Canada lacks the institutional structure to invest in the future

Budget 2017 promises $125 million to launch what it calls a Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy by promoting collaboration between centres of excellence in Montreal, Toronto-Waterloo and Edmonton. This, it says, will “position Canada as a world-leading destination for companies seeking to invest in artificial intelligence and innovation.”

It suggests, as well, that the AI community could organize an AI “supercluster”, tapping into the $950 million that Budget 2017 has allocated for the government’s still far-from defined “supercluster” fund.

This is no doubt, all to the good. Likewise, the modest $10 million over two years increase in funding for Waterloo’s Institute for Quantum Computing, following larger support in earlier years.

In both the world of AI and quantum computing, Canada is an important player — though not the only one despite government boasts of Canadian leadership — and it makes sense to build on demonstrated strengths.

What’s missing as Canada seeks to position itself for the future, and this is critically important, is any institutional capacity to prepare Canadians more broadly for the future, whether it is AI, quantum computing, space, genomics, regenerative medicine or agri-food. What are our goals? What are our strengths and weaknesses? What do we have to do to be successful in say AI or quantum computing? What are the skills and jobs implications?

Simply announcing research grants is not a strategy. The US and UK do a far superior job to Canada in engaging the public on critical strategic choices.

AI is an example. Last May, the White House announced a “series of actions to spur public dialogue on AI, to identify challenges and opportunities related to this exciting technology, to aid in the use of AI for more effective government, and to prepare for the potential benefits and risks of AI”, as well as developing a national strategy for R&D in AI.

The Executive Office of the President, through the National Science and Technology Council, followed up with three public reports, starting with one entitled Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence, as “a contribution toward preparing the United States for a future in which AI plays a growing role,” looking at “the current state of AI, its existing and potential applications, and the questions that are raised for society and public policy by progress in AI.”

A second report, The National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan, set out priorities for federal funding of AI R&D, along with a framework to identify scientific and technological needs in AI. And a third report, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy, focussed on the employment and skills impacts of AI. “It is to be expected that machines will continue to reach or exceed human performance on more and more tasks,” it said.

It’s not just AI. Last year the National Science and Technology Council issued a report, Advancing Quantum Information Science: National Challenges and Opportunities, while the UK National Quantum Technologies Programme issued A Roadmap for Quantum Technologies in the UK. Like AI, quantum science has significant implications for future industries and jobs. Similar US and UK reports have been published on advanced manufacturing.

But in Canada nothing – no public engagement, no effort to inform Canadians on what’s at stake in these fields, both positive and negative, no strategy.

For nearly three decades we had the Science Council of Canada. Established in 1966 by the Pearson government to provide public analysis and advice on science and technology issues, it had its own staff and its work was directed by an advisory board of S&T experts from the private, academic and public sectors.

The Council’s reports dealt with many issues. These are just a few: Space programs, water resources research, a national science policy for Canada, the challenges facing agriculture, cities for tomorrow, strategies to develop a Canadian computer industry, intercity passenger travel, science education in schools, biotechnology, the transition to an information economy, genetics and healthcare, industry-university collaboration and the conserver society (one of the first reports anywhere on sustainable development).

But funding was eliminated in 1993. Bureaucrats didn’t like outside sources of advice going to ministers and ministers didn’t like reports that often pointed to inadequacy of government programs.

No serious attempt was made to fill this vacuum until the establishment of the Council of Canadian Academies in 2005. But officials made sure, in its mandate, that the new Council would not be allowed to make recommendations, only assessments of existing conditions, and the work of the Council, while of high quality, is largely in response to specific requests from the federal government. It is not enough. For starters, the Council should be encouraged to make recommendations in its reports.

What’s missing more broadly is some institutional means to publicly develop strategy for the future. One possibility would be to create an Office of Chief Science Adviser, but modelled on the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. It would have to operate out of the Privy Council Office, which is the central coordinating agency of government, not reside in an individual department. It would need an external advisory council, much like the National Advisory Board of Science and Technology, which published all of its reports. It would also need a technology foresight capacity.

The Canadian Fundamental Science Review — the Naylor report — goes part way to meeting these needs with its call for a National Advisory Council on Research and Innovation (NACRI). But it assumes the government has ambitious plans for its proposed Chief Science Adviser. Unfortunately, the Trudeau government’s plans for such an office are poorly defined and quite limited. Second, it endorses the views that the Chief Science Adviser should be located in a single government department, rather than in the powerful central agency, the Privy Council Office. Science belongs to all government departments, not just one, as the US experience shows.

Science and technology will shape much of our future. Operating in the dark is not the smartest way to proceed.

David Crane can be reached at crane@interlog.com.