Science and Research Committee on June 13th, 2023

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Absolutely, and thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I think we're at time.

Thanks to both of you for that.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the witnesses who are with us today.

Mr. Gaffield, I'm happy to see you again. I think this is your fourth or fifth the visit. It's always pleasant to hear from you.

I think the picture of the situation is pretty clear. I was looking at our last discussion and, on December 5 of last year, you said the investment situation was rather worrisome. Some words struck me when I reread your testimony. You represent the 15 largest Canadian universities and receive nearly 85% of funding. We're talking about billions of dollars, here. Your testimony today is therefore serious. On December 5 of last year, you said that the stagnation of scholarship funds over the last 20 years revealed indifference and inattention. In the beginning, Mr. Gaffield, very sincerely, I told myself it might be a misunderstanding on the part of the government. However, it is now evident that it's not just a misunderstanding. I'm 100% sure of it. Unfortunately, the government takes for granted scientific researchers, the university system, the college system and all the people in graduate-level education. I find it embarrassing, even absurd, for a government not to understand the importance of investing in research today. You know that the decisions and investments we make today may not be a political win. However, they will be a win for our society as a whole in 10, 20 and 30 years.

Understand that there are 6,000 graduate scholarships in Canada. However, there are 240,000 students. You can see that a small percentage of people get scholarships. We've been informed that 80% of graduate-level students get their funding by working with senior researchers. In its report sponsored by the government, the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System, presided by Mr. Frederic Bouchard, highlighted that many students, if not most, don't get funding through scholarships. It's an undeniable issue because without considerable reinvestment, given the global competition for talent, Canada will very likely see another exodus of highly qualified people. I'm sure you know this, but I will say it again: Canada is the only G7 country to have lost researchers since 2016.

Here's the question I want to ask you: Is it fair to say that increasing granting agencies' overall funding is inextricably linked to increasing graduate-level scholarships if we want to truly tackle the issue of the next generation of scientists in Quebec and Canada?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you very much.

There's no doubt we have a tendency to take the quality of our research and innovation ecosystem in Canada for granted. We often hear that Canada has the best universities and life is good. Without a doubt, we are very proud of the quality of our researchers and our students. However, the current reality is such that, when it comes to the number of citizens in Canada with a graduate degree, Canada is 28^th in the OECD's rankings. People are very surprised when I tell them that. Why is Canada now ranked 28^th?

One of the things we haven't done—and I think your committee has been a huge solution to that—is that we haven't spent enough time really keeping track. We built a good system, and then we said, “Okay, it's fine. We don't have to worry about it.” Meanwhile, the world kept changing, and we didn't sufficiently track the fact that we've fallen to a place where, if you look at the educational structure in the country, it does not correspond to the kind of high-value economy society that we need in the 21st century.

We can't imagine ourselves building this high-value economy and society, this world of intangibles, this world of adding value and building a sustainable and just future. We can't do that with the kind of investment that makes us look like we're on the path to being a kind of new colony in the 21st century, because we'll be so dependent on other countries.

As you know, when they look at us, it's going to be easy for them to just continue to see critical minerals now or see things in the ground, rather than seeing us, as we were talking about earlier, as a sovereign country with domestic capability that has a place on the world stage.

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

Thank you, because that gives us a good picture of the situation.

You talked about a colony, evidently. As you know, the Americans doubled the biggest scientific investment program through the CHIPS and Science Act. The United States has now increased their investment in basic research by $200 billion.

What would you say to a young person who wants to do research?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Indeed, the message the United States is sending to other countries, including Japan, is that they are serious about the fact that the 21^st century is not the 20^th century, and we have to act accordingly.

Since young people are now thinking about their future in Canada or elsewhere, we have to pay attention to the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I'll have to call time, but thank you for your response.

Before we go to Mr. Cannings, we do have Dr. Murphy joining us from the Ontario Tech University. In fairness, we could just go through this round of questioning, and then we'll briefly suspend to get a sound check done. We'll continue on with his presentation, which will be a five-minute presentation.

