Science and Research Committee on March 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have 30 seconds.

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

I think you touched on my question. It was going to be on how different levels of government and other partners can contribute even more to make a larger difference with the federal funding that we're also seeing. I believe we do that quite well at Dalhousie, but also at Mount Saint Vincent and Saint Mary's. We have 10 post-secondary educational institutions in a smaller province like Nova Scotia, all of different sizes. I look forward to having some of them attend, actually, so we can learn more about them here in our committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

We're at time now, so we're going over to Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Ms. Vaugeois, there's no denying that funding decisions go through the review committees within the three federal granting councils.

I'm trying to understand the situation. Can you tell us how small and medium-sized universities are represented on these funding bodies? Are they well represented on the review committees?

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

I don't know the composition of those committees; I just know the practice of how reviewers are called. We would have some reviewers, obviously, who have had funding there in past, but I couldn't speak to the full composition of those committees.

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

Thank you, Ms. Vaugeois.

Mr. Landon, I salute your courage, because it's not easy being in your shoes today. You represent the giants that are the members of U15 Canada, and you also represent small and medium-sized universities. You're in a bit of a difficult position; you're kind of walking on eggshells.

I'd like you to explain something about Universities Canada to me. As Ms. Vaugeois explained earlier, the funding concentration problem is not new and has gotten worse in recent years. I have here the 10th report of the former science and research committee, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, published in 2002. It's called “Canada's Innovation Strategy: Peer Review and the Allocation of Federal Research Funds”. Even back then, there were recommendations about support for underdeveloped small institutions and regional institutions.

Your organization is aware that research funding is being concentrated and of the disastrous consequences of that. What have you done since then to address this inequity?

[Philip Landon]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not aware of the report from 2002, but I think the issue will continue to be the balance of funding and ensuring that the funding is getting to the right institutions and the right researchers across the country in a way that is fair and equitable. However, that cannot go against the principle of merit-based funding going to the most important researchers and the strongest researchers.

This is a question that we are going to be asking 20 years from now as well. It's not something that we will solve.

What I would say is that the granting councils, our universities and groups like ACCRU and U15, we talk about this all the time, about how we can ensure that the excellence across the country is well represented. This is something that will be ongoing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cannings, we'll go to you for the last two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to go back to Ms. Vaugeois.

Ms. Rempel Garner brought up some of the challenges faced by students in terms of the cost of living, in housing especially, and yet we fund the graduate students who do this research, for instance, largely through grants and scholarships that have stayed the same for the last 20 years. Conservatives don't seem to be interested in increasing that amount, but I don't know how you can expect a grad student or a master's student to live on $10,000 a year and pay $7,000 in tuition.

Most of those students don't get funding from that; they get funding through their principal investigators and researchers. Mr. Landon brought up the issue of increasing the overall grant funding. How do your grad students survive in that environment?

[Dr. Nicole Vaugeois]

Vancouver Island University, my own university, has over 1,000 grad students, and I think we get four master's scholarships. It's always a very interesting conversation about who gets funded and who doesn't, and there's more of a burden on the university to make sure they're finding funding for those students.

To the question, I think if we can help those students stay within their region, that helps their families with affordability. The mandate of a lot of these smaller institutions is to serve their regions.

Of that funding, 90% comes through grants, but there is an opportunity here to keep merit in mind. There are a number of these programs, like CRCs, grad scholarships and the RSF. These are allocation decisions that are based on funding. There is an opportunity to tweak this: Keep merit in mind, but look at the allocations and ways to better support universities.

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

There are about 30 seconds for Mr. Landon.

Again, the idea of housing was brought up. I know the colleges in my riding, Selkirk College and Okanagan College, are both very much involved in providing housing for their students, which would help the students, but also help take pressure off the communities.

Is that something that your members are doing across the board?

[Philip Landon]

Absolutely. Canada's universities provide housing or help students with housing. The big issue has been with huge numbers of students arriving in certain areas of the country. Some of the immigration measures have addressed that, but the challenge has been the perception that it has been a universities' issue. It hasn't been a universities' issue; it's been a private college issue, to a large extent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

That brings us to the top of the hour. Thank you to the witnesses for being here and for great answers within our time limits, which we are always struggling with. If there's more information, you can always send it to the clerk if you weren't able to get everything out to us.

For now, I'll thank Dr. Nicole Vaugeois, Dr. Chad Gaffield and Philip Landon for their contributions to the start of our study and also an interesting discussion around the smaller universities.

Thanks to Mr. Lobb for the shout-out to the University of Guelph. They have Ridgetown Campus in Clinton, in his riding, so we both share some challenges. There's also the Ontario Tech University, if we're going around the table.

