Industry Committee on March 6th, 2008

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

But it was established for you just to report to the Prime Minister initially, type of thing, without a clear mandate when the Liberals set it up. Is that one of the frustrations you had? Was it like you were supposed to do a job without a clear mandate, to report to the Prime Minister very informally without any structures for these reports? I'm trying to figure out exactly how this mechanism went about.

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Let me just explain it.

When I started this as national science advisor, there was no job description. Other science advisors have said the same thing: there's nobody to say how you're to carry out the mandate from the Prime Minister or to Parliament.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

So they gave you a job without a job description, really. But there was a history there, Dr. Carty. Didn't you say that we've had all these other councils?

I think with this new Science, Technology and Innovation Council, we actually have a mandate up front, and we do have a reporting structure.

The point I'm trying to make is that your office, with best intentions, didn't seem to be following through this in the best way possible. The point I'm trying to make is that it appears what the government is doing—it's not saying that science isn't important—is making an accountable council that's going to give regular state-of-the-nation reports that benchmark Canada's S and T performance against international standards of excellence, so that Canadian taxpayers know the money is going where it needs to go.

You almost had the statement that you might be better alone in your office to report to the minister—

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Absolutely not. When did I say that?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You said that the new STIC—

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Look, I have nothing against STIC. I believe that a science advisory council is essential.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I agree with you.

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

And it's complemented by a national science advisor.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

So you see that the science advisor has to be there in order for this to work?

[Arthur Carty]

Absolutely.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You do.

Mr. Van Kesteren, did you want to—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, we've got 30 seconds.

Okay, we'll go to Madame Brunelle.

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

I'd like us to get back on point, to focus on science.

From time to time, the media reports that Canada does not seem to invest heavily enough in the sciences. We are starting to hear people talk about this situation. According to Mr. Godbout from Genome Canada, it is very difficult for Canada to attract top-rate scientists because these individuals command high salaries.

In your opinion, should Canada make a greater effort to invest in the sciences? As I see it, that is the way of the future. Canada must invest in knowledge and, more importantly, in industrialization. The government must embark on this path and support scientific research. Shouldn't it be investing more heavily in order to attract leading scientists and researchers? Given its relatively small population, is this something Canada can do, in your opinion?

As for my second question, we have already discussed this in committee, namely how to get young people and women interested in the sciences. We need to prepare the next generation of scientists. Do you have any suggestions for us on how to make that happen?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

With regard to the first point, I completely agree with you that a strong investment is needed. I'd add to this that some of the programs that have been created, such as the Canada research chairs program, have not just attracted top-class Canadians and retained young up-and-coming stars, but they've also recruited a lot of internationally renowned experts in various disciplines. In fact, as a result of the Canada research chairs program, more than 500 experts from outside the country have been recruited.

Our capacity has gone up, and the capability that Canada has to do research and development has increased significantly. The danger is this: how do you keep these people, both young, up-and-coming stars and established researchers? That's a challenge. There are other countries that would be very happy to poach them. As it is, Canada is very highly regarded for having done this, but it's an ongoing battle.

So yes, in order to sustain that and to build on it, you're going to have to invest more, because the demand will be greater. And of course, in the 21st century the need for highly qualified human resources is one of the principal considerations, and there's going to be great competition between nations for the brightest brains. Yes, absolutely, we have to invest more in science and technology.

As for women in science and technology, you're quite right that like many other countries we have a problem, in that we're not making the best use of the talent that resides within the female community. Why is it that something above 50% of university enrolment is female, but in fact the number of females in our faculty ranks is much lower than that and the number of women in research is much lower? We certainly have to do something about that.

This is one of the things I haven't mentioned. I chaired a women in science committee, which was examining.... This was done with Miriam Stewart of the CIHR, who on behalf of CIHR had a major interest in this. She was the director of the CIHR's Institute of Gender and Health. We chaired this committee and came up with a number of recommendations that would make it easier for young women faculty who had been recruited into universities to see their lot improved; in other words, that there be such things as maternity leave on an extended basis, so that they had the chance to come back after the maternity leave and compete again in the system.

It's a bit of a rat race, as you know, in universities, and anybody who takes time off to have a baby, for example, is at a disadvantage. I think one has to tackle the quality of the environment in order to adjust that. We did some work on that and came up with a series of recommendations, which have gone to the granting councils. That will be followed up whether I'm there or not.

I strongly support the idea of building the community of female scientists. In principle, it's a competitive advantage to be able to make use of all of those women who are now getting an education at university and to make sure that in science and technology we have a significant component.

One of the major concerns at the moment is the number of women who are not going into computer science. This is a big issue, a major issue for the country, because we have a large ICT sector.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Merci, madame Brunelle.

We'll go to Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Carty, thank you for being here today. I apologize for some of the heated comments here. I want you to know this is a committee that normally functions very well. Despite our partisan differences, we tend to try to work things out as best as we can.

I have been in touch with some officials from the Ontario equivalent of what we have here nationally. They are of course very disappointed with the turn of events, because they tend to think there is less of an emphasis now on science.

