Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education
Issue 11 - Evidence - March 13 Sitting
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 13, 1997
The Subcommittee on Post-Secondary education of the Standing Senate committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, met this day at 9:00 a.m. to continue its inquiry into the state of Post-Secondary education in Canada.
Senator M. Lorne Bonnell (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this morning, we will hear from the Medical Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. We welcome you all. Please proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Thomas Brzustowski, Ph.D., President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council: Mr. Chairman, I would like to express our appreciation to the committee for inviting us. The main point we wish to make is the one that is in the first line of our text. If one is planning to speak about universities, Post-Secondary education, then one has to take into account research because the university is the only institution in our society which does two things at the same time: Research produces current knowledge in advancing fields, and produces people who know about that knowledge, can generate it and put it to use in society.
The second point we would like to make is that we view what the councils do as strategic investments in the country's capability, both in terms of knowledge and people who can use it. As a measure of that, although we are a small country in population, we produce somewhere between 2 and 3 per cent of the world's knowledge in terms of research results. However, if we are good at what we do, we can have access to the other 97 or 98 per cent. In the days of the Internet, access does not mean just surfing the net and printing it on your printer, it means understanding what is in it, and that is where research comes in.
We make these investments -- and, as you have already said, Mr. Chairman, you understand that the investments are under pressure -- there are many challenges to Canada's university research effort. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The Canada Foundation for Innovation, which was introduced in the last budget, is an encouraging measure because it begins to address the problem of research infrastructure.
Apart from that, Mr. Chairman, if you would be prepared to hear from the councils individually, the other points will emerge.
[Translation]
It is very important that we underscore the key importance of university research for the country and for the welfare of Canadians.
[English]
Ms Lynn Penrod, Ph.D., President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council: As I am sure you all know, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council supports basic research through many disciplines: ethics, demography, economics, administration, history, and languages. You have a brief summary in your materials, starting on page 5, and I will certainly not going go through all of those areas.
Members of this committee might be interested to know that in terms of university first degrees, 67 per cent of the bachelors degrees granted in this country go to students who are studying in disciplines covered by the social sciences and humanities. Among the three granting councils, we are the smallest in terms of our budget, and yet 60 per cent of the researchers in this country -- and that includes researchers who are already members of the research community and the professoriat, such as graduate students in advanced studies -- are studying and doing their research in areas covered by the social sciences and humanities. Thus we have in this country a large critical mass of students and researchers doing work in our areas.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that there is an inextricable link between research and EDUCATION or teaching which we see in the Canadian university system. The research funded by social sciences and humanities goes a long way to examining how that link is best made.
Many of the areas we cover in our research involve targeted research in areas that are extremely important to this country, such as unemployment, social diversity, family restructuring, transformations in governance and social policy.
One specific piece of research which I might point to members of this committee as being extremely interesting and useful to your inquiry is a study by David Cameron, which is cited starting at the bottom of page 6, about the manner in which universities are governed and managed. That particular research, of course, is a piece of social science research. His book, More Than an Academic Question: Universities, Government and Public Policy in Canada, is one which I am sure you have heard about or will be hearing about. It was widely referred to by the Roblin Commission and is an example of the kind of research funded by our agency.
I do not want to take much of our time to present SSHRC, but I welcome this opportunity to answer your questions and to engage in dialogue about the importance of the granting councils in the system of Post-Secondary education and about how research and EDUCATION go together.
Mr. Ian Shugart, Executive Director, Medical Research Council: Mr. Chairman, in budgetary terms, the Medical Research Council is positioned about halfway between SSHRC and NSERC. We fund research in the basic health science departments of universities but the research that we fund takes place largely in the teaching hospitals across the country and, increasingly, in independent hospitals with research institutes.
I will come back to the point about research which takes place in the context of the delivery of health services and health care. Members probably notice every week in the news stories of health and medical research which has probably been funded in part by the MRC. That points to the tremendous sense of hope that Canadians have, as do all industrialized countries, in terms of conquering disease and to the willingness to put resources into that effort. The work that we do in funding health and the determinance of health status also makes a longer-term contribution to the health of our population and to important subgroups within it.
We also have a keen interest in seeing research contribute to the cost effectiveness of the health system. As we discover what works and what does not work and what the evidence is to support various interventions and the way we deliver health across the country, we are making a contribution to a vitally important area of human life. Through the recently established Canadian Health Services Research Fund, in which we are partners with SSHRC, Health Canada and others, we are achieving that objective.
We all know that biotechnology and health products and services are an extremely important growth area in the economy. That economic growth, job creation, product development and so on depends on the stream of new ideas coming into the system. The research that we fund at universities and teaching hospitals is the platform upon which commercialization of ideas takes place, contributing to jobs and the economy. That general statement applies in various ways to each of the three councils.
I mentioned the hospital and clinical context. One of our major concerns about the future of medical and health research is what we refer to as the clinician-scientist. This is the health professional, whether an MD, senior nursing staff member or allied health professional, who is trained professionally to exercise healing skills but who is also trained in research.
Due to a variety of factors -- sometimes economic incentives, currently very major restructuring in the health system, as well as declining budgets -- there is a downward trend in Canada at the moment in the number of clinicians who are trained in research. That is vitally important in bridging the gap between the ideas that are generated in research and their application at the bedside, in health prevention or a variety of other areas. Training the next generation of health professionals is a specific problem about which we are concerned.
Finally, research and knowledge is an internationally mobile commodity. It is important that Canada have the same standards, goals and strategies for competitiveness in the commodity of knowledge and research as we have in other areas of trade such as telecommunications, et cetera. That principle applies to all three councils.
Mr. Brzustowski: NSERC deals with the natural sciences and engineering; the natural sciences being all of science except for the medical sciences and the social sciences. In one sense, the popular expression "science and technology" most closely applies to what we do.
We do three things mainly. We support basic research in the universities in the sciences and engineering. The object of that is discovery. That produces new knowledge in society. We support what we call project research, which has as its object the solving of problems associated with industrial activity. We support partnerships between universities and industry, so it is three-way funding. Universities, industry and ourselves support that work. Finally, we support the advanced EDUCATION of post-graduate students in research. At any given time, we are supporting about 14,000 of those from coast to coast.
I should like to emphasize the bullet points on page 8 of our text. The rest are examples you may find interesting to read at your leisure.
I have already spoken to the first point, which is that we gain access to all the world's new knowledge while we pay to produce only 3 per cent of it. That is good leverage.
The other four points are quite important. One thing that attracts much attention in the media is that new companies are created from research results. Many of those are in information technology; many of those are in biotechnology, and there is an interaction with the medical community because many in it are in essentially therapeutic endeavours in biotechnology. We have, therefore, the creation of new enterprises. They tend to start small but they grow fast, and many of them survive. They are largely in biotechnology, telecommunications and information technology, and also work in advanced materials.
