Science and Research Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

It is not quite the same. Certainly the bigger institutions have a larger footprint when it comes to their facilities, their equipment and their capacity, but there are a number of smaller institutions—CEGEPs and more regional colleges—that do, in fact, have a substantive applied research footprint. The concentration is not quite the same.

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

Do you have any recommendations to help and support small or medium-sized institutions, as compared to large institutions?

We understand that funding and eligibility are key factors, but it must be even tougher for small and medium-sized institutions to qualify for these programs. It's also tough for them to grow and develop if nothing is done to support their development.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Pari Johnston]

I think it's an ecosystem issue. We just brought all of our institutions together for the national applied research symposium. I believe you were at that event. About 100 community colleges and polytechnics from across Canada were in attendance.

That tells me that applied research, even in small institutions, is part of their mandate and mission, because they want to meet needs in their region and their community.

Existing programs need funding to shore up smaller institutions' resources.

We also need the programs to leverage existing community college networks to include others that may have fewer resources but have a contribution to make.

For example, there is a network called the Southern Ontario Network for Advanced Manufacturing Innovation, or SONAMI. It was led by Niagara College Canada, but it included other colleges. It has even invited universities to join the network, because it wants to meet regional needs. It wants to include institutions from across Canada.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I know that this manufacturing network is doing a great job. I'd love to jump in, but it's not my turn.

It is Richard Cannings' turn for six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you.

Thank you both for being here. It's good to see you again.

I'll start with you, Ms. Johnston. You mentioned, at some point in your remarks, the steady decline in overall government funding for both universities and colleges. I imagine that has a more direct impact on smaller institutions, such as colleges.

Over the last 30 years, that decline in funding has driven increases in tuition, so students are having a harder time. It's driven colleges and universities to look for other sources of income, so we've seen an increase in international students. I was surprised to learn that last year, students from India put more into the Ontario post-secondary education system than did the Province of Ontario. That's unbelievable.

I am just wondering if you could comment on this, I think, insidious trend of governments of all levels in Canada causing a decline in funding for post-secondary education, when that is what is going to drive our economy in the future and help us face the challenges. Maybe both of you can comment on the effect of that on colleges and institutes.

[Pari Johnston]

Thanks very much, Richard, for the question.

I actually put out a public op-ed about this at the time of the international student cap, and I thought that we should be having a national conversation about the chronic public underinvestment in our post-secondary institutions, for the reasons that you cited—labour market, workforce development, economic growth, and encouraging responsiveness to the social polarization that we're seeing. Our colleges and polytechnics respond to those challenges every day, and they do it in a way that is defined by their partners on the ground.

You alluded to the particular challenges in Ontario, which were captured well in the recommendations of the blue ribbon report. There was some funding put back into that, but it was not to the extent that was really needed. We would have much preferred a national conversation on this kind of issue, and we would like to use this opportunity today to stimulate that kind of conversation rather than the international student cap.

I want to say that, absolutely, international students make a huge contribution to our country. We are a country that must be connected globally. We are an open-trade country, a country of many different populations, and we need to ensure that international students are seen as part of the solution. They were blamed, in my view, for a public underinvestment challenge. There's an opportunity for us to look afresh at the Canada social transfer and how it has stayed stagnant for many years. That is one of the federal levers for investing in post-secondary education.

Then, at the provincial level, certainly, we're working with our provincial and regional college associations every day to continue to make the public interest argument that investment in post-secondary education, at the college and institute level particularly, is an investment in Canada's future.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

The only thing I would perhaps add to that is thinking about the investment and recognizing that the federal investment that flows through to the provinces is trying to cover both education and health. These are competing demands. What we've seen is an emphasis on health care, which is another piece that Canadians highly value, and, in response, a message going to the institutions saying to be more entrepreneurial. I have no problem with entrepreneurship and, clearly, neither do my member institutions. They're bringing in huge amounts of money from partners, from the private sector and through philanthropic foundations.

Then, on top of that, international students were another piece of the financial puzzle. It did not stop costing good money to deliver post-secondary education, but choices were made at different levels of government. I would say that the one thing we've really seen from our sector is a huge move to being much more entrepreneurial about where those funds come from, and businesses that believe in the value of education are stepping up to the table. What we'd really like to see is a bigger, broader conversation about how governments can also do that.

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

I have one minute.

You mentioned entrepreneurship, and you both mentioned how colleges and technical institutes work with private sector partners to do research on demand, and yet I think we've heard before in this committee how the funding models provided by governments don't really match up with that, and that there needs to be more flexibility, for instance, in the timing. If a company comes to your college saying that they want to get some research done on this topic, and you have to wait six months for the funding window to open, it doesn't really fit with their timeline.

I'm just wondering if there's something the government could do in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We're actually going to have to circle back on that one, because we're at time—but let's hold that thought.

Now we'll go to Gerald Soroka for five minutes, please.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask this question of both witnesses.

You've talked about partner funding. I was just wondering if you have a percentage of how much comes from the partners or private funding versus federal or provincial funding. I don't think you'd have those numbers off the top of your head.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

It very much depends on the project and on the partner. I would say that in some cases, when we look at examples from across our membership, we would see that if it was a fairly large private sector partner, they would provide the majority of the funding. Then the funding that's available through the government would be more likely to get used on not-for-profits, indigenous communities and others who don't have the resources.

One of the things we really like about the college and community innovation program is the speed at which funding is delivered. If you are going to do research for the private sector, you can't wait around for six months while the funding agency is deciding whether or not it's something they want to fund. There's a lot of effort being made to streamline those approval processes.

