Science and Research Committee on May 18th, 2023

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

Following up on that, would low graduate and post-doctoral salaries represent the main factor that leads promising researchers to decide to pursue careers outside of research and education?

[Martin Normand]

There are very few graduate programs in our network of institutions, so it's very difficult to even consider a postgraduate internship.

What's more, as soon as we start our studies at the graduate level, the idea is instilled in us that we have to start looking at careers other than research careers or teaching careers. Since there are very few positions available at universities, we are not told too much about the possibility of teaching there.

However, as soon as we start looking elsewhere, we quickly realize that working conditions and wages are much more competitive in the private sector, and even in non-profit organizations.

I now work for one of these organizations and I earn much more than I earned as a post-doctoral fellow or what I would have earned even had I been a professor at the beginning of my career.

Therefore, we need to make the career of a researcher more attractive and increase the value of post-doctoral fellowships. That would certainly help attract researchers to our institutions and convince them that it is worth pursuing a career in research. At the same time, it would increase the diversity of research perspectives.

In addition, increased funding for the granting officers of all the granting agencies would further diversify the types of research projects funded, as well as the research topics considered by researchers. That way, we would have a better overview of the problems facing Canadian society, not just the ones that are fashionable and that also seem to be profitable for industry.

[Paul Davidson]

If I can build on that very briefly, we're not simply trying to recreate a professoriate. We're trying to create the talent that Canada needs to be globally competitive.

Canada is now 28th in the world for graduate student enrolment. We are all proud of our undergraduate attainment in both colleges and universities. That is at record levels. However, in terms of graduate attainment, we're 28th in the world.

If you look at every investment that's been made by major international companies over the last 18 months, it's about the talent and access to talent. I'll point to GM. When they were building their engineering centre in Markham, Ontario, they talked about having 800 engineers. It was right in the press release. We have five universities within spitting distance that are going to create the engineering talent we need.

If you look at the recent Volkswagen investment, yes, there is some federal subsidy, but that's not the decisive factor. It's the pipeline of talent. It's the access to research. Why are we leaders in batteries? Why are people coming here for batteries? It's because 15 or 20 years ago we attracted battery expertise to do the work and be discovery researchers, and now we're seeing the benefits of that.

My concern today is that we're eating our own seed corn. If you're from a rural community, you know what that means. We're harvesting the benefits of previous governments' investments. We have to invest now for the economy of the future.

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

The point has been made that we need to increase funding to the research councils, because they provide a lot of the funding for students and researchers.

How can the federal, provincial and post-secondary institutions work together to ensure that graduate and post-graduate students are making a livable wage as they conduct their research? I don't think we can dump it all on the tri-council agencies. I think there are roles for all levels of government and the post-secondary institutions themselves. I know you say a lot is expected of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have 30 seconds.

[Paul Davidson]

I am happy to speak to that.

Because of this great federation, everybody has a role to play. The federal government has a role to play. The provinces have a role to play, which is one of the reasons I explained how resources are being drawn away from the post-secondary sector at the provincial level. Frankly, municipalities have had a role to play.

I would just say that you might want to look at a study done by the University of Toronto called “The 10,000 PhDs Project”. It's a tracer study of what happened to the last 10,000 Ph.D. graduates from U of T. They're working in business, they're working in civil society, they're working in municipalities and they're working in government. They are the motive force of this country.

That's why it's so important that we invest in the talent we have before us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you. We are over time.

I was in the train station in Toronto and I met a Ph.D. researcher, a neuroscientist from the University of Guelph who I knew. She is now working at one of the financial institutes, so there is a pipeline, but I won't interrupt more of our committee's time.

We'll move over to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses, Mr. Davidson and Mr. Normand, for joining us for this important study. I was very pleased to hear their presentations. I also want to commend them for being honest and authentic, and also for painting a picture of the reality using truthful data.

You know, Mr. Chair, I hear some of my colleagues, especially government members, telling us that we're leaders, but that's not what I'm hearing on the ground. I think Mr. Davidson and Mr. Normand have clearly shown us the truth today—that we have a lot of potential, but that we still have a long way to go.

My first question is for Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Davidson, on March 30, I moved a motion before this committee to invite Minister Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, to come and talk to us about his budget. The federal budget, as you well know, provides no investment for science and research in Canada, no increase, no investment for the three granting agencies, and no increase for graduate scholarships, which have not been indexed in 20 years.

