Industry Committee on June 5th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the 44th meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to order, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). We are continuing our study of Canadian science and technology.

We have with us today, first of all, by video conference, Mr. Darin Barney, who is the Canada research chair in technology and citizenship at McGill University.

Secondly, we have, from the Canadian Association of Science Centres, Tracy Ross, executive director; Mr. Scott Langen, who is the president; and Tammy Adkin, the vice-president.

We have, from the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering, representative Mr. Ian Rutherford, executive director of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; and the past chair, Mr. Denis St-Onge.

From Science for Peace, we have two individuals: the treasurer, Mr. Derek Paul; and United Nations representative, Mr. Walter Dorn.

Welcome.

We will start in the order I outlined. Each organization has up to five minutes for an opening presentation, and then we'll go into questions from members.

Mr. Barney, we'll start with you for a five-minute presentation.

[Darin Barney, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, and thank you for inviting me to speak with you today.

As those of you who've seen my brief will know, the recommendations I make in it are very few and modest. They centre around the recommendation that the committee consider making it a priority to establish institutional mechanisms for enhanced citizen engagement on issues of science and technology policy and development in Canada.

The argument is premised on the idea that the significance of science and technology and their development extend beyond the very important role they play in ensuring the competitiveness and growth of the Canadian economy, but that they extend into broader corners of social and political life, even beyond those very important implications.

Science and technology are political in many senses. The priorities around them emerge from political processes. People make decisions in particular institutional contexts, with particular interests in mind. And of course science and technological development also have very important political consequences: resources are distributed; practices are established; relationships are established; and some interests are served better than others through practices and processes of scientific investigation and development.

As such, I think there's a real need for scientific and technological development to be subjected to democratic deliberation by citizens, both to legitimize in a democratic sense the policy directions that governments take, the regulatory decisions that agencies take, and the funding decisions that funding bodies take, and also to optimize those decisions, to bring to the table a broader array of perspectives, views, and experiences that have been typically the case in the development of science and technology policy in Canada.

Currently, institutional frameworks for science and technology policy and decision-making in governments don't place a high priority on citizen engagement. That doesn't mean there is no citizen engagement, but I think, by and large, we've done a much better job of making sure we take into account the views of experts and stakeholders, which are very important and absolutely must have a place at the table when it comes to the development of science and technology policy. But citizens have had less attention paid to them--citizens who don't fall into those categories of experts and stakeholders. When it comes to citizen engagement, with some exceptions, efforts have been more sporadic, more ad hoc, and less well developed than our attention to stakeholder and expert engagement when it comes to science and technology advice to government.

So my brief outlines the case for greater attention to citizen engagement and in fact makes the recommendation that the committee consider the possibility of recommending the establishment of an institution whose primary focus is to engage Canadian citizens on issues of science and technology development, not as an extra, not as an add-on to its primary activity, but focused and dedicated specifically to fulfilling that role.

That's the substance of my brief, and I'd be happy to speak to it in regard to any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barney, for your presentation.

We'll go now to Mr. Langen or Ms. Ross. Who will be presenting?

[Scott Langen, President, Canadian Association of Science Centres]

I will start.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Please begin.

[Scott Langen]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, honourable members, mesdames et monsieurs. On behalf of the Canadian Association of Science Centres, thank you for the opportunity this morning to speak on behalf of science centres and science engagement organizations.

Our interest in the study before you falls under the themes of science advice to government, big science, and Canada's position in global science and technology. You'll hear from us on how science centres and science engagement organizations, we believe, are fundamental components or a foundation to the science and knowledge infrastructure in Canada. Our interest is in promoting today a national investment framework that will effectively mobilize and engage this resource, or citizen engagement, if you will. While other countries move ahead with major strategies, Canada has yet to move forward, although I think today is a big part of that, and we thank you for that. Finally, you'll hear about our STEP Up Canada proposal, a science and technology engagement program for all Canadians.

