Science and Research Committee on April 28th, 2022

[Prof. David Wolfe]

I'm sorry; I missed the title. The audio cut out when you said the title of the report, so I need to—

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

Okay, you were part of the report “Creating Digital Opportunity for Canada” in 2015-16.

[Prof. David Wolfe]

Yes, that was my research project that I led.

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

You said in this report, on page 31, that the investment we made as a federal government in Canadian enterprise and the contributions for the retention of the school were important for you. Can you speak a little bit about that?

[Prof. David Wolfe]

I don't have the report in front of me, so you have me at a disadvantage. I think I was making the same point that both of the other witnesses were making. You need to fund the science. You need to fund the post-secondary education, and you need to fund the students and make sure that the students are funded at all levels through the post-secondary system in order to create the deep talent pool of technical talent.

We're living in an age that's increasingly being defined as an intangible economy, an economy that runs on data, on intellectual property, on branding and on marketing, and the intangibles are based on people with the ability to understand the talent to create the IP, to do the research and to analyze the data.

I've been studying these areas for over 20 years. I worked in government 30 years ago. The world has shifted dramatically in the past 30 years. Talent was important then; it's ten times more important now. If we don't fund, support and nurture that talent and put it out into the local labour market, we don't have the base either to grow our own domestic firms or to attract other firms into our regions. That was the fundamental point I think I was trying to make in that report.

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

I'd like to ask you another question.

As a university professor, to what extent are you involved in funding decisions?

We heard Mr. Desroches mention the problem of student underfunding several times. As you know, there has to be a balance between program funding and funding for students. If program funding were reduced in order to give students more, what impact would that have on your university?

What do you think would be the best way to fund students?

[Prof. David Wolfe]

Mr. Desroches can speak to Quebec. I'm not qualified to do that. I can speak to Ontario.

The reality is that going back to the ending of the block funding formula from the federal government to the provinces in 1995, the federal share of funding that is going to post-secondary institutions has declined steadily for 25 years. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada has called for the introduction of some form of a block funding formula dedicated to post-secondary institutions.

At my university, if I'm not mistaken, the level of public funding at the moment is about 25% of the total operational cost of the university. The rest comes from tuition, from external research grants and from philanthropy. It doesn't come from the public sector, and very little of that 25% comes from the federal government.

If the federal government is truly worried about how post-secondary education is being financed in this country and how affordable it is for students at all levels, then they need to take a long, hard look at how the shared cost formulas between the federal government and the provinces have changed over the last 27 years, because the net result of that change has been a decline in share of federal transfers that end up supporting post-secondary education.

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

Thanks for the answer.

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Lauzon and Professor Wolfe.

We will now go to the last round. It will be for two and a half minutes. We will start with Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to continue the discussion with Mr. Desroches.

I'd like to circle back to the point raised earlier concerning the Vanier Canada graduate scholarships. That program awards 167 $50,000-a-year scholarships to highly talented graduates, some of whom come from outside Canada.

What do you recommend we do to ensure that we can at least fund Canadian students with some of the money from those scholarships.

[Jonathan Desroches]

Thank you for your question.

To increase access to funding and ensure as many students as possible are funded from available funds, we suggest that the super scholarships awarded under the Vanier Canada graduate scholarship program be reduced to $35,000 in order to fund more students.

We base that recommendation on research conducted at the Université de Montréal that shows that a student who has access to funding over a certain amount won't produce more research as a result of that funding. The optimum solution would therefore be to grant funding to other students.

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

Thank you, Mr. Desroches.

You've made an exhaustive effort to evaluate the funding shortage, the $120 million you mentioned in connection with the research scholarships. I understood that it's harder to get data from certain funding councils.

Please tell us about that experience.

[Jonathan Desroches]

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, doesn't have any aggregated data on scholarships from the annual reports of the three federal funding councils. Consequently, we can't form an overall picture. Without data, we can't determine whether funding is a problem. The ideal would be to restore data publication so we could determine the number of applications submitted and the number of scholarships awarded and observe how access to research scholarships has developed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Desroches.

I have a final question for you.

The number of researchers in Canada has declined in recent years. Canada is the only G7 country that has lost researchers. We see there's a correlation between that and economic development. Between 2001 and 2019, Canada fell from eighth^x to seventeenth^x place in the Global Innovation Index.

What you think about that?

[Jonathan Desroches]

I'm going to refer to my remarks. We have to provide more support for graduate students who are already in the country and for the time they spend on their studies.

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

Thank you very much,

Madam Chair do we have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

You had 10 seconds left, my friend. That was right on time, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

Now we will go to Ms. Gazan for two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Desroches. When I was teaching at university, I didn't lose a lot of students due to academic issues. I lost a lot of students to poverty and their being unable to afford their studies—some of the brightest minds in my classrooms—and it was tragic.

You, of course, talked a little bit about the need for better funding for students. One thing that I've been fighting for is a guaranteed, livable, basic income, including for students, so that students could focus on their studies and be the best in their fields.