Thank you, members, for being part of this. Stay on Zoom if you're on Zoom. We'll start the next round in just a couple of minutes, once we have people in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Welcome back.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motions adopted by the committee on Tuesday, January 30, and Thursday, February 15, 2024, the committee resumes its study on the distribution of federal government funding among Canada's post-secondary institutions.

It's my pleasure to welcome back two witnesses who are familiar with us, and we're familiar with them. First, from Colleges and Institutes Canada, we have Pari Johnston, president and CEO. From Polytechnics Canada, we have Sarah Watts-Rynard, chief executive officer.

Welcome to our study, and thank you for preparing to talk to us.

We have five minutes for each of you.

We'll start off with Pari Johnston, please, from Colleges and Institutes Canada.

[Pari Johnston, President & CEO, Colleges and Institutes Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Pari Johnston, president and CEO of Colleges and Institutes Canada, as of month three. I started in early December and I'm very pleased to be here.

I'm here to talk about how we can improve the impact of college research through investment at scale and a reimagined approach.

There are three unique aspects to college research. Research questions are determined by external partners, predominantly small Canadian businesses and non-profits, with practical implications in local enterprise. The research is conducted and applied efficiently. About 80% of all projects are complete in under a year, and any IP generated remains with the local partner, ensuring the research results flow to the Canadian economy, maximizing innovation and productivity gains.

I want to make three points today. First, colleges are driving massive research impacts in communities across Canada. However, we could be doing so much more if Canada stepped up and funded colleges like equal research partners.

Let's look at the facts. Colleges provide extensive research expertise to local entrepreneurs and social innovators, with over 8,100 projects in 2021-22. We integrate students within applied research. We had over 27,000 that same year, and they've helped create over 2,400 prototypes, over 1,800 new products, over 1,000 new process improvements and over 900 new service offerings for businesses and community organizations. When you invest in college research, you get tangible impact.

But here's the kicker. All of this was supported with just 2.9% of tri-council funding or about $109 million across our entire college ecosystem in 2021.

My second point is that we need to reframe the role of colleges within the federal research and innovation ecosystem. Our sector has demonstrated expertise in driving impact, especially in translating research into innovation, but we do so much more than that. The sector is greatly under-supported by both federal and provincial governments. This must change.

I don't want to make make this an us versus them debate between colleges and universities. Both are critical partners in the research ecosystem, but we need different areas of expertise around the table to drive impact.

Colleges need more than a force fit into a university-oriented approach where colleges are also eligible.

We need to rethink federal research funding programs to make colleges full partners.

Eligibility requirements must appreciate institutional differences and take advantage of opportunities beyond the academic.

We need large-scale investment because, if we want to increase our impact and solve the major issues facing Canada, it's hard to imagine that 2.9% of federal research funding—funding spread across about 120 institutions—will allow colleges to fully contribute.

Colleges can play an even more significant role in challenge-driven research. We specialize in addressing problems and can help conquer major challenges in Canada. Think housing. Think labour productivity. Think climate adaptation. We encourage the Government of Canada, in collaboration with other levels of government, to embrace a challenge-driven research approach that gives full standing to colleges, to define and fund the policy challenges, and to let colleges, universities, businesses and non-profits collaborate on system-level solutions. For example, we'd be keen to participate in a research challenge fund for housing innovation. This would make a real and tangible impact on one of the biggest issues facing Canadians.

The college research ecosystem is poised to make substantial contributions to the entire research community in Canada. Given what I've shared with you today, I encourage the committee to launch a study on the barriers to an expanded college role in research and the benefits a redefined and expanded role could accrue to Canada.

Canada's college research system is unique in the world. It is a true competitive advantage for our country, if adequately funded and integrated as a full partner in the broader research enterprise.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear. I'd be happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much. You are right on time.

Now we'll go to Sarah Watts-Rynard, for the next five minutes.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard, Chief Executive Officer, Polytechnics Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My thanks to the committee for the invitation to join you in the early stages of this study.

As Pari mentioned, the research capacity of the polytechnic and college sector is overlooked and under-resourced. This bears repeating. When we look at the total annual investment in academic research by the tri-councils, it was $3.7 billion in the 2022-23 fiscal year. The Canada Foundation for Innovation distributed a further $386 million. The college and community innovation program, the only purpose-driven program supporting polytechnic applied research, was valued at about $108 million that year.

