Science and Research Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

I think it depends on the program, but that's not a standard metric. Because we keep talking about these being competitive awards, there is systemic bias in here. Reviewers are chosen from the pool of people who've had funds before. If you've had funds before, you get called as a reviewer. All of our institutions have examples where they've seen systemic bias against researchers from small universities with comments like, “I don't know how this person would do this, at this institution that doesn't have the infrastructure set up for that.” A minor comment like that moves your proposal elsewhere.

On your question about collaboration, some of the programs do have that embedded, but it's not a common one for merit-based awards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you to the witnesses who are with us today for this important study.

Ms. Vaugeois, I'd like a clearer understanding of some of the stats you shared in your presentation. We've heard that, in the name of merit and excellence, 50% of universities in Canada receive only 7% of the total funding and the other 15—the largest—receive 74% of the funding.

Is that correct?

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

It's 79%. I've seen different numbers. It's 78% to 79%, and the top 1% received 23% of Canadian funding.

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

Thank you for clarifying that.

Earlier, we heard about the importance of certain universities, some of which are located in urban areas and others in rural areas, that play different roles.

Can you tell us, based on your experience with universities that are smaller than those represented by the other witnesses, whether the fact that large universities in urban areas get most of the funding has an impact on students from and in rural areas? If so, how does it affect them?

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

Yes, it definitely does.

Some of that is.... I'll focus on the students. Really, our goal here is to train Canada's next generation of researchers. One of the biggest impacts it has is for those learners to be able to make it to post-secondary. We know from studies that rural students are under-represented in post-secondary institutions. For them, if they can't go somewhere local, they choose not to go. If they do go, it's a great financial burden to the family. They have to leave their community of residence. This is particularly important for indigenous students. For them, it's the added costs associated with their departure. That is one of the most impactful ones for us, where we play a role.

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

Thank you, Ms. Vaugeois.

From what I understand, neglecting smaller universities by concentrating funding in larger ones results in a vicious cycle. Small universities find it impossible to grow and achieve a status that would garner them better funding.

Can you tell us about the barriers that members of the Canadian Alliance of Comprehensive Research Universities face to accessing funding?

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

Yes, that's well said. It's a bit of a hamster wheel. Some new universities, like Yukon University or Capilano, are really having trouble here because, in order to attract talent, you need to be able to show that you have some infrastructure to be able to do research, that you have time to do research and that you have grad programs and students who actually have funding to come to university. All of that creates a really challenging environment for them.

In many ways, on the smaller administration teams, those few researchers don't have the cluster of people around them. They might be the only chemist who does stuff on tire toxins, and the other one who does that might be in another province. Some of those barriers, both for researchers and for the institutions, cause real problems.

The last one is that we typically have very small research teams, so for a short, last-minute announcement on a program or a call, we just don't have the ability to lobby and get everyone together in time. Sometimes it's because of proximity. I believe the U15 know about these calls well in advance. They have better research teams and staff to pull together a competitive proposal before we do.

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

Thank you very much.

Can you give us an example of how funding gets concentrated?

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

Yes. Certainly, success begets success. I think some people in here are aware of the most recent research security one. People had to have $2 million of research support funding coming to their institution as a cut-off to be able to get any, even though we all have to comply. I would argue that small institutions are the weakest link for research security in the country. I think one of our members got $41 to actually account for.

That would be one example. The CRC program is another example. You get more CRCs when you get more funding. CRCs are the engines that drive this sort of system.

Those would be two examples of past funding.

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

Thank you, Ms. Vaugeois. Your comments are very interesting and very germane.

Can you explain how the the way funding is distributed among universities right now affects members of your organization?

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

Yes. Certainly, I think the biggest one for us is that we struggle to attract talent, talent being the researchers themselves and the grad students who go with that.

We have created a space where excellence is defined as being only certain institutions. If you're a researcher who wants to contribute in your career, you're making decisions based on how Canada has been defining research excellence. For us, it's hard to attract that talent and to hold them. Sometimes they get moved off to other institutions that can pay them more.

I think it has also meant that we have been unable to get those students. Students want to come; grad students make decisions on who they're going to research with. For us it's a perpetual circle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We're actually at time on that. Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to all of you for being here. It's great to hear these important messages.

I'll start with you, Ms. Vaugeois. It's good to have someone from Vancouver Island University here. My son got his education degree there. My wife worked there back when it was Malaspina College. Just by happenstance, I realize that I am wearing my Memorial University tie this morning. I got my master's there many years ago. We're going from one side of the country to the other here in terms of these small and medium-sized institutions.

You went through a lot of percentages and data at the start. I guess the most concerning thing to me is that there is a disparity there, but it seems to be a growing disparity. It reminds me of the wealth disparity in general, in both Canada and the world, which is going in the wrong direction. I'm wondering if you could provide more details on that trend and what's driving it.

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

We have started to really try to take a look. We always look at the competition data, but we have been looking through it over time. I mentioned earlier the 2001 report. At that point in time, when this was flagged as an issue for Canada, the U15 had 63% of funding. Twenty years later, and a few special programs to help smaller institutions, and they're now at 79%.

The problem is deepening. We know that from some of the different funding agencies in terms of trend lines.

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

Dr. Gaffield mentioned that some of that is driven by the infrastructure, whether you have a medical school and that type of thing. Is that part of the trend?

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

Definitely. There is excellent research happening at the U15, definitely, and Canada needs that. To Chad's comment earlier, that's definitely there. But if you're able to get lots of money for infrastructure, and you're able to get 176 research chairs, who then apply for funding every year, and they get more of that money, and then they get more research chairs, and then they get more RSF.... That's what is going in the wrong direction.

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

That's kind of the Matthew effect you were talking about.

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

Yes.

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

There is obviously wonderful research going on at these smaller, mid-sized universities. You mentioned wildfire research. I assume you're referring to Mike Flannigan at Thompson Rivers.

What does that trend look like when it comes to research output, not the dollars spent? I can see why it makes sense to concentrate infrastructure in bigger universities, but you can still do important research without.... Maybe $41 is a bit low, but you can do important research at these places.

I'm just wondering what the trend looks like when you look at research output.

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

Certainly, there's an opportunity for us here to redefine not only what excellence looks like in research, but what outputs Canadians can expect from that research money. What are those outputs? Are they solely publications? Are they innovation translations into industry and the non-profit sector?

There has been a lively conversation about how to make sure that our funding is having an impact, which is the language we use.

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

I'm going to turn to Mr. Landon.

Your organization seems to bridge both ACCRU and the U15. Probably all the members of those are members of Universities Canada, pretty much. Can you comment on the problem of how much money you get from the CFI and how that drives this? What does your organization do to try to bridge that gap and keep things fair and growing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have just over a minute.

[Philip Landon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cannings.

Yes, in fact we represent universities from ACCRU, from U15 and another sort of mid-level layer as well.

Canada has a very well-respected research ecosystem, but it is just that—an ecosystem. We do need the research-intensive universities to be doing the excellent research, but we also need to recognize that excellent research is happening at the smaller institutions as well.

I think there are elements and principles that we want to hold on to. I do think that having merit-based, peer-reviewed competitions is extremely important to ensure that the best research, the right research is being funded. On the flip side of that, we need to help build the capacity in the smaller institutions so that they can put forward proposals that will be competitive.

I think it is a constant question of adjusting, managing and seeing, to make sure that our ecosystem remains strong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Great, thank you very much.

Now, for five minutes, we'll go over to Michelle Rempel Garner.