Industry Committee on June 5th, 2008

[Darin Barney]

That's a complex question. I think there has been a quite extraordinary move in recent decades in the direction of conceptualizing science and technological development solely in terms of economic growth, national competitiveness. I think the innovation strategy has been almost over-burdened with that kind of rhetoric. In my view, that has led to institutional arrangements that in some cases compromise the independence of scientific research.

But another outcome is a kind of depoliticization of science and technology. We're consistently given the message that there's a national crisis to which the only viable response is massive public investment in scientific and technological development. Such an investment would create a science culture, but a science culture in which people aren't encouraged to ask questions about science and technological development, because they're consistently told that we need to get on board or there's going to be a national economic disaster.

As important as science and technological development is to economic prosperity and viability, if our investment in it comes at the expense of our ability to ask questions about the social implications of scientific and technological development, or if it comes at the expense of the independence of scientists to pursue avenues of inquiry that often get labelled “pure science” and have no immediate economic benefit, then we're going down the wrong road. I think, at least on a rhetorical level, there are some alarm bells to be paid attention to here.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. St-Onge.

[Dr. Denis St-Onge]

It is correct that because of the push for innovation there was a de-emphasis on the investment in curiosity-driven, long-term research. Your assumption is correct. However, increased funding in NSERC in the last few years seems to be reversing this trend.

There's a note that needs to be made here. Canada is a small country, and we cannot be expert in everything. It is important that the science policy in Canada have some priorities. We cannot be good in everything—that's impossible. We're not big enough; we're not good enough in everything. We need to have priorities that we can concentrate and be excellent in, but we cannot be in everything. We need centres of excellence.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Do you feel that our recent move for a council of scientists that advise the government is moving us in the right direction?

[Dr. Denis St-Onge]

Absolutely. We pushed hard for several years to have this national academy created. Now that it is created and is funded reasonably well, it should provide sound advice to the government on what these priorities should be. So, yes, we support it strongly.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I'd like to ask the folks with the science centres about the numbers. I don't think anybody has given us the numbers. Are the numbers for visitors up or down? How many visitors do you have a year? Can you get that for us if you don't have it right now?

[Scott Langen]

I know it's more than eight million when you look at all member organizations combined. Over the last four years there's been an increase, partly because our membership has grown. So that drives it.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Could you get the numbers for us?

[Tracy Ross]

For your information, there is a list of our members in the back of our proposal. It is available to the members.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barney, in the brief that you presented to the committee in April, you talked about public consultation, like we are having today. You said that:

...public consultation exercises oriented to adding a veneer of legitimacy to decisions already taken elsewhere, or to testing communication strategies for public relations campaigns surrounding a given policy or regulatory measure, undermine democratic engagement with science and technology more than they support it.

Can you give us one example where public consultation is effective and one example where it is ineffective? How can we involve the public in an effective process?

[Darin Barney]

This goes to the question of the complexities of the design of consultation processes in general.

I've been involved over recent years in consultation processes in a whole variety of forms. With some of them, you arrive and are given a fairly narrow set of options to consider at the outset. Your discussion is solicited, perhaps briefs are invited, and you leave the table feeling as though what you had to say will have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the proceeding, because the decision was already made prior to the proceeding.

Then somewhere down the road you end up seeing the communication strategy that surrounds that policy decision or that consultation, and you know that what you said mattered not so much to the outcome of the decision as to the communication strategy that came out of that meeting. You were almost like a test subject upon whom certain kinds of policy options were given a test flight to see how people would respond, so that the communication strategy could be better crafted.

There are many of those kinds of consultation exercises, and I think there's a wide variation of quality in the consultation that goes on throughout the federal government right now. The consultations leave people more discouraged about engagement and less likely to engage again down the road. Those kinds of practices need to be avoided.

Better kinds of consultation practices are those that involve a high degree of deliberation, that allow people to participate in setting the agenda, that combine expertise with engagement, that give people access to very good information, that allow them to ask questions of experts who are charged with responding to them comprehensively and in a language they can understand, in which they're given a good deal of time to deal with the issues, and in which the outcomes that arise from the consultation process have an identifiable role to play in the policy outcome.

That doesn't mean the outcome of the consultation becomes the policy, but at least there's a sense that there's a very real meaning to the consultation that's going on and that the results are communicated in an effective way to those who participated. Those are the elements of a better structure for consultation than what I described before.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Paul, you mentioned the ecological footprint. What is that?

[Derek Paul]

We refer to that in our brief. The concept was developed by William Reese, a professor at the University of British Columbia. His theory is that it is possible to measure the land area needed to sustain a given population, Canada's, for example, and to partially assimilate the amount of waste it generates. Basically, there must always be somewhere to bury or convert waste. Then, you must calculate the area that you presently have in order to meet these needs.

