Science and Research Committee on June 13th, 2023

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You still have 30 seconds.

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

Since we are the only G7 country to have lost researchers since 2016, what message would you like to send to the government for it to try and change things as quickly as possible?

[Marc Johnson]

Invest in the future of this country by investing in graduate students and post-docs through scholarships, fellowships and grants. That's the solution. It's an easy win. The logic is clear.

Why we have not seen it is hard to understand, especially when the minister—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

We got the core part of that answer in a concise way. I appreciate that.

Mr. Cannings, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to continue with Mr. Johnson, because I think his reply to my last question was cut off when I was talking about how scholarships and fellowships, the federal ones, set the rates.

Mr. Johnson, you were starting to say something about the situation in Manitoba where you are now. I think that's where we left off.

[Marc Johnson]

It was a colleague I was speaking to from biochemistry. I'm not going to name the university. I'm not going to say it's within Manitoba, because it's actually a system-wide issue across Canada. They were explaining to me the funding levels. The minimum stipend level before tuition—and all students have to pay tuition with the stipends they get—was $17,500 for master's students and Ph.D. students in 2023. That's the same level of the Canada graduate scholarships master's program from 2003. That has been used as the bar.

If you look at graduate programs across the country, they're consistently using the tri-agency fellowship and scholarship levels to set their minimum bar. They're all shooting for the minimum. If tri-agency awards, scholarships and fellowships increase, that will put pressure on the universities to increase their stipend levels, and they'll be able to pay for those once we increase the grants as well. That's a key piece of this.

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

You mentioned the fact that tuition has to be paid out of this as well. I think a lot of people forget. When they think of $17,500 and how they could live on that, they forget that these students have to pay tuition, as well, on top of that.

Maybe you could give me an idea of what graduate tuition fees are today. I remember paying them when I was a student and when my wife was a student, but can you remind us what the standard graduate tuition fees are in Canada today?

[Marc Johnson]

They vary from university to university and department to department, but they range roughly between $7,000 and $11,000. On average, most students who have a stipend have $15,000 in their pocket after tuition. With that, they have to pay rent and they have to pay for food, and most cannot do that in any Canadian city I'm aware of.

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

Thank you.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have five seconds left. You got a lot in in a short time, as always.

Thank you to our witnesses for being so concise with your answers. If there is other information that you want to expand on, you can definitely send it in writing and the clerk can include it in your testimony.

Thank you, Colin Colterjohn and Marc Johnson, for your testimony. It is going to help us with the Government of Canada's graduate scholarship and post-doctoral fellowship programs study.

We'll suspend briefly now to change our panel. We'll have one witness online and one in person. I'll suspend for a few minutes. We'll see you at the top of the hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I call the meeting back to order. We'll get started.

We may need to suspend. The witness who is online isn't here yet, so we may have to suspend to do a sound check with that witness.

Welcome to everybody who has returned and to our witness as well. Welcome back.

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

It's now my pleasure to welcome back Mr. Chad Gaffield, who is the chief executive officer of the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities. We'll start with your testimony, and hopefully our other witness will join us in progress.

You have five minutes, please. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield, Chief Executive Officer, U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to discuss what I think is the key component of the science and research file.

Let me thank you for your continuing leadership of the standing committee in discussion, debate and policy formulation for science and research in Canada. Your reports and recommendations this past year consistently proposed promising and urgently needed steps forward for Canada in what I think we all agree are turbulent times.

My focus today is on the Government of Canada's graduate scholarship and post-doctoral fellowship programs, the subject of your next report. My specific aim is to contribute to your report by describing, in detail, exactly why these scholarship and fellowship programs are so important and so deserving of your close attention. These details are important since they help explain why Canada's scholarship and fellowship programs are at risk—at risk of failing Canada's best and brightest; at risk of failing our institutions, companies and communities; at risk of failing our country's future; and indeed at risk of failing Canada's important role on the world stage.

How did we get here?

Witnesses thus far have emphasized how graduate students play a vital role in the research and innovation ecosystem, making significant contributions to advancing research and mobilizing knowledge while developing domain expertise and deep, enduring competencies in high demand across society.

Witnesses have emphasized how Canada's scholarships and fellowships have generally remained at financial levels set two decades ago.

Witnesses have described how peer countries are moving in the opposite direction by rapidly increasing their research investments, especially to cultivate the highly qualified talent development that is now globally recognized to be the centrepiece of every robust research and innovation ecosystem.

The U.S.A.'s Chips and Science Act more than doubled their national science commitment over five years and has increased graduate research fellowships by 50%.

