Industry Committee on March 6th, 2008

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

This has absolutely no relevance to the discussion of the future of the role of the national science advisor or its office.

I may add that in a December 13 letter Minister Prentice said, relative to Dr. Carty's role with the NRC:

...may I assure you that your vision and leadership at NRC continues to contribute to the government’s Science and Technology Strategy and efforts to improve Canada’s capacity to innovate and prosper.

Furthermore, you have made significant and valuable contributions to Canada’s international agenda, and have built a strong and well-respected Canadian presence at such forums as the G8 Carnegie Group and the Canada-India Joint Science and Technology Committee. Thank for your leadership and dedication to the public service of Canada.

He's talking about the NRC, not the mandate of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Brison, I get your point.

Mr. Van Kesteren, I remind you that we are dealing with Dr. Carty's term as national science advisor.

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

Mr. Chair, the point I'm trying to make is that if the government is to be criticized for eliminating this post and possibly seeing a better vehicle, the obvious course of action for the government to take is to ask those questions. I think it's relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Brison, I've directed Mr. Van Kesteren to limit his questions.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I appreciate that and your fairness in that regard. But if the government really wants to pursue this kind of vendetta against science, as it did with Linda Keen, they're welcome to continue that sort of agenda and live by the consequences.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Brison, you know that's not a point of order.

Mr. Van Kesteren, it's your time.

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

I said at the outset that I'm very respectful of your position, and I recognize that you are a man who has very high credentials. I'm not criticizing that at all.

As a matter of discussion and public record, I think the Canadian public want to know what value they got for the money that was spent. A significant amount of money was spent.

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I tried to give you some of that in the accomplishments and contributions we've made. Were you specifically referring to the Council of Canadian Academies on page 7?

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

I guess I wasn't necessarily zeroing in on that specifically, but the vagueness of that...we need to have a little bit more accomplishment. Quite frankly, when we talk about part of the problem we've had in science and technology...the government had no direction, and that became evident at the last meeting too. There really wasn't a plan as to where we were going. Why was that? Were you underfunded? Why didn't you point the government in a direction where they could go?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

On that specific issue I should comment on the Council of Canadian Academies, because there has been a long-standing recognition in Canada that we needed an organization that was capable of providing the government with the science base from which it could make its decisions. This is an organization that is perhaps similar to the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, or the Académie des sciences in France.

The fact of the matter is that we didn't have the Council of Canadian Academies or the Canadian Academies of Science, yet government had to make decisions every day that really required a consideration of science. How do you do that if you don't have an organization that can periodically and systematically do an assessment of the science involved in one of these issues and provide it to government?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For several minutes, I've been hearing the Conservative members ask questions that are somewhat unrelated to our agenda. For instance, Mr. Van Kesteren asked earlier if, with the office of a national science advisor, consumers were getting their money's worth. We could turn the question around and ask the witness if, in his opinion, Canadians have been getting their money's worth since the Conservatives have been in office. I think we shouldn't stray too far from the issue at hand.

You've been the National Science Advisor since 2005. However, in the fall of 2006, your job was redefined and your office was moved to Industry Canada. In your opinion, what prompted the government to change direction so radically in the fall of 2006?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I tried in an earlier question to give a partial answer to that, but I don't know the full story.

Perhaps I can put it positively and ask what would be the most influential, the most useful role and structure that would most appropriately serve Canada in this, and I've already said a chief scientist or a science advisor, coupled with a science advisory board, is the way we should be going. I still would adhere to that view.

I don't know the full story of why the office was transferred, but certainly, to me, it is very important that the science advisor have the ear of the Prime Minister—or the President, as it is in the United States. In combination with that, you have access to an advisory committee, which is going to supplement the advice the science advisor gives. It doesn't make a lot of sense to not have the connection to the Prime Minister, nor does it make any sense to eliminate the office.

But what is the reason? I could only speculate on the reasons. I've given one possible suggestion earlier. That's maybe not a very satisfactory answer, but I can't really give you a satisfactory one.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In your opinion, might the reason why the government changed direction so dramatically be that its science and investment priorities in this area are not very tangible? The government would like to abandon the whole science niche on a national scale. Do you think that could have something to do with it?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

At the time I didn't interpret it that way. Upon reflection on what's happened, I have to say that on the surface and superficially it appears this is what's happening.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Could personality conflicts have played a part in this?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I'm sorry?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Is it possible that since the fall of 2006, with the arrival on the scene of some new MPs, you were no longer viewed as the right person for the position of national science advisor? Do you think they had someone in mind to take over your job?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

Perhaps to some people I didn't fit the job. It's quite possible that's the case.

Talking about the government's commitment to science, and I'm talking about the current government, one has to recognize the Prime Minister did announce a science and technology strategy in May 2007. That strategy, I think, by and large is a very good and useful strategy if it's followed. There are many strong points about that document, Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage.

It may be the Prime Minister felt, or the system felt, that a science advisor reporting to the Prime Minister wasn't the way to go, and this wasn't important.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, monsieur Vincent.

We'll go to Monsieur Arthur.

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

Dr. Carty, do you remember being described by Maclean's magazine as one of the high flyers of Ottawa?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I'm sure some of that's happened, but I don't remember the specific thing you mention, no.

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

If you had seen it, would you have been horrified, surprised, disappointed, or just felt lucky that worse was not seen?

[Dr. Arthur Carty]

I'd have been flattered, I think, if they'd said that about me in the right way.

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

If they had said it in a way that, after seeing your expense accounts, they were kind of flabbergasted, what would have been your reaction, sir?