Industry Committee on March 6th, 2008

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

You earn a salary that's somewhere between $222,000 and $262,000. I won't ask you how much you earn—only if you want to volunteer the information. Then you go out and you do your job. You do your job, with pencil in hand, to be able to charge to the Government of Canada most things that you pay. You couldn't pay a breakfast on June 24, 2004—little things like 87¢ for coffee or refreshments.

What kind of scope does that mean you have? As a public servant, as one of the most important members of the science institutions of Canada, is that the message you're giving to other public servants, that once you have an expense account, 87¢ is good enough and you can charge that?

Could you explain that to me, Mr. Carty?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Well, one has to meet people. Breakfast is often a good way, at 7 a.m., to meet a key person who is not available elsewhere.

In terms of an 87¢ coffee, I have always, as far as I can tell, paid for my own coffee. I go down and buy my own coffee every time in the morning. If there are other guests who want coffee, yes, it might be charged to my account.

I have never overcharged the government for anything. In fact, I avoid—I avoid—charging per diem. I will never accept a per diem in an instance where, for example, a dinner is provided.

I think I've been honest and above board in all of this. None of these things are ridiculous expenditures.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. Your time's up, Mr. Arthur.

We'll go to Ms. Nash, please.

Ms. Nash has waived; we'll go to Mr. Brison.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Carty, I want to apologize to you on behalf of this committee. The fact is that our committee voted to have you appear before the committee in order to better determine what is the best direction for the role of the national science advisor and its potential synergy with the Science, Technology and Innovation Council, and how, in broader terms, that fits into a general science strategy for our country.

You're somebody who has served as a senior academic for 27 years, ten years heading the NRC. Having been our national science advisor, you have a lot of information and knowledge and expertise and perspective to bring to that.

Some of us wanted to hear that perspective and to benefit from that. Others--who as members of Parliament have expenses that in most cases have exceeded yours, and in all cases do not have the same level of transparency around their travel or hospitality expenses or the same need to disclose that you as a public servant have had--have hidden behind that veil and that hypocrisy to attack you unnecessarily and unfairly.

So I apologize to you, Dr. Carty. It's difficult to get good people and to retain good people in the public service, and parliamentarians have a responsibility to not debase public servants further. When they want to provide good advice to a committee, or good advice based on science to a Prime Minister, we ought to encourage that. We should not be attacking our institutions, as it further reduces the capacity for our government and our public service to function together for the betterment of all Canadians.

Dr. Carty, on the role that you see for the national science advisor and the synergy with the government's strategy relative to the Science, Technology and Innovation Council, you've said that you see a synergistic role between the two. You've indicated that some other countries are in fact pursuing that kind of role.

Do you see a commercial value to Canada on the research and development and commercialization, for instance, of clean energy and clean environmental technologies? Some people have indicated, and some experts have indicated, internationally and within Canada, that this could be one of the fastest-growing areas of the 21st century economy. We have a job, as a committee, to try to understand the role between research and development, commercialization and competitiveness.

Do you see that as one of the areas we should be focused on as a country, trying to position ourselves in the whole area of clean tech--environmental technologies and clean energy?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Yes, I would share your optimism on that, for a number of reasons: first of all, because Canada has a base of expertise in its institutions—in the universities and government labs and in the National Research Council—in many of these areas; and because there are some innovative Canadian companies, innovative small companies as well as larger ones, in the area.

For example, in biofuels we have a very innovative company here in Ottawa called Iogen Corporation, which is a cellulose ethanol company. There's another company called Lignol Energy Corporation, which is using forest biomass to produce bioproducts. We have a lot of experience in Canada in carbon sequestration and storage and using carbon dioxide to recover oil from spent oil fields. That's in the Weyburn project in Saskatchewan, which is an example to the rest of the world. In that sense, we have a number of companies that have shown leadership. Another one is a company called ARISE Technologies Corporation, which is in the solar technology area.

So yes, it's an area of tremendous development and one where we can benefit.

I would also add something else, though. I really believe in the idea that regulation stimulates innovation and that you get innovation with good regulation. I've heard many CEOs at conferences pointing out that they need a road map so that they can then innovate and drive change.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 20 seconds.

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

Dr. Carty, could you provide the committee with your mandate letter from Minister Bernier? You said earlier that in fact the role was limited, from your role advising the Prime Minister. I think it would be helpful to know that.

I learned of the elimination of the role of science advisor actually at Davos, at the World Economic Forum conference.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The question, Mr. Brison? Your time is up.

