RESPONSE OF THE "DECISION MAKERS" November 29, 1999

Meetings organized through Canadian Consortium for Research November 16 through November 29, 1999. CFBS Executive Director, Dr. Bruce Sells, met with the following: 1. Gilbert Normand, Minister of Science & Technology 2. Peter Adams, M.P Caucus Chair Post Secondary Education & Research 3. Kevin Lynch, Deputy Minister Industry 4. John Cannis, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of Industry 5. Denis Gauthier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Health

Meeting of Bruce Sells, CFBS Executive Director with Peter Adams, MP, Caucus Chair, Post Secondary Education and Research

Core Funding of Universities

When the issue of "core" funding to Universities was raised it was an issue that was well understood. Both Kevin Lynch (Deputy Minister of Industry) and Peter Adams appreciated the financial difficulties of the Universities. It was clear to us meeting with them, however, that the strategy that the Government would employ would not be through an increase in Transfer Payments. Transfer Payments fail to give the Federal Government sufficient political visibility and in the past have been diverted to uses other than for what they were intended.

What appears to be taking place is that the Feds are using other means such as the program to establish the 1200 research chairs in Canadian Universities and, thereby, indirectly help the Universities' bottom line. Other vehicles are being used to overcome increases in tuition by initiating the millennium scholarships. These are all blunt instruments but circumvent the constitutional problem that the Feds have with provincial jurisdiction over education. Those that we spoke to suggested that we encourage the Provincial Governments to be more generous towards the Universities.

Comments on Research Capacity

The question of the 1200 research chairs was raised to determine what guidelines had been established for the appointment of these new faculty members. The team meeting with the MPs felt that it would be important for these individuals to have an influence on senior undergraduates and graduate students.

From our discussions with John Cannis there appears to be an emerging philosophy in the legislation regarding many of the new programs. The first step is first to get agreement from Parliament on the general outline of the program, set aside the funds and then create a working committee to establish the guidelines and administer the funds. This was done with the CFI for example and seems to be the case with CIHR. The Chairs Program may also follow the same route.

It has been estimated that there are approximately 35,000 faculty members in Canadian Universities. Over the last decade because of funding cutbacks about 11% of the faculty complement has been lost. In the next decade retirement will claim another 10,000 individuals. If the past is any indication of the future and no major changes occur in university funding we can expect one new faculty member to be appointed for every two that retire. This would result in a deficit of 5- 8,000 potential professors/researchers at a time when the number of students entering university is increasing and when greater demand is being placed on our Country for more and better educated personnel.

These numbers emphasize the need to bring pressure to bear on both levels of government to be more aggressive in addressing the problem of university financing. One of the difficulties identified during our discussions was the absence of a Federal Minister of Education and Research who could champion many of the issues raised. Given the transition to a more knowledge-based economy the absence of this portfolio within the Federal Cabinet will become even more noticeable. As scientists, please take time to speak to your local Member of Parliament and to your Member of the Provincial Legislature concerning these issues. Let us know of other issues that we should be raising.

Science in Government Laboratories

The issue of the role of Government laboratories was raised in our various visits. There is a clear understanding that it is important to define clearly the part Government Scientists should play. Their function should be to do research to protect the citizens of this country and to function in those areas of science that do not fall under the purview of Industry and the Academic sector. In our conversations we received positive comments supporting the concepts of peer-review and partnership of Government Scientists with those in Universities and in Corporations for the benefit of the Country. The concerns regarding National Government facilities that remain under-funded were raised but the response of Government at present is unclear.

These have all been welcomed outcomes of our lobbying efforts and should provide a good beginning for improving the vitality of the research community in this Country. At the same time it is well to recognize that to keep our highly trained personnel at home even greater effort will be needed on the financial front, given the international competition, to provide the required support for the new technological directions if we are to compete globally.