Richard Flageole, FCA
Assistant Auditor General
29 April 1999
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our review of progress made by the government in implementing the Federal Science and Technology Strategy. I understand the Committee is undertaking a study on basic research in Canada and the national innovation system, and we hope this presentation will be of use to you in your work.
I am accompanied by Peter Simeoni, the Principal responsible for the industry, science and technology portfolio in our Office.
I will divide my remarks this morning into two parts. First, I will give you an overview of the main findings of Chapter 22. Second, I will outline what we believe the government needs to do to finish implementing its Strategy. I will also talk briefly about our chapter on managing scientific personnel, which was tabled just last week.
The federal government’s investment in science and technology is, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, the cornerstone of our national and regional systems of innovation…and by innovation systems I mean the sets of national and regional institutions and institutional linkages that generate, diffuse and apply knowledge for all sorts of purposes.
The federal government spends almost $5.5 billion a year on science and technology, in addition to more than $1 billion in tax incentives to encourage research and development in the private sector. It accounts, and is accountable, for about one quarter of the country’s total investment in research and development. And it is difficult to think of examples of science and technology issues in which the government is not somehow involved. The importance of the federal investment, however, comes from more than its size in absolute and relative terms. It also comes from the possibility that this large piece of the national innovation system can be managed in a coherent and collaborative way.
In its 1996 Strategy, Science and Technology for the New Century, the government explicitly recognized, and even embraced, the notion of coherence. The Strategy had two essential messages:
First, the national innovation system supports the government’s science and technology goals of sustainable job creation and economic growth, improved quality of life, and advancement of knowledge.
Second, to be a more effective partner in the country’s innovation system, the government needed, and I quote, "to get its own house in order."
To effect this "house-cleaning", the Strategy:
This is an impressive list. When we add up all the Strategy set out to do, it was considerably more ambitious than it seemed at first. In retrospect, it was less of a plan for tidying up individual departments, and more of a blue print for renovating the entire federal house. At the very least, it represented the possibility of significant and enduring improvements in the federal science and technology system. Most importantly of all, from our point of view, the Strategy explicitly recognized that all federal S&T can and should be better managed.
Our Office strongly supported the Strategy in our September 1996 Report to the House of Commons. We went so far as to state that both the Strategy and the associated framework for managing scientific personnel probably represented the best attempt yet at resolving outstanding issues in the management of science and technology. We were particularly encouraged by the Strategy’s emphasis on mission-driven, results-based science and technology, and the requirement that departments measure their science and technology performance against clear objectives.
Despite our generally encouraging message, we observed that delivering on commitments was going to be a much bigger challenge than conceiving them. We reminded Parliament that there had been many similar efforts by the government over the past 30 years – few of which have had many lasting effects. There was a clear risk that this Strategy would fade away just like its predecessors. All in all, the Strategy seemed like a reasonable plan for setting up new governance and management systems that could, in turn, develop and carry out a federal science policy.
This past December we reported to Parliament our assessment of the government’s progress to that time in meeting the Strategy’s commitments. Our findings fell into three groups.
First, we looked at the government’s efforts to set up new institutions for governing and mechanisms for managing its science and technology investment and were forced to conclude that progress could best be described as slow. Some commitments had been partially addressed, while others had been nominally completed – for example, various elements of the new management system are in place although it is not yet clear whether or how they will work together. Other commitments were still being worked on – in particular, the results of the government’s review of science and technology priorities have not yet been reported to Parliament. Overall, we believed that the new system was not yet doing what it was intended to do – that is, ensuring that science and technology priorities are clear, that activities are co-ordinated, and that performance is reported on fully.
We also looked at how four departments have responded to the government’s direction in their day-to-day operations. We found that progress varied considerably, although all four were more or less moving in the right direction. We recommended that the departments take stock and set out what remains to be done.
The third area we looked at was whether the government was putting the Strategy into practice in the management of its climate change science activities. We were forced to conclude that, as of last fall, this area did not yet reflect the intent or methods of the Strategy. Although we observed increased co-operation in doing climate change science, departments were still operating according to their individual priorities rather than collaboratively working toward common goals. Having said that, we noted that a new interdepartmental management framework was in the works and we thought that this was a promising development. I understand that work has progressed further since we finished our report.
Nevertheless, when we weighed the evidence, we concluded that progress was mixed at best, that implementation of the Strategy was quickly losing momentum, and that the system was still not doing what it was supposed to do. Without renewed attention, there was a growing danger that the Strategy would fail, as had similar efforts in the past. And nothing has happened since then that suggests this danger has diminished.
We believe that the results of our reports to Parliament on federal science and technology management are directly relevant to the study that this Committee is carrying out on sustaining Canada as an innovative society. To the extent that the federal government is not as effective a partner in national and regional innovation systems as it could be, the country’s innovation performance suffers accordingly. Being a good partner in innovation is more than simply bringing money to the table. It means knowing how the overall system and the related sub-systems work, and what their strengths and weaknesses are, and it means making decisions on where and how to act for best effect. If the federal house is not yet in order, then it follows that it is probably not doing these things very well.
Madam Chair, the whole point of the Strategy is to promote well-directed, collaborative action in science and technology. It is also meant to reduce duplication of effort and maximize the value for money achieved through an investment of seven billion dollars. However, despite the quality of the original blueprint, after three years the renovations are not yet completed. It is clearly time for the government to take stock and set out what remains to be done to finish the job – to set out a forward-looking agenda as it did in 1996. But that, by itself, won’t be enough.
We believe that departments need to be much clearer about what they are trying to achieve when they invest in science and technology, either individually or in partnership with other departments. Mission-driven, results-based science and technology has been the major theme of our work since 1993 and was picked up by the government in the Strategy. While I think it is fair to say that there are encouraging signs, this idea has not yet taken hold everywhere.
Clear individual and shared goals, however, are necessary but not sufficient conditions for success. Collaboration on common issues is just as important. In our view, collaboration in this context means collective action – that is, working together, partnering, and sharing.
We know this can be done. As I mentioned, just last week we reported the results of our work on the management of scientific personnel within the federal government. In Chapter 9 of the April Report we expressed satisfaction with the efforts of the federal science and technology community in addressing our past concerns and previous recommendations. Although the members of that community face considerable challenges - and concrete results are yet to be achieved - what they’ve done so far should position them to act on key human resource issues, such as renewing and rejuvenating scientific personnel and improving management capabilities.
The reasons for this progress are what you would expect: collaboration among departmental science managers and personnel, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the unions; well-defined action plans with priorities, timetables, expected results and performance measures; and a management structure that sets out responsibilities and accountabilities.
My final comment is one that you should expect from our Office – parliamentary oversight is the key to ensuring that things work the way they are supposed to. As it stands now, without clarity in what departments are trying to achieve and good measures of how well they’re doing, meaningful oversight is difficult.
Let me therefore suggest that the Committee, as it considers the important issue of the effectiveness of the national innovation system, seek answers to the following questions from the government:
Madam Chair, this concludes our opening statement and we would be pleased to answer your Committee’s questions.