Paul Dufour, fellow and adjunct professor, Univ of Ottawa

Legacy of Lamontagne and lessons for today

By Paul Dufour

The recent announcement of the Governor General's Innovation Awards by David Johnston (Canada's de facto science ambassador and de jure science cheerleader) has brought to mind an earlier proposal put forward by another statesman of science and public policy — Maurice Lamontagne. The Laval-Harvard-educated senator chaired a 10-year special Senate committee study of science policy between 1968 and1977.

The committee suggested that the government institute a series of awards for "meritorious technological innovation and to Canadians contributing significant inventions, to be called The Innovation Canada Award and the Invention Canada Award".

For good measure, he also put forward the need for a Canada Innovation Bank to support the launch of technological innovations in new or existing small- and medium-sized enterprises and that grants designed to encourage R&D activities in industry be integrated into one multi-disciplinary program (mirroring one of the Jenkins panel recommendations). That was in 1972. Like good coffee, policy ideas can percolate for a while.

The Lamontagne Committee's four-volume report remains one of the most comprehensive examinations ever undertaken of Canada's science and innovation system. The committee held extensive consultations and hearings, assessed international good practices, and laid out a roadmap for science policy. While it had both its supporters and its detractors, ultimately it fostered a national dialogue on a critical issue impacting Canada's economy and society. We have not seen the like since.

The final volume of the report, issued in 1977, was a reflective piece labelled "progress and unfinished business". It is instructive to re-assess some of its recommendations as they resonate with a debate today on why, where and how Canada should improve its ecosystem for innovation.

Weak business innovation

At its heart, the report restated the persistently weak link in Canada's innovation system — that of the business sector. In testimony to the Senate Committee, the then minister of state for S&T in 1977 argued that "the proposed (federal) budget reflects the government's intention to give greater emphasis to the research effort in industry and to design measures and policies that will encourage industry itself to take on greater responsibilities in this area." We heard almost identical prodding 38 years later in the 2015 federal Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy. Despite the continuous moral suasion, business innovation remains the weakest link in Canada's innovation approach.

Government science

Recognizing that government science was a critical component, the report suggested that science-based departments and agencies should have a science adviser acting as liaison between top management and research services. The senator also added that there were intramural scientific activities indispensable to the success of government missions, and that government labs also had a role of supplementing and complementing the university and industry sectors.

Also singled out was a program in cooperation with the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board to facilitate mobility of research personnel within the government and between universities, industry and public agencies. The recently completed Knox expert panel on government science has examined these and related issues yet again — maybe action will follow.

Arguing that the National Research Council mission had become ambivalent (on the one-hand it was devoted to long-term research, and on the other, it was a complex of industrial labs), the Senate Committee made strong, yet controversial recommendations to transform the NRC into a national academy concentrating on long-term investigations, fundamental and applied.

It made a case for a multi-purpose institution — a Canadian Industrial Labs Corporation — to be established where government intramural R&D activities serving the manufacturing sector would be consolidated. As it prepares for its 100th anniversary next year and has just launched its new Factory of the Future program in Winnipeg and London, readers will recognize that the transformation of the NRC took the path of an RTO (Research Technology Organization) designed to assist industry.

The university sector also received considerable attention during the Lamontagne hearings. The senator noted the vacuum in Canadian university research funding, governance and financial stress in their budgets (this was before the current granting councils were created). He suggested a Canadian Research Board (CRB) be set up, together with three foundations (covering physical sciences, life sciences, social sciences and humanities) with responsibility for the development of a capacity in curiosity-oriented basic research within universities and similar institutions. Lamontagne recommended that the board also cover the full costs (direct and indirect) of the projects and programs they selected in this area. The report even opined that social sciences and humanities should be the order of priority for government support of curiosity research, followed by the life sciences. The "Research Quebec" model that exists today with a chief scientist overseeing its three provincial granting councils suggests some inspiration from the CRB concept.

Stronger governance advocated

Governance was also a key focus of the Lamontagne remit. A ministry of S&T had existed since 1971, but the senators were displeased with its direction and lack of gravitas in the public policy sphere. It was argued that the minister of state should be ex-officio member of the Treasury Board and of the Cabinet Committee on Priorities and Planning, and that an Inter-Ministerial Committee for Science and Technology be established to examine and approve general and specific science policies of departments and agencies.

Additionally, an Inter-Ministerial, Federal-Provincial Committee on S&T was to meet at least once a year. Parliament did not escape attention. A group of parliamentarians from the Senate and House of Commons was to be organized to study science policy matters raised by S&T, leading ultimately to the establishment of a Canadian Association of Parliamentarians, Scientists and Engineers in collaboration with representatives of scientific and engineering bodies.

We've since lost the stand-alone science ministry — it is a mere vestigial organ within the Industry ministry voiced by a junior minister of state with little independent authority to influence budgets.

Parliamentarians have few tools at their disposal to help shape science-based public policy. The NDP motion for a Parliamentary Science Officer has been posited as one element to filling this gap. Lamontagne also examined the public advisory functions of the Science Council of Canada as it was asked to ensure its mandate cover the social sciences and humanities in addition to maintaining closer relationships with the Canadian scientific and engineering communities in developing policy ideas .

Careful reading of all of the Lamontagne recommendations can lead one to conclude that little has changed today. In one sense, the issues of science policy raised by the Senate Committee over 40 years ago may seem intractable, but occasionally a window can open to help frame bold new directions.

As Lamontagne concluded in his report: "Canadians are now facing the collective challenge of inventing the future". The coming federal election, celebrations of Canada's 150th along with Lamontagne's legacy, offer a potential window for vision, inspiration and change.

Paul Dufour is a fellow and adjunct professor at the Univ of Ottawa's Institute for Science, Society and Policy.