Science and Research Committee on May 5th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

With that, colleagues, we'd like to thank all of our witnesses tonight.

We are grateful for your time, your expertise and your joining us, and that you all prepared so much to come here. We thank you.

We will now suspend briefly and get ready for our second panel.

Again, witnesses, thank you and good night.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

I call the meeting back to order.

Colleagues, I'm going to welcome everyone back for panel two.

Welcome to everyone who's joining us tonight. We are thankful for your time and your effort, and we're looking forward to hearing from you.

This will be the second panel tonight.

We have Dr. Shaun Khoo, a post-doctoral fellow from the Université de Montréal.

From the Canadian Glycomics Network, we have Elizabeth Nanak, chief executive officer; Karimah Es Sabar, board chair; and Warren Wakarchuk, scientific director.

I apologize if I've mispronounced your names.

From Endometriosis Network Canada, we have Mathew Leonardi, and Philippa Bridge-Cook, the chair.

Welcome to all of you.

We will go through your statements. You will have five minutes. At the four and a half minute mark, I will raise a yellow card so that you know you have 30 seconds left.

We'll begin with Shaun Khoo for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Shaun Khoo, Postdoctoral Fellow, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

My key message tonight is simple. Researchers might love making discoveries, but the way to attract and retain talented researchers is to improve their pay and working conditions. There are institutional and workplace culture issues as well, but job availability, salary and security are the most important.

All over the world, whether it's North America or Australia, where I'm from, there is an abundance of talented researchers. Somewhere between 80% and 90% of Ph.D. holders will not find permanent jobs in academia, which means there are five to 10 times as many Ph. D.s as universities need. This has allowed Canadian funders and institutions to leave wages stagnant, but Canada's academic institutions are not just competing with other countries for talent. They're competing with other industries that are offering us salaries that are double or triple those in Canada's academies and with better working conditions.

My perspective is that of a foreign postdoctoral researcher. I completed my Ph.D. in Australia before moving to Montreal in 2017. Canada was attractive both as a scientific leader in my field and as a great place to live. While not every postdoc can be retained, in my case I felt that five years overseas was enough. It would be relatively easy for Canada to retain researchers like me by giving us jobs with decent pay and conditions.

Good working conditions start with a bit of security. While one- or two-year contracts have become the norm for early career researchers in much of the world, short-term contracts prevent researchers from planning both their lives and their research. Research projects have gotten longer and more complex, so short contracts restrict the kinds of questions that can be answered or the expertise that can be developed. They also prevent researchers from planning their lives. If a top researcher wants to settle in Canada, it's hard for them to think about buying a house or starting a family if they're on a one-year contract. If you give researchers more secure contracts, we'll be able to spend less time doing employment and immigration paperwork and more time making discoveries.

There's also the issue of poor, stagnant pay. Canadian postdoc pay is so low that I earned more as an Australian Ph.D. student with some casual teaching roles than I did in Canada. On top of that, every year Canada gave me a pay cut in real terms because my Canadian postdoc salary wasn't indexed for inflation, nor did it rise with experience.

In Australia, Ph.D. scholarships and academic salaries are indexed annually. From 2004 to 2021, Australian Ph.D. scholarships rose over 54% while, and Canadian wages grew 62%. However, Canada's federal research student stipends and fellowships had zero growth, and senior postdocs with years of experience are earning the same as fresh graduates.

Stagnant wages were definitely a push factor in my decision to leave Canada. If Canada wants to retain talent, it needs to index scholarships and stipends from undergraduate summer scholarships to postdoctoral fellowships to keep pace with inflation and wages.

Another push factor is the ambiguous classification of postdocs. A postdoc employed on their supervisor's grant is an employee, but if you win a fellowship, the university classifies you as a non-employee. You do the same job. You work there, but you're not entitled to things that normal employees get. I know that, at Concordia University, for example, this means that externally funded postdocs need to fight for access to everything from an institutional email account to remote access to their own data, to filing expenses for reimbursement, and, of course, being a non-employee doesn't mean you get any student benefits. While postdocs are sometimes called students, there's no discount in health insurance or transport. When I've won external prize money, my university has classified it as salary and made all the usual employee deductions.

