Science and Research Committee on June 6th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Welcome to meeting number 48 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, and we do have a member attending remotely.

We have one witness here, Dr. Nemer. It's great to have you back at this committee.

Members, please wait for me to recognize you. If you're on Zoom, activate your mike, when you want to speak.

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

Chair, I have a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

No. I'm going to finish reading, and then we'll get into the meeting. I remind members that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

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 Dr. Mona Nemer, chief science adviser for Canada. She will have five minutes to get us started.

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

Mr. Chair, I do have a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Mr. Mazier.

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

Can you please advise this committee when will we return to debating the motion I introduced on Thursday to investigate the infiltration of Canada's research institutions by the communist regime in Beijing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

That will be up to the committee. The debate was closed at the adjournment of the meeting. It's up to the committee when it wants to start debating that motion again.

Dr. Nemer, are you good to begin?

Mr. Blois.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, I know I'm not a permanent member of this committee, but given the fact that there could be bells, and we do have Dr. Nemer here....We did this at the agriculture committee last night. It worked very well. All parties agreed that as opposed to returning to the House to vote, we would vote virtually in the committee room.

If you give a reasonable time to make that vote happen, it wouldn't displace the testimony of our witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I was going to ask for unanimous consent once we had Dr. Nemer make her presentation, because I want to make sure that we get that on the record. We'll talk about the operation of the committee after that.

Thank you, Mr. Blois, and welcome to our committee.

Dr. Nemer, the floor is yours for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Mona Nemer, Chief Science Advisor, Office of the Chief Science Advisor]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to exchange with the committee on this very important topic.

As a scientist, educator, and former university vice-president of research, I am pleased to share my perspective on our country's scholarships and fellowships system.

In my career, I have trained more than 100 graduate and postgraduate students, and have mentored and counselled scores more. Today, these individuals work in government, in the biotech and pharma industry, and in our colleges and universities. Many have become leading researchers in key areas from neuroscience to cancer. Some are practising health professionals, while others have become entrepreneurs starting and growing companies. Many were international students, and over 50% of them chose to make Canada their new home upon graduation. As a matter of fact, I too was an international student.

What all my graduate students have in common is fulfilling the requirements of their postgraduate degrees largely through research. This is not specific to my group or to my area of research in biological sciences. What I just described is how graduate programs in science are structured.

In these programs, the bulk of learning happens through hands-on experimenting and problem solving, while carrying out a research project under the supervision of an accredited professor, which is why graduate degrees are in reality apprenticeship programs.

The stipend that graduate students receive, whether a direct scholarship or one paid from the research funds of the supervisor, acknowledges the work they perform while training, just like trade apprentices or medical residents

In the past 20 years, the research intensity of our post-secondary institutions has significantly increased, thanks in no small part to federal support for research infrastructure and programs like the Canada research chairs and Canada excellence research chairs. Attracting leading researchers to Canada has, in turn, increased training opportunities, including in key sectors, such as artificial intelligence, data sciences, health and environmental studies, to name just a few. This flourishing research ecosystem has further enhanced Canada's position as a world leader in many advanced technologies with significant economic impacts.

Unfortunately, during this time, the number of scholarships and the value of research grants has not risen as fast as our growing number of graduate students. Consequently, access to scholarships has become limited, and the value of stipends has not kept pace with the cost of living. At a time of workforce shortages and intense international competition, we need to look at ways to better support graduate training opportunities and open them up to all communities in Canada.

There are many reasons why we urgently need to address the issue of graduate and postgraduate training. I will focus on three.

First, graduate programs help people develop their individual talents and skills. Training people through research is one of the best ways to ensure they are job-ready. Beyond the technical expertise gained, doing research helps individuals acquire the transferable competencies most employers are looking for: problem solving, adaptability, resilience and teamwork, to name a few.

Second, a robust graduate training sector contributes to a growing economy. Talent is the magnet that draws industries to a country or region. By helping our universities develop talent, we are making Canada attractive for international investment and spurring regional economic development.

Third, modernizing and diversifying our graduate landscape now will reap enormous benefits for our future. Canada’s reputation as a talent powerhouse is attracting the leading industries of tomorrow, from health and food products to electric battery manufacturing and the giants of the auto industry. By enhancing training and postgraduate job opportunities, we will keep talent at home, attract top international students and amplify the virtuous circle that links research, and training through research, to prosperous societies.

In short, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. Just as we couldn’t predict, a few years ago, how artificial intelligence or even the pandemic would impact society, we can’t always predict what the next big discovery or technical development will be, or what profound changes it will usher in. Making our scholarships more competitive and equally accessible to all will ensure we have the diverse talent pool and workforce needed to take on the as-yet-unknown challenges and opportunities to come. I cannot think of a better way to “future proof” our communities and societies.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you, Dr. Nemer, and thank you for all the work you're doing on behalf of science in Canada.

Before we get into the round of questioning, as Mr. Blois pointed out, we are going to have bells at about 20 minutes after 11 o'clock or so, as debate is going on in the House. I wonder whether we can have unanimous consent to go through our speaking list until the vote comes. Then we could do remote voting.