Unfortunately, in the reporting of the scientific and engineering advances in this country, one could lose track of the fact that our established industries and sectors have become extraordinarily productive, because they have to compete against new sources of natural resources, by using research results. Using the forest product sector as an example, visualize a paper making machine with a 30-foot wide ribbon of paper flying through it at 100 kilometres an hour. That is high-technology and it depends on results. While the sector has been around for a long time, it is at our peril that we ignore the fact that this is a modern industry using modern methods to produce established products and is, as a result, becoming productive and competitive in the global markets. There is a question of image there. They do not get enough attention.
The flagship companies of Canada, the Nortels and Newbridges, that attract attention are telling us that their own intellectual effort is so much concentrated on producing the next product that they increasingly look to university researchers for the ideas of the future.
Many of these companies used to have research activities of their own. Bell Northern Research has changed to Nortel technology and has become much more oriented toward the products. We have been seeing for some time a growing dependence on basic university research for the wellspring of new ideas.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, what is important is that, of the people we support by scholarships and research assistanceships, in all our fields, the vast majority find employment in their fields. Almost all of them find satisfying work. That is terribly important because when these people move into the economy, they are capable of high value-added activity. They also create a demand for high value-added services. There is a multiplier. It spreads in the economy.
The final point at the bottom of that page, Mr. Chairman, is something that Canadians should be trumpeting as a national achievement. In this country, with our thinly spread population and dispersed institutions, we have learned how to create critical intellectual masses of people to work on problems by networking. Many people are watching us. The network of Centres of Excellence have a superb record, which led to the program being made permanent. We have much to learn yet about networking; but we are learning on the basis of real accomplishment through allowing individual researchers to stay in their regions to contribute to regional capabilities, yet communicating on a national basis to work on problems of real significance.
I will stop with that and offer for your further reading the examples in the subsequent pages of our brief.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I would like to thank our guests. Let me begin by saying that the question of research and development has been a fundamental concern of all members of this committee. We are especially happy to have you here with us today.
Perhaps I overlooked it, but I would like you to send us if possible a table showing how your research and development budgets have evolved. What is the breakdown for the three councils discussed, that is the MRC, the NSERC and the SSHRC? It would be interesting to see the breakdown for the past 10 or 15 years.
Unless I am mistaken, there appears to have been less emphasis on research in the humanities in recent years. This is a subject of particular interest to me. What types of studies are you conducting in the field of EDUCATION? Currently, the failures appear to be mainly in the field of EDUCATION, from the primary level on up. Other factors come into play when students reach the secondary or post-secondary level. What kind of research are you carrying out in this field?
The situation is critical, especially if no serious research is being done. Efforts should be directed to this area, particularly when we look at what is happening in EDUCATION, all the money that is being invested and the results that are being achieved. Some students do exceedingly well, but others do not go very far. At each level in the EDUCATION system, some failures do occur. I will stop there. This issue concerns me and it should concern this committee as well or otherwise, we will not make the recommendations that need to be made. This issue is quite complex.
Ms Penrod: That is a very good question. Regarding the budget now earmarked for EDUCATION, we recently established at the SSHRC a system called the national EDUCATION and training research network. We have established five new networks which will receive close to $6 million over a five- or six-year period. The objective is to find out what works and what does not work when it comes to training and EDUCATION in Canada.
We have tried to bring together people who do basic and applied research in EDUCATION in general, that is we have established a partnership with university researchers and industry people to focus on lifelong learning and sound EDUCATIONal practices.
[English]
Five research networks have been established in Canada. Each has a different focus of research intensity. Over the course of the next five to six years, they will be dealing with the same questions you raise, senator. For example, they will deal with what does and does not work in Canada in terms of EDUCATION, the links between school and university, the links between EDUCATION and the workplace and life-long learning. This is a very applied, hands-on program.
A large amount of our program budget is devoted to EDUCATION. This is the newest thing. It is an example of what Dr. Brzustowski meant when he talked about integration and partnerships. This is the way all three councils have been moving. In the matter of EDUCATION research, that is a positive move. We are expecting results from those networks as soon as next year.
One of the interesting focus points of one of the networks working out of McMaster is the area of technology-based learning. This is something which we work with NSERC on through the Centres of Excellence.
I am sure members of this committee are concerned with finding out, when we move to tele-learning, whether it is the right way to do things? What are the learning styles for computer-based learning as opposed to face-to-face learning with teachers in the classroom? We have a centre focused on that. Those results will be extremely important for policy makers and for people who are working in school boards, universities and in the workplace.
[Translation]
I know that this has been a long-standing concern of ours. General EDUCATION will, we hope, continue to be a priority of ours.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Brzustowski: Mr. Chairman, one of the networks of Centres of Excellence is called tele-learning which fits well with the last one described, in the sense that it looks into the future. Its objective is to learn how to do things in new ways. The network at McMaster will analyse how this works. The tele-learning network involves about two dozen universities from coast to coast. As was pointed out, it involves two of the granting councils.
We will of course provide budgets. There is some information on the MRC budget here. However, we will provide a ten-year history and comparison.
As a rough guide, if SSHRC is about $100 million, MRC is roughly twice that and NSERC is roughly twice that again. Those are the proportions.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I have a question. A great deal of research is being done in the field of medicine. We are familiar with the work being done by universities, hospitals and so forth where research foundations have been established. What steps do you take to avoid duplication and to ensure that research efforts are properly coordinated? Even though from a medical research standpoint there may be more money available than in other sectors, the fact remains that extensive studies and research are being carried out. To ensure that no money is wasted and no duplication occurs, how do you coordinate the efforts of researchers Canada-wide?
Mr. Shugart: The preferred approach in the research community is peer review.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I see.
Mr. Shugart: That is the first way we ensure the quality of the research. Secondly, the quest for knowledge is essentially a matter of publishing research findings. Publishing is not the same thing as duplication.
The research community in Canada is fairly small and this ensures that research resources are rationalized. There are always researchers working in the same field. That is inevitable. This is a competitive field, both globally and nationally. Peer review ensures quality.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I am quite familiar with the process of peer review in research and health care in Quebec. I agree that within the province of Quebec, this can rposte the risk of duplication. Reviews are conducting by peers in Quebec. What can we do to monitor, if I can use the word, the work being done by other teams of medical researchers in other provinces?
Mr. Shugart: We employ a technique to ensure a high level of dialogue and cooperation across the country. One of our responsibilities is to bring together institutions that are actively conducting research, including provincial institutions.
We rely on partnerships and centres of excellence. This is another way of coordinating research efforts. There are many such ways of coordinating research in Canada. However, researchers are always to some extent working independently. We do not control their work.
[English]
I would say as well that that is the nature of research internationally. When a particular question or area of research or study is seen to be hot and on the cutting edge, a certain efficiency is imposed in the use of research dollars. Through the literature and the international and national collaboration which takes place, the scientists are able to quickly adjust their line of inquiry to go after the latest developments. All of those things work together to create an efficiency within the system.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Consider for a moment all the research that is being done relating to AIDS. Are you sure, as much as one can be sure of anything, that there is enough funding? Much research and money has been put into AIDS when compared to cancer. Is there duplication here and there, or is it not very extensive?
