Industry Committee on March 6th, 2008

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Mr. Chairman, I will answer the question in English, for the sake of clarity.

As a correction, I actually was president of the National Research Council, which is the government's department that is really the principal R and D arm of government. Prior to that, I was an academic. So I have had short periods in industry, but my experience has largely been academic and government.

Can I ask you to repeat the second part of your question?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Does your office's move to Industry Canada reflect the fact that science is less important? I understand that several countries have a special advisor assigned to the Prime Minister's Office.

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Certainly that would be the interpretation that many members of the science community would have taken, that it was a down-step or a downgrading of the function.

One other thing I'd say here is that I think it is very important these days that our leaders express an interest in science and are committed to it. If that doesn't happen, then what does it say about the rest of the country? I think that is important. It's subtle, but it gives a message, though, that there's a leadership and vision.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I want to talk about the creation of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council. If I understand correctly, the Council is composed of 18 people from various sectors, including university academics, business leaders and public servants.

What assurances do we have that the 18 STIC members will have the same ability to think independently as they did under the NSC?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Let me say that, first of all, I've mentioned the need for both a science advisor and a council.

As far as STIC is concerned, I'd say a number of things. First of all, the membership includes some prominent people in the research community—three Canada research chairs, four university and college presidents, presidents of private sector corporations, and three deputy ministers of the federal government. So in total that's an impressive group of people. STIC has only just started its work, so we'll have to reserve judgment on its effectiveness until we see the results of their work, but it is an eminent body, no question.

As I said, in many advanced countries the capacity and capability to provide non-partisan, independent advice comes from a science advisor—a chief scientist—and a council. I also point out that the science advisor should have the ear of the prime minister or the president and can be called on for rapid counsel and advice, or to undertake an investigation and a study on a whole range of critical issues—BSE, bird flu, pandemics, etc., or even climate change.

So in my view, and answering your question, it's unlikely that STIC will be able to fulfill all the demands for both immediate and long-term independent and transparent advice for the following reasons. First, it isn't really an arm's-length, independent body. Three of the members are deputy ministers in the government. In one sense that might be good, because you're getting the government perspective in there, but it does raise a question about whether it would be independent.

STIC doesn't report publicly, and its reports, as far as I know, will not be made public, nor might they be made available to Parliament.

Members of STIC, as with all advisory councils, are part-time people. The national science advisor and his office are full-time employees. So you have a bit of a difference there.

I'd say also that the modus operandi of STIC, which is studying selective topics that are obviously of interest to government and then reporting to the minister and the cabinet, is remarkably similar to the way the previous Advisory Council on Science and Technology operated, and ultimately that turned out not to be very successful.

So there are just a few points—pluses and minuses—I'd say about STIC.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, madame Brunelle.

Mr. Stanton, please.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Dr. Carty.

I want to start by saying, as a matter of context, that one of the responsibilities we have here as parliamentarians is to be conscious of the value that is received for the public dollars we invest in various offices and programs.

I note that your office budget in the last fiscal year crept up on $815,000. It was forecast to be over $1 million this year. I also take note of the fact that in the last four years, on average, your expenditures on hospitality and travel crept up about $100,000 per year. That's coming up on 12% or 13% of your total budget.

And looking at some of the details, in addition to the mid-$230,000—I'm not sure what your actual salary is, I don't have the specifics, but the salary category is between $222,000 and $262,000—this is a big expenditure.

You've had extensive travel and expenses submitted for this office, and yet you indicate in your remarks that your office was inadequately funded and staffed. Dr. Carty, from what I see, wouldn't you take some responsibility for making sure that things like travel expenses are kept more in line so you would have more dollars available for this office?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

That's an interesting comment. One of the principal elements of my mandate, specifically designated by the Minister of Industry, was being an international ambassador for science and technology, understanding and knowing about international developments in science and technology, being Canada's representative at the G8 Carnegie meetings, which are held twice annually.

So there's no question that I have done a lot of international travel. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has used my office extensively. I would honestly say those have been very worthwhile expenditures that couldn't have been possible without our commitment to an S and T ambassadorial role.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Dr. Carty, in 2004 you dinged the taxpayer for $3,000 for tickets to--

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, in respect for--

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The pejorative term, when we have a witness, “you dinged the taxpayer”.... You're talking about $100,000 a year in expenses. Most members of Parliament spend more than that—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Brison, if you want the floor, you can make a point of order, but you cannot interrupt another member's questioning.

Is this a point of order?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

May I make a point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A point of order.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

We have a responsibility when we have witnesses not to use pejorative language to attack them and not to create straw man arguments that are not intellectually honest. Most members of Parliament spend far more than $100,000 a year on travel and hospitality. To use the term “dinging the taxpayer” for somebody who served as head of the NRC for 10 years and is a member of the Order of Canada, who has served the country.... To be attacked like this by a member is not appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison. That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate.

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Mr. Chairman, can I make another point here?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The member has the time.

Mr. Stanton, it's your time.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Dr. Carty, I appreciate your last comments. I wonder how you might reason that an expenditure of some $3,000 to attend an opera soirée fits into the kind of expenses that would be suited to this office. In addition, I see several expenses in here—this is going back to shades of David Dingwall--charges of 87¢ for a cup of coffee, individual expenses that clearly in an office and in a position of your stature become rather paltry expenses, and you still continue to put that on the public tab. Can you explain that?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Can I just ask which expenditure of $3,000 you're referring to? I do attend the opera with my wife, but my office has never spent $3,000 on Opera Lyra.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

As a matter of the travel and hospitality expense report submitted by your office on February 21, 2004, opera soirée, without a lot of detail--

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I'm sorry, but I was not national science advisor in February 2004.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

These were the expenses that were submitted. They were part of the public record, I assume, in the course of your work with the National Research Council. How would an expense like that fit into your mandate?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

This has nothing to do with the national science advisor. I don't know if it's a question I can answer in the context of NRC, but it's irrelevant here, I think.