Journal Articles (Canadian Context)

Coulson, R.G. and D.J. Devoretz. 1993. “Human Capital Content of Canadian Immigrants: 1967-1987,” Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 357-366.

This paper offers economic estimates of “human capital” from the post-1967 Canadian immigration policies based on a theoretical and empirical investigation. It responds to scholarly literature and political debates that have argued that the economic performance of Canada’s immigrants has declined from 1967 to 1987. The argument is divided into four parts: examining the major immigration policy changes which could have influenced the composition and content of human capital flows with immigration; a methodology to compute this measuring direct, indirect, social and private costs to the individual and society of acquiring an education; empirical results of capital flows from all source countries; and policy implications. The study used immigrant data from tapes made by Employment and Immigration Canada. The empirical data indicated differential flows by source regions but showed several patterns. It suggests the total flow was $12.8 billion with over 54 percent or $6.8 billion occurring in the first seven years. In the latter period from 1979 to 1987 just $2.9 Billion was transferred to Canada from all countries. The study also calculates that from 1967 to 1973 each immigrant brought $47,583 in human capital (in 1968 dollars) rising only a small amount in subsequent years. Total transfers from 1967 to 1973 were $6.9 billion with $4.5 billion of this from other developed countries. The paper suggests Canada’s immigration policy has led to substantial transfers of human capital but that this declined significantly with the 1978 Immigration Act and annually reduced from 1979 to 1987. The 1978 policy it says resulted in fewer absolute numbers of highly skilled immigrants with substantial implications for the Canadian economy with reduced tax contributions. The paper suggests the debate over attracting high skilled immigrants is unwarranted and could be resolved by increasing selections under the “independent” class coupled with educational criteria.

DeVoretz, Don and Dennis Maki. 1975. “The Brain Drain and Income Taxation: Canadian Estimates,” World Development, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 705-716.

This paper is part of a special issue on the brain drain taxation theme reflecting on a proposal raised by economist Jagdish Bhagwati for taxing highly skilled immigrants who move from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to Developed Countries (DCs). The proposed tax would be turned over to the LDC originating country or a United Nations Agency such as UNDP for spending in LDCs. This paper is a theoretical examination of measuring and collecting potential revenues raised from a brain drain surtax on skilled immigrants to Canada from LDC s providing estimates based on amounts collected if such a scheme had been implemented since 1972 (to 1975). The article provides some background to this suggesting that changes to Canada’s immigration regulations in 1967 made the process less discriminatory and more favourable to more educated or skilled persons based on a points system. The authors admit many methodological, forecasting and implementation problems. However, they suggest that, based on the net immigration flows and accounting for 1.6 to 3% reduction in immigration due to a surtax averaging 10 percent, Canada would collect between $24 Million and $37 Million annually based on 1972 immigration data.

Emery, Herb. 1999. “The Evidence vs. the Tax-Cutters,” Policy Options, (September), pp. 25-29. Also posted at www.irpp.org

This article argues that campaigns by vested interest industry and professional groups as well as media reports, backed by selective anecdotes, say there is a brain drain of Canada’s “best and brightest,” but the data suggest there isn’t. It suggests that facts about how many Canadians are actually moving to the United States are not likely going to resolve the debate since it is “too useful a device for pushing a tax-cutting agenda.” It reviews several recent studies and arguments suggesting the absence of quantitative or qualitative evidence supporting a large brain drain of Canadian scientists. It suggests the brain drain issue will continue in public debate mainly because it is “an extremely effective way of motivating policy agendas that exist with or without the brain drain.” The article predicts that the focus of discussion will soon shift from simple numbers to the strategic importance of the types of people leaving, and how bad things will be if we don’t pay our scientists and academics more.

Johnson, Harry. 1965. “The Economics of the ‘Brain Drain’: The Canadian Case,” Minerva, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Spring), pp. 299-311.

This article provides a mid-1960s British perspective commentary. It is critical of the British government at the time for keeping professional salaries and work expenditures low and argues that a resulting brain drain from the United Kingdom is a “real phenomenon” explained by government policy. The paper also argues that Canada has been a “major beneficiary” of the British brain drain. The article discusses the concept of “brain drain” as well as arguments about costs and benefits of the migration of the highly educated. It also explores the question of whether brain drain really exists reviewing available statistical data at the time provided by the Economic Council of Canada’s First Annual Review in 1964 which showed annual flows of professional migrants from 1950 to 1963. The article suggests that Canada’s net flow of immigrants exceeded outflow and that a reverse drain of Americans to Canada was substantial constituting about 16 percent. The article claims the brain drain applied to Canada has been a fiction fostered by ignoring immigration and judging its balance of trade with the U.S. Finally it argues that Canada has been a substantial beneficiary of international exchange of professional people in the post-war period saying Canada has provided the “drains rather than brains for the rest of the world.” In particular the author notes about half of all Canada’s technical and professional people have come from Britain.

Michalos, Alex C. 1996. “Migration and Quality of Life,” Social Indicators Research, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 121-165.

This article reviews 30 years of research on relationships between migration or residential mobility and quality of life by examining: demographic studies; literature on motives for migration concerning provision of public goods and services; costs and benefits; kinship; developmental stages; and critical issues for developing a systematic accounting scheme for measuring stocks and flows in quality of life. The paper discusses various tendencies or trends such as migration being more prevalent among professional workers and managers than laborers. It also examines explanatory hypotheses concerning reasons for migration such as the relationship between migration decreasing as education increases, and explores motivating factors such as welfare benefits. Concerning some more controversial issues under debate, the author suggests that research shows people rarely mention reasons for moving or relocation based on welfare spending or taxation rates. At the top of their lists are jobs, friends, family and quality of life. Referring to Canadian interregional demographic data, the author also notes migration has typically been from low taxed provinces such as the Maritimes to higher taxed provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. Other findings reported are linkages such as the relation between migration and earnings decreasing as age increases. More generally the article notes 73 percent of studies reviewed “confirm the hypothesis that migration is generally in the direction of relatively expanding economic areas with greater employment opportunities and higher income.” The paper also provides a rich introductory reference source for further study of migration and quality of life relationships.

O’Reilly, Michael. 1995. “Research Institute Tries to Ease Brain Drain by Bringing Researchers Back to Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 152, No. 7 (April 1^st) , pp. 1109-1111.

This article is part of a new “Issues and Innovations” column by the CMAJ. The author suggests that it costs $350,000 to $450,000 to educate and train one physician in Canada which is wasted when they move to “greener pastures” in the U.S. or elsewhere. Americans, especially recognize their high quality skills and training, viewing Canadians as “golden doctors.” The article argues that lack of research opportunities in Canada with average grants typically much smaller at $50,000 in Canada compared to $300,000 in the U.S. leads to loss of many of its brightest young researchers. It reports on the Roberts Research Institute in London Ontario, a small repatriation project underway to lure back young Canadian researchers who believed they could not do world-class research in Canada. The Institute offers start-up funds and a 3 year funding guarantee and its director argues that efforts have paid off bringing back 10 people in the last 8 years.

Watson, William. 1999. “If We’re Number One, Why Would Anyone Leave,” Policy Options, (September), pp. 39-43. Also posted at www.irpp.org

This article criticizes the indicators at the basis of the United Nations’ Human Development Report and its Human Development Index (HDI) that ranked Canada as first every year for the past six years. In doing so it offers an explanation of why there is a brain drain indicating that Canadians might actually want leave to work elsewhere. The paper suggests the HDI is a flawed index because it heavily discounts the influence of income which, if calculated on a per capital income basis, makes Canada thirteenth on a world scale. If income was entirely undiscounted it means Canada would rank fifth, and the United States (currently third on the HDI) would rank first. The paper notes that average income differences between Canada and the U.S is $9,600 calculated at July 1999 exchange rates and argues that most studies of migration find that income differences help explain population movements. It suggests then that it “should not be so shocking” why people would want to leave the “best country in the world to live in”.

