Evidence of meeting #10 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was students.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan
Okay, thank you so much, Mr. Tochor.
Witnesses, you can see that we have a really interested committee here.
From Mr. Tochor we will now go to Mr. McKinnon for six minutes, please.
April 28th, 2022 / 6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I would just like you to clarify, Mr. Desroches, what you were talking about with my colleague. Am I to understand that cutting back on scholarships and so forth would be a false economy?
6:55 p.m.
President, Quebec Student Union
That's exactly what I think. I think that limiting the country's ability to support our researchers would hurt its economy in the long run.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
From your point of view, putting more money into graduate students and postgraduate students to develop their skills in Canada would have long-term, beneficial economic results as well as scientific results for Canada.
6:55 p.m.
President, Quebec Student Union
Exactly, and we're relying on the 2017 Naylor report, which described the level of science in Canada and recommended that we provide improved funding, particularly in the form of master's and doctoral scholarships. We know that scholarship applications abound. All we have to do is fund those individuals so more students have access to Ph.D.s. Without funding, many students who meet all the criteria of excellence have to choose among doing research for free, going elsewhere or taking up another career.
We definitely lose talented people when we can't support and fund them. We're talking about retaining talent and brains, and they have to be adequately supported and funded.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Desroches.
I'm going to build on this, but will switch over to Dr. Bell.
Dr. Bell, in your remarks you indicated that, once we lose people, it's hard to get them back. Am I to understand that, if we can keep people here at the early stages of their careers, if we can make their career opportunities more robust, we are more likely to keep them and more likely to build on them?
6:55 p.m.
Prof. David Wolfe
I think that's certainly the case with many scientists who go abroad. It's simply the fact that you set up a new life in a different country, you become static, and it becomes much more difficult to reintegrate into the system.
The Canadian scientific community is much different from the American scientific community or the European scientific community and, to a large extent, it makes it very difficult to re-enter that world once you've left it.
7 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Obviously funding is important because people have to be able to pay the bills, but you mentioned that the thing that attracts talent most effectively is good science, not necessarily money.
Go ahead.
7 p.m.
Professor, Imperial College London, As an Individual
By money, what I think I was referring to was not so much salary, although obviously it's always attractive to have a nice salary. I think what attracts scientists most is to have the funding opportunities for their research to be able to excel to their potential.
7 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I keep asking this question of all of our panellists. One thing you mentioned was important is discovery science and innovation. It seems to me, perhaps from your experience on NSERC, that one of the problems there is how you identify research that's worth funding, because fundamental science, discovery science, doesn't necessarily look like it's going to amount to anything at the outset. Perhaps you could address that concern as well.
7 p.m.
Professor, Imperial College London, As an Individual
I think that's very difficult to predict, and I think, if you look at the history of it, if you were trying to predict what the cutting edge of science would be today—if you were doing that 10 years ago—then very few people would have been able to predict what the research was going to look like.
I think that's difficult for scientists to do, and it's even more difficult for governments to do. Clearly, you need to make some decisions about where the funding should be allocated. I think it's worthwhile to allocate some of that money towards innovating technologies rather than just discovery science, but trying to predict which science will create those technologies is often a losing game.
7 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'll switch over to Dr. Wolfe, I think.
You mentioned the importance of having a deep pool of talent in skilled labour. I expect that means that having a robust body of postgrads and so forth would be part of that.
7 p.m.
Prof. David Wolfe
Absolutely. The labour market that I'm referring to is created by the graduates of all of our post-secondary institutions, from the community colleges through the polytechnics to the universities. It comes through all levels of graduate education, from bachelor through master to doctorate. All of those graduates feed into the local labour market. They don't always necessarily stay in the metropolitan area where they were educated.
What we've been finding in recent research is—
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan
Professor Wolfe, I'm so sorry. That's the end of the six minutes. This is really hard, and I've done it to you twice. My apologies.
I know give the floor to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.
7 p.m.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First, I want to say hello to my colleagues and the witnesses participating in this meeting.
My first question is for Mr. Desroches.
Mr. Desroches, your opening remarks were very clear. You outlined the situation and your demands.
What I understand from that is that we have talent in Canada, particularly in Quebec. We have to create the conditions for that talent to develop and succeed, and funding is one of those conditions. More specifically, you mentioned the $120 million investment, which was invested before the cuts in 2011. There has been more investment since 2019, but it's not enough and can't close the gap that opened up between 2011 and 2019.
Do you think the money invested since 2019 is enough?
7 p.m.
President, Quebec Student Union
Thank you for your question.
Cuts were made between 2011 and 2015, and more money has been invested in research since 2015, but not in scholarships.
Cuts were also made to student programs, as they were to the other chair programs and research funding in general. It's hard to understand why scholarships weren't funded after 2015.
That situation was partly rectified by the 2019 budget, but the funding we need to return to the level we had before the cuts, before 2011, is still lacking.
I would note that the federal granting councils have criteria of excellence. When students meet those criteria and we can't fund them, we lose opportunities to develop more highly qualified workers, and that's unfortunate.
7:05 p.m.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Desroches.
In your analysis, has the situation of students in Canada improved?
7:05 p.m.
President, Quebec Student Union
The situation has definitely not improved. Much work remains to be done, particularly with regard to scholarship terms and amounts. As I noted in my remarks, NSERC and CIHR research scholarship amounts haven't changed in about two decades. Given the cost of living, which has obviously changed in the past 20 years, I can't say the situation has improved.
7:05 p.m.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Would you please tell me a little more about insufficient terms of financial support? You discussed the terms of master's and doctoral scholarships. Studies have been conducted on talent retention. I'd like you to tell me about the consequences that situation can have for talent retention and about the financial stress that can cause graduate students.
7:05 p.m.
President, Quebec Student Union
Yes, that's a crucial point, and I would note, once again, that the Naylor report raised it.
The government invests in students' education for a number of years. However, scholarships don't run for the same term as their studies, as a result of which they lose their main source of funding as they approach the end of their education and have to stop focusing on their doctorate and research. You should note, incidentally, that doctoral students are involved in writing scientific articles and have been writing them for a number of years. When their term of study is longer, it costs students more to earn their degree. They may not even complete it.
7:05 p.m.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you.
You discussed the doctorate, but it takes at least two years to complete a master's degree. However, current funding doesn't cover that period.
7:05 p.m.
President, Quebec Student Union
Exactly. The term of the NSERC and CIHR master's scholarships is one year. CIHR has started rectifying the situation by acting on the recommendations of the Naylor report on doctoral scholarships, but NSERC and CIHR still have work to do.
7:05 p.m.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
You made another recommendation.
Quebec has guaranteed students a position in the administration of the Fonds de recherche du Québec since 2014. That's an initiative of Quebec's chief scientist, Rémi Quirion, who incidentally has appeared before the committee.
Are students listened to, and is their perspective taken into consideration? That's not the case of the federal granting councils.
7:05 p.m.
President, Quebec Student Union
That's currently not the case at the federal level. That's why we're making this recommendation, which would cost nothing. The federal granting councils fund research and students, but students have no forum where they can speak out.
Quebec's chief scientist is very satisfied with the initiative he introduced in 2014, as you noted. It's helping to contribute new ideas to the granting councils. But the research sector wants is to stimulate new ideas.