While I wouldn't be able to give you a precise match, when we look at the funding our members get from the federal government and the funding they're able to bring in overall, as I mentioned in my remarks, for every dollar that the federal government invests, $2.24 is being invested by others.

[Pari Johnston]

Maybe I could also answer and build on Sarah's answer, which is exactly the case. At Colleges and Institutes Canada, we host a survey of applied research every year. The data we have from 2021-22 does signal that close to 60% of the partners for applied research come from Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, first of all.

In terms of the leveraging effect that they themselves bring to the table, it's almost $140 million in private sector contributions to the applied research enterprise, which is a very important amount related to the government contribution. It's almost the same. Plus, not-for-profits also bring money to the table, as well as municipalities. It is, as Sarah has noted, an important leveraging effect, and they're bringing their own funding to the table to help solve the problems that they see the colleges and institutes can help solve.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

With any of the co-funding projects with these private industries, do you have any patent rights, like a percentage or anything, or is this strictly just a “cash in, cash out, and thanks for your service” and that's it? I was thinking of long-term, more sustainable funding for you guys if some type of patent program were available that way.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

For the most part, our members would say that they have no interest in the IP, and that's actually one of the selling features with small businesses that come to the institutions for support. They like the fact that we're not going to keep their IP, and they can turn that into the growth of their organization. They can turn that into commercialization activity, which we don't want to stand in the way of.

If I was to say what the real value proposition is for the institutions, it's that they're bringing faculty and students into those projects. Those are opportunities for employment for the graduates. It's also an opportunity for faculty to understand and have a front-row view of the problems and the challenges that small business owners are having—or business owners writ large, not necessarily just small ones—and to understand the challenges they are undertaking.

That's folded back into the curriculum. These aren't researchers who are separate from instructors. These are the instructors who are being freed up to work on real projects and real challenges, and who are then turning that around both in terms of work-integrated learning opportunities for the students and also in terms of informing a curriculum that's trying to stay on top of a very fast-moving labour market.

[Pari Johnston]

If I could add one other point to the IP question, because I think that's really key, it's that almost 100% of the partnerships led by Colleges and Institutes Canada in relation to applied research are with Canadian companies. In other words, the IP is staying in the Canadian economy. I think that's a really important point as we think about the overall impact of federal investments.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I wasn't really thinking about a 100% patent. I was talking about maybe 5% or something, just as a continual means of getting a little bit of money back over the long range. That's all I was thinking of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Okay, we're actually at time.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I'm not done asking the question, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I wish I could keep the clock going, but we're fighting against that right now.

Mr. Turnbull, you have five minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks very much, and thanks to both of you for being here.

Ms. Johnston, it's nice to see you in that role at CICan.

I'm a big fan of my local college, which is Durham College. They have a lot of infrastructure, actually, in our community across Durham region. They have an EV innovation hub. They have the centre for food and they have the skilled trades innovation centre. They have a social innovation hub and an AI hub. They're doing just incredible things. I see them as a real asset to our innovation ecosystem, and I think all colleges and polytechnics are assets in that innovation ecosystem.

One thing that I know impacts this is that years ago there was a stream of funding for infrastructure for post-secondary institutions that helped colleges develop these kinds of really innovative facilities and purchase the technology, install the equipment, etc. I feel like that investment needs to now get leveraged. It goes back to something that was being talked about earlier.

I wanted to know whether you've done any assessment as to how not having applied research funding may lessen your ability to leverage those infrastructure investments from past years. Do you have any comments on that?

[Pari Johnston]

Certainly, our applied research survey includes a look at research infrastructure, and I think you're exactly right. This is one of the really important dimensions of the locally embedded applied research hubs within communities. Our small and medium-sized enterprises—you cited what's going on at Durham College and it's a great example—are coming to use these facilities. They're coming to be part of defining a problem and then working with a local college or polytechnic to address it. I've been visiting many of my member campuses over the last couple of months and have certainly come to understand how much they are trying to leverage these facilities for other uses by their SME partners.

These facilities continue to need upgrades. They continue to need ongoing maintenance, and this is where some of the challenge is. Again, it goes back to the sort of limited opportunities for them through the CFI program, for example. It's only $15 million. It's a small program for research infrastructure. We are of the view, as we've said throughout this session, that the maturity of the sector demands a reimagining of the programs, because there is need.

I would say as well that the opportunity to leverage some of the other infrastructure programs that exist through, say, the strategic innovation fund and others through ISED.... They are not proving themselves to be very open to post-secondary eligibility, and that's also a challenge.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I was going to ask you about that as well. You mentioned the two other things. On this reimagining that you say is necessary, I wonder if part of that is a broad analysis of all the tri-council funding streams and the eligibility and ability for colleges and polytechnics and CEGEPs to leverage those effectively. Would you say that that's one of the recommendations we should consider?

[Pari Johnston]

I think that would be excellent. Certainly, Sarah and I both hope to have some very important conversations with the Canada research coordinating committee across the research granting councils, the National Research Council and CFI. I think that is certainly some of the bold, ambitious thinking that we're hoping to help them think about, because I think there's a misunderstanding and a lack of awareness of the strength, the relevance, the impact and the reach of the college and polytechnic applied research system.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I agree. Applied research is very different from pure research at universities. I've worked at universities and colleges, and I've worked in five different post-secondary institutions in my previous career, so I know the differences. In terms of applied research, there is some going on at universities—don't get me wrong—but it seems like there's a lot of concentration in colleges, and it has unique value. It also has a unique structure, those industry partnerships that you talked about and the ability to leverage private sector funding.

How do we incorporate that into some of the grant streams within the tri-council, which may not have contemplated that at their outset when they were designed many years ago?