Articles and Monographs (Theoretical)

Adams, Walter (Ed.). 1968. The Brain Drain. New York, Macmillan Company.

The book, based on papers presented at a 1967 conference in Switzerland, is among the earliest published collection of articles by scholars discussing theoretical issues and political concerns about the brain drain phenomenon with respect to developing country concerns. The editor notes (in an interesting portent of 1990s “globalization” discussions) that “today as never before there is a ‘common market’ for brainpower which transcends national boundaries” and discusses various ways or models of explaining human capital flow and their implications for policy makers. Adams notes a few factors that tend to encourage attraction of a developed country and away from a developing country such as: salary differentials; professional opportunity; lack of receptivity to change in home country; relevance of foreign training; lack of realistic manpower policies; technology gap; political balkanization; discrimination on non-economic grounds; and monopolistic restrictions in advanced countries. The book introduces the problem and reviews it from historical, analytical and international perspectives. Various authors discuss different analytical frameworks for interpreting brain drain such as the internationalist or nationalist model as well as the national importance of human capital and push-pull approaches. Others discuss the role of study abroad in emigration and case studies including France, Greece, the European Common Market, Africa, and India as well as the Underdeveloped Countries from a “less alarmist view.” The book explores an “agenda for action” to reverse factors that tend to encourage attraction to another country.

Amey, M.J. 1994. “Faculty Recruitment, Promotion, and Tenure,” in Burton R. Clark and Guy R. Neave, Eds., The Encyclopedia of Higher Education,Volume 1, Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp. 1623-1634.

This article reviews the principal themes in the Higher Education research literature on faculty recruitment, promotion, and tenure. It notes one of the most difficult challenges for academic institutions is recruiting and retaining quality faculty and suggests it is important to examine the relevancy and operationalization of various values, policies and practices such as tenure and how these are affected by academic labour market changes. The article notes research indicating that recruitment of one career faculty member in the U.S. represents a potential investment of over a million dollars and an important issue due to concerns about effects of a shrinking faculty market and rising costs for recruitment and retention. Research indicates various changes in hiring practices since the 1970s and that universities might better reevaluate their approaches more systematically exploring candidates’ issues, historical practices, reward systems, tenure decisions, alternatives to tenure, retirements, part-time as well as women or minority faculty, and other factors. It suggests “adequately confronting the future will require rethinking assumptions and values of the past, particularly as they are ascribed to the concept of tenure.” It argues that as the academic labour market changes “so must institutional policies.”

Grubel, H.G. 1994. “Brain Drain, Economics of,” in Torsten Husen and T. Neville Postlethwaite, Eds., The International Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition, Volume 1, Oxford, Elsevier Science Ltd., pp. 554-561.

This article draws from the principal themes in the economics of brain drain and international migration literature. Remarks partly build on research done for the author’s 1977 monograph, The Brain Drain: Determinants, Measurement and Welfare Effects. The article reviews the historical and conceptual background to the issue. It also discusses: motives for highly skilled worker migration and the kinds of survey or economic studies used to measure these; the magnitude of brain drain flows; problems with certain types of data such as U.S. Immigration Statistics; and welfare effects as well as short-term and long-term output effects or “costs” associated with this brain migration phenomenon. Concerning those “welfare effects” the article reviews the United Nations debate over the loss of human capital from developing countries by brain drain; the varying effects of the phenomenon on educational finance; its role in taxation and services; as well as personal and qualitative benefits arising from mobility. It concludes with policy recommendations noting that given such public concern and political rhetoric there have been few solid policy proposals to reduce it or deal with its consequences. The article notes existing recommendations fall into three categories: reducing incentives without interfering with flow; making immigration policies of countries that gain less discriminatory in favour of highly skilled people and making it more difficult for students or temporary visitors to obtain permanent residency; and redressing inequities alleged to arise from the debt on educational outlay owed to the losing countries as well as tax surcharges on immigrants remitted to source countries.

Moore, K.M. 1994. “Faculty Rewards and Incentives” in Burton R. Clark and Guy R. Neave, Eds., The Encyclopedia of Higher Education,Volume 1, Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp. 1641-1648.

This article reviews the principal themes in the Higher Education research literature on faculty rewards and incentives. It notes that scholars over time have developed a complex reward and incentive system and although they historically have not pursued material rewards as much as in other fields, more now expect rewards for exemplary work, longevity of service, and for other activities. The article touches on the nature, complexity and diversity of reward and incentive systems; differing perspectives and interests in these from individual faculty or organizational perspectives; distinctive types of rewards and incentives such as merit pay, titles, improved working conditions, punishments and disincentives; allocations; and experimental systems. The article notes that a key factor in encouraging and sustaining faculty while rewarding them for accomplishments is recognizing the essential autonomy of faculty members as academic professionals. It suggests that although inadequate compensation is often an important reason for mobility many of the most important incentives are internal ones. It also suggests institutions must pay more attention to what motivates faculty and that this will be even more important in coming years given the projected growth of the higher education sector in many countries and the faculty turnover in others.

Pedersen, Paul B. 1990. Social and Psychological Factors of Brain Drain and Reentry Among International Students: A survey of the Topic.” McGill Journal of Education, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Spring), pp. 229-243.

This paper reviews the principal arguments and data regarding motives for international students, mainly from developing countries, returning to home. It also examines results of a study conducted jointly by the United States National Science Foundation and the National Science Council in Taiwan, R.O.C. as a case study. The paper suggests the data raise three questions: Is there a brain drain? Why do students return home? What problems do graduates encounter upon their return? The paper explores the implications arising from these questions. Whether there is a brain drain or not depends on how graduates are counted as a statistic in their time away after graduation. The article suggests most researchers agree that 90 percent of graduates eventually return home from study in Canada or the U.S. but that this differs in science and engineering. Some researchers suggest that international students remaining in the U.S. play an essential role in educating the next generation. The article also reviews reasons for returning home building on earlier research which identified thirteen key factors including: home country attitudes toward nationals; government and international sponsorships; self-sponsorship; availability of and announcements of appropriate employment; ambiguity of immigration laws; inadequate statistics and data on non-returnees; lower classes and minorities who are more likely to remain (in the U.S.); and brain drain severely hampering development efforts in developing countries an issue supported by some studies and rejected by others. This article reviews conclusions from Glaser’s UNITAR study (cited below) which noted income was not always the strongest determinant for returnees as well as other non-economic influences. The paper also discusses re-entry problems and support mechanisms to assist returnees and encourage them to readapt and stay. The article concludes that many recommendations made by Glaser and other studies (although now dated as is this article) are still relevant now. The author recommends a “brain plan” to put the real or presumed danger of brain drain into perspective and address problems of reentry and adaptation for returnees.

Schuster, J. 1994. “Academic Labor Markets,” in Burton R. Clark and Guy R. Neave, Eds., The Encyclopedia of Higher Education,Volume 1, Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp. 1537-1547.