Mr. Shugart: Generally, there will always be researchers, both here and around the world, working in the same area and probably pursuing some of the same questions. We sometimes never know. It is always a race as to who will come up with the answer to a question first.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I am not asking now about what is happening in other countries, but about the money in this country.
Mr. Shugart: The same will apply, to some extent. There is always this race to generate new knowledge and to be the first.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: That is normal.
Mr. Shugart: Yes. However, as soon as someone has won that race, the whole thing will shift and they will go on to the next major area.
There is a high degree of collaboration. They share results through the national and international meetings of scientists and through networks. The scientists themselves generally do not want to use the research money they have to rediscover what has already been discovered. Their inclination is to go after the next advance. It is a self-regulating system that does work overall.
Ms Penrod: We have mentioned the word "network." That becomes important in terms of whether we feel comfortable about not duplicating our efforts. Each council has presented here one at a time, but it is quite interesting that we are all eager to leap in here and say, "Well, we work with NSERC on this and actually in terms of the networks and centres of excellence." The MRC and SSHRC are very much involved with one of the networks called Healnet, which brings together the research efforts of social scientists, humanists and the medical community. At least in that sense, there is no duplication. We have brought the people together. It is a mechanism which works extremely well.
In general terms, when we speak of partnerships and networking, in large part, that is the way in which we feel most comfortable as individual granting councils, because as granting councils together in this country, our research dollars are being maximized and utilized in collaboration. It does not always work perfectly, but at least we are working together much more than we were five or six years ago, even though, as you are well aware, the sectors maintain their autonomy in the way they do their research.
[Translation]
I believe that gives you some additional information. The network and the partnerships are very important.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chairman: People are constantly knocking at my door. One week they are looking for money for cancer research, and the next week they are looking for money for heart research. They are there day after day. I think much of that money goes into the cost of administration and collecting of money, and little of it goes into research. Does any of that money come to you to support research in any of those fields?
Mr. Shugart: Mr. Chairman, there is an active, grass-roots effort right across the country. It is driven by the deep concern and hope that Canadians have that cures can be found for a condition or disease which has affected individuals and their families. That is a human response to that reality.
We work with those voluntary organizations or health charities. Many of the people who are trained and funded by those researchers in heart, stroke and cancer and so on are also funded by MRC.
The Government of Canada has chosen to create an agency which is unique in this country. The MRC is the only health-research-funding agency which covers the whole spectrum of diseases on a national basis and also covers both the operating funds that the researchers require and the development and training of scientists. In that sense, we are a bit of an umbrella which covers the whole spectrum.
Speaking for the councils, we take some pride in the limited degree to which the funding that the taxpayer provides goes towards overhead. As far as I know, the majority of these voluntary organizations are run within a band of normal administrative costs compared to the overall. However, that is a different sector about which I can not speak authoritatively. For our purposes, we are pretty confident that we administer the councils efficiently so that, on average, only about 4 or 5 per cent of the total budget is allocated to administration.
Senator Forest: Dr. Brzustowski, please run through, one more time, the budgets for the three councils.
Mr. Brzustowski: This is rough. We will provide better data. I would say that the SSHRC budget is roughly $100 million a year, MRC is roughly $200 million and NSERC is roughly $400 million. There is a cascading 2-to-1 ratio.
Senator Forest: Nowadays there is a great deal of emphasis being placed on information technology and all these other areas which, I would imagine, come under NSERC. In some areas, there is a great deal of concern that the ethics of using that knowledge has not quite kept up with the technical knowledge.
It has always been of concern to me that every university which aspires to be a great university must put as much emphasis on the social sciences and humanities as they do on the other areas. However, that does not seem to be the general thinking these days. What is your feeling on that issue? I wonder about the 1-to-4 ratio of funding for the social sciences and humanities as compared to NSERC. That is a bit of a concern for me. I have had long experience with universities. For me, research is an integral and important part.
Mr. Brzustowski: These ratios are historical. To some extent, they reflect the cost of doing research. In physics, chemistry and engineering, one deals with expensive equipment. You mentioned information technology; computers and telecommunications equipment are expensive. Medical research is expensive as well. I am sure Dr. Penrod can talk about the infrastructure required for the social sciences and humanities.
You raised the question of ethics. I am glad you raised it. We are sitting on one side of the table and together. This area is an example of how the three councils work very effectively together. There is a tri-council policy on integrity and research. There is policy on development and research on human subjects involving all of us.
Sooner or later, our feet will be put to the fire on the question of cloning of mammals, the "Dolly issue." There are serious ethical issues involved. They are not only the questions of "know what" and "know how" and "know why" but also to "know whether." These are the questions which will have to be addressed.
I point to that area with pride as one where the three councils work together. We know that there are complementary problems and complementary capabilities.
Senator Forest: I am pleased to hear that. My experience at universities goes back a few years, and I am not sure that that was always the case. I am pleased to hear that it is now.
Mr. Brzustowski: It is the case now.
Ms Penrod: As Dr. Brzustowski has pointed out, the differences in the budgets of the three councils, I do believe, go back to historical reasons and are based somewhat on the cost of doing research in those areas.
Your point is a good one in terms of how things have changed over time, because certainly in the social sciences and humanities, the costs of doing research have increased.
Sometimes people ask where the lab is and where the needed equipment is in social sciences and humanities. It is fair to say that our laboratories are our libraries, in great part, in humanities especially. The infrastructure costs of libraries these days are very high. It is absolutely essential that the social sciences and humanities be supported at an ever-increasing rate, particularly the infrastructure for libraries through high-speed computing and database access. Those are things that our researchers critically need. We do have laboratories in the social sciences; sociologists have population labs. There are real lab needs. Your point is well taken. Those historic differences perhaps need to be re-examined in some way.
On the ethics issue and the Internet and so on, the network of centres of excellence on tele-learning is a prime example of how we are using the social science ethical component of research. It is a vital part.
On other issues of ethics, SSHRC has had a long-funded research program in applied ethics. We work closely with our colleagues in research at MRC and NSERC to attempt, through partnerships and networking, to move that forward. There is a change in that area as well.
When we talk about the tele-learning NCE, we are fond of saying that it is an example of a network which began with a social science question. Then it was informed by the people on the NSERC side to deal with technology. Quite often, it is the other way around. The social sciences come on at the end to inform the more technological research. This is an example of one that goes in exactly the opposite direction but where the intra-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary work is going well. It is a movement in the right direction.
Senator Forest: What is the trend in funding for your councils? We have heard a great deal about cuts and grants and so forth. What has been the situation in that regard with the three councils?
Mr. Brzustowski: We have all seen cuts.
Mr. Shugart: We are all in the middle of a four-year decline as a result of the government's program review. The cuts have been, on average, 14 per cent over the four years since the program began. We are heading into the third year of those cuts.
Senator Forest: Does the Medical Research Council, work closely with, for example, the Heritage Council in Alberta and those kinds of bodies?
