Funding for research talent suffers as Budget emphasizes infrastructure

Budget 2009

Concern is mounting within Canada's scientific community that the latest federal Budget is emphasizing the wrong kinds of infrastructure required to ward off the impacts of the growing recession and a major resurgence in S&T spending in the US. Observers in Canada, the US and Europe have taken the Harper government to task for what is being described as a lack of vision combined with a lack of support for research that could set off another damaging brain drain.

On the face of it, the Budget appears to be good new for science as it injects approximately $3.5 billion in new money into S&T. But nearly $3 billion is dedicated to physical infrastructure including a whopping $2 billion is dedicated to deferred maintenance at Canada's universities and colleges — the number one priority of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. The Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) also did well, receiving a $750-Million commitment, although only $50 million of that money will flow within the next two years.

Perhaps most important to the technology-based business community is the temporary increase to the budget of the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), which received $200 million over the next two years for direct assistance to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (see page 4).

Despite the barrage of criticism, Canada's new minister of state for science and technology is unabashed in his enthusiasm both for the Budget's science provisions and the future nation's prospects in the knowledge-based economy.

"What we're seeing is an absolutely historic and unprecedented movement into science and tech — $3.5 billion give or take a wee bit," say Dr Gary Goodyear, minister of state for science and technology. "We got great ideas from our universities and businesses, researchers, scientists across the country and I think that this budget is going to put Canada totally on the map in a number of areas and really strengthen our ability to move forward as the next budget rolls around and the one after that."

Critics don't dispute the magnitude of the infrastructure investment but they stress that investment in human capital is equally important and has not been addressed. This includes the well publicized failure to fund new requests from Genome Canada (see page 4) as well as the lack of new funding for the three granting councils and for Arctic research (see page 5). They contend that, while the US administration has placed science at the centre of its economy recovery strategy, Canada has failed to follow suit. The result is the risk of rekindling the brain drain that decimated this nation's scientific ranks in the 1980s and early 1990s.

"Overall I'm disappointed. There are some good aspects to it (but) I'm concerned about brain infrastructure," says Dr Marc Garneau, Liberal industry, science and technology critic and former president of the Canadian Space Agency.

"(President Barack) Obama and other countries like France are clearly focusing on S&T and their importance for the future. I'm worried about people lured into Canada during the last few years may find the grass is greener in other countries."

Garneau's concerns are echoed by Dr Mel Silverman, VP research at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. The CIFAR took the rare move of commenting on the Budget after receiving numerous queries from concerned scientists participating in some of its research programs.

"There have been 15 years of progressive investment by the federal government and the provinces in building Canada's research capacity by developing physical and human infrastructure. There has been a demonstrable reversal of brain drain with feet moving from south to Canada over the past five to eight years," says Silverman. "It takes time to build a human infrastructure and all it takes is a subtle change … That infrastructure will melt away very quickly and this is a concern at CIFAR."

Silverman says Canada was just hitting the peak of what he calls the golden age of science when the government began turning off the taps, causing considerable nervousness among CIFAR members who are engaged in areas of research where Canada is at the leading edge.

The main focus of concern is the Budget's treatment of the three granting councils — the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). For the first time in recent memory, the council's were denied even an increase to cover inflation. Funding directed their way was specifically devoted to a temporary increase in support for Canada Graduate Scholarships — $87.5 million over three years subject to a 40-40-20 split amongst NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC. For SSHRC, the CGS funds must be spent on business-related degrees only.

The plight of the granting councils was made more acute by the results of strategic review, which requires departments and agencies to offer up 5% of their budget for re-allocation every four years.

Goodyear contends that the Budget did not take away from the base budgets of the granting councils although no one has been able to explain where the cuts will be made. The councils themselves were not commenting. Calls were referred to communications officials at Industry Canada and Health Canada.

An Industry Canada spokesperson said in an email that "Budget 2009 provides high-level information about the identified savings in the strategic review exercise. We are currently confirming details about the specific nature of the reallocations. We will be able to explain these reallocations and what they mean once we have all the details."

Dissatisfaction with the Budget was not limited to the academic research community. Calls by business for changes to the R&D tax credit system went unheeded and election campaign commitments to boost the budget of the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative and the Automotive Innovation Fund were not implemented (R$, October 7/08).

Not everyone is as aggressively pessimistic about the Budget and the prospects for Canadian science. A senior official who spoke on condition of anonymity says the Budget was put together in record time by a government struggling for its political life while confronted by an economic downturn it apparently did not see coming. As recently as the November 27 economic and fiscal update, Finance minister Jim Flaherty was still predicting razor-thin $100-million surpluses for FY09-10 and FY10-11.

The official says the government simply didn't have the time or the proper perspective to put together Budget provisions that reflected a serious approach to science. The overriding themes of fiscal stimulus and near-term infrastructure projects dominate, says official, leaving the science community with few options except to wait until the next Budget.

heavy infrastructure investment

Despite the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the Budget, a surprisingly wide range of spending initiatives were included. While some were routine and others surprising, all tended to fall within the overriding infrastructure theme.

Canada Health Infoway (CHI) received another $500 million to advance its goal of developing interoperable electronic health records for the nation by 2015. The funds will be used in FY09-10 to achieve a 50% penetration rate for individuals by the end of 2010. CHI had received federal and provincial investments of $1.3 billion as of the end of FY06-07.

Rural and remote broadband access was provided with $225 million — nowhere near the $500 million pledged by the Conservatives in the last electron campaign. The Budget funding is over three years for the development and implementation of a strategy to extend broadband access to unserved communities.

Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) received its annual budget allocation which for FY09-10 totals $351 million. While it's an increase of $51 million over last year, it will be used for the same purposes: further development of the Advanced CANDU Reactor and operational and maintenance funding for AECL's Chalk River ON facilities. The review of AECL's operations — announced last year and being conducted by Natural Resources Canada — with a view to a possible sale of all or part of operations to the private sector is ongoing.

Another strategic review which has yet to be completed is the Canadian Space Agency's Long-Term Space Plan. A glimpse into one of its future priorities was contained in the Budget measure which provides $110 million over three years for robotics development. The funding will be used to develop terrestrial prototypes for robotic vehicles to be used on the Moon and Mars. Other robotics technologies will also be advanced.

Federal Labs

After years of indecision, the government has seized on the theme of infrastructure repair to address the growing deterioration of federal laboratories. The Budget provides $250 million over two years to execute a Treasury Board-managed program for deferred maintenance projects. Budget documents include several examples of specific labs that qualify for repairs, including Canadian Food Inspection labs in Dartmouth NS and Saint-Hyacinthe and NRCan's Great Lakes Forestry Centre in Sault Ste Marie ON.

Curiously, the Budget also links the refurbishment of federal labs to the largely discredited process of transferring assets to the university or private sectors (R$, June 20/08). The funding can be used to modernize labs for which a "realistic business plan" has been crafted to transfer the faculty to a university, business or non-profit organization. Unlike the projects for which no transfer is contemplated, the Budget documents offer no examples of which labs could qualify.

R$