This article reviews the principal themes in the Higher Education research literature on the academic labour market discussing conceptual issues and describing factors that impinge on that market. It attempts a broad overview, but confines itself mainly to full-time teachers-scholars and restricts the purview principally to the U.S. labor market. The article notes that the ability of colleges and universities to meet their core societal responsibilities “depends fundamentally on their ability to attract and retain persons who possess the requisite competencies and commitment.” The faculty it says is the very core of the academy and the labor market determines who faculty will be. The article notes that making sense of the academic labor market is replete with challenges sometimes described as being characterized by “economically irrational behavior” and situated amidst a complex of several overlapping submarkets. The article reviews some historical background; methodological perspectives and units or analysis including the understanding of national data and trends; understanding supply and demand forces and dimensions; compensation issues; competition among professions; the international dimension including student flows and immigration; women and minority concerns; and outlooks or projections. To conclude, it also notes the role of federal policy as a “potentially potent weapon for stimulating supply and, less directly demand.” In terms of consequences, it suggests that the demand for faculty will exceed the supply of well-qualified faculty across most fields by around 1997. The most likely scenario for the academic labor market it predicts “will feature intense competitiveness to recruit and retain good faculty members” entailing substantial pressures on costs for institutions. The article raises concerns about a costly sellers market in the midst of pressures to economize.

Empirical Analyses, Studies and Survey Reports (Canada, U.S. and International)

Bastarache, Lise. 1999. “Interprovincial mobility of highly skilled workers.” Current Analysis (October) a special report of the Royal Bank of Canada, Economics Department.

This study assesses to what extent some provinces are “attracting a disproportionate share of highly skilled/highly educated workers compared to other provinces” examining flows of university graduates and “knowledge workers.” It uses data from the 1996 Federal Census and examines results from the 1991-1996 period. It notes that only B.C. managed to attract more university graduates (gaining 8%) than it lost to other provinces. B.C. also led the country with a 6% net gain with Newfoundland the highest outflow of –8%. It suggests Alberta and Ontario will be the most competitive migrant recipients in future due to the most competitive personal tax environments in Canada. It argues that funding of post-secondary education, or lack of funding does not significantly contribute to inter-provincial mobility of university graduates.

DeVoretz, D. J. 1999. “The Brain Drain is Real and It Costs Us,” Policy Options, (September), pp. 17-24. Also posted at www.irpp.org

This paper builds on the author’s C.D. Howe Commentary (cited next) arguing that a net transfer of highly skilled Canadians to the U.S. in the 1990s is not in doubt. That transfer, it says, is largely one-way constituting a substantial subsidy from the Canadian taxpayer to the world’s richest country and to Bill Gates in particular, with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade agreement, NAFTA and their mobility provisions, as well as changes in U.S. immigration policy accentuating the trend. The paper suggests evidence is mounting that Canadians who move to the U.S. outperform similarly trained U.S. born workers, and although they may move under temporary work visas under NAFTA, they no longer have to wait to enter the U.S. before applying for permanent residence. Instead they can queue while there. The paper suggests that motivations to move and remedial measures needed to repatriate may vary by occupation. It argues that a simple head count comparing inflows to Canada from other countries may lead to skepticism about the brain drain, but that this net result is deceiving. Instead one cannot ignore costs of upgrading the productivity of new immigrants, underlying economic forces initiating Canadians’ move to the U.S., and ethical problems concerning Canada using “peasant-taxpayers” in poorer developing countries to make up for its own brain drain losses. The paper argues Canada must “implement policies to retain Canadians and entice émigrés to return.

DeVoretz, D. J. and Samuel A Laryea. 1998. Canadian Human Capital Tranfers: The United States and Beyond, C.D. Howe Institute Commentary (October), Toronto, C.D. Howe Institute.

This study argues that a brain drain of talented Canadians to the U.S. is “both real and costly” suggesting that causes are not well understood but complex. Generally it suggests “push” factors such as Canadian graduates unable to find suitable work at home and “pull” factors mainly higher after-tax earnings. The study claims that in the 1990s structural changes in Canada-US economic relations have resulted in a net outflow of mainly highly trained managers and professionals to the U.S. Transfers partly reflect greater ease due to the North American Free Trade Agreement leading to more temporary workers but have also increased permanent emigration. This means a net loss of $6.7 billion to Canadian society from 1982-1996 due to taxpayer subsidies for higher education and training costs. If replacement costs measured through the human capital of new immigrants were not factored in losses would have been $11.8 billion Substantial numbers continue to graduate in certain occupations such as nursing at great cost to the public purse, only to move the U.S. In some fields where Canada has been trying to attract personnel such as engineers or scientists, for example, Canadian educated graduates to the U.S. represents 14.5 percent in annual flow. The study raises significant educational policy questions.

Frank, Jeff and Eric Belair 1999. South of the Border—Graduates from the Class of 95 Who Moved to the United States: An Analysis of Results from the “Survey of 1995 Graduates Who Moved to the United States.” Hull/ Ottawa, Human Resources Development Canada/Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, also posted at www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/arb

This report analyzes results of a survey of post-secondary graduates from the class of 1995 that were living in United States in 1997. The survey was conducted in 1999. The sample size and principal methodology consisted of 531 interviews from the 4600 graduates who had moved. The results indicated that over one-third were in the health occupations (36%) with one-quarter (26%) in applied sciences and engineering. The report argued that those who had moved tended to be high-quality graduates in key fields and demonstrated that Master’s and PhD graduates were over-represented in the outflow to the U.S. Some 12% of PhD graduates and 3% of Master’s moved compared to 2% of bachelor’s and college graduates. Interviews suggested that 57% relocated for work-related reasons, 23% for education and 17% for relationships. Work reasons meant mainly greater availability of jobs in particular or general fields as well as higher pay indicated in 40% of responses, but few graduates explicitly mentioned lower taxes.

Glaser, William with G. Christopher Habers. 1978. The Brain Drain Emigration and Return. Oxford, Pergamon Press.

This monograph contains a good bibliography of early literature and is one of the earliest multinational and comparative studies of the brain drain phenomenon, with Canada participating, conducted through the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). It was a response to debates and resolutions in the United Nations culminating in 1967 and focused on the problem of poorer countries’ losses when skilled professionals flowed from developing to developed countries and/or emigrating after study abroad. It examined motives, reasons or conditions by which they have returned or might do so. The report resulted from 13 surveys of 500 to 1,600 foreign students in 3 developed countries (Canada, U.S. and France) and 100 to 400 returnees in 8 developing countries (Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Ghana, Greece, India, Korea and Sri Lanka). It indicated a broad range of push-pull factors and motives for returnees going home noting percentages of those remaining abroad vary by country and professional field. Commitment to the home country and family was among the strongest pull factors. Push factors were better incomes, research opportunities and facilities, and more opportunities to the skills productively than were available at home. The study offered recommendations, which in addition to encouraging better working conditions, pay and morale at home, also discussed non-monetary incentives such as appeals to leadership and patriotism for stimulating more returnees. It also suggested that more cooperative research among governments was needed to address the issue.