Do we have nods around the room on that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Wonderful. Thank you. It's great to have your co-operation, committee. That helps me manage the time, as well.

Now we'll go to the first six minutes of questioning.

I have Mr. Lobb up first.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is in regard to the additional funding.

In fact, all the witnesses who appear say there needs to be more. There's been a different range, I think, per year in the total amount, but it's a significant amount.

If this were to happen, is this something that...? Would it be wise to have a multi-year phase-in? Obviously, these dollars can't all go in at one shot. Is this a multi-year, five-year or 10-year...? What would you recommend?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Mr. Chair, this is an excellent question.

Given that graduate programs.... A master's degree, for example, lasts two to three years. A Ph.D. is, on average, four. For postdocs, it's usually three, and more in some areas. Having a vision and framework for the medium term, and increasing both the value and the number of scholarships, would certainly be a welcome approach.

I also want to caution you that, while we're talking about scholarships.... I'll make sure everybody appreciates that there are two types: the ones given directly to individuals and the ones paid out of the grad projects, if you want—the researcher fund. If we address one without addressing the other, we cause quite a bit of stress and unbalance in the system. As a matter of fact, it would be highly inequitable, especially for vulnerable groups.

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

Thank you for that.

Do you think it's important that the government of the day identify the priorities based on a number of different factors, in terms of where the bulk of these dollars go? I'll give you two examples. I know the chair represents the University of Guelph. By extension, the University of Guelph.... One could argue there's a tremendous advantage for the government of the day to invest heavily in agricultural research. The other might be, for example, at a university like the one in London, Ontario. Western University does a lot of health research.

Do you think those should be areas of priority, or examples where the government should focus their dollars because it's in the national interest to have a strong health care system, and a very robust agricultural system to feed our people?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

It's, of course, a very interesting question and one where people often sit on opposite ends of the spectrum. I think we need and can address both, keeping in mind that it takes the number of years that I mentioned to train someone. Agriculture, of course, should be a priority throughout the years, given the reality of Canada's economy, but we can't always predict what it should be, right? I think we need to fund all types of scholarships in all areas. We also need to make sure that we address priority areas, which is why having an overarching science, technology and innovation strategy is useful for the country because it then allows governments to provide additional support in specific areas.

In a nutshell, we can and should be doing both.

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

Great. I just hate to see somebody miss out on funding for an agricultural project or a health research project and the money go instead to studying the lyrics of Dolly Parton songs. That's just one example I bring up. I think I've brought that up a couple of times.

I have one last question for you.

You mentioned that talent brings investment. I agree. I agree to a certain extent, but I want to get your opinion on the recent investments that the government has made in Stellantis and in Volkswagen, which isn't too far from my riding. I know there are a lot of highly skilled people who can do battery research, etc. You have the talent, but if you didn't have the billions of dollars in investment, I don't know that the investment would have been made in St. Thomas or in Windsor.

Do you have any thoughts on that comment that you made?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

The only thought I would provide is actually about a study that was carried out a few years back now, asking industries what attracts them to a jurisdiction. In the top three, there were the usual suspects of taxation, talent—which was actually ahead of taxation and subsidies—and then political stability. That's what I read, and that's what I can provide in terms of an answer.

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

Okay.

Is there any more time left, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have about 10 seconds.

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

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you for the shout-out to the University of Guelph and for balancing that with Western. It was a very good line of questioning.

Thank you for the answers, Dr. Nemer.

Now we'll go over to Mr. Collins from the Liberals for six minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome back to the committee, Dr. Nemer.

Can I ask you...? At the end of your five-minute opening, you talked about scholarships' needing to be more competitive. That's obviously been the common theme through the study so far. There were recommendations in previous studies that the committee has undertaken as it relates to attracting and retaining top talent, and that was one of the recommendations that came through that study.

The term “competitive” is very subjective, right? It means something different to many of the witnesses who have come forward. It's given us an idea of what that funding gap is as it relates to making the environment more competitive to attract and retain top talent.

What's your vision as it relates to funding? What is that magic number as it relates to a dollar amount? Have you given some thought to that as it relates to where it needs to go with investments?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I haven't really computed the dollar amounts or anything like that. I think we need to view this in a dynamic context, which is why it was important for me to provide the notion that these are not elite scholarships that we're talking about. These are apprenticeships. These are for people who already have undergraduate degrees, who are in areas that are needed and wanted by the economy. I think there are formulas, and I'll let the department of science compute this.

However, if I may, I'll just tell you what happened yesterday. I was on a panel, speaking with the Canadian Mathematical Society. As all of you appreciate, mathematics is one of the top-five areas from which we need people because we need them everywhere, from modelling the environment to modelling agriculture, to actuary...etc. A first-year Ph.D. student got up and said, “I'm very motivated to do this, but I'm paid less than the minimum wage. I cannot live on this. My parents cannot support me. If I go and work at a bank, I make four times what I'm being paid.” It's hard to be motivated to do advanced studies in these circumstances.

I guess this is the kind of criteria and thinking that we need to have here. What is a fair and just stipend for someone who's contributing to advancing knowledge, who's doing full-time research and who's, at the same time, training?