Science and Research Committee on April 16th, 2024

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for excellent presentations.

I'm going to start with Dr. Murphy. I'm not sure if you were able to join us for the first hour, but we did receive what to me was a very persuasive presentation by the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies. They talked about a method and formula for redistributing funds to universities that was based on the number of graduate students and on academic excellence.

I am wondering, Dr. Murphy, how you feel about that proposal and whether you think it has merit over the current system.

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

I think we're absolutely talking about the right thing in terms of how we think about redistribution. Those answers aren't always easy.

My colleague talked about impact, and I think that's a really important thing. How do we quantify impact? I would say for our researchers and our student researchers, their biggest marker is whether they are actually having an impact in industry. Are they helping to move the needle? I think we have to move beyond traditional metrics around publications and so on and include the extent to which our technologies and our IP are getting translated into actual industry productions.

All that is to say that I believe we need to come up with a different system that would allow for smaller and medium-sized universities to get a larger slice of the pie, because certainly we have areas of specialization that the U15 does not. I'm not sure whether the proposals I heard today that were based simply on graduate student numbers will bring us to the desired outcomes.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

I'm wondering if you've had any experience with the discovery grants application process that is administered by NSERC. We received a briefing note from the U15 that described this particular process. It seems very lengthy and very comprehensive perhaps. It seems to take a year for applications to be processed.

Do you have any comments on that process? Has Ontario Tech University had experience with that particular process, and do you see it as something that is working for you? Can it be improved in any particular way?

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

Obviously, our strongest area is in NSERC funding, so we have a lot of experience with discovery, as we do with SSHRC funding and CIHR.

What I will say is that there's a commonality among the three. Our researchers all comment that they spend far too much time filling in forms, redoing their CVs to a common CV standard, than they do with their research. I think that, to the extent the discovery process is perhaps slightly more onerous than others get, it gets a bad rap. The lesson to be learned is: Let's try to reduce the bureaucratic red tape around applications, especially in the forms that are required to be filled out. No one's asking us to skimp on the ideas and the science that we're putting forward, but in terms of the actual forms and working through the bureaucratic red tape, those are the elements that we see in discovery—and in the other granting agencies, to be fair—that need to be seriously reduced.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you very much for that. It certainly struck me as being excessively bureaucratic.

Dr. Cecil, you talked, obviously, about equity impact and the need for more funding, the type of work that colleges do. I have Seneca college in my riding, and I'm a great fan of the work of colleges. Apart from the absolute quantity issue in terms of the amount of funding dedicated towards colleges, are there any ideas, among all of you, on how those funds should be redistributed or distributed in a different manner?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

Thank you for the question, and it is an intractable one that we have been dealing with since our inception into research about 20, 25 years ago. The third point that I talked about is also eligibility. While there is inequity in the system, part of that comes from the fact that colleges are simply not allowed to access certain funds.

It's the way that they are structured. With the infrastructure investment grants that NSERC held for a number of years, colleges were eligible. We are also eligible under the new mobilize grant. However, the mobilize pot is much smaller than it was under the IEs, and as such, eligibility is limited.

People have indicated to this panel before that colleges are available to hold Canada research chairs. However, with the criteria under which Canada research chairs are evaluated, colleges don't qualify, so it doesn't matter how large the CCIP pot is and how much the pool is within any given institution: If it's ineligible, it's ineligible. Therefore, it's about creating that equity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much.

We go now, for six minutes, to Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses joining us for the second hour of the meeting.

Mr. Cecil, last week, we met with your colleague from Niagara College, Marc Nantel. He reminded us not only about the importance of college-level applied research, but also of its relative recency compared the more established and longer-standing research done in universities. As a result, the perceived scope of college-level applied research is less well known.

Could you tell us about applied research in your educational institution?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

All of the work we conduct at our college is entirely applied, and as such, the application goes directly back to our industry partners. The application of the research we do is not held by the institution and the individual researchers, and that's one of the value propositions that colleges bring to the table. Because we do not have an interest in holding the IP and the work we do is not investigator-led but industry-led, we are not coming up with problems to be solved because of investigator interest. Rather, an organization comes to us and says, “I have a problem. Please help me solve it.” The nature of that applied research makes the world of difference in our world, and our value proposition that we do not hold the IP is attractive to them. That's one of the issues universities typically face: They want to hold onto a portion of the IP as part of their revenue stream. That's what makes our work very appealing from an applied perspective.

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

I would like you to give us more background information, especially for CEGEPs and colleges, which are more recent than universities. Nicole Vaugeois, an academic representative, reminded us in her speech on March 21 that universities, particularly Yukon University and Capilano University, are confronting challenges because they may not necessarily have a sufficient pool of talent, infrastructure or the funding history needed to access to certain scholarships.

Since research performed in colleges is relatively recent, as shown by the Olds College Centre for Innovation, founded in 1999, I would like to hear what you have to say on the subject. Do you face similar history-related challenges?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

Indeed we do. Similar challenges are faced because of the newness of our entry into applied research. While we have been doing research in various forms for the better part of 100 years at our college, the application directly to the work we do now at the Olds centre for innovation is challenged by the existing framework. The existing framework identifies opportunity based on researcher capacity and researcher awareness. We've seen at this committee presentations with such phrases as the “right” research being done by the “right” individuals or researchers at the “right” institutions. The question I have to challenge the committee with is this: Who defines “right”?