Helliwell, John F. 1999. “Checking the Brain Drain: Evidence and Implications,” Policy Options, (September), pp. 6-17. Also posted at www.irpp.org

This paper attempts to quantify recent migratory flows of those with higher education from Canada to the U.S. comparing these with historical data including migration from other countries to the U.S. and migration to Canada from other countries. Canada to U.S flows are estimated from the U.S. Census and Population Survey. The paper challenges recent methodology, calculations and conclusions of the 1988 DeVoretz and Laryea study (cited above). It also points to problems with using FTA/NAFTA data in particular for measuring emigration numbers. Helliwell claims there is not a current brain drain comparing 1960s data with 1990s figures. He suggests the 1957-61 brain drain was more than 3 times as large as estimates for the 1990s. The paper also notes that in simple numbers, while accounting for the value of new immigrants, Canada is experiencing a “brain gain” not a drain while introducing data from a separate study (cited next) of UBC alumni. The paper notes that Canadians are generally a more mobile people than Americans, are more familiar with job opportunities there, and more likely to possess skills in demand accounting for some outflow. However, it suggests internal migration is more likely than international migration for Canadians. The paper’s main conclusion is that the 1990s movement of educated Canadians to the U.S. is surprisingly small compared to historical data and there is no evidence of a current crisis or cause for alarm.

Helliwell, John F. Helliwell and David F. Helliwell. In Press 2000. “Tracking UBC Graduates: Trends and Explanations,” in Isuma: The Canadian Journal of Policy Research, (January), Vol 1 No 1.

This paper argues that evidence from aggregate data show a decline in numbers of Canadians moving to the U.S. relative to past movements beginning in 1920. It corroborates this by analyzing current addresses of recent UBC graduates who are more likely to be living elsewhere in Canada but especially still in British Columbia than the U.S. It shows that the proportion of UBC graduates living in the U.S. has continued to fall during the 1990s for all large bachelors programs and that this evidence is consistent with the 1995 Statistics Canada survey of 1995 graduates. The paper also documents bachelor of nursing graduates as U.S. residents dropping from 9 percent for 1960s graduates to less than 2 percent for 1990s graduates. MDs also show drop from 12 percent in the 1950s to 3 percent for 1990s graduates. PhDs holders from UBC in the 1990s have a larger (15 percent) of U.S. residences than other groups slightly more than the national average. Yet PhD holders from UBC represent fewer than 50 percent Canadian citizens so actual numbers may be deceiving. Overall more UBC graduates still reside in B.C., then the rest of Canada with a small proportion in the U.S. and rest of the world. The paper offers explanations for these numbers including a “gravity model” to explain geographic distribution suggesting that distance is a factor in numbers with some variations. However PhDs were more likely to move further away due to their specialization and where their research interests take them so the effects of distance on migration drops with higher levels. This study matched data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census with UBC data and conceded that it will take the year 2000 U.S. Census to assess whether there has been a resurgence of Canadian university graduates to the U.S.

Iqbal, Mahmood. 1999. Are We Losing Our Minds? ” Policy Options, (September), pp. 34-38. Also posted at www.irpp.org

This paper, reiterates much of what the author argued in the Conference Board of Canada study (cited next), restates his case and rebuts his critics. The paper argues that the brain drain is growing in key professions saying that it was no more than 3 percent in the 1980s and is now as high as 11 percent. The author says that data on temporary moves does not contain multiple entries per migrant and there is no measurement error. He also claims that simple economic work indicates a direct relationship between higher tax rates in Canada especially after 1990, differences in professional incomes, and the gap in the unemployment rate between Canada and the U.S which has also widened after 1990. The author presents data suggesting not much growth in permanent emigrants to the U.S. in various skilled labour categories. However he says in 1997 non-permanent emigrants accounted for 94 percent of outflow compared to 77 percent in 1986. He argues that economic variables usually thought to influence migration have changed and demonstrates these have increased in the 1990s. The author concedes, however, that his econometric results can only be suggestive but not definitive and his interpretation marked with caution due to data limitations and other explanatory variables not accounted for.

Iqbal, Mahmood. 1999. Are We Losing Our Minds? Trends, Determinants and the Role of Taxation in Brain Drain to the United States. (July). Ottawa, Conference Board of Canada.

This study argues that a Canadian brain drain to the U.S. is real and rising at an increasing rate. It shows that since the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) came into effect in 1989 and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 structural changes in Canada-US economic relations have resulted in a six-fold increase net in non-permanent work visas for Canadians from 17,000 to 98,000 per year. The FTA meant more movement of physicians and nurses and NAFTA a sharp increase in all categories. It suggests the drain is evident in key professions such as 2.7 percent of natural scientists migrating in 1986 with 10.6 per cent in 1996. The study reports surveys indicating higher salary paid in U.S. dollars, more growth opportunities, exposure to leading edge technology, lower taxes, better management and even warmer climate are all reasons for emigration to the U.S., but that such surveys have limitations. The study presents quantitative national data on economic factors that suggests causes for a brain drain including: a difference in earnings showing Canada has lagged in earnings growth with a widened gap since 1990; a difference in unemployment rate also after 1990; and the “tax wedge,” or difference in the level of tax burden, higher in Canada in the last 30 years with a gap widened over time. The study stresses lower taxes “especially” have a significant impact on the emigration of highly skilled Canadians. It suggests that emigrating Canadians might also “owe” something to the society they are leaving.

Johnson, Jean M. 1998. Statistical Profiles of Foreign Doctoral Recipients in Science and Engineering: Plans to Stay in the United States. An SRS Special Report from Division of Science Resources Studies, Directorate for Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences (November). Arlington, National Science Foundation. The Report is also posted at www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats/htm

This report prepared for the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is a compilation of detailed statistic data providing a basis for a NSF “Issue Brief” (see next entry). The report provides detailed statistical profiles of students from several major countries (Canada among them) who were doctoral recipients in science and engineering at U.S. universities. It also provides survey information describing their initial intent in locating to the United States after graduation. The report suggests that the “number of foreign doctoral recipients with firm plans to stay in the United States is a good indicator of those who actually stay.” The notion of a “firm plan” means that a student has “accepted a definite offer of a post-doctoral appointment or employment.” The study argues that in the last decade, the number of students from Europe, Asia and North American earning Science and Engineering (S&E) doctoral degrees in the U.S. has been increasing faster than the overall S&E doctoral degrees awarded by U.S. institutions. In real numbers earned degrees increased from 2,400 in 1985 to over 8,000 in 1996 indicating an average annual growth rate of 11.6 percent. In terms of regional breakdowns the study notes that, within North America, Canada has sent far more S&E doctoral students than Mexico, is higher than Europe, but smaller than for Asia. Some 1993 (43 %) of 4156 Canadian doctoral recipients (2,387 of these were S&E graduates) reported firm offers for further U.S. work or study. Specific numbers were differentiated among various professions.

Johnson, Jean M. and Mark C. Rogers. 1998. “International Mobility of Scientists and Engineers to the United States – Brain Drain or Brain Circulation?” Division of Science Resources Studies Issue Brief (Revised November 10^th), Arlington, National Science Foundation. This summary is posted at www.nsf.gov.sbe.srs/issuebrf/sib98316.htm

This “Issue Brief” by the U.S. National Science Foundation questions whether the mobility of foreign scientists and engineers to the United States constitutes a one-way “brain drain” depriving origin countries of their “best and brightest.” Or “brain circulation” when many of those scientists actually return to their home countries better for the experience, some taking advantage of higher level opportunities at home as a result. The study suggests that a large foreign component of U.S. human intellectual capital is linked to American higher education institutions’ ability to attract, support and retain foreign S&E graduate students. Financially supported activities, particularly research assistantships, appear to be a major factor attracting foreign students and these have grown in S&E departments as the number of students has. Subsequently about 22 percent of foreign S&E doctoral recipients stay in the U.S. for postdoctoral work and 17 percent accept permanent employment with differential returns depending on countries. The study reports on a statistical data collected by the National Science Foundation concluding that for some countries (like China and India) the net effect is brain drain to the U.S. but for others (Taiwan and South Korea) “brain circulation” is a more appropriate descriptor. The study suggests, however, that more research is needed on the activities of foreign doctoral recipients who have returned to their home countries. It also suggests examining patterns of circulation, lengths of stay that are beneficial to the U.S. or origin countries as well as world diffusion of S&E knowledge.