I'll be brief, but I will speak about what a science centre is. A science centre or a science promotion organization is a place where individuals are challenged and inspired to think differently—to think differently about science and technology, to be innovative, to learn how to be problem solvers and critical thinkers. We take an approach, not static, but of very dynamic engagement, participatory, hands-on, and experiential. We believe the ability to think differently in science and technology, of course, is the foundation for our overall innovation capacity within Canada.

Very briefly, the Canadian Association of Science Centres—or, as I will call it from here on in, CASC—is a 44-member organization. We are across Canada. We represent everything from outreach organizations to science centres to science literacy groups. For the most part, on an annual basis, our impact is about eight million visits a year, which I've been told is a little bit more than the CFL attendance, so there is a huge community dividend and a significant economic impact.

As the federal government contemplates the next phase of the science and technology strategy, we bring to your attention our proposal on STEP Up Canada, and we've brought copies for all members here today that will be handed out in both English and French. The STEP Up Canada proposal complements existing Government of Canada initiatives to enhance the formal education, the R and D, the commercialization, and specifically as it relates to what government calls “the people advantage”.

Within our STEP Up Canada proposal, there is a suggestion of an investment of $200 million over five years. That is less than 0.5% of the current federal science and technology budget. We have three objectives we want to achieve through that. One is that Canada's communities have the resources to celebrate our successes in science, to build the awareness, the interest, and the support for the science that takes place. Two, of course, is to inspire Canadians to think differently and for young minds to think more innovatively. Three is to empower Canadians with the knowledge to meet the complex challenges that we don't know are around the corner for the next 10 to 15 years. Ultimately, those three objectives, we believe, help to build what we call a science culture.

The STEP Up Canada proposal is also our answer, we believe, to some of the challenges and deficits Canada is facing. Canada continues to fall behind in productivity and innovation rankings. Recent findings show that university enrolments in the fields of computer science and mathematics have fallen sharply and that science and math performance of young Canadians in most provinces has also begun to decline.

How do we meet this serious challenge to Canada's future? What we do know is that there is a direct link supporting science centres and generating innovation, science and technology, and workforce. We do know that individuals who choose eventual careers within math, science, and technology have had positive hands-on experiences within science centres, natural museums, and other science engagement organizations. We know that over time a supportive science culture also supports the advancements within big science.

I will wrap up here because I know time is of the essence, but I'll speak briefly to some international examples.

There are at least seven OECD countries that have nationwide programs designed to enhance knowledge and science culture. Portugal, whose proportion of science and technology graduates exceeds the OECD average, supports a national science centre network and a national science and technology week. Japan is, again, very similar.

The structures proposed in our STEP Up Canada program will help to create that national investment strategy.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that science centres are, we believe, the foundation of Canada's innovation system. It is the starting point for developing and engaging an S and T capacity. It's part of the answer to addressing the knowledge and innovation deficits. We know there are leading international examples, and STEP Up Canada will help that national investment framework. It leverages additional dollars out of provinces, the private sector, and municipalities, and it will build that science culture and knowledge infrastructure.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Langen.

Mr. Rutherford, will you be presenting? I should mention that you do the bacon and eggheads breakfast here on Parliament Hill.

[Ian Rutherford, Representative, Executive Director of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Partnership Group for Science and Engineering]

Yes, I was going to mention that.

I'd like to thank the committee for the chance to appear before you. We did submit a brief earlier, and I hope you have all had a chance to look at it.

The Partnership Group for Science and Engineering is an umbrella group for an association of more than 25 professional and scientific organizations. I guess we fall into the category of experts and stakeholders mentioned by our first witness. We certainly would like the government to listen to experts and stakeholders as well as the general public. Of course, we are very interested in educating and interacting with the general public ourselves.

I guess we're best known for the bacon and eggheads breakfast, but we do a number of other things. We work in partnership with government to try to advance research and innovation for the benefit of all sectors of Canadian society.

Our brief basically addressed two of the themes, the same two themes that were addressed by the science centres, namely, the matter of science advice to government and big science projects vis-à-vis Canada's position in global science and technology.