Mr. Cannings, it's over to you.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, and thanks again to Mr. Gaffield for being here once again. It's always a pleasure to have you and your expertise before us. Thank you for also pointing out that you feel that this study could have the most significant impact of any of our studies so far on the Canadian science and research scene.

Mr. Sousa made a statement that all students struggle. Just to counter that, I didn't struggle when I was a grad student. I was lucky enough to get an NRC scholarship. I predate the tri-councils in my career, but it was plenty for me to have room and board and all the things necessary. I didn't have to worry about working outside of the university.

You have a long history of working in the university scene, in the research scene at the national level, could you comment on the higher level of overall government investment for universities, both at the provincial and federal level? It seems to have declined over the last 20, 30 and 40 years. One of the side effects of that, of course, is the increasing tuition that students have to pay on top of room and board.

Could you spend a little time talking about that and how that plays into this whole question we're talking about today?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you so much. That's such an important question because, as we know, in the Canadian structure, the dossier of building a robust research and innovation system is, in fact, a federal-provincial partnership.

What is so important about the federal role, though, is its leadership role. If you look at the history of Canada, federal initiatives are what sent the message across the country that it is a case of national sovereignty and domestic capability—that we, as a country, are going to move forward. It is federal leadership that has been consistently key. Whether you go back to.... Think about the National Research Council or the creation of the federal granting councils and so on. Those were the ones that started to move Canada from being a real intellectual colony as late as the 1960s.

We've told this story before. In the 1960s, almost all professors—80% of professors in Canadian universities—had been trained outside Canada. We had a relatively small graduate system and so on. It was federal leadership that sent the word to the entire country that we had to change in the later 20th century. That was doubled down on in the mid-1990s and the recent era.

National importance, domestic security, sovereignty and all of that, it's federal leadership that drives those. If provinces see, to some extent, that it's not a top federal priority for making a better future, it is really not going to help us.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you for that.

I want to add that the scholarship I got in the mid-1970s made me decide to stay in Canada. I was looking at going elsewhere for my grad studies and that scholarship allowed me to stay here.

I'm also happy to hear that your organization, U15—the big universities—is embracing the Bouchard report. From what I can tell, it calls for an annual 10% increase in the tri-council grants.

You just mentioned in passing a 3% cut. I've heard this, too, from NSERC. I wonder whether you could expand on what the risk of that is.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you very much for that question. Again, it goes back to our earlier discussion in terms of our paying attention and staying focused on this.

In the most recent budget, all departments were told to cut by 3%. It was a little line in there somewhere. We are exceedingly concerned that, not only did that budget not increase the tri-council funding and so on, it gave a 3% cut at the worst time possible. I think we need to investigate this. My understanding is that the situation is, in fact, worse than we have been thinking. Again, it's part of our responsibility, and your committee....

You know, it wasn't that long ago we didn't have a committee like this set up. It was taken for granted that, yes, everything's going along well, so we didn't have this. Your committee, I think, has played a key role in ensuring we start paying attention and don't take it for granted. We just can't take this for granted. We have to see it as the way in which Canada is going to have a bright future.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

We'll suspend for a minute, but nobody leave their place. We'll just do a quick sound check with the interpreters and resume momentarily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We are back in business.

I'll welcome you more officially to the committee, Dr. Murphy from Ontario Tech University, president and vice-chancellor. We're looking forward to your comments.

Could you give us your comments for the next five minutes, please?

[Dr. Steven Murphy, President and Vice-Chancellor, Ontario Tech University]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to join you.

Ontario Tech University acknowledges the lands and the people of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, which is covered under the Williams Treaties, and we're situated on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas, a branch of the greater Anishinabe nation, which includes Algonquin, Ojibwa, Odawa and Potawatomi.

I'm here today to speak to you about an issue that impacts Canadians' competitiveness on the international stage. As you know, we fall behind our peer nations on R and D spend at 1.55% of GDP. The latest OECD average is at 2.7%, the U.S. at 3.45% and Finland at 2.9%. The countries closest to our spend are Estonia and Portugal.

