Evidence of meeting #25 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was office.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, this has nothing to do with the actual mandate Dr. Carty had as national science advisor.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Mr. Chair, if I could, this has everything to do with the role of this individual in the course of his work on behalf of the Government of Canada, in the roles that we're concerned with here. These are expenditures and commitments that have been made by this office and they are a matter of public record. In the course of this presentation that we've seen this morning, rationalizing the kinds of expenses that are on the public tab, Mr. Chairman, should in fact be queried against the assertions that Dr. Carty has made. That was my point.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister, when asked a question on Dr. Carty, actually said in the House of Commons that Dr. Carty was “an eminent Canadian who voluntarily took his retirement”.
The fact is, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Stanton, by going into a completely separate mandate that Dr. Carty has had, which has no relevance on his efficacy or responsibility as national science advisor, is conducting a witch hunt to try to distract the committee from the issue at hand, and that is the efficacy of the role of the national science advisor and the importance of that role.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
I'm going to remind members what the actual motion was:
That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology study the Government of Canada's decision to phase out the position of National Science Advisor; that the committee invite Dr. Arthur Carty, National Science Advisor to the Government of Canada, to immediately appear before the Committee; and that the Committee report to the House its findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Mr. Stanton, my understanding was that you were moving on to another topic.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
--Office of the National Science Advisor, which commenced, as I understand, from May 2004 on. I'll go back to my question.
In terms of the responsibility we have for value for public investment, and I would say again on average you have $100,000 of travel and hospitality, 13% of your budget, including numerous items, which are very small, very minute. I wonder how you can rationalize those types of expenses against the kinds of assertions you made, up to and including, by the way.... I mean, in the position you're in, would it not be perfectly proper to take a question from the Prime Minister over the phone, even if you did happen to be on holidays?
11:45 a.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Sorry, could you say that again?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Not with dismay. I didn't say it with dismay. It was a fact of life that I worked weekends and I worked on holidays too.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Why do you submit expenses for cups of coffee and lunches, a $1.47? These are small items, Dr. Carty.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Well, I thought I did, Mr. Chair. I mean, perhaps could he just rationalize this 13%.
11:45 a.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Perhaps I could add some information that might be relevant here.
With regard to the budget and the staffing of my office, there are offices of national science advisors and chief scientists around the world. In the United Kingdom, Sir David King, in his office, had a staff of 120 people, and I haven't bothered to ask what his expenditures are, but I can tell you that it's multi-millions of dollars. Jack Marburger in the United States has a staff of 60 people and similar expenses.
The fact of the matter is that with an international mandate my office was hosting international visitors. In fact, you can't not provide coffee and donuts and the occasional meal for international visitors.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning.
We've had a lot of discussion at this committee, because it is the industry committee, about our economy, competitiveness, and globalization. Certainly there are some who believe that in order to position ourselves best for the future it's a matter of perpetual tax cuts and lowering labour costs. It seems to me that the importance of science is often overlooked, not only in positioning our economy but in positioning our country in the world and in the 21st century economy.
You said in your remarks that your office was underfunded, that you had no permanent staff initially. After spending a lifetime in science and research, what do you think would be the best approach a government could take to really take advantage of the investment that it has made in training skilled people in various fields of science, in order to take best advantage of that knowledge to position our country for the future?
11:45 a.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Well, you asked a very broad question and completed it with a question about how we best tackle the issues of economic and societal benefit through whatever means. I have my own views about the combination of factors and the combination of investments that would help do that.
There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that investing in science is absolutely crucial and that Canada has a real opportunity. We have invested very heavily. We've reached the highest position in the G8 in terms of per capita investments in university research. It's very important that this capacity that is being built up is maintained and built upon and not just sustained, that we take advantage of it and move further. We've brought really highly qualified people into the country through a number of measures. We've invested in infrastructure. The overall capacity is significantly greater now than it was in the late 1990s. That is an opportunity to take advantage of, to continue to invest heavily for the future.
Now, the other side of it is that, of course, that's not everything. Investing in knowledge—knowledge generation—is only a part of the equation. You need to think about industrial innovation, the strength of the industrial side of your economy, and how best to get that on an even keel and to create a competitive advantage. That is more difficult. It's a combination of things such as reduced taxes, support for R and D tax credits, all of the measures that this country and others have taken, but improved. For example, I think that in the SR and ED tax credits one can have tax credits that are a positive in the sense that they might reflect an increased investment in university-industry collaborations, for example, or there might be incremental credits that could be added to a company that invests more in R and D a year ahead.
There are certainly many things one can do. It's a difficult question, and not many countries have actually solved this problem. I agree with you that there are some measures that could be taken, and I agree with you on the primacy of investing in the science enterprise.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Do you think we've lived up to our potential in terms of giving science a value-added piece to our economy that investing in science can bring? Do you think we've really lived up to our potential here?
11:50 a.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Well, if you go back 20 years, Canada was very much a resource-based economy. Now we're in a resource boom at the moment, so that is still apparent. Then you look further and find that we have a knowledge-based economy. We have, for example, a vibrant aerospace sector. We have the second-largest biotech sector in the world by number of companies.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Can I ask you something on that? Yesterday we had hearings on the sale of MDA, and we had a discussion about the fact that we have no space policy, for example, and here we have our largest and most important aerospace company, one that's taken advantage of tax credits and grants and investments, and this technology now all moving to the United States. Regardless of whether or not we'll get data from the current investment, it makes one wonder about the future of space policy and investment and the potential for missed opportunities in the future in that sector.
11:50 a.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Well, MacDonald Dettwiler is...sorry.