On the two points you make around the critical mass and having good science advice on overall national science policy, those are two critical features that have to be appreciated and understood.
I agree completely with the issue around critical mass. In the context of the astronomy long-range plan, that was one of the key overriding principles. The community had to choose where in fact it was excellent, and then focus its resources to maintain that degree of excellence, not spread those resources but actually take advantage of the strength that had already been created within the community, and the excellence, and then build on that. That has meant that Canada is not participating in all of the international astronomy projects. We're participating in approximately 10% of those projects that we could in principle be involved in, because of the need to have critical mass in key areas in order to actually have impact.
As a principle, I agree completely, and the astronomy plan reflects that.
On the issue of how the federal government is able to most effectively get scientific advice, I think the current government has taken a view that a science adviser was not the best instrument, but that perhaps a committee or an advisory panel would actually be an equivalent or better instrument. Without commenting on which one actually is going to be a better mechanism all around, it is fair to say that Canada has not had the sort of voice at a very senior political level giving the informed scientific advice that will help to lead the country forward. From the point of view of the academic community, which I come from, that is certainly seen as a significant weakness in how we can plan and make priorities going forward.