Peter Morand

Objective advice should trump politics

By Dr Peter Morand

The only way that Canada has been able to keep its overall balance of trade in positive territory is the disproportionate export of its natural resources. In terms of advanced technology goods and services, Canada continues to import far more than it exports, especially in the area of health care which constitutes a major part of public expenditures in this country.

Not surprisingly, Canada recorded its first current account deficit since 1999 in the last quarter of last year. For all of 2007, the current account surplus declined precipitously from $23.6 billion in 2006 to $14.2 billion. The strength of the Cdn$ no doubt contributed to this shortfall but the continuing imbalance in the export/import ratio of natural resources and high-tech goods and services does not bode well for Canada's economy.

For some years now Canada's decision-makers have been striving to transition the economy from being resource-based to knowledge-based. In spite of policy frameworks which are more tuned to political expediency than to an in-depth appreciation of the fast moving knowledge-based global economy, federal and provincial budgets have included both incentives and direct investments aimed at accelerating this transition. But despite its boast that innovation is an integral part of its economic policy, Canada does not rank highly within the OECD in this regard (R$, July 23/07, p 8).

FEDERAL BUDGET

In the recent federal budget, some pressing issues for accelerating Canada's move to a knowledge-based economy are addressed. These include additional funding for the university research granting councils and Genome Canada; the establishment of Global Excellence Research Chairs; students to study in Canada and abroad; the support of major research installations; indirect costs of doing research; and, the development of environmental technologies.

From my perspective the most blatant omission is the lack of additional funding for International Science and Technology Partnerships Canada to enhance the development of R&D collaboration with other countries. If executed properly, this type of partnering is an excellent way for Canada to add to its knowledge base. And, of course, there is the question of accountability for some of the commitments of public funds for what appear to be purely political reasons.

That being said, are we missing the boat in not recognizing and investing in specific emerging and converging technologies such as biophotonics and alternative energy sources? Are we remiss in not investing more heavily in international research consortia and in not making greater efforts to link aid to developing countries with Canada's existing research capabilities?

Are we inadvertently encouraging companies to contract out their research to universities rather than reinforcing the industrial R&D infrastructure, especially of SMEs — a process that would lead to more productive university/industry partnerships? How can students be better motivated to opt for careers in the knowledge sector? What is the impact of past investments of public monies to stimulate Canada's knowledge-based economy?

These are key questions which require the collective wisdom of well-informed, independent advisors to help formulate effective policies and to assist decision-makers in their implementation.

ADVISORY VACUUM

The National Academies in the US responded to a bipartisan request of the US Senate and House of Representatives by producing a report that signaled that the US was in "…substantial danger of losing its economic leadership position and suffering a concomitant decline in the standard of living of its citizens because of a looming inability to compete in the global marketplace."

One would be naïve to think that some of the findings in this sobering report by an independent advisory group will not affect Canada. An essay published by Norman Augustine, chair of the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm Committee, has sparked a national debate about revamping the educational system in the US.

All this to say that Canada woefully lacks an effective and viable mechanism for providing the independent and insightful advice needed in sustaining a successful knowledge-based economy. More often than not. our politicians rely on advice from senior mandarins who do not necessarily have the qualifications to assess issues of advanced technologies and economic impacts in the global context. Or else an ad hoc, hand-picked advisory group may be appointed by government to put its imprimatur on a politically driven agenda. This is worrisome as the future of all Canadians will be influenced by policies and decisions that make the most cost effective use of scarce resources.

Creating a Science, Technology and Innovation Council made up of 18 members — all of whom have demanding "day jobs", and whose work (as usual) is supported by a secretariat housed within Industry Canada — has not been warmly received either here or abroad. The Council of Canadian Academies, created in 2005, is better structured to provide independent advice to the federal government. But it owes its existence to an initial $30-million government grant. This being the case, it brings to mind the history of the Science Council that was summarily abolished at the whim of government in 1993, not to mention the short-lived appointment of Arthur Carty as National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister.

The highest priority of whatever political party is in power should be to solicit the best possible independent advice for policy formulation and implementation and develop effective tools to measure the impact of policy implementation in order to respond to an ever-changing environment.

For example, in the US the National Academies and the affiliated National Research Council — created in 1863 and 1916 respectively — have established a high level of credibility and objectivity in their advisory roles. For whatever reasons, cultural or otherwise, Canada still lags its peers among industrialized countries in terms of having highly competent, independent and credible advisory bodies to assist in policy formulation and implementation. My fervent hope is that the Council of Canadian Academies will survive beyond its current mandate and earn the reputation of being the kind of advisory body that Canada sorely needs.

Peter Morand is past president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and past president & CEO of the Canadian S&T Growth Fund Inc. petermorand@rogers.com