Mr. Shugart: Indeed we do. The two major provinces that have their own health research funding bodies are Quebec and Alberta. These jurisdictions have established their programs to be complementary with the national funding agency so their people are extremely competitive. Then, when they compete for funding at the national level, they fare extremely well. The programs are designed to be complementary. We have a wide range of collaboration with those agencies.
The Chairman: Do the granting councils have a policy governing private sector investment and partnerships for university research?
Mr. Brzustowski: Mr. Chairman, we certainly have policies that govern that work in the appropriate sector; we call it project research. The policies are a blend of a number of things. For example, on the issue of intellectual property, the university and the industry partners must reach their own agreement, which must be consistent with the university's own policy. We do not impose a policy on that arrangement but we insist that the partners reach an agreement.
We seek to have, in various programs, certain minimum thresholds of participation by the private sector. Sometimes that is 50 per cent, as in our industrial research chairs. Sometimes, as in our strategic programs, it is quite a bit less. There may not be a financial contribution, but there may be a contribution in kind. In the university industry, it is a financial contribution.
One of our great interests is that the partners, the researchers and the people who might use the knowledge in industry, work together in defining the directions. That is different from basic research, where the principal investigator defines a research program and the discipline shapes it. Here it is the partners defining the directions. They have to do it together and they have to do it from scratch.
The policies deal with fiduciary responsibilities, making sure that the rights of graduate students to publish are not trampled on, and so on. The universities are jealous of their freedoms in those areas and they protect them. We insist the partners arrive at their own agreements. It is a difficult area but our policies are adequate to the task.
Senator Andreychuk: We have heard from university professors, individuals, faculties and some universities that there is a growing unease with these partnerships. On the one hand, there is great excitement about that possibility and the extension. On the other, there is the concern that in Canada we seem to be relying on research coming out of our institutions more than perhaps in some other societies and, consequently, there is growing unease that the dollars are driving the research and the results upon which the rest of society takes its cues, more particularly governments in the federal system. Is this something we should worry about? Is it a real problem that perhaps this committee should address, or will it sort itself out because of all of those relationships that have historically been in place?
Mr. Brzustowski: Let me answer from NSERC's point of view. The university community is not homogeneous on any issue. The issue of research partnerships is one into which the partners enter quite voluntarily.
However, you are absolutely right in your observation that, in Canada, given the history of our economy and our development, the dependence on the research done in the universities is greater than in most other economies. More research is done in the universities here proportionately than in many other economies.
One concern that has been surfacing over the last several years is the concern that, somehow, public money is being steered towards partnerships with industry. That concern has been raised sincerely by some of the researchers and university administrators. The response of NSERC has been to say, "You are raising an important question. Basic research, the other part, is very important, and we, NSERC, will make sure that that amount in absolute terms does not decline, even though our total budget declines." For the past two years, the total research grant envelope at NSERC has been maintained at roughly $200 million while the total budget has been declining, and that may serve as some assurance to people.
The final point I should like to make is that people are learning how to arrive at an appropriate balance, both across an institution and in the work of individual researchers, between the free inquiry of basic research and the partnership research. Some of our best grantees, who receive large grants in basic research, are also the most active in the project research side. When these people step from one side of the lab to the other, they do not suddenly put on different suits with different intellectual standards. They are the same people. This issue is in the process of being sorted out, but council has made the decision that there will be no sinking below $200 million for basic research.
Mr. Shugart: I am in absolute agreement with those principles that Dr. Brzustowski has mentioned, and perhaps I can offer the MRC experience with this, where the debate is exactly the same. Sometimes we in the councils watch our brothers and sisters in the other councils going through the debates that either we have been through or that we know we will face.
We have established a partnerships envelope of 10 per cent of the overall budget, and that is controversial enough with some of our people. Therefore, we stand in awe of Dr. Brzustowski's ability to survive that storm at 50 per cent.
Mr. Brzustowski: It is not 50.
Mr. Shugart: It is an absolute floor of $200 million?
Mr. Brzustowski: We must not forget to include all the other things, such as student support, scholarships, fellowships and so on.
Mr. Shugart: Right. I would refer to our partnership with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, where the leverage on the MRC dollar is $4 from the industry. When one looks at the kinds of projects and research questions that are investigated under that program, they are virtually indistinguishable, to a large degree, from the kinds of projects that would be funded under our normal competitive grants process. The second important point is that approval of those projects under that particular program come from exactly the same peer review process that applies to our competitive grants.
The question that potentially concerns the public on this issue is will the knowledge, the results of the research, be steered by who is putting in the dollars? We have found that peer review is the best mechanism for ensuring that does not happen. While the funding might come from the industry for a given project, the approval of that project is by the same peers, the same researchers who are applying their judgment to any other project. In that sense, the quality control and the academic independence is applied to the partnership programs the same as it is to the normal basic research competitive grants.
Senator Andreychuk: As I am mindful of our time, I would ask all three of you to provide us with as much information as you have for comparisons. We seem to have received OECD country comparisons in global university costs and infrastructures. You have given us some trends in health here, in two charts, but anything in a graph, in statistics, as to comparative research vis-à-vis budgets in other countries would be appreciated.
We are always told, for example, that we are putting less into research than other countries, but if you have the facts and figures, they would be helpful. That leads to a whole host of questions that I will not ask at the moment.
Also, with regard to medical research, although we talk about wellness models and preventive models, whether it is in the social sciences, the health field, or even the pure sciences, there is a growing feeling that we really are in a curative mode when it comes to funding, as opposed to looking at funding in a preventive mode, and that we are losing, again, compared to our like-minded partners in Europe and elsewhere. If you have any statistics on that, I would appreciate hearing them.
Senator Losier-Cool: We will ask you to come back.
Mr. Brzustowski: We would be happy to do that.
Senator Andreychuk: In an effort to make gains in a society that is so geographically spread out, we have tried centres of excellence, and so on. They were good, but we end up with a problem where the public and government has a short attention span, as one past-president pointed out. It is reassuring that from time to time, they think in four-year blocks. Generally, it is shorter than that.
How do we get the message across from our perspective that this is a long-term investment? Someone has said that Canadians look for hope, but they look for almost instant answers. With EDUCATION and research, it is a long-term situation.
I am more concerned now with the statistics stating that young researchers are are leaving as universities cannot provide them the tools to stay because of their own depleting infrastructures. While we understand why cutbacks are in the budget today, we are not aware of what that will to do our society in 20, 30 or 40 years. Do you have any recommendations to help us with that struggle?
Mr. Brzustowski: I have a reaction, namely, that for exactly the considerations that you have described, I feel reassured by the idea of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which will provide that first opportunity for new people who wish to do work in important areas, which happen to be capital intensive and cost money. There are many other pressures as well. You are echoing the strongest sentiments of the research councils when you talk about the long-term implications of all this.
Mr. Shugart: We are acutely aware that councils and the research community generally must be extremely vigilant and do a better job than we have in the past when making our case, particularly as to making it in terms that people understand.