O’Neill, Tim. 1999. “Trends in Canada-US Migration: Where’s The Flood?” Economic Analysis (March 24^th) a special report of the Bank of Montreal, Economics Department.

This paper challenges recent studies that have suggested Canada is suffering from a brain drain. It argues that the inflow of international immigrants destined to Canada’s labour force “overwhelms the outflow of Canadian emigrants to the U.S. labour force by a wide margin.” It examines the issue in a post World War II context focusing on both non-economic and economic explanatory factors. The paper also criticizes some researchers use of data on Canadian temporary workers suggesting border data gathered by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) does not control for multiple crossings. The paper’s key findings indicate that: net emigration from Canada to the U.S. has displayed a modest upward trend since the early 1980s but are 1/3 of numbers recorded in the 1950s and early 1960s; non-economic factors such as the Viet Nam war and U.S. immigration ceilings from Western Hemisphere countries meant a sharp decline after 1965; FTA/NAFTA labour mobility provisions after 1988 meant a sharp increase in working visas for Canadians partly due to greater income and employment opportunities in the U.S.; increased Canadian movement to the U.S. suggests that Canada is becoming less economically attractive but that the outflow falls well short of historical levels and does not warrant hysteria generated in some quarters.

Ryten, Evan, Dianne Thurber, and Lynda Buske. 1998. “The Class of 1989 and Physician Supply in Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 158, No. 6 (March 24^th), pp. 723-728.

This paper reports the findings of a 7 year longitudinal study of 1722 people awarded a Canadian MD degree in 1989 examining their migration and specialty choices after graduation to assess their contribution to the physician work force of Canada. It traces the current location, post MD training history and professional activity of the graduates using data from several medical professional and education associations in Canada and the U.S. Findings indicate that 67.5 percent of graduates residing in Canada when entering medical school still resided in the same province but inter-provincial migration was a factor. Except for Ontario, British Columbia and the Territories all other provinces experienced a net loss. Overall results indicated that the 1989 cohort diminished by 16 percent mainly due to loss through migration to other countries with 193 (11.2 percent) outside Canada in 1995-1996. The paper argues that this “yield” from the 1989 cohort does not meet demand created by Canadian population growth or retiring and emigrating physicians. It also suggests as outputs from Canadian medical schools drop further a gap between requirements and supply will drop further. The study highlights inter-provincial mobility and emigration as the most intractable of problems for the future physician workforce as well as underproduction of specialists compared to general practitioners.

Statistics Canada. 1998. “Brain Drain or Brain Gain? What do the Data Say?” Copy of a powerpoint presentation. Ottawa, Statistics Canada. (October 1st).

This presentation suggests there is little statistical evidence supporting large scale exodus of knowledge workers from Canada to the United States but acknowledges that available data are several years old and problems might not have been detected. The presentation argues that Canada does lose a small number of skilled workers in key occupations, mainly the health sector, to the United States, but the numbers involved are small in a historical sense. For the 1990-1996 period annual outflow of Canadian university graduates to the U.S. was 8512, whereas 4 times as many (32,829) university graduates came from other countries indicating a positive balance (24,317) in favour of Canada. The presentation argues Canada that more immigrant university degree holders imply our net gain “in this brain trade.” Moreover the presentation notes that the percentage of immigrants with higher degrees is greater than that of the Canadian population. PhD or Masters holding immigrants are 8.0 percent compared to 2.6 percent of Canadians, 9.2 percent had Masters, medical or doctoral degrees compared to 3.1 percent of Canadians and 29.9 held bachelors or higher compared to 17.0 percent for Canadians. The presentation suggests that despite recent increases in outflow of Canadians to the U.S. there has been a significant decline in absolute numbers in the post war period. Canada does experience a net population loss to the U.S., but it is overwhelmed by immigration into Canada from the rest of the world.

Stewart-Patterson, David. J. 1999. “The Drain Will Be a Torrent if we don’t Staunch it Now,” Policy Options, (September), pp. 30-33. Also posted at www.irpp.org

This paper acknowledges that immigration and census data may not show a big brain drain – “yet.” But that substantial numbers of Canadian CEOs say it has already affected the way the do business and many worry the problem will increase in the coming decade. The paper reports on one consulting company describing a global “war for talent” with the battle over quality rather than quantity. The brain drain, the paper notes is too passive a word for the phenomenon with the higher income and lower tax paying U.S. acting like a high power vacuum cleaner sucking in the talent that is fueling its growth. The paper reports on a recent survey of 150 Canadian member CEOs of the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI) confirming concerns. The survey reported that 94 percent of companies lost some employees due to offers from abroad with 15 percent occurring frequently or constantly, and that the brain drain is inhibiting their ability to maintain and expand critical operations in Canada. In response to such concerns BCNI launched “Canada Global Leadership Initiative” in April 1999 to make Canada the best country in the world to live, work, invest and grow. The author argues that even Statistics Canada tax data show that the people in the top income brackets are more likely to move to the U.S. than people in lower tax brackets suggesting policy makers must address the issue and soon.

UBC Alumni Association. “Brain Drain Questionnaire and Responses” posted at UBC alumni web site: www.alumni.ubc.ca

This is not a methodologically controlled survey with statistically significant data leading to a formal study or report sufficiently interpreting the findings. Rather it speaks for itself in the form of raw and non-statistically gathered data listing quotes/responses from UBC alumni responding to questions posted on the UBC alumni web site. The questionnaire begins by asking “are you part of the brain drain” and “have you left Canada for work elsewhere” and why? It asks about present occupation, reasons for leaving Canada, qualities about the new location liked best and least, what is missed about Canada, what would entice a move back and how the brain drain issue should be best addressed. The feedback or posted comments are anecdotally rich, many emotionally charged and suggestive of a brain drain reality exemplified by individual cases. This is understandable since the data are skewed recording responses from only those people who have moved from Canada. To date (12/7/99) the survey has posted 233 responses from 178 alumni who say they first sought work in Canada. Among those 139 moved due to no job opportunities in Canada, 58 people mentioned low pay as a reason, while 48 mentioned high taxes as a factor. Responses about what would entice them back were 99 saying jobs with better pay and security, 56 noting lower taxes and 55 saying more job opportunities among other factors. The UBC Alumni Association posted the questionnaire on their Web Site in April 1998, continues to collect responses and update its Web comment postings periodically.

Government and Opposition Documents (Canada and BC)

Chretien, Jean. 1999. “Response to the Speech from the Throne” (October 13^th), Ottawa. See Prime Minister’s Web Site, posted at www.pm.gc.ca

The speech discusses the opportunities and challenges of a knowledge-based economy and being competitive with the United States in providing exciting opportunities for Canadian researchers and attracting the best academic researchers to Canada when “world-wide competition for them has never been so fierce.” It also suggests the government will build on its support for Canada’s Granting Councils. The speech refers favourably to a proposal by UBC President Dr. Martha Piper, and University of Montreal Rector R. Robert Lacroix for 2000 new 21st “Century Chairs for Research Excellence” across Canada. It will make Canada a place where its graduates want to be and attract “some of the world’s best minds from other countries.” The Prime Minister calls it a “plan for brain gain not brain drain.”