In almost every country in the world, this footprint has been exceeded. In the Netherlands, for example, which is a very small country, it has been greatly exceeded. The factor varies according to the source you are reading. I have seen references to a factor of nine to nineteen times. So, a much greater area of productive land is needed to sustain a population like that of the Netherlands.

Because our land area is so vast and our population is quite small, Canada is one of the only countries in the world that has not reached this dangerous threshold.

What does passing the threshold, or living on too small an area, mean? It basically means that we are borrowing from what we should be leaving to our descendants. We are borrowing from our grandsons and granddaughters, our great-grandchildren and so on. We must keep checking our ecological footprint from year to year to see if it is getting bigger or smaller.

One of our recommendations is to urge everyone in Parliament to understand this principle and to read what Professor William Reese has written. His most recent document is a chapter taken from a book published in 1996. You will find the reference in our brief. I implore everyone to read that document.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Merci, monsieur Vincent.

We'll go to Monsieur Arthur.

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

Merci, monsieur le président.

It is the duty of government to subsidize science--I can understand that--and it is the duty of the scientists to convince government that pure science is so much more fun when they do it with big budgets. But isn't it also the duty of the scientific community to convince the public—“Joe Canadian”, who wakes up every morning, goes to work, and will probably not send his children to universities subsidized with his money, and whose taxes will be used for all kinds of projects he does not understand and that have no established priorities he can adhere to—so that “Joe Canadian” will ask the government to subsidize science, and we will not always have you, as poor beggars, trying to get the government to give you more money?

At some point you will have to become convincers, not beggars. Do you realize that you have been doing a horrible job of convincing the public to force government to subsidize science?

Monsieur St-Onge.

[Dr. Denis St-Onge]

That is an excellent question, sir.

You are perfectly right, and it is always very difficult to try to make the link between pure science and the needs of society. You are perfectly right there.

Clearly, our colleagues in the national museums are doing an excellent job, for that very reason.

It is also true that magazines like Canadian Geographic or Géographica specifically aim to make the general public aware of science.

I am sure that you are familiar with the arctic research project called ArcticNet, with Louis Fortier and the ship called the Amundsen. That whole organization is specifically set up to communicate its research to the general public. Recently, they have come up with a plan in which Mr. Fortier will not come to ask you for money by himself. The request will also come from the public.

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

Most of the scientific community's visible efforts to convince the public to push the government towards greater support of science have almost all been in the area that they used to call global warming. But since nothing happened there, they now talk about various kinds of global warming. That means that they can go in either direction; they are always right.

I wonder if, in other areas, in the everyday science that we need, Canadians are sufficiently informed about the need.

One day, Canadians are going to turn and ask the government if it has finished spending taxpayers' money on silly things or on ivory towers.

[Dr. Denis St-Onge]

You used the word "sufficiently". Clearly, it is not sufficient. I agree with you on that. I have no simple answer to your question, in fact...

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

Thank you, you could not have answered my question better. Thank you, Mr. St-Onge.

[Dr. Denis St-Onge]

Perhaps other people can answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Langen, please.

[Scott Langen]

The example that I can think of locally in Saskatchewan is the synchrotron, and I know this committee has toured there. There's a colleague of ours who works as the education coordinator of Canadian Light Source, and about four years ago the synchrotron was quite aggressive in getting school groups through, and the kids talked to their parents.

Today, Saskatoon brags that it's the science city of the province, so you do have a community that all of a sudden gets it and appreciates that investing in a synchrotron has a greater impact. But they have made the effort to engage kids and families and visitors and groups. Saskatoon is also a good example because the Saskatchewan Research Council, for every dollar invested provincially, generates an additional eight dollars from the private sector. So I think they have good citizen engagement, and they also have a good P3 model, if you will.

I can't speak beyond that, as it's not my forte, but I know about the synchrotron, as we've worked with them a bit on building more awareness and support and interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Merci, monsieur Arthur.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

I am loath to end this discussion, but we do have two motions from two members presented for discussion at the committee today. Unfortunately, we'll have to end the discussion here.

I want to thank you all for your presentations and very specific recommendations, which are exactly what the committee had asked for, and we appreciate it.

There was one clarification I did want to get.

Mr. Rutherford, in your presentation you made four recommendations, and I very much like the recommendations. In the fourth recommendation, you talked about an approach towards big science projects, and about the national science advisor, who had started on a document.

Our analyst has given me a draft discussion paper from January 31, 2005, and it seems to me that it's a very good document. It was the beginning of the analysis and the process you want completed. Is that correct?