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

This is an international issue, Mr. Chair, and I'd appreciate the views of Dr. Carty on what impact the elimination of the role has on our branding in the area of science internationally.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Dr. Carty.

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I mentioned that some of my colleagues were surprised and upset about the turn of events. Whether that is a continuing concern will, I think, depend on how things evolve. If our government invests significantly in science and technology in the years ahead, we can undoubtedly remain a leader. The science and technology strategy points the way forward in that regard.

There are, I think, negative consequences of eliminating the position. I don't say that simply because I want it; I am not speaking personally. I just believe that philosophically we should have a national science advisor.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

We'll go to Mr. Carrie, please.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you very much, Dr. Carty.

I note that you've said from day one that your office has been inadequately funded and has had no permanent staff other than you yourself. We have been criticized for terminating your office, but what the government is trying to do is provide an office that can give them substantive policy advice to move the entire agenda forward.

I'd like to quote from Research Money. A gentleman named Mark Henderson wrote this. He said:

The role of the NSA was hamstrung from the beginning due to a minuscule budget, a vague mandate and the lack of a reporting mechanism to Cabinet. Several have criticized Carty for failing to negotiate a clear mandate before accepting the position. Indeed, Carty told Research Money in early 2005 that he was seeking a clarification and strengthening of his mandate from Paul Martin, but nothing came of the attempt.

And he quotes you as saying, “There are a lot of expectations being put on this office but without any mechanism for inputting policy advice to the highest levels, I'm not going to be very effective”. That's what he has quoted you as saying.

So I think there's a realization that with your office there were some challenges.

The government has put together STIC. From what you've said today, it almost sounds like what you're recommending. We have Dr. Alper, who is chairing it, with 17 other people in the council giving him advice—prominent people.

You seem to be criticizing STIC as not being independent because it has three DMs, but we've also heard that you had a committee of DMs under you. Do you feel that your office alone could give better advice to a minister or a Prime Minister than STIC, which includes 18 other people, with Dr. Alper as the chair?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

That's just not true. I believe the two things are extremely complementary. They fulfill somewhat different roles, but they contribute to a balance of science advice going to cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister, which we need.

The science advisory community in Canada isn't exactly large. Why would we eliminate a piece of it?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I take your comment, but the way I look at it and I think the way the government looks at it too, is not necessarily eliminating; it's almost taking your exact advice, where you say you need somebody at the head. And this is where Dr. Howard Alper comes in, with 17 other prominent scientists and people to advise him. You seem to criticize them for not being arm's length, but--

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

No, I'm not criticizing STIC. STIC has only just started its work. There are eminent people on it, and it may well produce some excellent advice, but that won't be all the advice that's needed.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

What I'm saying, though, is this. With your office as an under-funded office, with you yourself as the only regular employee, are you saying your office would have been better to continue with that than to go with this new direction? I did write down that you said it wasn't arm's length, that it may not be independent, that you're going to have to reserve judgment on its effectiveness. But even you, as a public servant, sir, how are you more independent than this council would be?

I'm not quite getting where your criticism is coming from. Could you explain that?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

The question of independence will have to be proved. STIC doesn't report publicly; it reports to cabinet. Its reports are not necessarily going to be public knowledge. The high end of a national science advisor is to provide sound, non-partisan, unbiased, independent science advice, and the reporting mechanism should provide for that.

As I say, the two things should be complementary. You have to remember that prior to STIC there was the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, and before that the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, and before that the Science Council. So we have a history in Canada of experiments in science advisory--

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

We're trying to get it right. We've had a lot of experiments, and I do believe STIC will report. They will be reporting through the state of the nation.

When your office was set up, it was to report directly to the Prime Minister. Did you have agendas for the meetings, how often you met with the Prime Minister in official meetings, what policies you were giving him directly, and was that made public through reporting? Do you have those records of how many meetings you had with the former Prime Minister? Can you give us an idea?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I probably do, but they were more informal. Prime Ministers are very busy. You know that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

But how many formal meetings did you have to tell the Prime Minister about the policy directions you'd like to see this country move ahead with? Was it five, was it 10, was it 20, once a year, twice a year or--

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

In my statement I've tried to outline some of the things where we made a major contribution in influencing government decisions. That's how it was done. I would engage with the Prime Minister or with cabinet ministers to try to say to them, “This is an important issue, an important problem that Canada has to solve, and here's a way forward.”

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I heard you. But your criticism of STIC is that it's not going to be reporting regularly, yet you've brought the example that instead of a meeting, it was a telephone call over vacation. I'm just trying to see--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Carrie, we're well over time here.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

--where the criticism is.