Witnesses have emphasized that 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. The Bouchard report makes clear funding recommendations: Increase funding for the three granting agencies by 10% annually for the next five years. The report stresses the urgency of acting. The report reads, “To put it starkly, current support for graduate students—the researchers of tomorrow—is at a breaking point.”

In this context, my aim today is to ensure that you have the detailed information that explains how we got to this breaking point and what action is needed to get Canada back on track.

Let me invite us to focus attention on a series of key issues.

Let us focus on the holders of graduate scholarships and fellowships and discuss how exceptional they are as the emerging leaders of their generation. They represent those who have been judged to be Canada's best hope for major steps forward as a country. Let us discuss, in detail, the rigorous, multistep process that leads to their selection. Let us discuss Canada's objectives in offering these graduate scholarships and fellowships. Let's specify exactly what these awards are designed to accomplish for Canada and why they set the standard for Canada's entire science and research ecosystem.

Let's review the meaning and significance for an individual to be chosen for an award, especially for the best and brightest from disadvantaged backgrounds. Let's list the consequences for award winners today of receiving awards at levels set years ago. Then, let's consider the consequences for Canada of offering scholarships and fellowships today in the currency of 2003.

Mr. Chair, it is these and related issues that are at the heart of our discussions.

While all your reports have been highly significant, I am convinced that this report on scholarships and fellowships could have the most significant impact for the long-term benefit of Canada.

As you know, this spring's federal budget contained no new investments in research funding for universities. This marks the second consecutive year that the federal government has frozen research funding. In fact, this year, it is asking for a 3% cut. Scholarships and fellowships will remain at levels set years ago. Inflation will continue eroding research grant funding, and initiatives to innovate across the private, public and non-profit sectors will continue to face serious difficulties at a critical time.

Canada needs to act now.

Many thanks, and I look forward to our discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you for your presentation.

The clerk is still trying to get in touch with our second witness, so we'll start into our rounds of questions.

We will begin with Gerald Soroka, from the Conservatives, for six minutes.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Gaffield, for coming today. I guess I'll start with you.

My first question is this: You have talked about how bleak and not great a future we have for science and research here in Canada. Do you feel that the government has an understanding of how beneficial science and research are or even has a plan in place to make sure that we have good science and research in Canada?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you very much for that question.

As you may know, I'm a long-term university professor, and I've also looked after one of the federal research councils. What I've been struck by in the last 25 years of active involvement in this sector is the extent to which a commitment to building a better future for Canada in a changed world has really involved a bipartisan commitment to investing in the best and brightest. We saw this. Earlier today there was mention of the Liberal government's initiatives in terms of the Canada graduate scholarship and so on. That was followed by the Conservative government's leadership in terms of the Bantings and the Vanier fellowships, and the Canada excellence research chairs and so on. There has been a long-term commitment to say that Canada will survive in the 21st century by having the human capital to help us move forward.

What's happened, I think, in the last number of years is that this long-standing commitment has kind of been taken for granted a bit. We haven't realized that, in an international and competitive world, given inflation and so on, we cannot lose focus. This is something that must be considered a priority for the country, year in and year out.

My sense is that a lot of your work here at this committee, and certainly what the witnesses have been saying, is really bringing it to our attention that this plan, this commitment, of building a Canada based on human capital rather than simply what we have in the ground is now more important than ever. In a changed global context, a world of the intangible economy and a world in which all countries are trying to move up the value chain in terms of a higher level of economic activities, we must double down, in fact, on this bipartisan strategy that Canada pursued successfully until fairly recently.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

You mentioned a few of the great discoveries that have happened in Canada. Would you say that the approach is more that it's going to happen whether we fund it or not, and we don't have to really be as concerned about it? Other countries, like you say, are doubling or doing more for science and research.

Is that what they're probably doing? Are they just taking it for granted and not actually willing to invest and make that significant contribution?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

That's such an interesting point. One of the issues that is so important goes back to the bipartisan debate that went on, in fact, in the mid-nineties: The world has many researchers. Canada is a little country. How about we just import it when we need it? We're a little country. Let's just let other people do all the great discoveries and advances and so on. Then we'll just leverage that. It was a “make it or buy it” kind of argument.

The reason that approach was put to the side was that people argued that, if we don't have a rich, high-quality research and innovation ecosystem, we won't even know what to buy. We won't even know what's happening in the world. We need to have our leaders in the game. Yes, we're a small country. We're never going to be able to make all the advances that are needed in the 21st century, but if we don't have people in the game of science and research, we will become a colony in this new world of the 21st century.

That was why there were investments and a huge effort made to make Canada not just an intellectual colony in the 21st century, not just a place that was dependent on the rest of the world, but a strong, sovereign and domestically capable country, by investing in our best and brightest.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you for that.