Without inflating the expectations or offering guarantees on the research that, perhaps, could not be delivered in the short term, we must work hard at making exactly the case that you are suggesting needs to be made. We would all be grateful if the committee had advice for us as to how to do that.
Certainly, the requirements that we will face for performance reporting to Parliament will help us to think through how we make that case. It is an important question and we have no instant answers.
Ms Penrod: Researchers doing long term research will need to do a better job in reporting their results as they are coming out -- not necessarily saying one year down the line that in the network of EDUCATION and training we have now found an answer, but letting those partners, the Canadian public and policymakers know that this is what we have found out so far; this is what we are doing. Those reports of results need to be out there more quickly.
As councils, all of us are keenly aware of our responsibilities and our communities' responsibilities to do a better job of reporting and disseminating the findings in an accessible way. That helps all of us. We need to make the case; we need to make it consistently.
Senator Andreychuk: We hear much about the Australian system of EDUCATION and that they took stock a number of years ago and made those kinds of changes -- again, with mixed reviews. Do you use them as an example or as a guidepost at all?
Ms Penrod: Interestingly enough, in terms of social sciences and humanities, Australia is one of the jurisdictions that we work with quite closely in terms of program design and forward thinking. The Australians have certainly given us some direction in the way they organize, as you have pointed out, with some mixed results. We do collaborate closely with them.
Senator Grafstein: I am not a member of the committee, but one particular item of our national psyche that Senator Andreychuk touched on and you responded to is that while our politicians talk about the information, technological, scientific and research revolutions, we are not putting our money where our mouths are. We talk a good game, but we are actually going in reverse. If you look at the statistics, we seem to talk about going in one direction, but the money is going quite dramatically the other way. Your chart of health research is a good example.
This is a crisis, and when you include public personalities, it becomes quite intense. It relates not only to research per se -- that is, people who are in basic and applied fields -- but also, to a greater extent, the business sector. The business sector in Canada is doing a terrible job. In fact, it is almost obscene. I am using these words in relation to the money spent. One may say, "Put your money where your mouth is," but all of a sudden research will decrease dramatically in terms of basic research as opposed to applied research. At one time Bell Canada alone provided approximately 75 per cent of all basic research in Canada. The same applies to the research field, the governmental field and the business field. Why is that? Why this terrible charade?
We applaud Mr. Klein for slashing budgets and Alberta's research. Approximately 20 years ago, Alberta tried to move itself out of a resource economy into a research, value-added economy and did tremendously well. All of a sudden, he is slashing the budget. Why is that? What is wrong with us? The Australians are doing well. The intellectual classes in Australia came together and decided that they had to shift their economy and they did.
What is wrong with our intellectual, political, governmental and business classes? What has happened to us? This is my piece of basic research. I should like to know why we have failed when there have been and are so many dedicated people who have spent their lives in research.
Am I correct? If so, tell me why.
Ms Penrod: You are, yes.
Mr. Brzustowski: I have been thinking about this situation a great deal, for obvious reasons. Yesterday, I gave a key note address on biotechnology at a conference in Toronto. The concern there was communicating the potential to the public, creating realistic expectations and not trying to hide the difficult ethical issues. Communications is certainly part of it, but there is more.
I had a visit recently from a Swedish delegation. They spoke about doing things differently. I asked them, "Can you think of the reason why things are so different in Sweden from what they are here?" The key word that came out in the answer was "history."
I was in Sweden the day after the chairman of a large company in Montreal, which does software engineering here, was in Moscow to celebrate the 120th anniversary of doing business with Russia and bringing technology and high value-added products into trade at that time. This is something rather new for us.
I read an interesting book recently called Conjuring Science which attempts to deal with this issue in the United States. It points out that there were three streams of thought in the U.S. which created the current attitudes, which are a little different from ours, but not totally. One thought process was the Protestant ethic brought over by the pilgrims, in which the notions of investigating how nature actually worked could be grouped under the worship of the Almighty's works thereby allowing the religious colleges to become scientific universities. Another was the frontier mentality of ensuring that all knowledge was practical and could be put toward solving today's problems. This gave the land grant colleges their mandates. Another school of thought of a different sort, was a sort of visceral reaction against enlightenment, against the German notion of the research university, of science for its own sake. The visceral reaction against that notion was strong in the business community because many people in that community did not have a history of their business arising out of new knowledge, as the German chemical industry did, for example.
It is interesting that, when one encounters academics who become somewhat extreme in their promotion of science for its own sake, a counter balance is created. I wish I were a social scientist who did research on this area and was able to complete this story for Canada. I am not. However, these are things of enormous interest and significance. Some of those three streams of thought are here, but there may be others as well.
Ms Penrod: I certainly agree with that view. I do not know the answer, nor do social scientists. However, with reference to what the chair said, I do believe it is in some way connected with communication and getting the right people together in the room at the same time. That is a very small example. However, coming from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, I spend a great deal of my time dealing with concerned members of the public, including politicians, who want to know why in the world taxpayers' dollars are going to X or Y project.
If we put researchers in a room with concerned taxpayers, after about an hour of discussion on what the point is of the most esoteric piece of research funded by the council and why it makes a difference, our anecdotal results show that even the most irate person will come to understand. It may not become the highest priority on their list, but they understand why basic research in Greek poetry, as an example, would make a difference to the quality of life in Canada.
The same holds true with business. To encourage and promote investment in research, we need a better way of communicating what the research is all about and its potential. We are still not doing a good job of this. We try hard and are committed, but we must keep at it. Putting your money where your mouth is still involves understanding why you would take that risk, and that is important.
You are right; I do not have the answer. We are trying to do better, but there is a long way to go on this.
Senator Forest: Would you agree that if we have not yet reached the crisis, we will, as Senator Grafstein said, soon reach it; that we are about to lose a whole generation of researchers and scholars?
Ms Penrod: I certainly agree. When these kinds of investments are pulled, it takes an astronomical injection to get back to where you were. It is of great concern on the human capital side as well as on the infrastructure side. The human capital losses are potentially astronomical.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your appearance today. We would appreciate it if you would provide the answers to those questions you were unable to answer today. We may contact you with further questions in the future.
Senators, we now have witnesses from the Canadian Bureau for International EDUCATION.
Please proceed.
Mr. Jack Buckley, Chair, Canadian Bureau for International EDUCATION: Good morning and thank you for the invitation to appear here.
The Canadian Bureau for International EDUCATION is one of Canada's oldest EDUCATIONal associations and is, in fact, the only national association which represents Canada's universities and community colleges in the field of EDUCATION internationally. The board of directors of the association is always chaired by a university or community college president. As President of the Nova Scotia Community College, I am pleased to be the current Chair of the Canadian Bureau for International EDUCATION.
Over the years, CBIE has played a leadership role in policy-oriented research, advocacy and professional development as well as in the management of a wide range of international EDUCATION programs, including scholarships, EDUCATIONal exchanges and technical assistance in EDUCATION.