We have four recommendations in our brief: one, strengthen the mechanisms for independent scientific advice to government; two, reinvest in the federal research infrastructure in science for the public good; three, encourage the archiving of scientific data as a legacy for comparative purposes and analysis as a base for future development; and four, adopt a strategic approach to investment in big science initiatives and international science partnerships.

I'll briefly elaborate on those four recommendations.

The government has recently moved to streamline its external advisory system by replacing a number of previous advisory bodies by the new Science, Technology and Innovation Council, or STIC. PGSE thinks this is an excellent move that should consolidate the science advice to government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Rutherford, could we get you to slow down for the translation?

[Ian Rutherford]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Maybe you could just rewind a sentence or two.

[Ian Rutherford]

I won't repeat the four recommendations. They are in the brief. I'll just move on to elaborate briefly on the first of those.

PGSE is impressed that the government has recently moved to streamline its external advisory system by replacing a number of bodies with the new Science, Technology and Innovation Council. This will consolidate science advice to government through a blue ribbon panel of external and internal scientists and managers who'll be able to tap a wide range of sources of scientific advice from outside government.

The Council of Canadian Academies, which was established in 2006 with a mandate to carry out science assessments, is another essential mechanism to improve science advice to government. We support both of those. We think the government should continue to support those bodies; ensure that they have viable secretariats and that they are strengthened.

On the matter of reinvestment in federal research infrastructure, we feel that the government needs to have a strong internal science capacity to provide a science base for policy development and to support a number of things government does--standard-setting, regulation formulation, and the provision of science-based government services. It's well and good to have advice from outside, but you also need an internal mechanism to evaluate that advice and to produce independent bits of it.

It's well known that the government's internal science capacity has diminished in recent years because of cuts over, I would say, the last decade. In some areas of national priority, such as climate change, energy supply, water supply--the whole area of environmental sustainability--and public health, our science departments are critically short of resources. The government should move to identify research gaps that cannot or will not be filled through university research and should make sure they're filled through in-house efforts.

In doing so, the government will maintain the capacity to judge external research where it exists. You can't be a good judge of what's going on outside if you're not a reasonable expert on the subject matter yourself. We think that such input is vital to properly inform decisions and policies. The 2008 budget did a number of good things for science and technology, but it was silent on the question of strengthening the government's in-house science capacity.

The third recommendation is related to that, and it has to do with the federal infrastructure for gathering and managing data. Much data is critical for monitoring the state of affairs in the priority areas I mentioned, and it's suffering from rust-out and obsolescence. Not only the infrastructure, but the people who do that kind of thing are, by and large, missing. So it's essential, we think, that Canada have ongoing records of environmental conditions, for example, so you can monitor the speed and extent of change and stimulate the development of new technologies. The retention of such records also provides a lasting legacy for comparative purposes and for ongoing analysis.

These are things that cannot easily be done by universities, and they can't be done by the private sector, although the private sector can be engaged as contractors. Government has a fundamental responsibility to monitor these fundamental matters of the Canadian physical environment.

There are growing weaknesses in the monitoring of climate and water resources, in particular, that require urgent attention. You may have heard about these from other witnesses at other meetings. There is an assessment of water issues by the Council of Canadian Academies currently under way, and we think that should get close attention.

Finally, support for big science in Canada lacks a coordinated approach. There was, at one time, a mandate in the Office of the National Science Advisor to develop a strategy for Canadian government support of big science. That office has now been closed, and that work was never done. We think the matter needs to be taken up again, either by STIC or by the Council of Canadian Academies, but it needs to be done somewhere.

And that's the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rutherford.

We'll now go to Science for Peace. Mr. Dorn, will you be presenting on behalf of the organization? Will it be both of you?

[Prof. Walter Dorn, United Nations Representative, Science for Peace]

Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before this committee.

