classic economic impacts. In commercialization, the health sector is very active.

I also feel that we do not sufficiently emphasize the fact that quality of care and quality of life are also benefits. Reducing mortality and morbidity rates allows us to be much more productive as a people. Remarkable progress has been made in many areas on quality of life, on quality of care and, as a result, on everyone's ability to be productive.