I'd also like to touch on the issues of research culture and integrity. Hearing about institutions that bury misconduct allegations and let dodgy scientists collect federal funding on the back of fake data damages public trust and researchers' morale. After all, if a Canada research chair goes to someone dishonest, that means that a talented researcher has missed out. It also leaves a huge mess for honest researchers to clean up.

Providing more support to institutions to improve culture and prevent and respond to misconduct would lift this drag on research productivity. For example, financial rewards for researchers who are implementing more transparent and reproduceable research processes would help Canadian researchers work more effectively.

Canada is already a leader in open access to research. For example, Simon Fraser University's public knowledge project develops free software that empowers thousands of scholarly communication platforms worldwide, but there's room for Canada to do more to reward researchers who are accelerating discovery through more open and transparent science.

In my experience, a love of research and discovery just isn't enough to keep talented researchers in the job. The vast majority of Ph.D.s I know have now left research for better salaries, job security and an environment that allows for a work-life balance. That's why my message is simple. To attract and retain talented researchers, improve pay and working conditions.

Thank you very much for your attention and, if you're curious, upon leaving Canada and leaving academic research, yes, I did double my salary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you very much, Dr. Khoo.

The next speaker is from the Endometriosis Network Canada for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Mathew Leonardi, The Endometriosis Network Canada]

Good evening, Madam Chair.

Thank you to you and the Standing Committee on Science and Research for the invitation to present today.

I'm a gynecologist and Ph.D. scientist at McMaster University in Hamilton, with a clinical and research focus on endometriosis. I'm an early career researcher, having only returned from training and working in Australia in 2020. I am a volunteer with The Endometriosis Network Canada and EndoAct Canada.

I will now pass you on to my co-presenter to introduce herself.

[Dr. Philippa Bridge-Cook, Chair, The Endometriosis Network Canada]

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and committee.

I am an endometriosis patient advocate and Ph.D. scientist.

My long journey with endometriosis inspired me to become one of the founding board members of The Endometriosis Network Canada. I'm currently the chair of the board of that organization and the co-chair of EndoAct Canada.

Although I started having endometriosis symptoms as a teenager, it took me over 20 years to get a diagnosis. During that time I suffered from debilitating symptoms. This caused numerous changes in the course of my life, including deciding not to pursue a career in academics after my Ph.D. Almost 30 years after my symptoms started, I was finally able to get effective treatment and regain my quality of life.

We are speaking to you today because there is a crisis in endometriosis care in Canada, with significant gaps in our biomedical, clinical and health system services.

Endometriosis is an inflammatory disease that causes debilitating pain, infertility and other symptoms that affect the whole body, leading to significant impacts on individuals, families and society. There is no definitive cause or known cure for endometriosis. The disease is managed with specialized surgical care, other medical care and multidisciplinary services.

Aligned with the endometriosis research priorities published in the leading medical journal, The Lancet, in 2017, we will describe three main health research domains with inadequate research and talent deficiencies, and some proposed solutions.

On domain one, there is a limited understanding of the cause of endometriosis from a basic research point of view, leading to limited therapeutic options. This presents an opportunity to attract top talent, as the enigmatic nature of endometriosis is incredibly attractive to scientists and clinician scientists alike.

On domain two, there is a lengthy delay in diagnosis of five to 11 years. One reason for this is there is low awareness of the disease among the general public and health care providers, which is rooted in historic and systematic dismissal of women's pain. In addition, medical tools that would allow early identification and diagnosis of endometriosis are lacking. There is an opportunity to transform the lives of people with endometriosis through research investments that could decrease the diagnostic delay.

On domain three, in addition to long waits for specialized surgical care, the current array of treatments is inadequate and leaves most people with endometriosis continuing to have symptoms, with a tremendous impact on their daily lives. Many of the one million Canadians with endometriosis may be interested in pursuing career goals in research and innovation, but are unable to do so because of inadequate treatment. I personally faced this situation.

[Dr. Mathew Leonardi]

Patients, clinicians and researchers are creating change for endometriosis in Canada. For example, Mr. Don Davies put forward motion M-52 requesting a national action plan for endometriosis. In addition to supporting M-52, we would like to propose some solutions for aspects of the endometriosis crisis that pertain to acquisition and retention of top talent and support for research and innovation.