Governor General of Canada. 1999. “Speech from the Throne to open the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament of Canada” (October 13^th), Ottawa. See Web Site, posting at www.pco-bcp.gc.ca

The speech commits to improving Canada’s “knowledge infrastructure” by “supporting a new generation of leaders, attracting the best researchers, and encouraging our graduates to put their talents to work here at home.” The Government promised to introduce new legislation to create the Canadian Institute of Health Research; build on the previous two years of improving advanced research in Canada through new 21st Century Chairs for Research Excellence; and foster greater international research by Canadian universities in genomics, climate change and advanced engineering.

Office of the Leader of the Opposition. 1998. Heading South: The Problem of Brain Drain—A Brief Analysis of the Problem and Recommendations for the Future. (June 24^th) posted at www.reform.ca

This paper argues that the number of Canadian citizens leaving to practice their profession in the United States has increased dramatically in recent years with 660,000 Canadians now living and working in the U.S. It suggests Canadians seeking temporary work visas in the U.S. have increased from 19,378 in 1989 to 46,574 in 1996 and 24,000 alone taking citizenship between 1995 and 1996. It suggests most people are leaving well-paying jobs in Canada and points to differences in tax burden and higher after tax income cited as principal factors in the decision to work and live in the U.S. It offers recommendations for repairing the incentive system so more Canadians choose to stay at home adding to the competitiveness of the Canadian economy including an increase in tax-free threshold, broaden existing tax brackets and reduce high marginal taxation rates.

Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (MAETT). 1999. Federal Spending on Post-Secondary Education—Transfers to Provinces: Trends and Consequences (December 8^th), Victoria. See MAETT Web Site, posting at www.aett.gov.bc.ca/policy/chst.htm

This report documents how the Federal government in recent years, to tackle the deficit, has reduced transfer payments to the provinces. It shows that Federal program spending for post-secondary education has fallen by 50% since 1979/80, contrasted to increased public spending in the United States threatening Canadian competitiveness in a time of increasing need for post-secondary education. It argues that, especially in a “new competitive economic environment” transfer cuts and other funding decisions have meant negative consequences for Canadian institutions with less spending on research, burgeoning class size, service cut backs and library retrenchment as well as “increased difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified professionals.”

Universities’ or Professional Associations’ Policies, Advocacy Documents and Reports (Canada and U.S.)

Canadian Association of University Teachers. 1999 “Risking our Future – How Government Cuts Are Undermining Post-Secondary Education” CAUT Education Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (May/June).

This special publication argues that the higher education sector of total research and development has declined from 27.0 percent in 1994 to 21.1 percent in 1997 with serious consequences. It includes a section referring to the “difficulty in attracting and retaining faculty” due mainly to the effects of funding cuts from Federal Transfer payments and decline in provincial education budgets. Those funding cuts have meant a decline in the numbers and salaries at 13 of Canada’s large research universities (UBC among them). This CAUT paper shows that between 1990 and 1996 this group of universities lost almost 550 full-time non-medical faculty from the top two ranks and an additional 720 assistant professors. It also shows that the complement of full professors declined by 4.7 percent, associate professors by 7.2 percent and assistant professors by 27 percent with the assistant professors attrition meaning that faculty are not being replaced as they move to higher salary levels or leave. Moreover it argues that the “problem of attracting faculty to our universities is made worse by the fact that Canadian salaries do not compare favourably with those in the United States.” In 1996-1997 Canadian full professors were paid 25 per cent less, associate professors by 13.9 percent less and assistant professors 22 percent less. The paper concludes by recommending restored public funding for post-secondary education and especially the federal government to resume its responsibilities by establishing a new “post-secondary education fund” and a federal “post-secondary education act” outlining new responsibilities, funding, enforcement mechanisms and formulae.

Canadian Association of University Teachers. 1999. “Have We Lost Our Minds,” CAUT Education Review, (July/August).

This special publication challenges newspaper headlines and findings from recent studies that have suggested “dire warnings” about the so-called “brain drain” of highly educated and skilled Canadians to the United States. The article suggests this issue has been seized upon mainly by corporate CEOs and conservative think-tanks who claim “there is a mass exodus” to the U.S. of engineers, managers, medical professionals, computer specialists and academics. It argues that although “brain drain” continues to dominate public debate the available data reveal there is “very little hard evidence” and a very small emigration of some professionals motivated less by tax considerations than employment opportunities. The data suggests this is more a “trickle rather than a drain.” The paper relies on other studies (mostly referenced in this Laurier bibliography) that counter media reports and anecdotal evidence. It suggests that the small outflow of Canadians to the U.S. is “more than offset” by a “brain gain” of university-educated people immigrating to Canada averaging 32,800 per year between 1990 and 1996 compared to 8,500 per year moving to the U.S. It notes only the health sector is experiencing a net drain largely due to public sector cutbacks. Explaining why university-educated people are leaving Canada the paper challenges the “spectre of high taxes” argument saying that there is “no overall difference in the tax burden” and in the end Canadians are not left with less disposable after-tax income than Americans. It suggests the main reasons for moving, based partly on sociology of migration literature, are job and income related as well as lack of career opportunities.

Colgate University. 1997. “III.C.3. Plans for Action: Faculty Retention and Promotion” in Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Employment Plan, 1997 (March) posted at http://offices.colgate.edu/aa/IIIC3.html

This section is part of Colgate University’s “Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Employment Plan” document building on recommendations from its 1991 FAAOC Report on Faculty Retention, 1980/81-1989/90. Those recommendations include: keeping salary and fringe benefits strong; more orientation and assistance to new faculty; preparing women and minority faculty for additional advising duties; taking into account special burdens (committees and advising) required during review and promotion; and continue and expand measures to place employee spouses in satisfying jobs. The new (1997) plan adds to this suggesting more attention is needed to child care issues; spousal employment; funding for conference and meeting travel (especially for women and minorities); supportive mentoring; and greater awareness of student evaluation of teaching to aid instructors and contribute to review and promotion processes.

Dirnfeld, Victor, 1998. “Canadian Physicians and the Brain Drain,” Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, (June 9^th) posted at www.cma.ca/advocacy/political/1998/06-09.htm

This article is a Canadian Medical Association advocacy document presenting evidence to the House of Commons for, and outlining concerns about, the recent exodus of Canadian physicians from Canada to the U.S. mainly since 1991. It suggests that the evidence is available in the federal government’s own agency figures from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) which shows a 130 per cent increase, or more than double and a net loss from 1991 to 1996 going mainly to the U.S. In 1996 alone the author reports 513 physicians left representing the annual output of 5 Canadian medical schools, their departure representing a major investment loss to Canada’s wealth and health. In addition doctors represented only one quarter of Canadian health workers admitted to the U.S. with nurses in the majority. The presentation argues that “we are losing our best and brightest” but also those “most committed” to rural and remote communities. Similarly researchers are leaving for the U.S. where funds, equipment and staff are more available to them. The cause is clear, says this document. The exodus is due to the “federal government’s unilateral and repeated decreases in the rate of increase in transfer payments beginning in the late 1970s.” A second factor for the exodus the document notes is that Canada has the highest total personal income tax burden among the G-7 countries, resulting in significantly less personal after tax income compared to the U.S. A third factor is a tendency to differentially increase tuition in professional faculties resulting in a high student debt burden. Graduates then move to the U.S. to repay their debts more quickly, where in 1993 average physician income was $265,000 (Cdn) compared to $111,000 in Canada.

