Industry Committee on June 5th, 2008

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Sure.

[Dr. Denis St-Onge]

As an example of this, you're aware that recently Minister Lunn has put a lot of emphasis on geological knowledge in the Arctic because of sovereignty. The problem is that for the last 10 years at least, the Geological Survey of Canada has not been working in the Arctic, because there were no subsidies for that. All of a sudden, we need all this information for policy reasons, and it has to be started up again, which is going to be difficult.

Here is another example of participation. Because Canada is a small country, we cannot do everything. Obviously we need to participate in international projects. The Orphan Basin drilling program was another example, where we did practically nothing, because we did not pay our full share.

Those are examples of the sort of thing.... We don't pretend we should do everything, but we should have a mechanism to participate in these big international projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

We'll go to Madame Brunelle.

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

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Rutherford, I found your comments interesting. Since this committee began its work, we have seen that a lot of research is done in Canada, but that budgets are never enough. It also seems all very fragmented. I find that it sometimes lacks direction and perspective. I promised myself that I would take the summer to re-read all the documents we have on the subject and see if there is a common thread.

We know that we need perspective because we are dealing in the long term. Research precedes the application of the research. You tell us that we need a coordinated approach. But the organization that had the responsibility to provide one has been closed. I would like to know the name of that organization and why it was closed. I would also like you to tell us how all this research can be coordinated.

[Ian Rutherford]

There are a number of aspects to coordinating research. There can be too much coordination just as there can be too little. The assistant deputy ministers with responsibility for science could discuss these matters and coordinate their efforts. But when it comes to Canada's participation in research on the world stage, there is no coordinating mechanism. We need such a mechanism and we must establish one.

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

If I understand you correctly, an organization was shut down, but it was not doing any coordination.

[Ian Rutherford]

I was talking about the office of the national science advisor, who was supposed to come up with a strategy for Editorial Note: inaudible big science. But he did not do so and the office is now closed. Now the job must be given to someone else.

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

So we need an office to develop a strategy.

[Dr Denis St-Onge]

The national science advisor to the prime minister, a position that was established as a result of a recommendation from the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering (PAGSE), never got the resources it needed to do any effective coordination work and its office was closed.

Now, as we have highlighted, the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (CSTI) has been created, chaired by Dr. Alper, a former president of PAGSE. We hope that this organization is going to do the job. The problem at federal level is that the various departments are not always coordinated. Some body has to coordinate them through its advice to government. We hope that the CSTI is going to do it, but, since the council has just been created, we do not yet know if it will.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Langen, on another matter, you say that Canada is falling behind other countries. Can you tell us in which area? You were mentioning the number of science centres, the topics they were dealing with and their budgets.

Yet we have often heard that our renewal is not going well, that we are going to have a shortage of employees in various technical areas, and that we are going to have a shortage of scientists. Do science centres have an effect on renewal, and, if so, how is the effect manifested?

[Scott Langen]

Thank you for your question.

I am going to speak English, just to make sure that I am understood.

It's better that way.

With respect to your first question, I guess what I call “the knowledge gap” or “the infrastructure gap” would be the number of individuals entering and exiting math, science and technology, graduate studies, engineering. There is a decline in those areas. We see that as a concern. Given our approach in terms of citizen engagement and science culture, we believe that an investment in science promotion and what science centres and science literacy organizations do would spark more of a continued interest in students, to first achieve that educational attainment and then the labour force attachment.

The other challenge, specifically within Saskatchewan, is a labour force shortage. There are challenges, not just in the big sciences, but in carpentry, nurses, and lab technicians. In terms of labour force needs, we believe that a more engaged citizenship who are putting themselves through these educational opportunities will begin to close that gap.

To speak of that in a third way, when we look at the U.S., Portugal, Japan, and Australia, to name a few, over the last five-plus years, they've accomplished a national investment strategy into science centres and science literacy organizations for programming, exhibitions, infrastructure renewal, to ensure that it is less ad hoc and that there is broadband science experience and a citizen engagement across the country. Currently, if you go province to province, there is some variance and differential in terms of the level of science programming and opportunities that exist.

I think I've answered both of your questions in a roundabout way.

Tammy or Tracy, did you want to add to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Very briefly. We are out of time.

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

That is fine, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Ross.

[Tracy Ross, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Science Centres]

I would just add one point. We have documentation that demonstrates that for those individuals in scientific employment today--and we could speak to some of our colleagues around the table, I'm sure--visiting a science centre, a science museum, a natural history museum, or an aquarium are the top-rated--and we're talking 90% here--informal science activities that inspired them to pursue science and technology in a career. We have that evidence here today.

There has also been more recent evidence that for those students in science and technology in high school, visiting a science centre or a museum increases their interest in science and technology.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, madame Brunelle.

We'll go to Mr. Stanton, please.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to our witnesses. I appreciate the great panel this morning.

I want to direct a question first to Dr. Barney.

You talked about citizenship engagement in science and technology, and you mentioned an institution that could be used as a vehicle to do that. Could you explore a little further for us what that looks like in terms of how we reach out to that citizen level?

Let's face it, even in the course of our study, committee members have realized just how complex this topic can be. How do we bridge that with citizens?

[Darin Barney]

I think it's that very complexity that you highlight that recommends an institution that's specifically dedicated to developing best practices in citizen engagement and consultation around science and technology issues. That is kind of the missing third pillar in the emerging structure for scientific and technological advice in Canada in the transformation that was discussed earlier.

The Council of Canadian Academies and STIC have a role to play. It's interesting that it's a double complexity. Citizen engagement that's productive is a very complex thing to achieve on any topic. As you as parliamentarians know, it's very difficult to engage citizens in productive ways on any of the issues that government faces. It's doubly complex when it comes to science and technology.

I think what we would need is an institution, and again, in my brief I talk about the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment network, where they've been developing, in many European jurisdictions, institutions that are specifically about combining best practices and citizen engagement in outreach with developing the kinds of materials, the kinds of outreach on complicated scientific and technological issues, so that you can marry those two things and produce advice to government that is of a high quality. I think that's hard to achieve when engagement is a kind of afterthought, a secondary theme, and not the main focus.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I want to move on here in a second, but presumably this institution would be within the realm of government. It would be something the federal government would create and have within its—

[Darin Barney]

I think it would be.

The model I have in mind—and this is just derived from my own experience as an advisory council member of the Law Commission of Canada—is something like that kind of commission, that has that kind of relationship to government and those kinds of resources.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'd like to move on, then, to Mr. Langen, or any of your colleagues.

I have one quick question. What types of transfers to the science centre community are you currently receiving from the Government of Canada?

[Scott Langen]

For the most part, in terms of national transfers, there is the NSERC PromoScience grant and....

[Tracy Ross]

There is $2.4 million in the PromoScience grant and the Canada Space Agency.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

How much is that?

[Tracy Ross]

That is under $200,000 annually.