Solution number one is to support the formation of endometriosis centres of excellence, where interdisciplinary research teams can work together to address the gaps that exist. These should be developed in established centres in Canada to leverage existing institutional supports. This would enable talent to reach their potential and ensure Canada rises as the leader in endometriosis research and innovation while also improving clinical care.

Solution number two is that we must start to distinguish gynecologic diseases, including endometriosis, from pregnancy or newborn-related diseases within academia and research. Gynecology is currently like a little sibling to the big sibling of obstetrics. Although women spend most of their lives avoiding pregnancy, obstetrics often takes priority. This lack of prioritization is not only unfair to those who suffer from gynecologic diseases, but also pushes any interested researchers away from working in this area.

Solution number three is to improve disparities in research funding. As outlined in our submitted brief, endometriosis affects 10% of women as well as transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Compared to the other diseases with far lower prevalence rates, endometriosis receives a staggeringly low number of grants and proportionally low funding per affected Canadian.

Thank you so much. We look forward to questions and answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

We thank both of you for your presentation. Dr. Bridge-Cook, we are sorry for your pain. We're glad you found some help.

We will now go to the Canadian Glycomics Network. We welcome you and we look forward to hearing from you for five minutes.

[Elizabeth Nanak, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Glycomics Network]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before the committee.

I am speaking to you from traditional Métis territory Alberta Region 4, on Treaty 6 land.

My name is Elizabeth Nanak. I am the CEO of the Canadian Glycomics Network, which is also known as GlycoNet. Joining me today are Ms. Karimah Es Sabar, our board chair, and Dr. Warren Wakarchuk, our scientific director and lead scientist in glycomics.

As you may know, Karimah is also the chair of the ISED health and bioscience economic strategy table.

GlycoNet was created in 2015 through the networks of centres of excellence program. It is focused on glycomics research, development and innovation. We are currently one of the top three leaders in the field in the world.

Glycomics is a study of sugars in all living things, including humans, animals, viruses, bacteria and plants. The study of these sugars has enabled us to develop solutions to leading diseases in humans and animals. It has also translated into substantial health and economic outcomes. For example, five of the top 10 protein drugs on the market today are glycomics-related and have a combined annual revenue of $75 billion.

GlycoNet has mobilized over 175 research groups across Canada and 160 partners from academia and industry to advance glycomics research and commercialization. Our leadership has helped us attract and retain top talent from academia and industry, fostering research excellence and partnerships. Since 2015, this has resulted in a total investment of $90 million, equally matched by government and industry, for Canadian-led research and development.

Our partner universities have been able to attract talented researchers who now hold prominent positions including a Canadian excellence research chair.

GlycoNet has also provided training opportunities for over 550 trainees. Our graduates have populated our start-up companies and Canadian SMEs. They have continued on to work in academia and government, and have been recruited by multinational companies.

Thanks to government and industry support to date and GlycoNet's unique platform, we have been able to translate innovation to commercial outcomes and develop a new sector of the bio-economy.

Continued support will be necessary to maintain our leadership in this field and attract top talent, as Karimah will now outline.

[Karimah Es Sabar, Board Chair, Canadian Glycomics Network]

Thank you. Good evening everybody.

I'd first like to acknowledge that I'm speaking from the ancestral territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam peoples here in Vancouver.

It's my pleasure to present to you today. I'll pick up from where Elizabeth left off.

To ensure a truly sustainable and optimized platform in glycomics through GlycoNet and for the full economic benefit of GlycoNet to be realized, we need sustained public-private support on an ongoing basis. Continued and sustained joint public and private funding is critical to retaining and building the talent we need to capitalize on innovation, commercialization and the competitive advantage we have in glycomics.

As Elizabeth mentioned, glycomics is one of the leading fields in Canada and we rank amongst the top three in the world.

At the heart of Canada's glycomic ecosystem, GlycoNet is training the next generation of glycomics innovators and enabling talent attraction and retention in new and existing companies as well as traditional and global companies that are based in Canada in biotech and big pharma. Without top talent in this growing field, our country risks losing its opportunity to capitalize on the glycomics research, innovation, commercialization and investment and therefore on the economic benefit. Talent is the new oil and it certainly is no different for us in the glycomics area. This multi-stream approach has already demonstrated the economic benefits of new jobs and made-in-Canada solutions in the areas of health, clean tech and agriculture to support our innovation economy.