Do you think a guaranteed, livable, basic income would assist students in being able to focus on their studies? I believe that, if you have the time to focus on your studies, you become the best of the best. You get the best of the best in the fields.

[Jonathan Desroches]

That's why, in order to support students more, we suggest that funding for the research scholarships for which the three federal councils are responsible be increased. As you just demonstrated, for example, it's the students that have no funding and must work during their doctoral studies who are affected and thus unable to publish during that time.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you for your response.

I absolutely agree with your assessment. I also agree that part of the issue is that there is a lack of student input, that decisions are made on behalf of students in the absence of the voices of students who are really living the experience.

Do you feel that it's important for students to be part of the decision-making or having part of any sort of decision concerning things related to budgeting or delivering grants?

[Jonathan Desroches]

Science is based on the clash and confrontation of ideas. Consequently, what students in Canada can provide are new ideas in certain contexts, including the administration of funding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

I'm sorry, but I have to stop you there.

Dear colleagues, we all want to thank the witnesses for your time, your effort and your expertise. We are grateful that you've taken the time.

Professor Bell, we do recognize the hour this is for you. We hope that you've had a good experience, and thank you.

We will briefly suspend as we get ready to go to our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Colleagues, I will welcome you back for panel two of the second study of this inaugural committee.

We'd like to begin by welcoming our witnesses. We are so glad you joined us, and we look forward to hearing what you have to say. You have a committee who's really interested in your work.

Tonight for the second panel we have Shiri Breznitz, associate professor, Munk School of Global Affairs, the University of Toronto. From Dalhousie University, we have Alice Aiken, vice-president, research and innovation. From the Université du Québec, we have Etienne Carbonneau, executive advisor, governmental relations; and Céline Poncelin de Raucourt, vice-president, teaching and research.

We're going to hear from each of you for five minutes. At the four and a half minute mark, you'll see me lift a yellow card, and that means you have 30 seconds left.

We look forward to your testimony, and we will begin with Professor Breznitz.

The floor is yours, please.

[Dr. Shiri Marom Breznitz, Associate Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Dear members of the committee on science and research, my name is Shiri Breznitz. I am an associate professor at the Munk School.

I will focus my statement on the importance of entrepreneurship education and the role of international education in entrepreneurship.

Policy-makers have long viewed universities as significant contributors to entrepreneurship, job creation and economic growth. In recent years, many studies have examined the impact of firms started by students and graduates. In the U.S., studies find that universities' major impact is in the form of start-ups created by students rather than faculty. For that, we need entrepreneurs.

First, I would like to discuss the importance of entrepreneurship education. Studies indicate the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises to a successful, innovative economy. Here is where entrepreneurship education becomes an important tool. Our research finds that, in comparison to no entrepreneurship education at all, entrepreneurship education courses do have a positive impact on entrepreneurship in general, but especially on students' entrepreneurship.

In addition, a combination of entrepreneurship education from different organizations such as government agencies, incubators, accelerators and universities promotes the establishment of high technology firms, so it's not just any business, but high technology businesses.

On the policy level, this means that we need government to support a variety of entrepreneurship support organizations that teach entrepreneurship and support entrepreneurs.

Second, I would like to highlight that, while STEM education is important for a technology-based workforce, it does not increase the number of start-ups or firms. Studies debate the importance of STEM education for entrepreneurship. My work indicates there is a positive relationship between a non-STEM degree and entrepreneurship opportunity. No matter how we define entrepreneurship, STEM graduates do not outperform their counterparts who have only non-STEM degrees. That said, we also found that having both types of degrees is positive for entrepreneurial activity. It is assumed that, by studying both STEM and non-STEM subjects, graduate students will learn more diverse knowledge and skills. The important take-away from this is that an overemphasis on a STEM workforce may not lead to a higher rate of entrepreneurship.

Third, I would like to discuss the importance of international education and international employment on entrepreneurship. Many studies show that foreign students are more entrepreneurial than domestic students. Our study examining U of T alumni supports these studies and find outperformance among students with foreign education experience in creating start-ups. However, we find that, irrespective of their country of origin, students who have earned any foreign degree—this includes not only non-Canadian students who come to Canada, but Canadians who pursue higher education outside Canada—are more likely to become entrepreneurs.

Education is just one aspect of international experience, which could also involve working in a foreign country. Since we also analyzed the differences between international education and international employment as well as the impact of having both experiences on entrepreneurship, our empirical research showed that international education experience matters more, so education matters more to entrepreneurship than international employment experience.

When we break down the analysis and we examine the subjects studied by students, the international experience seems to be more important than the subject studied or the degree obtained, and it doesn't matter what students studied abroad. The experience of international education has a positive impact on entrepreneurship.

For policy-makers, the important take-away here is to pay attention to domestic students who have obtained academic degrees outside their home country and even create programs to support international education. Many countries such as China, India, Spain and New Zealand have introduced policies to induce skilled workers to return to their country of origin. Canada should consider similar policies.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Associate Professor Breznitz. We appreciate that.

Now we will go to the vice-president of research and innovation, Alice Aiken, for five minutes, please.