In other words, 119 eligible institutions shared 2.9% of the total investment in academic research. At the Canada Foundation for Innovation, there were 553 project awards in 2022-23. Only 17 landed in our sector, with total awards of $15.5 million or about 4%. Given the impact of those investments, the disparities cannot really be justified.

Polytechnics Canada represents the 13 largest polytechnics, colleges and institutes of technology and about 50% of Canada’s college population. Together, that network undertook 3,389 research projects in 2022-23. They engaged more than 21,000 students and co-developed 2,678 prototypes in collaboration with more than 2,600 business partners.

For every dollar invested by the federal government, polytechnics were able to leverage $2.24 from other sources.

Even more compelling than the numbers are the stories behind them.

Over the last year, Polytechnics Canada has been undertaking research on the economic impact of applied research. We have spoken to primary investigators and their business partners to understand how their collaborations are driving results. They told us about the value of market-driven research. Every project is undertaken at the behest of a private company, a public body or a not-for-profit organization. They come to institutions with a challenge, an idea or an obstacle to their own growth. The partner defines the scope of the project and retains the intellectual property when the project is over.

For example, Sheridan is using artificial intelligence to drive solutions for the elderly. Kwantlen Polytechnic has developed a lightweight hyperbaric chamber to treat altitude sickness in hikers.

That market-driven character aligns with federal ambitions to accelerate innovation within Canadian industry. Partners, over 80% of which are small and mid-sized companies, co-fund activities and offer in-kind support. More than two-thirds say that research has helped them grow their businesses.

Students who participate have a front seat to addressing real-world challenges, both developing their problem-solving skills and providing invaluable connections to prospective employers. A full 15% of them are hired by the partner with whom they do the research.

In addition to creating new or improved products and services, partners say that their staff gain skills that enrich the business long after the project is complete. They tell us that projects stimulate further investments in R and D, a productivity measure on which Canada consistently lags.

In summary, I want to leave you with a few high-level takeaways that underline why polytechnic applied research warrants greater emphasis in Canada’s innovation ecosystem.

First, as a country of small businesses, Canada needs better on-ramps to research and development activity in companies that simply cannot pursue that activity on their own. This is a sweet spot for polytechnic and college applied research.

Second, despite substantive investments in primary, investigator-led research, we do a poor job of translating those developments to the market. This is where polytechnics and colleges excel, but their capacity is under-utilized.

Finally, there is a funding disparity, but our research funding model also undervalues pragmatic approaches to common problems. We simply do not prize innovation that is incremental and applied. I think that is a mistake.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Great. Thank you very much for your testimony.

We'll go to Corey Tochor for the first six minutes, please.

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

Thank you to both of you for being here today.

Ms. Rynard, you talked about research into common problems. What are the common things that you think Canadians are facing right now that your research matches up?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

The research that the institutions are doing is really based on what the partners bring to them. It's common to the business partners. They're looking at housing. They're looking at the transition to net zero. They're looking at productivity lags and getting products to market.

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

It's interesting that you bring up the cost of living. It's very timely. There are national news stories out right now about food bank usage being up 600%. That compounds the cost of living crisis, from housing to feeding yourself.

Do you feel that technical colleges would be able to address some of those more real-world concerns that Canadians are having right now versus, say, 10 years ago, when the concerns and common problems that our country was facing might have been better researched at universities? On the current issues that are facing Canadians, do you feel that your institutions would have, or should have, a leg-up on universities on some of that research?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

I believe they do. Now, it's really in the last 10 or 20 years that the capacity has even been developed within the college system. I think one of the reasons it has been underfunded and overlooked in the past is that it's a relatively new ability. The kinds of problems that are occurring today are probably the same kinds of problems that, if this capacity had existed in the same way a decade ago, would have been able to be addressed then.

They're very responsive to today's problems. Today's problems are the ones that we have today, but they're also the ones that we had five years ago and the ones that we'll have five years from now.

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

Have you heard directly from students attending your facilities about the cost of living crisis?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

In general, we find that the students who come to the college and polytechnic sector are coming because it's cheaper to study there. They're still getting excellent education and they're looking for that link to the job market. That's not to say that they're not struggling. We certainly see students who are coming to the school for help with food insecurity and help with housing insecurity.

In general, I would say that it's less expensive to attend a polytechnic or a college than it is to attend a university.

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

With record prices on everything right now, everyone is looking for a little bit of a break. Thank you for representing colleges that are hopefully giving value to these students during this trying time period.

Ms. Johnston, you wrote a letter in January to Minister Miller about the international students cap. I understand that your organization hasn't written that many open letters in the past. I could only find a handful. I'm assuming that you guys put only the most significant concerns in an open letter. Am I correct?