Canada’s peers are recognizing the opportunities of investing in research and have made significant commitments to increase support. As you know, in the United States, the Chips and Science Act includes over $200 million U.S. in new funding for fundamental research.

Without similar ambition, Canada risks falling far behind the OECD average. The government’s own advisory panel concluded that Canada will continue falling behind our peers if we fail to increase core funding for the granting agencies and support our early-career research talent. Canada must step up, show ambition and implement these recommendations from the panel’s excellent work. In Canada, most of that spend is still by government and that tells us some of the issues we have in the private sector in the R and D spend.

At the centre of R and D are people, of course, and highly qualified personnel. These are our doctoral and graduate students. Doctoral fellowships and grad scholarships in general have largely remained stagnant over the last 20 years. For the lucky few students who receive these awards, they have to be topped up with tri-council funding from their supervisors—their principal investigators—but even the tri-council has been frozen. In real dollars, we are losing ground. The value and the numbers of Canada graduate scholarships and doctoral fellowships have not increased in two decades—halving in real value. Addressing the stagnation in scholarship funding is an important pillar in the broader effort to tackle the stagnation of funding for the last 20 years.

Graduate programs in Canadian universities are one of the key pipelines for talent, which is fundamental for economic growth in Canada. Investing in the support of grad students through the Canada graduate scholarships program and the fundamental science research funding provided by the tri-agencies will be critical to retaining talent in Canada and driving innovation. Graduate studies in public universities are a fundamental means by which Canadians invest in themselves. While provincial governments are increasingly subsidizing learning opportunities outside of universities, we build capacity in this country by investing in education. Education is how we transform ourselves and, by extension, the world around us, our nation and the globe. Investing in our public institutions is capacity building and citizenship cultivation.

Inflation, and especially the increase in rental accommodations, has very significantly affected the cost of living for grad students. Tri-council doctoral fellowships, including Canada graduate scholarships, have not increased over the past two decades. Adjusted for inflation, the amount of funding per student from the tri-agencies and the Canada Foundation for Innovation is at the lowest it’s been since 2000 and is set to decline even more drastically as the funding commitment following the Naylor report is now coming to an end. The research granting agencies are the bedrock of our research ecosystem in Canada, as you know, and now is the time to renew the government’s commitment to fundamental research by increasing funding for the granting agencies.

Graduate-level funding is fundamental to recruit and retain high-quality students in Canadian graduate programs, and universities are a catalyst for economic activity, employing nearly 410,000 people and contributing more than $48 billion to Canada’s GDP across the country. Every year, we're conducting research worth more than $16 billion and fostering new and innovative ideas that will help us solve problems for today and, more importantly, for tomorrow, in everything from climate change to pandemics.

Graduate studies are a key element of talent acquisition from around the globe. While Canada’s funding for graduate students has largely remained stagnant, countries such as Finland and many others we've heard about today are subsidizing graduate students with free tuition—until completion of a first master's degree anyway—and funding to ensure their students can focus exclusively on their studies. As you note, more students are now part-time or working in part-time jobs while studying, merely to make ends meet.

Tri-council funds overwhelmingly—an estimated 80%—go ultimately to support students. Increasing tri-council funds overall, for this reason, directly flows to students. The Bouchard report highlighted that it's “critically important” that core funding of the granting councils be increased, which is why we were disappointed that we did not see such funding in the budget of 2023.

Canada must act in the fall economic statement to ensure the welfare of the federal research ecosystem. Without increased funding, more students need to take on additional jobs. The unintended consequences are that it increases the time it takes them to complete the requirements for their degrees and, obviously, the brain drain.

Ontario Tech seeks to democratize graduate education. Historically, graduate studies have been associated with a privileged few—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I think we'll have to wrap up your opening comments at that point. Thank you. Maybe you can work the rest into some answers. We're just watching the time.

We're going to start our second round starting with Ben Lobb for five minutes, please.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm going to split my time with Corey Tochor.

My first question is for Mr. Gaffield.

It's good to see you.