We are still waiting for the minister. Mr. Davidson, you had the privilege of meeting with him on May 8. I don't think he has seen fit yet to set aside an hour of his time to come and be accountable to his parliamentary colleagues. That's not one of its priorities. I want to point out the reality here, for the benefit of the people watching us and the witnesses. It seems that it is not important enough for him to be transparent and explain his decisions in a budget that makes absolutely no investment in science and research. Then they come and give us lip service, like Minister Champagne, who said:

Because we know that today's science is tomorrow's economy, our government is committed to ensuring that our talented, world-class researchers have the right support for the crucial work they are doing.

We saw the exact opposite in the latest budget. The people who are here today have clearly shown us what the situation is.

Mr. Davidson, we had the Naylor report, which was commissioned by the government in 2016 and published in 2017. We had the Bouchard report, tabled on March 20, with some fairly clear recommendations: increase funding for the three granting agencies by 10% over the next five years and increase graduate scholarships. Mr. Davidson, the latest budget contains none of that.

As you said, we are losing ground as we try to position ourselves internationally.

My question is quite simple: In concrete terms, what are you asking the government for today to avoid the breaking point that we are on track to reach?

[Paul Davidson]

Thanks very much for the question. Thanks also for your tireless work on this file.

I hope the minister will come to the committee. We were pleased to have an opportunity to meet with him.

Our expectations and our requests were very clear with the minister. We know he's super busy with a whole range of other files, but we need his attention on this file now. People have said now for the third year in a row, “Maybe next year.” Every month that we wait, we're losing talent.

We're looking at the fall fiscal statement. That's our deadline for the minister. People will say, “Oh yes, but there's the fiscal framework and it's going to take more time.” Universities are sending a signal to every member of Parliament on all sides of the House. This is not a partisan issue. We had issues with the previous government.

We know the government is preoccupied with a whole bunch of other priorities right now, and we're encouraged by a number of its developments, but it's time to pay attention to Canada's future. It's time to reinvest in research for the long term. Every month we wait is a month too long.

Concretely, it's about the increase to the granting councils, the increase to the number and value of graduate students and a mechanism to keep those moving forward as the economy grows.

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

Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

You set the stage very well in your presentation earlier and you explained the data. For several months now, I have been explaining this to my colleagues and members of the government in an attempt to change the situation. I talk to people about that.

You represent 97 universities in Canada. I would like you to clearly explain the consequences of the government's inaction. You mentioned it, and I will say it again: Canada is the only G7 country that has lost researchers since 2016. It is the only country in the entire G7 that is reducing its investments relative to its gross domestic product. This is no trivial matter. I would like you to explain to the people watching us, to the members of Parliament and to my colleagues here, what the consequences are for the scientific ecosystem and, of course, for the academic institutions you represent.

[Paul Davidson]

I've heard some people say, “Oh, don't think of the budget as a snapshot. Think of the movie.” It's a good line. Frankly, we've seen this movie before. We saw it in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Frankly, that was when a committee much like this, from all sides of the House, came together and made it an urgent priority for the Chrétien-Martin government to invest in successive research investments. We need to see that movie, not the movie watching top talent leave.

I cite the example of Dr. Panchanathan, who is now the chair of the National Science Foundation, one of the largest granting foundations in the United States. He was a young professor at the University of Ottawa in 1994. He got snagged away to Arizona State University, which is now a world leader in commercializable research. He then got picked by the President of the United States to head up the National Science Foundation.

Do you know what his challenge is this year? It's how to spend an additional $1.5 billion this year in research. It's how to set up 50 innovation zones—one in every state—linked to universities in every state. Those are the challenges he's dealing with, whereas our granting councils and our university presidents are having to say, “Would you just hang on for another year?”

That's why we're saying the fall economic statement is going to be a really important signal to the research community, not just to the graduate students, but to the principal investigators as well. We need to see the full package.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Those were great questions and responses.

I was thinking of Peter Adams when you were talking. I was fortunate to meet him before he passed, up in Peterborough. I know he was one of the real instigators.

We need to continue with our meeting. I'll turn off my reflections.

We'll go over to Ms. Gazan. It's great to have you here. Thank you and welcome to our committee.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much. It's so nice to be here today.

I'll start with President Davidson.

You're very clear. I was a long-time post-secondary educator myself, in fact, for almost 20 years. I didn't lose students because they weren't brilliant. I lost students because of poverty. I know that, according to the Canadian Federation of Students, 71% of graduate students live below the poverty line, and one in three graduate students lives on less than $1,250 a month.

