Science and Research Committee on May 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We'll get started. I just got the thumbs-up from the interpreter that the audio for our online guests is working.

Welcome to meeting 45 of the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room. We also have a few with us remotely today.

I'd like to make a few comments to the witnesses and members.

We have our witnesses here in person. Speaking through me is the way to go. You both are seasoned in this department. Welcome back. It's great to have you here.

Interpretation is available. For the people on Zoom, you know you can choose English or French. For those in the room, you can have your earpieces on if you need them.

As a reminder, again, work through the chair. I'll be friendly and accommodate when I can.

We've made a bit of a shift, with committee business at the end of the next hour. For now, we'll get started with our witnesses.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 14, 2023, the committee is commencing its study of the Government of Canada's graduate scholarship and post-doctoral fellowship programs.

It's now my pleasure to welcome, from the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, Martin Normand, director of strategic research and international relations. Welcome, Martin.

We also have Paul Davidson from Universities Canada. It's great to see you again. It's been a few years.

I'm looking forward to your five minutes of remarks.

If you want to get us going, Martin, that would be great. I'll start the timer.

[Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne]

Thank you.

The Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, brings together the 22 francophone or bilingual post-secondary institutions in a francophone minority setting. Its mandate is to represent the collective interests of our members to federal institutions to improve access to post-secondary education in French. Today, I will provide you with three elements to consider in your work. They are rooted in the particular situation of post-secondary institutions in francophone minority settings.

First, according to the 2018 national graduates survey, the average student debt at graduation for those studying exclusively in French outside of Quebec is $35,000. That's $4,000 more than those studying exclusively in English. A study in Quebec noted that an individual's level of debt may cause them to postpone or drop out of graduate studies. Given that the average debt load is higher among francophones, they may be at greater risk of postponing or dropping out of graduate studies should they have inadequate financial support. Add to this the fact that we have very few French-language graduate programs outside of Quebec, and an individual might face higher costs if they need to move away from their home community.

In the context where we are in dire need of a new generation of researchers to advance knowledge on the issues facing francophone minority communities, scholarships with more adequate and competitive dollar amounts become an essential tool.

Second, graduate students often rely on access to supplemental income to bring up their revenue. However, access to supplemental income is reduced at smaller institutions in francophone minority settings. Smaller post-secondary institutions, as well as researchers, are generally less likely to win research grant agency competitions due to institutional and language bias on review committees.

For example, one study once assessed that smaller universities were less likely to receive federal funding. You have already conducted a study on French-language research and are well aware of the barriers the French-language research community faces in obtaining funding. As a result, institutions and researchers have fewer opportunities to offer graduate students, like teaching assistant positions or research contracts. Again, in the absence of more adequate fellowships, the gap in access to graduate education is widening between mainstream and smaller francophone institutions.

Third, this context reinforces institutional bias. It's harder for researchers in our network of institutions to find graduate students to conduct their funded research mandates, sometimes their peer reviewers sometimes blame on them. Without research grants, researchers, especially early career researchers, are confined to teaching duties and are unable to attract and retain graduate students or develop a competitive research record. More adequate scholarships would help smaller institutions to compete and grow the research culture at their institution.

I will finish with three recommendations.

First, much like other witnesses, we recommend increasing the value of graduate and postdoctoral fellowships to make them competitive, and then indexing them to preserve the allure of pursuing graduate studies.

Next, we recommend that granting agencies adjust their programs so that researchers can also provide increased financial support and more competitive salaries for student researchers and postdoctoral fellows, and educate stakeholders so that institutional policies reflect this desire to take action.

Finally, federal institutions are already required to take positive measures to enhance the development and vitality of francophone minority communities. If Bill C‑13 to modernize the Official Languages Act passes, this obligation will be reinforced, particularly with respect to post-secondary education. Federal institutions will have to implement meaningful and positive measures to have a positive impact on francophone minorities, in particular to support the generation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to advancing scientific knowledge. Federal institutions will also be required to establish assessment and monitoring mechanisms relating to the positive measures.

Therefore, we recommend that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the granting agencies, in consultation with stakeholders in francophone minority settings, implement new meaningful positive measures to promote access to graduate studies for individuals from francophone minority communities to support the research community in those settings.

The measures must be part of the government's commitment to help the post-secondary sector in minority settings move toward substantive equality with their counterpart in majority settings. This could result in programs tailored to the realities of these communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you, Mr. Normand.

You were right on time.

Now, for five minutes, we have Mr. Davidson from Universities Canada.