Can you give me an illustration of what other nations are doing at this very difficult time?

We've finished a report on manufacturing, where we've identified the need for greater research and development, particularly in breakthrough areas. I recall sitting in this very seat in 1999 when a fellow by the name of Preston Manning, leader of the Reform Party, was amazed at synchrotron and the nanotechnology our chair has referred to many times.

Can you give us an illustration of nations that are doing very much what we formerly did, with an advisor and the kinds of investments being made that will continue to attract future business? Can you give me examples of countries that do not have this sort of schizophrenic approach to science--one day hot and next day cold?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Of the leading nations, I think the United States has traditionally been at the top of the heap in science and innovation. They have not only a world-leading knowledge generation capacity, but also the capacity to turn brilliant ideas and concepts into vibrant companies in the marketplace. The U.S. has been a leader in that.

It's interesting that over the last few years there's been a recognition that the U.S. government has moved the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which is where the science advisor lives, out of the White House and away from the seat of power. Many communities have reflected that it hasn't really been a good thing. There is now a very powerful independent committee in the United States that is arguing--and this is supported by two of the candidates--to move the OSTP back into the White House. Then the science advisor would have greater access to the ear of the President, for example, and more influence.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Are there any other jurisdictions, other than south of the border, where the position of the science advisor has been changed, altered, or demoted, that you can think of in your experience?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Some of the positions go back a long time. Japan recently created a science advisor to the Prime Minister, and that's in place. They have a Council for Science and Technology Policy, on which the science advisor sits, but he also has access to the Prime Minister. That's a change in the direction I was recommending.

In the United Kingdom there's a long history of science advisors. These science advisors have always had the ear of the Prime Minister in the U.K., but the relationship between David King, the last science advisor, and Tony Blair was very positive for the United Kingdom--not just for their investments in science, but their tackling of various problems they've had.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Is it fair to say that Canada and the United States are the only countries that have removed or changed the role of the national science advisor?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I think it's evolving, but the tendency is to strengthen it.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

If you have no one coordinating, it's a bit like the old Yogi Berra saying: if you don't know where you're going, chances are you're going to wind up somewhere else. If you don't have someone coordinating our science approaches, it's a little like having a cabinet without a Prime Minister.

What do you think is in store for science down the road in Canada, given that we've made a rather radical decision here that is almost unprecedented, save and except for the United States?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Reflecting on what's happened in Canada over the last 20 years, the sound way to move forward would be to recognize that we need a science advisory capacity embodied in a science advisor and also in a council, which can provide a different kind of advice.

I think the other recognition we have to make is that there are other key elements. One element is that the government at the highest level has to have science as a high priority in the country so that it can be seen that way. If that's lagging, it won't help.

The other thing is that the science advisory capacity that is brought to bear by the national science advisor should be embedded in the system and welcomed not just as an appendage. It should be part of a team working towards this, and working with Parliament as well as with the government. I know this is very much along the lines of what Mr. Rajotte has suggested.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

I'm going to take the last spot here, Dr. Carty.

Dr. Carty, I was at the synchrotron on Saturday at the University of Saskatchewan. In your remarks you mention an innovation and research system and you talk about scientific excellence and funding and then you talk about science advice as the two that need to complement each other. I think that's absolutely correct.

One of the things that hasn't come out today is the fact that when I was out there in Saskatoon—and I don't want to speak for them—they seemed overjoyed with what we're moving forward with in terms of an S and T strategy, first of all last spring, but secondly, in terms of the budget, in terms of concrete things that the government is actually doing. Investing more in the synchrotron, more funding for indirect costs of research, more funding for the three granting councils—all things you've supported over the years—strengthening the ability of Canadian universities to attract and retain top science leaders with $21 million over two years to establish up to 20 Canada global excellence research chairs. These are issues we can point to that are very specific and concrete, which I certainly assume you would support in an advisory position. I think that needs to be emphasized.

When you emphasize the advice and you emphasize the funding, it's a very key question. One of the things that strike me is partly from our own private discussions. You mention it in your talk about being inadequately funded from the start. My impression from our conversations was that you were frustrated right from the start with a lack of direct access to former Prime Minister Paul Martin. You make comments about the current government, and I take your point, but you seem to be very frustrated at your lack of access to former Prime Minister Paul Martin and the fact that you were not solicited for advice.

Is that impression of your frustration correct or not?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I guess I was frustrated by a lack of access to cabinet on a regular basis and to the Prime Minister on a regular basis. When a national science advisor is to be effective, you have to have that regular interaction. For example, for science to be effective there should be a science advisor at the cabinet table in order to give sciences a voice to their considerations. I think that's quite crucial.

With regard to your comments about the CLS, as you know, I'm the chairman of the board of the CLS. I've just finished a nine-year term as chairman of the board. I absolutely agree with you that the CLS is delighted that the government has provided $10 million over two years of additional funding. Unfortunately it doesn't solve the longer-term problem, as you know. I'm sure the universities are very happy about the indirect costs and the increase there. There are many things that are very positive. It's important to keep your eye on the overall ball so that we don't forget about improving the whole system. That's the difficult thing.