Arthur Carty critical of government decision to eliminate national science advisor position

Outgoing national science advisor Dr Arthur Carty says Canada won't have the full range of science policy advice required by an advanced, knowledge-based nation if the decision to close the Office of the National Science Advisor (ONSA) is allowed to stand. But he fell short of calling for its reinstatement during an appearance before a specially convened Parliamentary committee March 6th to articulate his views on the government's decision to phase out the office.

Carty says Canada needs both a chief science advisor and a science advisory council like the recently created Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) to provide a full suite of S&T advice to government, arguing that the combination is both important and powerful and has worked well in other countries.

"The two things are extremely complementary. They provide balanced advice … STIC has just started its work and may provide excellent advice, but that's not all the advice that is needed," he said. "For science to be effective there should be a science advisor at the Cabinet table in order to give science a voice to their considerations. I think that's quite crucial."

During the hearing — held by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology at the behest of Liberal Industry critic Scott Brison — Carty outlined the history of the ONSA including its move from the Privy Council Office to Industry Canada in mid 2006. He said the shift from providing advice to the Industry minister rather than the prime minister combined with benign neglect left the office marginalized with a circumscribed mandate and no input into last year's S&T Strategy despite expressed attempts to participate.

Carty made it clear that his decision to retire followed the government's decision to close the ONSA effective March 31, contrary to statements made in the House of Commons by Industry minister Jim Prentice.

"While my office has lots of knowledge and insights to offer we have rarely been asked to play an important role and contribute as a true partner," he said, adding that the closure has the "potential to tarnish our image internationally". "I was dismayed and disappointed with the news that the office was to be closed. I conveyed my intention to retire from the public service after hearing that the office was to be closed … There are negative consequences to eliminating the position ... I believe philosophically that we should have a national science advisor."

On a question from Bloc Quebecois MP Robert Vincent as to why the ONSA was moved from PCO to the Industry department, Carty said "I don't really know the full story of why the office was transferred but ... it is very important that the science advisor have the ear of the prime minister ... It doesn't really make a lot of sense to not have the connection to the prime minister, nor does it make any sense to eliminate the office altogether."

"I was informed in October that with the evolution of the S&T Strategy, my office would be phased out early in the new year 2008 and that the position of national science advisor would be discontinued. So I want to make it unambiguously clear that I conveyed my intention to retire from the public service only after I had been informed that the office was being closed." — Dr Arthur Carty

When asked whether the closure reflects the priority that the government attaches to science, Carty said, "Not initially, but now on the surface it appears that way."

Carty acknowledged that even prior to the ONSA's move to Industry Canada, there were problems in how the office was established within the bureaucratic and political structure. "I was frustrated by the lack of access to Cabinet and the prime minister on a regular basis," he said. "There should be a science advisor at the Cabinet table. That's quite crucial."

three-ring circus

At times the Committee threatened to degenerate into partisan attacks on Carty's travel and hospitality expenses, prompting an angry response from by Brison. While Brison has turned the ONSA's closure into a crusade against the government, the Committee's four Conservative members enacted a classic good cop-bad cop routine, with two asking Carty measured questions while the other two played the role of attack dogs.

Tory MPs Bruce Stanton and Dave Van Kesteren were joined in their diversionary tactics by Independent member André Arthur, a first-time Quebec MP and a former journalist and shock jock radio host. They peppered Carty on specific line items from his expense claims, prompting Brison to rise several times on a point of order to accuse them of pursuing a vendetta, engaging in a smear campaign and conducting a witch hunt.

Brison went one step further and apologized to Carty on behalf of the Committee for the nature of the questioning and quoted from a letter by Industry MP Jim Prentice praising Carty's work with both the ONSA and his 10 years as president of the National Research Council. (Brison later issued a press release Conservatives continue attack on science with smear campaign against Arthur Carty — which is posted on the RE$EARCH MONEY web site for on-line subscribers. He also raised the issue during the House Question Period ).

Carty took the opportunity at the hearing to outline the accomplishments of the ONSA during its brief history. He said he and his staff were either responsible for or contributed to initiatives such as a nanotechnology strategy, technology foresight, a strategy for major science facilities and supported initiatives such as the Council of Canadian Academies, funding for International Polar Year and the creation and funding of ISTPCanada. Ironically, Carty also credits his office with contributing to a new governance framework for science advice.

stic shortcomings

STIC was a frequent focus of debate throughout the hearing, with Conservative members arguing that the new Council was sufficient to meet the government's science advisory requirements. Carty disagreed.

"The full system is needed here and that includes a science advisor, not just an advisory council which is a part-time group of people who will meet and generally study topics which are given to it by government. The daily advice on science issues — where does that go?" he said. "(STIC) isn't really ... an arm's length independent body ... STIC doesn't report publicly and its reports, as far as I know, will not be made public, nor might they be made available to Parliament. Members of STIC, as with all advisory councils, are part-time people. The national science advisor and his office are full-time employees so you have a bit of a difference there."

R$