CBIE has also been Canada's primary mechanism for trade in EDUCATION. It has sold to international or foreign clients more than $400 million worth of EDUCATIONal services.
Mr. Jim Fox, President of CBIE, will give our presentation, after which we would welcome questions and discussion.
Mr. Jim Fox, President, Canadian Bureau for International EDUCATION: International EDUCATION, defined as both foreign nationals learning in Canada and Canadians learning abroad, is widely recognized as something positive for Canada, our communities and our community colleges and universities.
International students bring wide-ranging cultural, intellectual and economic benefits to Canada. International students help bring an international orientation to academic programs, a matter of growing importance in a global society. They keep our institutions competitive to the highest international standards of excellence. They allow our youth to develop valuable international networks early in life; connections that will enrich their lives and enhance career prospects.
International students also bring important foreign exchange earnings to Canada, estimated at close to $1.5 billion a year. World wide, international trade in EDUCATION will reach $28 billion U.S. in 1997 and grow to $88 billion U.S. by the year 2025, making EDUCATION one of the world's important growth industries.
[Translation]
International students also create jobs. It is estimated that every $7 billion of the international student market creates 100,000 jobs. The Vancouver Board of Trade estimated a decade ago that international students create more than 19,000 jobs Canada-wide. My agency, the CBIE, conducted case studies at Laval University, Dalhousie University and the University of Ottawa.
These case studies revealed that revenue from international students created hundred of jobs in the communities in close proximity to these universities. What is far more difficult to quantify but far more significant to Canada's future prosperity is the direct correlation between EDUCATION and trade and the favourable long-term economic impact that international students have on Canada through their associations with our country when they return to their country of origin.
These associations continue throughout their lives -- in tourism, business, trade, investment and other relationships. Canada remains their second home, and we know from studies that have been conducted that international students become lifelong friends of Canada. Because they undertook higher level studies here, largely in the sciences, technologies and business fields, it is not surprising that they continue to think of Canada when it comes time to undertake research and development, purchase technologies, or expand their business operations.
For example, we know that Britain's biggest trade partners are the same countries which send the most students to Britain to study.
[English]
You probably would like more proof of some of these benefits, and I can only give you a few statistics. The fact of the matter is that the international student population is in many ways a neglected one. It is not studied enough. In fact, recent statistical analysis on their numbers is difficult to come by, Statistics Canada having cut its reporting.
We do know, however, that the trends in international student enrolment in Canada are disturbing and reveal declining numbers, numerous bureaucratic barriers, including lengthy immigration processes, stringent English language requirements in our English universities and slow acceptances by institutions. Meanwhile, other competing countries are easing accessibility.
Our policies, too, are haphazard and uncoordinated. In Ontario, for example, in the past five years, international students have seen huge fee hikes, disqualification from the provincial health care plan and, finally, fee deregulation. This year, with fee deregulation, fees at some institutions are much lower than they were several years ago, which is a positive outcome, perhaps, but it is very confusing for students. It remains difficult for them, and perhaps for our own as well, to make much sense of confusing and lengthy policies and procedures when they make their decision to study here or elsewhere. It is no way to do business, if, indeed, this is a business. Students are voting with their feet and going elsewhere.
[Translation]
Other countries have realized that international students are an industry and they are adjusting their policies accordingly, whereas Canada remains reluctant to embrace EDUCATION as a tradeable service. Our competitors' coordinated marketing strategies and aggressive approaches have explained why Canada has only 33,000 international students in its universities today, roughly the same as it had in 1985, or 2.2 per cent of the market share, down from over 3 per cent ten years ago.
Over the course of this same decade, Australia and Britain tripled the number of international students in their universities. This did so by adopting a market approach and viewing international EDUCATION as a growth industry. They have provided incentives and eased accessibility. They have improved the quality and range of services available to international students. They have focussed on students of strategic interest to them with a national marketing plan which attracts students in droves.
Australia is predicting that by the year 2010, it will have over 100,000 international students in its universities, almost one third of its current total university population, and a number which will make international EDUCATION one of its top exports. Australia knows that this makes sense in a knowledge-driven global economy.
[English]
In Canada, we have no strategy, no targets and no coordinated efforts. Whereas Australia is looking to 30 per cent of its total university population being international students, Canada has currently less than 5 per cent, and no plans for the future. We talk of absorptive capacity when domestic demand is high, and we seek to control intakes. When domestic demand drops, we actively recruit abroad. We should be looking to the long term, deciding how we can help meet, through public and private sectors alike, the growing demand, particularly in Asia, for study abroad.
The federal government needs to be strengthening our market efforts beyond the EDUCATION centres which it has established in Asia. We need to connect our surplus and jobless capacity in EDUCATION and training to the international market of opportunity.
World wide, it is forecast that enrolments of all students will grow by 3.5 per cent per year.
[Translation]
According to an Australian report, the number of students seeking university places worldwide is forecast to rise from 48 million in 1990 to 96 million in 2010. Asian numbers are projected to increase from 17 million to 45 million. By 2025, there will be need of 159 million university places, about four times the 1990 supply.
Asia's need will increase to 87 million. EDUCATIONal development for Asia involving the training of teachers or the providing of experts should be the dominant theme in Canada's economic planning.
[English]
I am sure you are starting to hear of the importance of Asian demand for EDUCATION.
In the last 10 years, we have awakened gradually to the importance of international EDUCATION and internationalization to our own post-secondary EDUCATION system, our own students and to Canada's future prosperity. Mission statements of our universities and community colleges now routinely include references to the international dimension and internationalization. We are only beginning to learn what these terms mean and what they may imply for Post-Secondary education. This is another matter which deserves much greater attention.
The profound effect of the global reality on Post-Secondary education is not surprising. We can imagine that Canadian youth will increasingly be looking beyond our national borders for their first real job experience. They will extend their search for business partners into emerging new markets. If they are lucky, they will invest their wealth both in Canada and abroad. They will need to be internationalists. Our universities and colleges are helping them, but they must do more. The curricula of programs is being internationalized. Study and work abroad is being incorporated. Research capacities are being extended to allow for research outside Canada. Our limited resources are drawn from the world at large. Still, we estimate that less than 3 per cent of our post-secondary enrolment have, during their EDUCATIONal careers, a meaningful, learning experience outside Canada. This compares with over 10 per cent of the countries in the European Union and nearly 10 per cent in the U.S.A. Year-abroad programs have become commonplace in the U.S.A., but they are relatively rare in Canada.
In the past year, we have been working with a number of Canadian private sector companies to determine how they can help address the matter of internationalization of our human resources. We have concluded several agreements recently with Celanese-Canada and with Nortel which will help inject private sector investment into the internationalization of Canadian youth. It is also heartening to note the new federal program which provides for an international dimension to the youth initiative.
[Translation]
In the years ahead, the international element will be a mainstream element in all levels of our EDUCATION. It is rapidly becoming a matter of relevance and an indicator of quality.