[Paul Davidson, President, Universities Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today. It's wonderful to be here all together in person.

My name is Paul Davidson and I am president of Universities Canada, a membership organization representing 97 universities across the country.

Before I get into the subject today, I just want to say a big thank you for the creation of this committee and for the way this committee is working. It is working in a non-partisan context, driving to consensus. This is exceptionally rare and exceptionally valuable. It's something we've called for for years, and it models other nations that have found cross-party support for investing in research.

Investing in research is investing in the future. Strong research capacity is essential for Canada and essential for economic growth, fighting climate change, building an equitable society, preparing ourselves for emergencies and building a strong health care system for Canadians.

Let me make this real. Last night I was at an event honouring Pieter Cullis, a researcher from UBC. I want every member of Parliament to know Pieter Cullis, and I want every schoolchild in this country to know him. Why? It's because his groundbreaking, discovery research done in the 1970s and 1980s saved 10 million lives through the pandemic. He is a Canadian hero. When people in your caucus ask you what research is all about, how about saying 10 million saved lives? How about shortening the pandemic by six to 12 months? That's just one example.

If UBC is too far away, look at the University of Ottawa, just down the street, where researchers set the global standard for waste-water analysis. Think of what that has meant to your communities in shortening the pandemic and focusing the problem. That's what research is about in Canada.

My great fear is that Canada is actually heading in the wrong direction on research. The government's own advisory panel on Canada's research ecosystem, in the Bouchard report, concluded that Canada has been losing ground when it comes to investing in research. Over the past 20 years, Canada's investments in research and development have declined significantly.

I have some stats that I'll share with the clerk and the analysts. Currently, Canada spends about 1.8% of GDP on research and development. The OECD average is 2.1%. The U.S. is at 3.4%. Germany is on track to reaching 3.5%. You may say, those are big countries; we can't possibly compete with that. Finland has made an all-party commitment to get to 4% of GDP. Where are we? We are at 1.8%. That is the stake of international competition and investment in research.

At the same time, while the overall spending is declining, support for graduate students has been static. The number and value of awards have not changed in over 20 years. Think about living on a budget from 20 years ago. Think about that when you have choices around the world.

The U.S. is doubling down on science. I'm very proud of the government's investments to respond to the CHIPS and Science Act and the IRA. That addresses some of the business needs, but keep in mind that the U.S. has increased its investment in fundamental research by $200 billion. If you're a younger person wondering where your future is, what does that signal tell you?

The United Kingdom, even through three prime ministers in the last 18 months, has made investment in discovery research a pillar of their economic growth strategy—not an appendix, not an afterthought, and not a backwards glance on what some people did in 2018 or 2012. They're not saying, “We will thoughtfully consider someday maybe getting around to it.” They are investing now. That's a signal to Canada's graduate students.

The situation is urgent. Our competitors recognize and understand that the investments in research they make will play a vital role in determining where their countries will be in 10, 20 and 30 years.

When I started this job 14 years ago, the then clerk of the Privy Council said, “Paul, we've been investing for five to 10 years. Where are the results?” I said, “Listen, give this time. These are transformative, long-term investments.” Why are we leading in AI? Why are we leading in quantum? Why are we leading in EV battery production? It is because of the environment the previous governments created to attract the talent and to retain the talent. We are in a global competition to retain that talent.

In a very discouraging, polarizing and polarized world, there is broad public support for research. You're on the doorsteps. I ask you to invoke the name of Pieter Cullis. I ask you to talk about the waste-water analysis. When people ask, “What does research do?”, think of what it has done in your own communities—in Huron around the agricultural community and right across the country. I could talk about how the agricultural community in the south shore of Nova Scotia has been transformed by Acadia. This is research that matters to Canadians.

The data shows that 90% of Canadians think the Government of Canada should make investments in research at internationally competitive levels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Okay, that's where we'll stop for now. We'll pick up on your passionate delivery through the questioning period.

Thank you both for your testimony.

We're going to start off with Mr. Mazier, for six minutes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you to the witnesses for coming here today.

We had some students in here last week. They packed the place up. They were part of the group that was striking the day before or the week before. They told us stories. Of course, we all know the life of a graduate student. They are not very well paid, and as you both alluded to, pay hasn't been increased for 20 years. This is despite asking the government for that. They've been asking since 2018 and 2019 in every budget that came up, but this government has not responded to those asks.

Have both of you asked this Liberal government for increases in funding for students?

[Martin Normand]

Our association hasn't been directly involved in that issue in recent months. However, we are aware that many of our institutions and many of the students who attend them have made these requests of various governments.