Albert Einstein advised his physics students that concern for humanity must form the chief interest of all technical endeavours. This would equally apply to all of us here. The call for science and technology to be practised with conscience is the basis of our organization. Science for Peace and its sister organization, the Canadian Pugwash Group, are devoted to both reducing the negative impact of science and technology and increasing the positive peaceful role.

Last Friday, the draft cluster bomb treaty was adopted by 111 nations in Dublin. It provides a much-needed step in limiting human barbarity caused by those sophisticated tools of destruction. We hope Canada will pass laws to implement the strictest export regime for parts that could be used in cluster munitions and find ways to make the treaty robust and effective. More generally, we urge Canada to apply science and technology to arms control, peacekeeping, and humanitarian causes. For instance, we suggest that the government's arms control verification program be re-established and that treaty verification research be incorporated into the work of Defence Research and Development Canada, or DRDC.

Our country's most advanced global monitoring asset Radarsat-2 could help these causes. We thank the committee for any influence it might have had on the decision to stop the sale of Radarsat-2 to U.S. arms manufacturer Alliant Techsystems, whose munitions, incidentally, include cluster bombs.

Canada must now give support to MDA, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., develop the Radarsat constellation of satellites, and space recognisance generally. We advise that the Government of Canada help the UN by providing it with the results of Canadian science and technology.

Your fellow parliamentarian, Senator Roméo Dallaire, complained about being deaf and blind in the field when he was force commander in Rwanda. New technologies can help immensely, serving as the eyes and ears of the United Nations as it tries to solve complex conflicts in some of the world's greatest hot spots.

The figure you see in this handout illustrates the range of Canadian technologies that should be explored in peacekeeping. At the top we see aerospace systems, helicopters, UAVs, planes, and balloons that can give a bird's-eye view, while ground surveillance, like video and radar, can be used to protect UN camps. Night vision devices can be used to detect perpetrators who use the cover of darkness to commit atrocities and use the night to hide their weapons.

As the Canadian Forces acquires a new set of UAVs, or uninhabited aerial vehicles, at least a few of these should be deployed to assist the UN in its peacekeeping operations. As the UN waits for help in places like Darfur, Congo, and Haiti, with so little technical capability—and lives are being lost—can Canada afford not to help?

As Einstein reminded us, concern for humanity should be our primary motivating force.

Please include in your report the ways in which science and technology can be used properly as a great boon and not a curse for humanity.

My colleague, Derek Paul, will now address other threats and aspects of science and technology.

[Derek Paul, Treasurer, Science for Peace]

Thank you.

I'll begin in French.

The limits to the planet's resources and a predictable limit to world population will consequently require a limit on industrial production and a halt to the growth of the world economy. At the moment, no one knows how to create an economy that is sustainable and does not grow, but we absolutely have to buckle down to that task and dedicate ourselves to a new way of thinking. As we describe in our brief, we have to adopt a new paradigm.

I will continue in English.

This call for new thinking and a new paradigm, which is in the written brief, has led to the following, much abbreviated recommendations:

Enhance mechanisms whereby government and members of Parliament can dialogue with independent scientists. You've heard that from Scott Langen and Ian Rutherford.

Act on reports of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Do not ignore them.

Set up a council to study the paths to a sustainable civilization. That's very important.

Become informed or educated in the concept of an ecological footprint. I welcome questions on that. There's a useful reference in our written brief.

Recognize climate change as a world emergency.

Limit water usage in any district to the amount that is replaced by precipitation.

Initiate plans to halt the ecological ruin of the province of Alberta or of any other threatened area.

Prevent inappropriate ethanol production. A very useful reference in our brief will explain what is inappropriate.

Set in motion a comprehensive study for the development of a new electrified railway system for Canada with extension to all North America to be encouraged.

Oversee nanotechnology to prevent pollution and the effects of ill health and set up the necessary lab facilities to achieve this.

Label genetically modified foods.

Make strong efforts to prevent poor technological choices. This is very much a thing for Industry Canada.

Reduce and eliminate subsidies to sunset industries, and start to reverse the trend toward commercializing universities.