Canada's investment as a percentage of GDP has declined over the years in R and D and innovation and is sitting now at 1.7% versus the OECD average of 2.7% versus the 4% that top-tier countries are investing. Canada is slipping in innovation output and productivity in spite of our high quality of science and discovery, so it becomes very important to keep investing in our strengths and the platforms on which we are leading in the world.

The opportunity for Canada to firmly establish itself as a world leader in glycomics is very real. Its potential impact to Canadian health and to the Canadian economy is very significant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Ms. Es Sabar. We thank you both for your contributions tonight.

We thank all our witnesses for joining us.

Now our excellent colleagues have questions they'd like to ask you. We will begin with six-minute rounds.

Tonight, we begin with Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony tonight.

My first question is for Mr. Khoo. You talked about the salary differential. Is a four-year contract acceptable? Would you consider that, in addition to some salary increase, you would be able to deduct your student debt from your taxes?

[Dr. Shaun Khoo]

Yes, I think a four-year contract would be fantastic. That would be between double and four times many of the contracts that I had in Canada. It would be competitive with winning fellowships elsewhere. For example, in Australia, a grant might be three years or an investigator award is five, so a four-year contract would be very competitive.

As for a tax deduction of student debt, I think that people would probably be quite happy with that. I don't have any personal experience to relate to that, but that kind of incentive would definitely encourage people to stay in the field.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Excellent.

My next question is for Ms. Es Sabar. Can you describe how you think the combination of public and private funding could help secure more expertise to do glycomics research?

[Karimah Es Sabar]

GlycoNet, for example, is a network connecting scientists, entrepreneurs, the investment community, students, everybody. It's an end-to-end network. The objective of having public-private partnerships, both from a funding perspective and from training and enabling perspective, is that many of the jobs are in industry, and some of the jobs are in academia. We want to ensure that we have talent here that is anchored and long-term in building this sustainable ecosystem, so there must be jobs on both sides. Industry benefits and so does the public sector.

We already have public-private funding. I think Elizabeth referred to the $90 million that we got, which has been matched by the private sector.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Excellent. This is great.

I'm going to share my time with Mr. Tochor, so I'll let him take it away.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to carry on a bit, Elizabeth, from when you were talking about the $90 million in funding from the private sector that was matched by government. In those arrangements, who owns the science? Is the partner who provides 50% of the dollars to do the research the one who owns 50% of the science?

[Elizabeth Nanak]

No. The science is owned by the universities. We work with the universities, so research is done with grants. The grant would go to the university and the scientist brings the research. The IP generated would belong to the university or the researchers, depending on the arrangements they have at that particular university.

The company may have a chance to have an option to license the technology, but it's not owned by the company.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

You were saying you got going in 2015. Are there other revenues coming into your organization from those investments, if you own the research and IP on that research?

[Elizabeth Nanak]

This is an excellent question.

In 2015, we were a network of centres of excellence, NCE, and we were normally scheduled to have funding for 15 years. We didn't want to put in conditions that could impede research and innovation. In between, the NCE program was terminated.

We have now developed a program to try to get a return on investment. This program exists now, and we have some percentages on some technologies that are being licensed. The revenue will be coming in the next few years.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

We talked about different increases, which would obviously help your research. Is there anything on the regulatory side, the patent side or the legal framework in Canada to get any red tape out of the way and encourage more research?

[Elizabeth Nanak]

Karimah, do you want to answer this question?

[Karimah Es Sabar]

Yes. I'd be happy to.

We have some challenging IP policies. It's a potpourri of policies across universities. One could do a whole Ph.D. study on that. It is challenging. From institution to institution, some are more progressive and some are not. IP should always be inventor-driven. Again, it's the sharing and participation that's important, and we're starting to see that. In the life sciences and in biotech, it's a long life cycle, so it's a longer return period. In other areas—agriculture, environment and climate change—these things happen a little bit faster.

Again, I can't give you one single answer, because it really varies from institution to institution.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you kindly to all the presenters tonight. It will be very helpful in the work we do. I appreciate your efforts to increase our understanding of science.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Ms. Gladu and Mr. Tochor.

Mr. Collins, you have six minutes, please.