Parliamentary Science Officer Act

An Act to establish the position of Parliamentary Science Officer

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.


Kennedy Stewart  NDP

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)


Outside the Order of Precedence (a private member's bill that hasn't yet won the draw that determines which private member's bills can be debated), as of Dec. 3, 2013
(This bill did not become law.)


This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment establishes the position of Parliamentary Science Officer, the holder of which is an officer of Parliament.


All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Opposition Motion—Federal Science ResearchBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

May 26th, 2015 / 1:50 p.m.
See context


Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the subclause and reference to creating a chief science officer. I wonder if my colleague could let us know whether this is intended to be the same as the parliamentary science officer that my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas proposed in Bill C-558.

Is there a distinction between the chief science officer and the parliamentary science officer? Is it the intention that the chief science officer would be within government, or would that position be an officer of parliament?

Opposition Motion—Federal Science ResearchBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

May 26th, 2015 / 11:15 a.m.
See context


Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

It is my pleasure to rise today and speak on this Liberal motion on science brought forward by the distinguished member for Kingston and the Islands. Of course, we will be supporting the motion.

Before I continue, I would like to say how sorry I am that the member will not be standing in the upcoming election. His is an experienced and welcome voice for science, which is especially welcome in this Parliament where science seems to be constantly under attack.

Turning to the motion itself, it has two parts. The first part is about principles, and the second part is about propositions.

In terms of principles, the motion calls for the House to recognize that the Conservative government is wrongly muzzling government scientists and researchers and keeping valuable information from the public. We agree with the Liberals that this is the case and that it is happening here. It is also the case that this is the wrong thing to do.

The Conservative government has essentially waged a war on the scientific community and holds great distain for data and evidence that do not support its ideologically driven policies. The Conservatives deny this, as we have heard here from the minister of state, but the public knows this to be true, and scientists know this to be true, which explains their protest on Parliament Hill and constant protests across the country.

In addition to muzzling, the Conservative government has slashed more than $1.1 billion from federal science budgets since 2011, and as I mentioned earlier, fired 4,000 federal researchers over this same time period. If this is not a war on science, I cannot imagine what one would look like.

In 2011, the government employed 39,189 researchers across all departments and agencies. This is not in universities or the private sector, but in government departments and agencies. This number has been slashed to 35,189, which is a drop of 4,000 researchers. Therefore, in an age where science is king, the government in its wisdom has chopped 10% of our total government research capacity. I submit that this is madness.

While we support the motion and its principles, I have to note that the NDP itself has had opposition day motions on this same topic, twice. I suspect, unfortunately, that we will get the same result today with the Conservatives voting against any kind of motion that would bolster science in Canada.

Turning to the propositions, the meat of this motion is that the government should immediately create a chief science officer. In my reading of the motion, and as the comments earlier today suggested, this position would be very similar to that of the national science advisor to the prime minister, which was put in place by the Martin government in 2004 and then abolished by the Conservative government in 2008. This position was held only by Dr. Arthur Carty, who served well in this position. However, the position only provided private information to the cabinet on scientific issues. It was not really a champion for science in Canada. It was a stream of additional advice for decision-making within the executive.

In my mind, such a position is much preferable to what we have now, but it does not really take us where we need to go. I have made my thoughts on this matter clear in two proposals currently in front of the House.

The first proposal is Motion No. 453 on scientific integrity, which is based on the need to develop new government communication policies that encourage scientists to speak freely to the media; allow scientists to present viewpoints beyond their scientific research and incorporate their expert opinions, as long as they indicate they are not speaking on behalf of or representing a department or agency; ensure communications officers do not restrict, limit, or prevent scientists from responding to media requests; prohibit public affairs or communications officers from directing federal scientists to suppress or alter their findings, and we have heard examples today of this happening under the Conservative government; and affirm the right of federal scientists to approve the final version of any proposed publication that represents their scientific opinion.

This motion on scientific integrity comes directly from the Office of Science and Technology Policy that President Obama has in place. One of his first actions as president was to help science grow in the United States.

The second proposal, the bill I have in front of Parliament, Bill C-558, is the parliamentary science officer act, which is a much stronger version of what is proposed here today. It is modelled on our Parliamentary Budget Officer, the U.K.'s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, and the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy.

This bill would establish an independent agent of Parliament with a mandate to assess scientific evidence relevant to any proposal or bill before Parliament; answer requests from committees and individual members for unbiased scientific information; conduct independent analysis of federal science and technology; raise awareness of scientific issues across government; and encourage coordination between departments and agencies conducting scientific research.

I would say it is almost an auditor general for science that we, the official opposition, are proposing, whereas the Liberals are again returning to a position we once had that was easily abolished in 2008. We do not think it is strong enough and secure enough, so we need to move to a more 21st century solution to the problems we are facing.