Giroux, Robert J. and Robert Best. (1999). Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, (November 25^th) Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Ottawa. Also posted at www.aucc.ca/ca/briefs

This is an Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) advocacy document (speech) presenting evidence and argument to the Canada’s House of Commons Finance Committee. It reiterates the value of research and education for Canada in a “knowledge-economy” saying success in the global economy depends on human talent, adaptation and development of new ideas and discoveries. It stresses that a country must choose to make research “the cornerstone of its economic and social development” or be doomed to fail against those economies that excel at innovation. The presentation notes concern over increasing expected university enrollments over the next decade with 125,000 more students in 2010 than in 1999 and that Canada needs to build more physical and human capacity to respond. The most troubling issue it suggests is the 10 percent reduction in university faculty between 1992 and 1997. Over the next 10 years it argues that to meet increased enrollment and replace those lost 12,000 more faculty are needed. In addition concerning the renewal challenge it suggests another 20,000 new faculty will be needed to replace the cohort of those expected to retire over the next decade. Moreover the presentation expresses concern that universities will have to compete internationally to attract those 32,000 new faculty, a daunting challenge considering there are only 33,000 Canadian faculty at present. This document encapsulates material from a September 17^th 1999 AUCC “Brief” called “Research and Education: The underpinnings of Education—Canada as a knowledge-based and innovative society.”

University of British Columbia. 1999. “1. Retention and Renewal of Faculty and Staff,” part of UBC’s “Draft Academic Plan,” publicly posted at www.oldadm.ubc.ca/apac/draftacademicplan.htm

The Draft Academic plan document sets out “principles for planning the academic future” of UBC with guidelines intended to “help UBC attract and retain outstanding faculty staff and students.” The Retention and Renewal of Faculty and Staff section notes that it is faced with growing faculty and staff retirements and increased competition with other leading research universities. It stresses it is imperative that excellent people must be in place at UBC to achieve the plan’s goals and sustain UBC. Among the measures it advocates are: establishing competitive salaries; revising merit criteria equally rewarding research, teaching and service; developing partner employment policies; revising tenure and promotion criteria reflecting the plan’s goals; encouraging diversity in the faculty and staff complement; strengthening commitment to professional development; building additional faculty and staff housing; bringing physical infrastructure and information technology to 1^st class standards; and attracting the best and most committed students. It also stresses support for new faculty to establish their teaching and research careers by giving course relief to prepare courses with innovative pedagogies and write research grants; and senior faculty and staff mentoring for new faculty. Beyond this the Plan supports an ongoing Staff Development Program with staff included more directly in decision-making and learning. Moreover, it suggests paying attention to different interests and emphases in faculty contributions as their careers and roles change. Finally this section of the Plan encourages academic-based units to extend and build on these ideas as needed in their own unit based plans.

University of Western Ontario. 1995. “4. Faculty Development” in Leadership in Learning Western's Strategic Plan: Report of the Task Force on Strategic Planning: The University of Western Ontario (November) posted at www.uwo.ca/aboutuwo/statplan/faculty.html

This document is a section of the University of Western Ontario (UWO) strategic plan that has addressed some practical concerns about recruitment, retention and renewal with a policy response. It highlights challenges facing UWO as it seeks to recruit new faculty while competing successfully for the best people in the early stages of their career. As well it refers to the problem of retaining current faculty when their success makes them attractive targets for alternative employers. It also notes the challenge of renewal amidst an unprecedented wave of retirements as 60 percent leave in the next 15 years. In response UWO suggests a number of common concerns for recruitment, retention and renewal. These are salary levels competitive with other universities, merit-based increments, start-up research funds and scholarship programs. It also suggests paying particular attention to women and First Nations peoples in hiring, increasing the pool of members from such “designated groups” who can apply for faculty positions and recruiting those students at undergraduate and graduate levels.

Tables of Quantitative Results

Department Chairs

Please note that for purposes of anonymity, any comment fields (refer to the survey instruments starting on page 28) have been suppressed, and assessed only for compiling the primary document.

Table 1: Please indicate the total number of permanent, tenured and tenure track (TTT) faculty members (FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS and PERSONS by gender) in your Unit by rank. (Question 1)

Total Number of Faculty by...	FTEs	Persons
Type of Faculty		Males	Females
Full Professors	526.1	465.5	90.5
Associate Professors	433.4	321.6	136.8
Assistant Professors (Tenure Track)	232.1	143.5	97.0
Other (Tenure Track)	43.2	16.0	30.4

Table 2: In the past three years (i.e. starting in the 1996/97 academic year until present, completed searches only), how many NEW TTT FACULTY have begun their appointments in your Unit (in Full Time Equivalents, by Gender, and by Rank). (Question 2)

NEW TTT FACULTY	FTEs	Persons
Type of Faculty		Males	Females
Totals	156.47	89.4	49.8
Full Professor		15.25	4.0
Associate Professor		14.65	7.3
Assist Prof/Instructor (on TT)		77.0	54.0

Table 3: How many of these new faculty members were CANADIAN CITIZENS or PERMANENT RESIDENTS at the time of hiring? (Question 3a)

Male	83.4
Female	59.5
Total	142.9

Table 4: Of this category of new hires (i.e. Canadians or Permanent Residents), how many of the successful applicants obtained their Ph.D. in the following locations? (Question 3b)

Canada	72	Australia/New Zealand	2
United States	42	Other Country	1
Western Europe	7	Total	124

Table 5: Of the new hires who were Non-Canadians and non-Permanent Residents, how many of the successful applicants obtained their Ph.D. in the following places? (Question 3c)

Canada	1
United States	22
Western Europe	8
Total	31

Table 6: What overall has significantly ENABLED you and your Unit to hire faculty over the past three years? (Question 4a)

Totals	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant	No Answer	Total	Valid N
Quality & Rep. of your unit	41	13	1	8	63	55
Quality & Rep. of your university	33	21	0	9	63	54
Quality of students	21	30	3	9	63	54
Teaching opportunities	23	26	4	10	63	53
Collegial atmosphere of unit	32	20	2	9	63	54
Salary considerations	17	28	6	12	63	51
Research funds	21	23	8	11	63	52
Research facilities	23	20	9	11	63	52
Support for travel	7	26	17	13	63	50
Provision of teaching/research assistance	6	24	20	13	63	50
Teaching loads/release time	17	24	10	12	63	51
Library holdings	12	15	23	13	63	50
Expectations for tenure	25	20	7	11	63	52
Strong corporate/private sector partnerships	1	10	40	12	63	51
Availability of research subjects	6	18	27	12	63	51
Spousal appointments	8	10	33	12	63	51
Quality of life in your region	39	14	1	9	63	54
Cost of living in your region	11	20	16	16	63	47
Other (please specify)	8	1	3	51	63	12

Table 7: In terms of TTT faculty hired to start their appointments as of July 1st 1996 and later, please indicate the number of times you were able to hire the candidate of first, second or third choice ON THE FIRST ROUND (i.e. usually directed at Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents)? (Question 5a)

FIRST choice	101	THIRD choice	8
SECOND choice	18	FOURTH choice	1
No Suitable Candidate. Found	12

Table 8: If your department/unit did not find suitable candidates on the FIRST round (i.e. those normally directed toward Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents), how many more times did you have to search before you found a suitable candidate who accepted your departments' offer? (Question 5b)

SECOND	26
THIRD	8	FOURTH	0
No Suitable Candidate found yet	10

Table 9: In your most RECENT SEARCH, how many Canadians/Permanent Residents as well as Non-Canadians/Non-Permanent Residents submitted applications that you found met BASIC CRITERIA and how many were considered OUTSTANDING? (Question 6)