We've spoken about standards of living and how financial insecurity and poverty impact graduate students' quality of life, but I want you to focus more specifically on academic performance. For example, I had many students when I was teaching at university who had to work two jobs and study.

How does that impact our ability to produce students who are real experts in their fields?

[Paul Davidson]

I have a couple of reflections on that. Thank you for the question.

I think Canadians across the country can be proud of the commitment to making sure that every qualified student gets a good undergraduate experience. The level of financial support for undergraduate students has actually changed considerably.

I want to do a shout-out to the government here. In the early days of the pandemic, when everything was scary, the government did dramatic things on the student financial assistance file to give hope to students and to give confidence to parents that the educational journey could continue. Canada is exceptional—our enrolment actually went up, our retention went up and our completion went up. This is convocation season, and we have 250,000 Canadians graduating this spring who are ready to put their shoulder to the wheel for Canada.

The challenge is at the graduate level. That's where people fall off the cliff. The level of support is just not there. As I said earlier, opportunities elsewhere are very attractive. I never want to create a panic about a brain drain, just as you don't want to create a run on the bank, but I'm telling you today that the conditions are very similar to what we saw in the early 1990s. It took over a decade and billions of dollars to patch that brain drain and bring talent back to Canada.

We can act now and make sure we're positioned into the future, or we can spend another year telling graduate students, “Well, maybe next year”, and telling principal researchers, “Yes, I know Japan is doing this, and I know the U.K. is doing this, and someday we might have an agreement with another country.”

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just building on that, brain drain is a real phenomenon. It's deeply troubling for me at a time of mass misinformation, when people are spewing information not based on science at all.

In a previous meeting, Professor Andrade with the Canadian Black Scientists Network told the committee about the international models for funding scholarships and bursary values for graduate and post-doctoral researchers, including Norway's system of standardization based on level and years of experience.

This question is for both of you. What international models for funding graduate students and post-doctoral fellows should Canada take inspiration from? Perhaps you could give one each.

[Paul Davidson]

I don't want to over-complicate the conversation today. Canada's system is not that bad; it's just underfunded. I don't know how many ways and how many different times we have to say it. We've had the Naylor report. We've had the Harder report. I hope this committee has looked at the Harder report, which looks at international competition and how we use research to advance economic growth and prosperity.

Now we have the Bouchard report. The Bouchard report is outstanding in many respects. It says that discovery research is foundational. It says that the granting councils are doing an effective job. It says that international competition is increasing. It also says that we have to act now. It makes some other recommendations about structures, but really, the critical issue now is getting the funding in place so that young people can have the future they deserve and that Canada needs.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Normand, could you respond as well?

[Martin Normand]

I tend to agree with Mr. Davidson.

The granting council system could provide better coordination among the councils—which is a finding in the Bouchard-Taylor report—but the current system seems to suit the community.

The problem is funding, including scholarships and institutional supports that enable research infrastructure to operate. We are talking about money that goes directly to researchers, but we also have to think about the spaces for these researchers. In our institutions, which are smaller, it is difficult to create welcoming and attractive spaces. This is even more true in cutting-edge disciplines, since it costs a fortune to develop new programs. However, institutions in minority settings do not have the money they need to do so. We need to think about increasing the capacity of institutions across Canada, regardless of the field of research, in order to have a greater diversity of views and disciplines that contribute to the advancement of Canadian society.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Professor Andrade also gave this testimony on May 9 before the committee:

...we are advising people to take fewer graduate students, because we need to be able to support them at a level where they can live. I've done external reviews for departments where the graduate students generally like the program but are struggling in these ways. We advise that they sometimes halve the number of graduate students they take in, which is going to have very negative effects upstream on the knowledge economy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I'm sorry. We'll have to cut you off at that. Could you give us a question in just a few seconds so we can ask for a written response?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Sure.

In your experience, do the levels of funding available and the expected incomes influence an individual's decision to pursue a career in graduate or post-doctoral research?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you. We're well over now. We'll leave that on the floor.

It's over to Mr. Lobb for five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The first question is for Mr. Davidson, and I don't think I've heard this yet, in all the meetings we've had. What's the number? If you were going to meet with Minister Freeland and say, “Look, this is what we need”, what is the number to make everybody happy, this quantity?

[Paul Davidson]

It's about $1 billion.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

It's $5 billion.