At the post-secondary level, we need to do several things to ensure that Canada remains competitive. We must determine as a country what targets and mix of students Canada should seek to attract internationally and put a national strategy in place to achieve this goal. We need to begin treating this sector as the serious industry that it is.
The departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade could begin by establishing a sector advisory group in international EDUCATION trade. CBIE will need to monitor performance and analyze results and to do this we will have to establish an active national database for the industry. Our recent report called "Where the Students Are," the first done anywhere, comparing market share of the major competing countries will have to be repeated in the years ahead along with other comparative analyses on related issues.
[English]
We must ensure that we have in place, as much as possible, a coherent set of policies and practices regarding international students and a complete range of top quality, after-sales service to support international students on our campuses.
We must establish internationalization as a priority for Canada as we move toward the next millenium and develop goals and contributing strategies which integrate trade diversification issues, official development assistance, international cooperation and defence, research and development, and EDUCATION and training within a common vision of our future as both Canadians and internationalists.
In fact, it may be time to help create this vision through a federally led national task force on internationalization.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Your last recommendation called for the establishment of a national commission on internationalization.
In looking at the models used by McGill, the University of Montreal and Laval University, we see that substantial gains have been made in this field. Is it truly necessary to establish an agency or federal commission to look into this matter. I get the impression that we would merely be creating another structure, whereas the universities themselves should be the ones taking this initiative.
Mr. Fox: I am simply saying that globalization is a new phenomenon that affects nearly all sectors of our society.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: We are all aware of this.
Mr. Fox: Obviously, our EDUCATIONal institutions are affected by globalization. So too are our trade and research interests. In the future, we will have to consider all the dimensions of a vision based on internationalization and all that this implies for our society which is in transition, just as all other societies are. In my view, this would be one way of imparting a very important vision to our youth in Canada. The themes that will guide them in the future are different from those which were part of our lives. This is an opportunity not only to invite comments or contributions from the EDUCATIONal sector, but also from society in general and to consider all of these dimensions.
Before I finish, I would also like to say that all universities and colleges have given a great deal of thought to internationalization and all that this implies for their study programs. This is a very important aspect that we must promote. It is also important to realize that the situation is evolving. We do not know what the full impact of internationalization will be. As far as our youth is concerned, this is a field where we truly need leadership.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I have no problem with looking at EDUCATION within a much broader context than national or provincial borders. Let me put the question to you again: why is it necessary to establish another agency that would be responsible for imparting information to institutions, universities and colleges, which have already started to take action in this area and which are very much aware of the international issues and competitiveness, about this phenomenon, given that they are already aware of it? Perhaps some concrete problems do arise. Perhaps there are closer or more developed ties between EDUCATIONal institutions and at times between these institutions and the Ministry of EDUCATION. It would appear that in Regina or in British Columbia -- we do not often have this good fortune -- apparently it is easier for international students to come to Quebec than to study in the other provinces. We have heard this before. These provinces are wondering if Quebec has some special way of attracting these students.
I think that we must avoid creating more councils and commissions. I understand that this makes it possible to indulge in some patronage appointments and to create some jobs, but even so. This should not prevent you from encouraging universities to get involved in this area, but you should not step in and do it for them. You have not convinced me that this is the right approach to take.
Mr. Fox: I am not suggesting that another agency be created. I am proposing a mechanism to shape an important vision of internationalization. It is a matter of giving our youth and the people who work in the field EDUCATION and in the private and research sectors an opportunity to consider the aspects of internalization. I am not at all suggesting that an agency be established.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You are not alone in holding this view. Just about everywhere we travelled, we heard people speak about the marketing of students or student exchanges. We have just about always taken this approach in Quebec universities. However, we have never viewed ourselves as being caught up in a race. We see it as giving other countries an opportunity to postate their population. The most tangible example that comes to mind is the opening of an engineering school in Senegal. A number of years ago, professors from our polytechnical institutes went to that country to open an engineering school. Marketing remains an ongoing concern of ours.
I like the idea of our having international students, but I dislike the notion of marketing, the idea that this will bring in money and help our institutions survive, considering that we are a wealthy country. We are talking about countries that are much poorer than we are and where the population is underpostated. However, that is not your problem. This notion of marketing is so widespread that I have trouble accepting it.
Mr. Fox: Relations based on EDUCATION are always very special. There are indeed many facets to EDUCATION. As you said, this is truly an opportunity to open the lines of communication between cultures. It is a rewarding experience for our universities.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I could not agree more.
Mr. Fox: At the same time, the world sees our EDUCATIONal system as a valuable asset. They want to pay for the privilege of being a part of it. From a national standpoint, given our economic challenges, perhaps we should view EDUCATION as a major component of our economy. That is how other countries such as Australia, Great Britain and the United States look at EDUCATION.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Are these models that we wish to copy? EDUCATION is clearly important to a country's overall economy in the sense that people must be postated and research must be carried out. This is important economically to Australia and Great Britain. However, do we want to share their vision? Do we want to look for students in those countries which do not have university merely because this would be beneficial to us from an economic standpoint? We have to think about that. This must remain a concern, but we must see where this fits in, given that we are well off compared to a number of these other countries. I want to help them, but I do not want to take advantage of them either.
Mr. Fox: Currently, in the Canadian economy, EDUCATION ranks up there with wheat exports.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: People work hard to grow wheat. The same can be said for the hog industry and for all the other industries as well.
[English]
Mr. Buckley: Mr. Chairman, to this issue, I should like to pose the question: Is there an inherent value in Canadian society toward Canadians studying abroad and toward foreign students studying in Canada? That is a challenge which we, as a society, must address.
We are in a global society. We cannot be isolationist. Contrary to the history and traditions of other countries, Canada has been slow to adopt as a value of our society bringing students to Canada for the enrichment of Canadians, not necessarily to help underdeveloped countries or to give them a chance of exposure to our Post-Secondary education system. The fact that they are here and we live, study and work with them is, in itself, an inherent value to our students and to the professors who are training the people of Canada for tomorrow in that they add to the mix during that formation period an enrichment that has that added value of other nations, cultures, languages and traditions intermingled with our own.
It is not only an economic issue; it is at the heart of the formation of people as the thinkers of tomorrow, as the business people of tomorrow, as the people who are establishing, at a very early stage in their development, links with other countries through the people of other countries, whether it is Canadians studying abroad or foreign students studying in Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I agree that this is an excellent approach. We must look at things from this perspective, not only from an economic standpoint, as I sense many of you want to do. I agree completely with that.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I compliment you on your brief. Having had the opportunity to work with you on the ground, it is rewarding to see that you also are thinking ahead as an organization. I commend you for it. You were very succinct, and you touched all the nerve centres.
One phrase which jumps out at me is "internationalization of our human resources." I see that phrase as the focal point of everything you have said, and I simply wished to underscore it.
However, having read your report, I was amazed and shocked from time to time -- not in a negative way -- at the statistics on Asian students. That impacts on our social values, our economic opportunities, et cetera. I commend to other members the report.