There's a challenge that we have to address now from the Olds College perspective and organizations like the smaller institutions, whether they be Capilano University or Kwantlen or us, and that is understanding the capacity that we have built and leveraging that capacity across the ecosystem. We were challenged 20 years ago: Build capacity so that we understand that you have capacity. Well, we've developed it. The infrastructure or the system itself—what gets measured, how it gets measured and how it gets valued—does not leverage that capacity that we have built.

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

Thank your answer. It was specific and complete enough.

I would also like to hear your recommendations. You mentioned a few of them, but what would you suggest to improve the distribution of funding to colleges and CEGEPs, given that only 2.9% of total research funding is allocated to your institutions, and yet you represent close to 120 institutions in all?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

In order to address the eligibility issue, that would be a significant advancement forward, allowing colleges the opportunity to actually lead research opportunities. As a case in point, a lot of research today has major partnership and collaboration grants with universities being the lead. Quite frankly, for this committee and your deliberations, colleges are very often seen as simply a checkbox to be achieved in order for the university to get the grant. We have a lot more to bring to the table. In fact, given the applied nature of the research we do, industry very often approaches us first. Then we're finding a university partner.

Can the committee and the federal funding model rethink the relationship so that colleges can be the lead and universities be the partner? It's the colleges that have been approached by industry to solve a real problem, not an investigator-led problem. That would be a very practical solution.

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

Practically speaking, Mr. Cecil, are you suggesting funding programs specifically for colleges and CEGEPs, so that you can get access to adequate funding?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Please be very brief.

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

As I would very much love to see a pot dedicated just to colleges, I think a rebalanced and reframed system that takes a systems approach, the entire ecosystem, to leverage the infrastructure that Canadians have invested into colleges and universities is an equitable solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Great. Thank you.

You have six minutes, Mr. Cannings.

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

Thank you.

I'll start with you, Dr. Murphy. You mentioned in your statement at the start that Canada is not putting in its share of research dollars when compared with other countries around the world. We're falling behind a lot of our major competitors and partners in the world in that regard. I had a science policy person from the U.K. in my office yesterday, and he commented on that.

For smaller institutions like yours, that are more focused on applied research, how should the federal government up its game in this regard that would help rebalance how institutions such as yours can do the work that we really need researchers to do in this country?

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

I think I'll illustrate it with an example. At our university, because of our location and our history, we're extremely strong in the nuclear energy space. One of the areas that we all know is experiencing a renaissance is nuclear power, whether it be small modular reactors or baseload plants.

In order to advance Canada and the world, you need organizations like ours, which has the only undergraduate program in nuclear engineering, followed by master's and doctoral programs in nuclear engineering. We need that kind of specialized talent to be able to move research from the lab into SMRs that don't yet exist.

It's a really great example of how the federal government needs to invest in a technology so that we can have proof of concept here in Canada through CANDU technology or, indeed, other technologies of SMRs working in the field in Canada, and then begin to sell those assets abroad, which I have also been involved in, in terms of initial talk.

When we talk about our competitiveness on the world stage, it all comes back to how seriously we are taking research that will drive industry and industries that will drive international trade, and areas where we can be leaders with our Canadian presence and our footprint today, not areas that we aspire to be in. I would say those are also very important in this discussion, but it's in areas we already lead and that we don't leverage effectively where federal investments can help the ecosystem to move even more quickly.

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

You also mentioned the situation with grad student funding in Canada, which hasn't kept pace with inflation and hasn't been upped in over 20 years. In fact, we're hoping for some good news on that in the budget later today. Most grad students don't get their funding through that program, although a significant number do. They get it directly from the principal investigators.

I'm just wondering how that situation plays out in a small institution like yours, and how we can help graduate students get the funding they need through increased research grants to smaller institutions.

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

Absolutely.

You're quite right. At our institution, about 16% of our grad students are federally funded, which is actually a fairly high number in comparison to peers. It points to the real importance of funding our research and, of course, our professors. This is because, as I'm sure you've heard many times over, our professors are the ones who help the university provide RAships and TAships. Even more importantly, they provide opportunities and scholarships through their grants to be able to attract these people.

It's only when we combine federal scholarships and, potentially, provincial scholarships, which are fading in number, with institutional offers that are pulled from faculties' grants accounts that we can be competitive. As those grants accounts diminish in real dollars over time, our ability to attract students and keep them in Canada is significantly decreased.

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

I'll turn to Dr. Cecil.

We've heard at other times in this committee how the funding models for colleges don't really match the reality of the different sorts of research you do when you react to a company coming to you, saying it has a problem. You want to access research funds, but there's an intake that you just missed.

You said you're dealing with agriculture. Things have to grow at a certain time of year. Are there specific ways that those funding opportunities for you can be altered so that they make more sense for colleges and technical institutes?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

That's a fantastic understanding of the issue.

The challenge we will be faced with—and this will be one of the serious deliberations for this committee to consider—is that in the reimagining of all federal research funding, will there be the opportunity to create an open pool that is allocated to a college or a university that allows it to be opportunistic and address an immediate and emergent issue? The whole world came to a stop for COVID, but the whole world had to respond quickly. The coffers were opened.

When an opportunity presents itself to a college or a university, is there an open pool that it can draw from quickly that is already allocated to the institution, and not back to the feds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

We're a little bit over, but that was a valuable piece to get into our study.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you have five minutes, please.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Cecil, you talked about the indirect cost of research funding. There are a lot of redundancies that happen with the indirect cost of research in terms of how the federal government allocates it across different institutions across the country. For example, in Calgary, there's a lot of overlap on things like tech transfer offices or research admin support. Is there a way that the federal government could restructure that support to give more access to those types of services for institutions like yours that are based in a region around a university that already gets a lot of support for those sorts of things?