We welcome questions on all these recommendations.

Thank you. Merci, monsieur.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Paul.

We'll go to questions from members. For the first round, for six minutes, Mr. Simard, please.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here this morning.

Mr. Barney, if I could begin with you, please, I thought your comments on citizen engagement were very interesting. As you probably know, our committee has been travelling. We were out west last week and met with some of the brightest minds in the country, if not in the world, on some of these research projects. Obviously we're bringing expert stakeholders to our committee, and I'm just wondering what contribution a regular citizen can make to this very specialized field. Does it help to establish priorities, and are other countries doing something similar? If so, is it successful?

[Darin Barney]

Thank you very much for that question. Yes, I think there has been increased attention across the Government of Canada, not only in this policy area, but to the importance of citizen engagement in general. I think this reflects a sense that citizens do have something to say even on complex issues, that they live in a world where these technologies and scientific developments are going to be rolled out. They have intimate experience with what science and technology means in their everyday lives. They bring a perspective to the table that I think is distinct from the perspective that scientific experts bring to the table or that stakeholders, especially industrial stakeholders, bring to the table.

All of that, I think, has to form a kind of complex quilt of advice to government, because I think if everyday citizens' voices are excluded from or not sought in ways that are constructive and under conditions that produce the best of what citizens are capable of in terms of advice on these issues, then governments are going to be faced with difficult choices to make on questions of funding, on questions of regulation, on questions of priorities in terms of addressing pressing scientific and technological issues, and they're going to have--

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Who is doing this? Are other countries doing this?

[Darin Barney]

Other countries, yes.

I think the voice of citizens is one that has to be at the table when these priorities are being formed, along with these other very important sources of information.

As I outlined in my brief, multiple bodies exist throughout Europe to specifically engage the public on questions of science and technological development. That's their first job. As a policy-maker and legislator you know how complicated it is to engage the public on a systematic basis in a way that produces meaningful, high-quality consultation. It's very difficult, and it's especially difficult on complex issues like science and technology.

So I think what's necessary is a body whose first job is to produce the conditions and to pay attention to how high-quality citizen engagement on issues of science and technology can be generated so that it can be added to the advice you get from the Council of Canadian Academies, from STIC, from--

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much. I only have six minutes; I'm sorry.

Mr. Rutherford, I wonder whether I'm asking the right person here, but one of the questions that developed over the last week was how important these big science projects are to our country and how we're doing in the world. We were at the synchrotron, for instance. I believe we have one, and the Americans may have seven or eight, and sometimes they're not financially viable; sometimes governments have to subsidize them. How important is it for a country to have projects like the synchrotron or TRIUMF?

[Ian Rutherford]

We think they're very important, and we think the government has to subsidize them. They're not money-making things, although TRIUMF, for example, has commercial spinoffs and generates some money, and so does Atomic Energy of Canada through the sale of radio isotopes, and so on.

These things are very important for the health of the scientific community in the country. If we're going to pull our weight in these fields, we have to have facilities in our own country and we have to have a mechanism to participate in international developments.

I watch what's going on, for example, with the synchrotron in Geneva. There's only a very small Canadian contribution to it; I think we're making some magnets for it. But access by scientists to that is not as good as it should be. There are any number of examples where there are big scientific international projects going on, and Canada has trouble participating in those.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

We've seen some very impressive partnerships over the last couple of weeks as well between departments and universities, whether it's Agriculture Canada and.... Can you tell me, do you consider that in-house research, or are you talking specifically about government doing its own research on certain things because it has a public policy responsibility to do so?

[Ian Rutherford]

I think you need both. I think there are certain things that have to be done in-house, but most government research—all of it, in fact, that I'm familiar with—is done in partnership with universities and with institutes outside. Work can be done in collaboration in joint projects or it can be contracted out, but there is a core capability that has to be maintained in government in order to even do that. We're getting perilously close to not having that capacity.

[Dr. Denis St-Onge, Past Chair, Partnership Group for Science and Engineering]

Could I add something?