I think my friend will agree—his motion speaks to this—that as science goes in this country so does our economy. The Conservatives' only plan for economic growth is to really triple the production of export of raw bitumen by ramming pipelines through communities at whatever the cost. This plan is now falling to bits due to low oil prices and the realization that many communities will not be bullied into accepting pipelines.

At the same time, our national investment in research and development is plummeting. Whereas natural resources are an important part of our economy, of course our future growth will be in the knowledge economy, rewarding and helping it grow. However, things are going in the opposite direction under the current government. Where investment in research and development was never stellar under the Liberals, overall R and D investment has fallen to just 1.62% of our overall GDP. Compare that to competitor countries like South Korea, where 5¢ out of every dollar in that economy is plugged back into research. In Europe and the U.S., it is 3¢ on every dollar. In Canada we are spending less than a third of what they spend in South Korea, and compared to most of our other competitor countries, we are spending less than half.

We are falling behind under the current government because it is destroying our culture of discovery. That is what is happening here. Muzzling scientists is part of it, but chopping all of these researchers and money is really killing our culture of discovery in Canada. It is cutting and firing its way to the bottom of the international tables, which is a real shame. Future generations will really pay for this.

In a 2004 position paper, the Royal Society of Canada stated:

...we are in danger of slipping behind our competitors in our support of research and thereby losing our competitive edge....

We recommend that research funding in Canada should increase at least to the average level in the OECD and G8 countries.

We advise the government to develop a ten-year plan for research, innovation and skill development....

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a unanimous motion that was passed at our 2013 national NDP convention, to show why the NDP is leading on this issue.

The motion that was unanimously passed by 2,000 delegates states:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP consult widely...developing a Made in Canada National Science Strategy;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP move to match the percentage of GDP invested by the public and private sectors in research and development (GERD) as found in other global leading countries such as the United States.

While I agree with the principles that my colleague has put forward, I think the solutions need to be more robust. With what I have outlined in my speech, the scientific integrity motion, the parliamentary science officer bill, and the motion we passed on the national science strategy at our national convention, we have met these challenges and we will put them in place while we are in government.

Let us be ambitious. Let us think big. Let us be a world leader and not a world laggard.

SciencePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

March 26th, 2015 / 10:10 a.m.
See context


Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by dozens of citizens from across the country. The petition calls on the Government of Canada to support my bill, Bill C-558, which would establish a non-partisan parliamentary science officer.

The petition also notes that since 2006, the federal government has undermined scientific integrity, ignored scientific evidence, and unduly muzzled scientists working in the public service. An independent science watchdog would provide Parliament with expert advice on scientific matters.

While I cannot say whether I support this petition, I urge the government to stop its war on science and support my bill.

SciencePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

June 12th, 2014 / 11 a.m.
See context


Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition today signed by hundreds of scientists and professors from universities and labs across Canada. The petition concerns Bill C-558, which aims to establish a non-partisan parliamentary science officer. The petitioners note that since 2006, the Conservative government has undermined scientific integrity, recklessly ignored scientific evidence for political reasons, and muzzled public scientists in the civil service.

The signatories are calling for the creation of an independent science watchdog in Canada, and I would urge the government to support this petition.

SciencePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

May 28th, 2014 / 4:15 p.m.
See context


Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition signed by dozens of community members in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. They are calling on the Government of Canada to create an independent science watchdog.

The position of national science adviser was eliminated back in 2008, but it lacked independence from the government and it had limited capacity, only to advise the prime minister. Parliamentarians need sound information and expert advice on scientific matters to ensure policy decisions are based on the best scientific evidence available. Therefore, these petitioners are calling on the government to support Bill C-558, which would establish an independent parliamentary science officer.

SciencePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

April 7th, 2014 / 3:25 p.m.
See context


Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today.

The first petition is from Canadians who are asking the Government of Canada to support Bill C-558, a private member's bill introduced by my NDP colleague Kennedy Stewart in order to create the independent position of parliamentary science officer.

Parliamentary Science Officer ActRoutine Proceedings

December 3rd, 2013 / 10:05 a.m.
See context


Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-558, An Act to establish the position of Parliamentary Science Officer.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce my very first private member's bill, Bill C-558, an act to establish the position of parliamentary science officer.

Science in Canada is at a crossroads. For too many years we have heard that scientific evidence is often ignored by policy-makers and that federal scientists are being unduly prevented from sharing their research with Canadians.

My bill calls for the creation of an independent office tasked with providing Parliament with sound information and expert advice on all scientific matters of relevance. This would revitalize the exchange of knowledge between scientists and politicians and give public science a more robust voice in the legislative process.

Modelled after the U.K.'s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy and our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer, my proposal aims to help ensure decisions made in Ottawa are informed by the best scientific evidence available.

A parliamentary science officer would be a significant improvement on the previous Office of the National Science Advisor, which lacked the institutional independence from the government of the day.

As science is fundamentally a non-partisan issue, I hope this legislation will receive the support of members from all sides of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)