	Basic	Outstanding
Canadians/Permanent Residents	735	123
NON-Canadians/NON-Permanent Residents	641	65

Table 10: Overall, what has significantly HAMPERED you in terms of hiring new faculty? Please check off relevant factors according to their ranking in importance. N.B. These are factors which have prevented you from hiring the candidates of choice (as opposed to those who accepted -- i.e. "the lost candidates"). (Question 7a)

Totals	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant	No Answer	Total	Valid N
Quality & Rep. of your unit	4	9	35	15	63	48
Quality & Rep. of your university	3	14	31	15	63	48
Quality of students	5	16	27	15	63	48
Teaching opportunities	5	16	27	15	63	48
Collegial atmosphere of unit	2	10	35	16	63	47
Salary considerations	33	15	3	12	63	51
Research funds	19	19	9	16	63	47
Research facilities	17	17	12	17	63	46
Support for travel	9	12	25	17	63	46
Provision of teaching/research assistance	6	19	20	18	63	45
Teaching loads/release time	11	18	19	15	63	48
Library holdings	6	9	31	17	63	46
Expectations for tenure	3	13	30	17	63	46
Strong corporate/private sector partnerships	1	8	37	17	63	46
Availability of research subjects	0	8	37	18	63	45
Spousal appointments	10	14	24	15	63	48
Quality of life in your region	3	7	35	18	63	45
Cost of living in your region	30	12	7	14	63	49
Other (please specify)	7	1	3	52	63	11

Table 11: Since June 30th, 1996, how many TTT faculty members in your Unit have either RETIRED at normal retirement age (65) or taken an EARLY RETIREMENT (or buy-out)? Please indicate the number of males and females in each instance. (Question 8)

	Males	Females	Total
Normal Retirement	76	13	89
Early Retirement	58	12	70
Total	134	25	159

Table 12: For reasons other than retirement, please indicate the number and categorizations of attrition of TTT faculty members in your Unit since June 30, 1996 according to gender. (Question 9)

Number of TTT Faculty	Male	Female	Total
Resignation	72	24	96
Non-renewal of appointment	4	2	6
Illness or Death	3	0	3
Unknown	1	3	4
Other	4	4	8
	84	33	117

Table 13: In terms of faculty members who have left over the last three years for reasons other than retirement, please indicate the location and nature of their new employment. (Question 10)

In….	Canada	US of A	Elsewhere	Total
Other University	18	23	10	51
University-College or other Post Sec.	1	2	0	3
Private Sector	7	5	1	13
Public Sector	4	0	1	5
Unknown	0	3	0	3
Other	5	0	0	5
	35	33	12	80

Table 14: Does your Unit, Faculty or University conduct "exit interviews" (or other similar methods) to gather information on the reasons why faculty resign? (Question 11)

Institution	Yes	No	No Answer	Total	Valid N
SFU	3	7	3	13	10
UBC	10	16	6	32	26
UNBC	1	2	1	4	3
Uvic	8	6	0	14	14
Total	22	31	10	63	53

Table 15: Does your teaching/research unit offer any incentives to RETAIN faculty members? (Question 12)

Totals	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant	No Answer	Total	Valid N
Salary top ups & honoraria	23	8	15	17	63	46
Research funds	12	17	16	18	63	45
Research facilities	13	12	19	19	63	44
Travel funds & other benefits	8	16	20	19	63	44
Reduction in workload	13	23	10	17	63	46
Modification of appointment (50%)	7	16	19	21	63	42
Provision of teaching & research assistance	10	8	26	19	63	44
Spousal appointments	7	12	23	21	63	42
Other (specify)	3	1	6	53	63	10

Table 16: What has significantly hampered you/your Unit to RETAIN faculty? (Question 13a)

Totals	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant	No Answer	Total	Valid N
Quality & Rep. of unit	6	4	22	31	63	32
Quality & Rep. of university	4	6	21	32	63	31
Quality of students	4	6	21	32	63	31
Teaching considerations/opportunities	5	6	22	30	63	33
Collegial atmosphere	3	6	24	30	63	33
Salary considerations	20	11	4	28	63	35
Research funds	11	8	13	31	63	32
Research facilities	9	11	12	31	63	32
Support for travel	6	9	17	31	63	32
Provision of teaching/research assistance	7	10	16	30	63	33
Teaching loads/release time	8	10	15	30	63	33
Library holdings	1	7	24	31	63	32
Expectations for tenure & promotion	6	7	19	31	63	32
Lack of or poor quality corporate/private sector partnerships	2	3	25	33	63	30
Availability of research subjects	0	3	27	33	63	30
Spousal appointments	6	9	17	31	63	32
Quality of life in region	2	5	23	33	63	30
Cost of living in region	12	9	11	31	63	32
Attractive offer from other (incl. Current) employer	22	7	4	30	63	33
Family considerations	7	11	11	34	63	29
Other (specify)	6	1	5	51	63	12

New Hires

Table 17: Please indicate the (1) name and (2) location of your former employer. If you were unemployed, a post-doctoral fellow or a PhD student, please indicate in Question 2a.FORMER EMPLOYER CANADIAN? (Question 1)[1]

No Answer	27	Canadian Origins	24
Non Canadian Origins	56	Total	107

Table 18: If you were unemployed, a post-doctoral fellow or a Ph.D. student, please indicate. (Question 2a)

No Answer	66	Other, please indicate	19
A post-doctoral fellow	22	Total	107

Table 19: Where did you obtain your PhD? Please indicate the name and location of the university—and the year—you obtained your degree. (Question 3)

No Answer	5	New Zealand	1
Argentina	1	Switzerland	1
Canada	51	UK	11
France	1	US	35
New Zealand	1	Asia	1
		Total	107

Table 20: Were you a Canadian Citizen or a Permanent Resident at the time of hiring? (If no, please answer 5a below. If yes, please skip to Question 6.) (Question 5)

No	15
Yes	92
Total	107

Table 21: How many other full-time job offers did you have at the time of hiring? (Question 6)

0	52	4	2
1	30	5	1
2	16	8	2
3	4	Total	107

Table 22: How important were each of the following factors to your decision to apply for and accept your current position? (Question 8)

Summary	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Unimportant	Not Applicable	No Answer	Total	Valid N
Quality & Rep. of your current Teaching/Research Unit	58	34	9	3	3	107	104
Quality & Rep. of your current University	43	55	7	1	1	107	106
Collegial atmosphere or teaching/research unit	63	32	9	2	1	107	106
Salary considerations (including benefits)	37	59	9	1	1	107	106
Research Funds	40	41	16	9	1	107	106
Research Facilities	37	45	16	8	1	107	106
Teaching loads/Release time	46	42	14	4	1	107	106
Travel funds	16	33	48	8	2	107	105
Corporate / Private sector partnerships	5	21	50	30	1	107	106
Library holdings	13	52	33	7	2	107	105
Provision of teaching/Research Assistance	14	39	37	15	2	107	105
Spousal Appointments	12	6	38	48	3	107	104
Quality of life in your region	75	23	6	2	1	107	106
Cost of living in your region	30	49	22	5	1	107	106
Availability of research subjects	9	26	31	39	2	107	105
Expectations of tenure & promotion	51	37	10	8	1	107	106
Teaching opportunities (e.g. grad students)	47	44	12	2	2	107	105
Quality of students	44	52	9	1	1	107	106
Vision & direction of the Administrative Unit	10	6	3	4	84	107	23
Structural Blockages to Policy Implementation