Our previous witness, Mr. Colterjohn from McMaster, a highly accomplished individual, outlined his current situation. He has his money coming in from his work but also from a second job.

He seemed to agree with me, and our thoughts aligned a bit. It seems like there's a lot of bureaucracy in the university system, and a lot of dollars touch a lot of hands before it gets to the people who are doing the research. Does that system need to be completely changed so that we cut out all the bureaucracy and that it goes right to the person needing the money?

Do we need to look at bringing in companies that have a vested interest in these individuals after they're done their school?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

It's a question, I would say, that touches every aspect of all our institutions across the private, public and non-profit sectors. One thing that I think happened in the later 20th century was an effort to build into our organizations the kind of frameworks and structures for accountability and responsibility that would ensure that everything worked at the highest standards.

There's no doubt that, in doing that, at times we haven't sought the most efficient ways of doing that across all sectors, so what I think we're all doing now—my sense is that we're doing it in every company and government institution that I've been close to—is finding more efficient ways of doing what we're doing. The Bouchard report, for example, was certainly down that path.

Can we coordinate better, can we be more efficient, can we simplify and so on? I think this is a shared pursuit everywhere and one that will definitely continue to be important as we try to optimize every dollar.

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

My question is for Mr. Murphy online.

You talked about the cost of living and some of the challenges. Do you have any personal stories from students of the hardship that the cost of living crisis has caused them?

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

Certainly. We have a number of students in various faculties for whom the norm is to work one part-time job, and a whole lot are working two.

I finished my studies 28 years ago and only received about $2,500 less than what is a SSHRC doctoral fellowship today. In real dollars, obviously these are individuals who are falling behind, and they need to seek that extra employment just to make ends meet. Of course, that prolongs their time in graduate studies and their not getting out into the workforce as we would want them to.

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

You talked about the policies and that we're on the wrong track. Many Canadians believe that we need a change in government or we're going to carry on to a much more difficult place for our country. You mentioned that we need to change our approach on this, but, if we don't change, what do the next five or 10 years look like in Canada if we carry on this way?

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

Through the chair, my response would be that I would be very concerned about Canada's falling further behind our OECD colleagues. I referenced the countries that we are closest to. I think that what we see is the U.S. accelerating. We see Japan accelerating, and we see countries like Finland accelerating. Now is the time to be investing in post-secondary education, and we are an outlier. Certainly that's in both the provinces and the federal government, but the federal government plays a really important leadership role in setting the tone for research and development in this country.

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

Thank you so much for your testimony here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

Now we'll move to Ms. Diab for another five minutes, please.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses.

Dr. Gaffield, you mentioned that we need to attract the best and the brightest of students, and we all agree that we have to do that. You also mentioned how Canada has invested in the quality of the research environment and the infrastructure we have, quite frankly, across the country. In my own province of Nova Scotia, I see that every day and every week in the institutions we have, and in the leading professors and the supervisors we have.

Yes, I have to say that I definitely agree with you in that we are a committed country, committed people, to being an inclusive society, which tends to bring us talent from around the globe. They want to come, to stay, to learn and to contribute to Canada.

I appreciate that you said this committee is part of the solution, and I feel that. I think I'm going to agree with you. I was very proud when this committee was formed, and proud of the members, who were the inaugural members of the science and research committee when we started on this in the fall of 2021, because in fact, it had not existed before.

I do believe that we have been able to raise awareness and to shed a lot of light on many topics, one of which is exactly the one we're dealing with today. I would say that, for many, sometimes, some things have fallen through the cracks, and I suspect this is definitely one of them.

We've also talked about how it's a holistic approach. It's not simply one item in terms of increasing the graduate scholarships, or doing whatever. It's a holistic approach to solving the problem. I think Dr. Nemer and many others have mentioned that. I think a lot of the issues as well are because of the cost of living and the challenges that many face.

With the few minutes that we have remaining—you've been a professor, you've been someone who has led one of those councils, and in your current role with the U15—what are some of the most important things you can give us to finalize our work here in the committee? Not one answer is going to do the job here.