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.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Carty, in his letter to you of December 13, 2007, Minister Prentice referred to your having built a strong and well-respected Canadian presence at forums such as the G8 Carnegie Group and the Canada-India Joint Science and Technology Committee. Could you explain the work at those kinds of forums and the impact and benefit to Canada?
12:30 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
I will take the last one first.
In terms of the Canada-India collaboration on science and technology, I am the co-chair with my counterpart in India, Dr. Ramasami. We have a joint committee that sets the direction for the collaboration. Actually, we'll be meeting in two weeks in India to go through the progress we've made and the prospects for the future. We'll set the stage for what's to come in the India-Canada collaboration, which I consider to be very important. Most people do.
One other part of that, which I did mention briefly, is that until the agreement with India, Canada hadn't signed an S and T agreement with another country in many years. This was the first agreement that was negotiated with a rapidly emerging economy.
I personally played a role not only in designing that program but in ensuring that there was some funding for it. The funding isn't extensive--$20 million in the four countries. The existence of that has managed to leverage other contributions from provinces--Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and two other provinces. This is now a program that is beginning to show success.
Another organization, another forum I have played a role in, is the Science and Technology in Society forum that was created by Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. It's held once a year in Kyoto and it is meant to look at the lights and shadows, the positive impacts but also the difficulties of science in society.
Last year when we held this, in part as a result of my efforts, we had a large group of Canadians there. I think 17 prominent Canadians appeared at that forum. They presented talks or chaired sessions. This was a very prominent opportunity for Canada to make an impact. And that impact was made. People recognized that we were important. I think that has really been significant.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'm fairly confident that down the road somewhere, maybe in the not-too-distant future, we will have a national science advisor here once again. It seems to me that in the past in the U.S. the national science advisor was very visible, a person who they would put out there to represent the scientific community. Do you see that as a possibility here in Canada? I would like our national science advisor to be visible, to be on television, to represent the community. I think Canadians should be proud of that--that we are on top of things. Do you see that as a possible role down the road?
12:35 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
With all due respect, I don't think it's up to me to suggest.... I'd hope and like to see it happen, but--
12:35 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Yes. I'm not going to be working for the government anymore after the end of March. There are many prominent people around the country who could serve in this role very effectively.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Do you think they should be more visible, that they should speak on behalf of the scientific community?
12:35 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Yes. Visibility, in part, is due to what you take on and what you accomplish. I think with limited resources we've accomplished a lot.
It is true that if the office had been set up properly in the first place, with appropriate staffing and an appropriate budget, we would have achieved a lot more, which would have given even greater visibility. The visibility at the moment is partly in those areas where we've had an impact, in those communities we've had an impact on.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Carty, I wanted to get back to the reporting mechanisms you talked about. You said the new STIC really doesn't have a reporting mechanism.
12:35 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
No, I didn't say it didn't have a reporting--
12:35 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
It reports to the minister, Minister Prentice, who will then report to cabinet.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
What I wanted to read actually is one of the things with this new structure. It does have a clear mandate, and I'd just like to read it for you. The science and technology strategy announced the creation of a Science, Technology and Innovation Council, which is mandated to “provide the government with policy advice on S and T issues and produce regular state-of-the-nation reports that benchmark Canada's S and T performance against international standards of excellence”.
So the idea here is to give it a specific mandate, and it talks about reporting back for research commercialization, refining the four research priorities, establishing S and T strategy, using government procurement to stimulate business innovation, and improving the benefits to Canada from international S and T collaborations. What this government has tried to do is to look at science and have it accountable, have some really good reporting structures in there.
Getting back to the article by Mark Henderson from Research Money, he really did say you were hamstrung, that there was a lack of reporting mechanism to cabinet, that you did try to strengthen the mandate from Paul Martin, but nothing came of the attempt. Was that true?
12:40 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
I think the reporting is not how you're interpreting it. It wasn't so much reporting as it was getting issues to the cabinet table that was the issue.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
Having a direct relationship with a minister, where the minister would then take propositions forward to the cabinet table, is obviously also an important element in this. It's not just the Prime Minister; it's getting to cabinet with propositions that have seen input from a lot of sources. I didn't have that at the beginning.
12:40 p.m.
National Science Advisor, Office of the National Science Advisor, Department of Industry
No.
