Science and Research Committee on April 28th, 2022

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Desroches, certain colleagues discussed investments earlier. We of course have to look at the budgets and columns of figures.

You had a recommendation regarding the Vanier Canada graduate scholarships program. If the government tried to innovate in order to rebalance the scholarships without having to invest further, what would you suggest it do?

[Jonathan Desroches]

The value of the Vanier scholarships is $50,000 for three years; they're called "super scholarships". We suggest that they be reduced to $35,000 at the doctoral level under the Canada graduate scholarships program so more of them can be granted. A study by Vincent Larivière...

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

I'm sorry; that's all the time you had.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, we are really happy you're here with us.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

We'll accept the answer in writing, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you both.

Tonight we're delighted to welcome Ms. Gazan to the committee.

The floor is yours for six minutes, welcome.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I am very happy to be part of this committee as a long-time post-secondary educator at both the polytechnique and university levels. This is certainly near and dear to my heart. My first question is for Mr. Bell.

You spoke about the reasons why academics leave universities. One of the criticisms of academic institutions, certainly in Canada, is that they have replaced, for example, tenured professorships with stipend positions. Academia has almost become a career path of poverty for these highly specialized, highly educated individuals in Canada. Would you agree with my assessment that we need to make sure that the positions offered at universities are less precarious so that we can retain top-notch academics in Canada?

[Dr. Thomas Bell]

I would definitely agree. Tenured positions are the linchpin of the university system. It's only with tenured positions that you can ensure that you get the best scientists. As I mentioned, you're competing with other countries for these scientists, and I think, if tenured positions become lacking, they'll go to other places.

I know that, increasingly, many university positions within Canada rely on soft money, on bringing in the grant income, and, if you don't bring in the grant income, then your position goes away. I think following that trajectory would be a mistake.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just following up on that, what changes do you think should be made to overhaul the system so that scholars who want to do their research, continue their studies in Canada and contribute to solving major crises that we face? We often, I think, separate what we're doing in universities from what's happening on the ground, when universities and polytechnics really lead the way in solutions across the country.

Can you recommend some changes to the granting system?

[Dr. Thomas Bell]

That's a very difficult and complicated question. I'm not sure I'm sufficiently expert in that area to make a very detailed comment, but I should note that the granting system is very different in Canada from that in the U.S. and Europe. The money is spread much more thinly among many more people. This can also be a barrier to bringing top scientists into the country. The opportunity for large grants to do the most exciting research is often limiting within Canada.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

Just moving on to Mr. Wolfe, when you look at the granting of research dollars by the federal government, one of the common criticisms for polytechnics is that they currently get 5% of all research dollars while universities get the lion's share at 95%. We know that polytechnics do a lot of research in partnership with, for example, companies that are currently in the process of trying to innovate new technologies.

Would you agree that the current granting system between polytechnics and universities maybe needs to be a little bit more equitable? Please answer yes or no and give your opinions on that.

[Prof. David Wolfe]

I'm not going to say yes, because I'm employed by the largest university in the country, so that's a bit of a loaded question. I will reinterpret it slightly, with your permission.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Sure.

[Prof. David Wolfe]

There have been a number of very innovative programs introduced at NSERC at the federal level. Ontario had one that targeted community colleges. I think some were targeted at the polytechnics.

When we think of university interaction with industry and firms, I think we need to look at it as part of a continuum. Collaboration on basic fundamental research, the kind that Dr. Bell has been talking about, is at one end. The kind of more applied, incremental innovation that goes on that people from the community colleges and the polytechnics can work with firms on is at the other end. We need to look at the entire spectrum.

I think it's a mistake to say that there's only one pot of money for basic fundamental or discovery research and that we have to allocate to all of the post-secondary institutions. I think we need to look at the different roles those institutions play in supporting innovation and ask ourselves if we have the appropriate mix of policies targeted at the role that the different post-secondary institutions can play and make sure they're adequately funded.

The other thing I've long said is that we need to flip the switch a little bit on how we look at that relationship. We tend to have a supply-push model of research results. In other words, we fund the fundamental research in the universities, and then we think in terms of how to push that out into private firms, but, if you talk to private firms, they will often say, “I have this technical problem I'm trying to solve. I'm sure there's someone in my local college, polytechnic or community who can help me solve it. I don't know where to go to find the solution.”

We need to also be thinking in terms of what the appropriate demand-pull mechanisms are to help pull the available scientific knowledge or technical expertise out of the post-secondary institutions and put it to work assisting firms that are trying to solve concrete technical problems.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I thank you for your grace in answering my question in the way you needed to answer. I really appreciated your response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Ms. Gazan, I am sorry. I appreciated your grace. Thank you to you both.

Now we're going to go to the five-minute round.

We're pleased to welcome tonight Monsieur Lehoux.

The floor is yours for five minutes. Welcome.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the members of the committee for welcoming me this evening, and thanks in particular to the witnesses for being with us.

My first question is for Mr. Desroches.

You talked about student representation on boards of administration. I'd like you to address that point and to tell us more about your board experience.

What does that add to the mix?

[Jonathan Desroches]

Thank you for your question.

Based on the work that Quebec's chief scientist has done with the provincial councils, student representation on the research boards makes it possible to present the student point of view and to raise those scholarship funding concerns.

For example, when funding is granted to the granting councils in future, people could systematically ensure that a portion of that funding is paid to emerging scientists, master's and doctoral students.

However, Canada can also follow the example of what Quebec's chief scientist is doing. Mona Nemer, Canada's chief science advisor, is supported by a youth council. If I had a suggestion to make, it would be that the youth council select individuals to sit on the boards of the federal granting councils.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Would that require amendments, Mr. Desroches?

I understood at the outset that you had raised this important point. The federal government should make amendments to certain statutes.

[Jonathan Desroches]

That's correct. The composition of NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR is defined by three separate statutes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Earlier you mentioned that there had been an improvement to funding. However, from what I understand, there hasn't been a significant improvement with regard to indexing in recent years.

[Jonathan Desroches]

That's correct. Research scholarship amounts are fixed. Scholarships aren't indexed and haven't been increased in many years. We can see the value of the scholarships declining over time. I might add that a $20,000 scholarship in Quebec doesn't have the same value as a $20,000 scholarship elsewhere in Canada, where the cost of living may be higher.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Desroches.

I have a question for Mr. Bell.

We know there are obstacles to attracting and retaining talent, but I'd like to hear what you have to say on one specific point.

What role could the federal government play in more effectively attracting and retaining talent outside the major urban centres and large cities?

[Dr. Thomas Bell]

The key is always that the science attracts the science. If you want to attract scientist outside of the metropolises, then you need to create the centres of innovation there. That may mean setting up centres of excellence at locations where you'd like to set them up. I don't think that scientists are distracted by the particular location; lots of very prominent universities are in very odd places around the world. The main thing is that you need to set up a place where it's beneficial to do your science.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Professor Bell, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Thank you, Mr. Lehoux.

Now we will go to Monsieur Lauzon, for five minutes, please.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the three witnesses, Mr. Bell, Mr. Desroches and Mr. Wolfe.

My first question will be for Mr. Wolfe, who is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto.

In 2018, you helped draft a report entitled Creating Digital Opportunity for Canada.

What drew my attention to that report is that you say, on page 31, that the federal government has delivered more than 90 programs. In your view, the investments made in Canadian businesses have contributed to the training and retention of talent at our educational institutions.

I'd like you to tell the committee about the impact of this development, which you mentioned in your report.