[Paul Davidson]

It has been a priority for us for many years. I'll just add that it's not—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Have you directly asked or had a conversation with the government about that?

[Paul Davidson]

We've had many conversations with the government about this—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

But there was no action.

[Paul Davidson]

If I could just illustrate this for a moment, there are 6,000 Canadian graduate scholarship awards. There are 240,000 graduate students. We not only need investments in scholarships and bursaries for graduate students. We need support for the granting councils, because 80% of graduate students get their funding from working with principal investigators.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

That is exactly where I'm going with this.

Is there anything the government can change legislatively to increase the pay these students are getting? For example, say you get $1 billion. If NSERC gives out $1 billion, is there anything limiting us in the applications that says, no, we can't pay these students any more?

[Paul Davidson]

The limiting factor is available resources. As I said in my statement, we are falling behind and we have to step up.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

If you have a $1-million budget and you have six students working for you—researchers, whoever it is—you can't take another 0.1% or 1% and say, no, that's going to salaries and then you're going to have to figure it out. Has that ever been asked?

[Paul Davidson]

Principal investigators have some marge de manoeuvre in how they fund their exercises, but the fundamental issue is that there aren't sufficient resources.

[Martin Normand]

I would add that some institutional policies sometimes set salaries and lead investigators can't offer more than what the institutional policy allows. If a lead investigator wants higher salaries or additional funding to attract unique talent, they might be held back by institutional policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You still have three minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to take over and share our time.

Mr. Normand, you talked about some of the struggles that students are having. We've heard of students living in homeless shelters. A lot of the 1.5 million Canadians who now rely on food banks are students. Are you hearing some of those horror stories?

[Martin Normand]

We haven't heard any on our end, because students aren't members of our association, but from time to time we see some of those stories.

Personally, I got a grant to do my master's in 2006, and a fellowship for my doctorate from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC, in 2008. I got postdoctoral fellowships after that. I remind you that those are taxable. Yes, it's $34,000 a year, but that amount is taxable. So you have to find supplemental income to keep up a decent standard of living.

In smaller institutions or those in rural or remote areas, where researchers have trouble getting funding from granting agencies, it's hard for them to provide additional funding to students. This leaves students with the choice of either pursuing higher education and accepting to live in deplorable conditions or entering the workforce.

Right now, given the labour shortage, salaries are very competitive, and that's more than researchers are able to pay to attract talent to their research teams.

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

Thank you for that.

We talk about a dollar not going as far as it used to. As much as the federal government has been neglectful in not increasing the supports to students, some of their policies have driven inflation to 30-year record highs.

Has that also affected the institutions' ability to operate the important research they do?

[Paul Davidson]

There are a number of factors at play here.

Inflation is a global challenge—I'll just say that. Every institution and every country is facing a postpandemic inflation challenge.

In addition to the inflation challenge, there has also been a destabilizing at the provincial level. We all want students to succeed. The impact of the tuition freeze in Ontario has taken $2 billion out of Ontario's university system. Nobody is asking universities to do less, but there are two billion fewer dollars in Ontario right now than there were recently. If you look at the Alberta situation, $400 million has been taken out by the provincial government there.

Universities are being asked to do more for all parts of society, and for students, faculty and their communities. I'll remind members that, throughout the pandemic, universities stayed open. Throughout the pandemic, universities delivered emergency PPE. Throughout the pandemic, we conducted research that shortened the pandemic.

We're trying to get the government's and all parties' attention on the urgent need we are facing for reinvestment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

Thank you for the questions.

Now it's over to Valerie Bradford from the Liberals for six minutes.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses. I appreciate your being here.

President Davidson, I have a couple of questions for you.

We're all convinced that it's a dire situation for our graduate students and post-doctoral researchers. That point has definitely been made, even in previous studies we've done.

Apart from funding amounts, are there other incentives the Government of Canada could offer to graduate and post-doctoral researchers besides the stipends?

[Paul Davidson]

I really appreciate the question.

Again, the stipends and graduate scholarships are one vehicle. However, the most important vehicle is increasing the granting councils' operating budgets so they can provide the grants to principal researchers, who can, in turn, staff their labs with top talent. Pieter Cullis, in addition to finding the key process for mRNA vaccines, also created two businesses in Vancouver that have kept 500 young people in Vancouver employed and staying in Canada.

Graduates today are looking around the world and seeing the U.S. invest at record levels. They are seeing it in the U.K., Japan, Germany and even Finland. Investing in the granting councils is key to success for Canada's research enterprise.