SRSR Committee Report

Supplementary Report

New Democratic Party of Canada

While the New Democratic Party agrees in broad terms with the report on science and research in Canada, it feels that there are two areas where it could have been greatly improved.

First, the committee would have benefitted from a longer, more encompassing study of science in Canada. Many facets of Canadian science have yet to be studied by the committee and members would benefit through the provision of a broad baseline understanding of the scientific ecosystem in Canada. For instance, although university students and postdoctoral fellows are a critical part of academic research in Canada, no student groups were invited to testify before the committee. And although it is clear in the study’s findings that private sector research is lagging in Canada, the committee heard from only two private sector witnesses. Similarly, while the government itself undertakes a considerable amount of scientific research through Statistics Canada, the Geological Survey of Canada, the Canadian Forest Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service and other agencies, only Industry Canada and the National Research Council testified on government’s role in Canadian scientific research. Another sector that was not heard from is the large non-governmental organization research sector, including the rapidly expanding area of citizen science.

Secondly, it is disappointing that the committee did not recommend that Parliament create the position of Parliamentary Science Officer. In doing so, it did not heed the advice of both Dr. Mona Nemer, Canada’s Chief Science Advisor, and Rachael Maxwell, Executive Director, Evidence for Democracy. Both these expert witnesses testified that Parliament would benefit from an independent source of scientific advice.[1] Most Parliamentarians do not have a scientific or technological background but, as has been illustrated by the Covid-19 Pandemic and the climate crisis, science and technology issues are increasingly integral to public policy. Daily, MPs and Senators are bombarded with lobbying, public enquiries and media stories about science and technology. It can be challenging for non-experts to determine the authority and accuracy of the scientific information provided and Parliamentarians are not well placed to identify poor quality information and are therefore vulnerable to erroneous data and deliberate misinformation.

It is difficult for Parliamentarians to rely on the Chief Science Advisor for scientific advice, as that office answers to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry for both subjects to study and reports to be produced. As such the advice could hardly be considered independent or easily accessible. “It is an ideal of democratic government that representatives should be independent of undesirable forces that might bias their judgment on public matters. In particular they should be free of the executive….” wrote University of Saskatchewan Political Science Professor Norman Ward.[2]  

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was established in 2006 with a mission to "support Parliament in exercising its oversight role in the government’s stewardship of public funds by ensuring budget transparency and promoting informed public dialogue with an aim to implement sound economic and fiscal policies in Canada." Since then, the PBO has provided Parliamentarians with an excellent source independent analysis, which often does not support that provided by government sources. In terms of scientific accountability, a Parliamentary Science Officer would provide similar support to Parliament in its oversight role.

Many national legislatures have either created an independent advisory body or rely upon a third-party organization for scientific advice. The best example of a parliamentary science office is the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). It is governed by a board of 14 parliamentarians, plus four experts appointed by the UK’s scientific academies. POST provides short evidence syntheses and briefs with rapid (1 –3 month) turnaround, as requested by Parliament. Sweden has established the Parliamentary Evaluation and Research Secretariat which is similar. Some European countries outsource the provision of science advice to parliament, for example:

• Austria’s Institute for Technology Assessment, a consortium of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Austrian Institute of Technology;
• The Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, an independent scientific institution operated by the Institute of Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology;
• The Norwegian Board of Technology, which provides technology assessments for the Norwegian government and parliament; and
• The Foundation for Technical Assessment a publicly funded, non-profit body under the auspices of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, which provides advice to the Swiss Federal Council, parliament and administration.

The New Democratic Party recommends that Parliament create the position of parliamentary science officer responsible for advising and reporting to Parliament on all matters relating to science and technology in Canada.