I would, however, like some more statistics. In your report, you estimate that less than 3 per cent of our post-secondary students have, during their EDUCATIONal careers, a meaningful learning experience outside of Canada, compared to 10 per cent in the European Union and 10 per cent in the United States.
Have you anything valuable to add to that point? When I was obtaining my EDUCATION, if we were to complete our university, we were encouraged to go outside to get our second degree. We were encouraged to explore other perspectives on life to equip us to be better Canadians. I presume that is what you were saying.
You have given us the statistics that we are at 3 per cent and other countries are at 10 per cent. Beyond the statistic, do you have anything to point out why that is a positive? If you could reflect on it or if you have any material, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Fox: One of the other points we tried to make in the document is that much has not been studied and much is assumed. Quite a bit is anecdotal. We assume, certainly, that exposure to other cultures as part of EDUCATION is something good and valuable. We know that much is happening in Europe and Asia, principally, and in the United States, even during all the post-war years, to make that happen.
Our own 3 per cent is based on a survey we did at universities and colleges in Canada, and we do have comparable data from others.
Senator Andreychuk: What I was getting at is that many professors and postated business people who came to Canada have contributed to the social fabric of this country, building it over the last number of years. Are we getting to the point where we need an infusion of that kind of complexity of ideas and peoples to continue to stand at number one in the UN survey, while maintaining a balance of good economic returns and good social safety nets? .
Mr. Fox: That is a good question. I cannot answer that immediately.
Senator Andreychuk: If you have anything anecdotal to support that theory, I would appreciate it.
I know you have been working in Eastern Europe. Certainly the Canadian government has been at the forefront of holding exchanges with the former Soviet states and others in Eastern Europe. Do you see that as a valuable area where we can market and have the exchange of students? You have not commented on that in your report.
Mr. Fox: In fact, all of the work we do is relationship-building, which uses EDUCATION as the means of bringing people together across cultures. We have done that in Eastern Europe. It was targeted at professional levels initially, but it is leading increasingly to expressions of interest and relationships between faculty members at universities and even students. It is extending itself in many ways.
As a result of relationship-building, I certainly look at that as offering potential in all its dimensions, commercial being one important dimension but not, obviously, the only one.
There are so many payoffs, if I may use such bad terminology, for the relationship that forms through EDUCATION, and in the case of Central and Eastern Europe, we are seeing only the beginning of all those exciting dimensions.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was surprised by some of the statistics in this brief. Are Canadian students more reluctant to go abroad? In other words, can you give us some reasons which would explain their behaviour? Is cost a factor, or is it that our Canadian universities succeed in imparting this global vision that you talked about? Is it that Canadian students do not feel the need to go abroad or is it a combination of these factors? What makes you think these statistics are accurate?
Mr. Fox: If we compare the United States and Canada, we see that in several U.S. universities, a year of study abroad is included as part of the course curriculum. In Canada, these types of exchanges are infrequent. Many Americans and Europeans go abroad to study and this is considered to be a normal part of their curriculum. In Canada, we are just starting to include this in our programs, but so far, there are not many opportunities for students to study abroad.
I was talking earlier with the Chairman of our Board of Directors who informed me that at the college level in Canada, no student exchanges are offered. This kind of attitude must be changed. My organization's job is to inform people of the opportunities that exist for EDUCATIONal exchanges. I do not think it is a matter of our students being reluctant to go abroad to study.
Senator Losier-Cool: Money is a factor, particularly at the community college level. Our students would have to pay more to study abroad.
[English]
Mr. Buckley: It is part of the Canadian reality now that a growing proportion of post-secondary students in Canada are going to community colleges, whether before going on to university, after completion of university or as an alternative to university. The percentage is now nearing 50 per cent of post-secondary training.
The colleges in our provinces are designed differently from province to province, but essentially they are non-degree-granting institutions, with some exceptions.
At the technician-technologist level, which is their primary role, there is, at the present time, little opportunity for these students in Canada to be exposed to the technologies of other countries as a part of their training, either through study or through work placement.
Sometimes our competitive advantage is a disadvantage to them. It is something the colleges need to address and will be increasingly important as time proceeds.
Senator Forest: Just to add to that anecdotal body of research, I was at the University of Alberta, which at one time was at the forefront in developing Asian studies and relationships in Asia. It has been distressing to me that, while they are still advanced in that one area, the number of foreign students has fallen. I agree that we are losing much by that trend.
There is one hopeful area, and we can address that. One of our sons is a high school teacher involved in international studies, taking students back and forth from Asia. He has just returned from Thailand where he received an offer of a position there to be a director of the international movement of students between Canada and Thailand. He said we could use 50 times the number of programs that we now have at the high school level.
That is one area we can address in our report. We can speak to the possibility of a greater exchange at the high school level, which then encourages students to do more of that type of exchange.
Out in British Columbia, we learned that Capilano College and the University of Victoria have active programs in international exchange with Asia, because they are, of course, on the Pacific Rim.
I would certainly agree with your recommendations. I, too, see a need for a national body to coordinate and exchange information between all the different universities and colleges as to what is presently going on, and then to form an umbrella to provide a vision for what should be going on internationally, because we are really behind the eight ball. It came as a great surprise to many of us to learn that Australia is way ahead of the game when compared to us. I would certainly be supportive of this kind of development of which universities and colleges would be a part. Those who have been in the game could give the benefit of their experience to others and help develop policies for the future.
There is an economic benefit. When I was at the university when there were quotas on faculties, Canadians would wonder why we would save places for the international students. University people -- that is, students, faculty and administration -- understand the value of it, but I am not sure the Canadian public does. There must be a real program for public awareness here to make this fly.
Mr. Buckley: I should like to add to the suggestion that there is an equal need for some unity in the expression of Canada's position relative to all of this at the federal level. At the present time, we are experiencing the different positions being taken by different departments of government, not all of which are consistent or supportive of one another. When you put the mixture of all the colleges and universities of the country together, that makes it additionally difficult if we do not have a national vision of what we want to do and what we want to be in the future, vis-à-vis our role as an international player.
Senator Forest: Would it be your intention, if eventually this proposal for some cohesion comes about -- and I am sure it would be -- that there would be an evaluation of how the program would work, and so on, with the body of experience that comes out of that?
Mr. Buckley: There would have to be.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you, Dr. Fox and Mr. Buckley, for your excellent report. If you have any further thoughts in the next couple of weeks, we should like to hear those as well.
Senators, I would ask you to stay for a moment, please.
Last week, the steering committee met and we came up with some suggestions about what we would do with our time. I will give you a copy of the minutes of that steering committee meeting held on Wednesday, March 5 with Senator Lavoie-Roux, Senator Perrault and myself. We agreed that the full sub-committee would adopt the following schedule and planned these hearings for the months of March and April.
I need someone to move the adoption of the report at this time.
Senator Forest: I so move.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We will now proceed in camera concerning how to proceed with the interim report.
The committee continued in camera.