My next question is about the science and research we are doing right now. Do you feel it's of the best quality? We've heard from other witnesses about the financial pressure when it comes to paying for food and rent, and even getting married and trying to afford a home. With the challenges there, with their mental state, do you think they're doing as best they could be? If they had the financials, do you think they could be doing better?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

This is such an important point. It goes back to the heart of why Canada created the graduate fellowships and post-doctoral fellowships. That was exactly why. They wanted to do exactly what you said. They wanted to give these talented, emerging leaders the chance to focus on their work, because it was so important. They didn't want them having to scramble to get other jobs on the side. They didn't want them to have the distractions.

One great advantage—such as in my own case, and you've heard this many times—of having that signal from the federal government that what you're doing is so important, and being given some financial stability, is that it allows you to do it and focus on it and do it at that high level. What's happening now, since that financial stability is not there anymore, is that you have a situation in which the ambition and the objectives of these programs can't be met. It's not allowing the award winners to actually focus on their research and to actually push ahead, because they're having to scramble on the side to make ends meet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you both.

Now we go over to Mr. Sousa for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Gaffield.

I'm listening to a number of witnesses—you and others. We're all sensitive to the complexity of the issue. It's not just more money for the scholarships. There's a host of issues at play to support students. I have nephews—Ph.D. students—in the family. They all struggle, like most kids do and like we did as kids, trying to get themselves established to have some life benefits.

Then the monetization of what some of what that work will do will have huge payoffs. Part of this is also the monetization of IP, enabling us to scale and enabling us to retain investments in Canada to support these innovations and these students ultimately.

To hear from one side and to throw money at one single issue while not giving consideration to all the other things that are being done to support the system is unfair. What we need to do is prioritize and be efficient and effective at attracting the students, the talent and the minds because that's priority one over everything else. I congratulate you for so much of what you've done in this respect.

Tell me: How can we, as a government, but not just the federal government, the private sector, all of us, even those in the provincial sector, support some of these efforts?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you so much for that question because what you implied in it is the crucial point.

Again, in my years leading the federal granting council for social sciences and humanities, what we found was that for investing in research, the guaranteed ROI—the guaranteed return—is that cultivation of talent, which is the people we need. It's guaranteed.

This was the debate from the mid-nineties on. For a country, when you think about it, what can we invest in today that has a guaranteed return? There are not many things, but in fact, in the research world, that's exactly what happens. When you fund research projects, the people involved are all going to have their human capital—their intellectual capital—raised in ways that will serve that society.

You're absolutely right in terms of pointing to the importance of an ecosystem approach. One key aspect is that we can't just do a little bit over here and.... While I'm a huge proponent of saying we must have scholarships and fellowships at an internationally competitive level, that is just the pinnacle of the much larger effort we need.

We need to be able to view this entire ecosystem in a holistic way. Why? We need that development of talent across our sectors across the country and for them to be able to engage internationally, because at the end of the day, that is the ROI that is going to save us in terms of building a better future.

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

Yes, I couldn't agree more. Being able to attract some of those students to stay in Canada.... We do have a lot of interest in students remaining in Canada doing the work they do. Some of the concerns involve affordability issues. We have a whole suite of other opportunities to support them in that regard too, which are not being taken into consideration in the line of questioning.

We have to recognize that there's a much bigger issue. That's why this committee has been formed. It's to support research, to support innovation and to support Canada's sovereignty and protection in this space. It's critical as we go forward.

On the Bouchard report, some of your colleagues have been calling me already. We've had discussions. We know that's a priority system. We know that's something the government is looking at seriously. Thank you for that.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if I have more time. I have two minutes...? That's even better.

What are some of the supports the students are receiving from outside of government in regard to what they do?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

That's a great question, and implied in what you said there, in fact, are a few things that are really important.

First of all, what attracts a student here from another country and what keeps one of our students from going somewhere else? There are a few factors involved.

Obviously, there is the quality of the research environment. Canada has been investing over the last 25 years to have research facilities that are at the right level in terms of that. We've been investing in terms of having leading professors who are able to be supervisors for students, and that's a key component.

We also have—and I think you were implying this—a kind of country that I think is super attractive for some of the world's leaders of the emerging generation. We have an inclusive society. We still have a lot of work to do, but we are devoted and committed to being an inclusive society. We're a society that I think in many ways corresponds to the ideal of a 21st-century world, a world in which we support a way of living and a way of being that I think is really recognized around the world.

In terms of the academic world and in terms of our communities, I think we have some of the real makings of being a magnet both for our students who stay and for others around the world. At the same time, though, we cannot send a message to our own students and to the world that we don't really think they're a good investment at an international level. They do need to eat. They need to pay for housing. They need all of that.