Preston Manning on federal science policy in Canada

Preston Manning shot some pretty forceful bullet points at the state of science policy in Canada.
Globe and Mail - Just how did we let this happen? - December 17, 2007
The article is unfortunately not available in full online, so here's a sampling:

Why is the construction of new [medical isotope] reactors, slated to replace the 50-year-old NRU reactor, 10 years behind schedule and way over budget? Why does no one appear to have warned federal politicians about this looming crisis until it was too late?

   As a former federal politician with an interest in science policy, let me suggest some answers:

   * because this country has no federal science department or ministry dedicated exclusively to the development and management of publicly funded science and technology or to the proper allocation of the federal government's multibillion-dollar science, technology and innovation budget. Industry Canada, as well as Parliament's standing committee on industry, science, and technology have a vast array of responsibilities, of which oversight for science policies and agencies is only one, and these responsibilities do not include oversight of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL);

   * because in this country you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of members of Parliament and provincial legislators with scientific or engineering training sufficient to enable them to ask relevant scientific questions in Question Period or in committee;

   * because our Parliament has no "Scientist-General" (an officer of Parliament like the Auditor-General) or "Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology" (as in Great Britain) to provide members with access to needed scientific expertise, including that required to adjudicate between conflicting scientific opinions;

   * because this country has yet to figure out a funding formula for publicly funded science projects that insures long-term viability.

   * because we, the Canadian public, often fail to appreciate the critical role that science and technology play in undergirding our economy and ensuring our quality of life, and therefore do not insist on a higher level of scientific literacy and competence from our media, legislators, or political leaders.

It is interesting that Mr. Manning didn't mention either the National Science Advisor or the Council of Canadian Academies, or the newly struck advisory committee whose name I can never remember... ah yes, the STIC - Science, Technology and Innovation Council.  I guess his focus is more on advice to all of Parliament, whereas the current structures tend to be more for advising the sitting government only.

I sometimes wonder if I'm the only one who actually has attempted to unravel this byzantine advisory structure.

There has been a ridiculously long chain of advisory groups, including the Science Council of Canada and the Council of Science and Technology Advisors.  I'm not sure exactly what is accomplished by repeatedly dissolving and reinventing these groups.

Previously:
February 21, 2006  help me understand the Canadian national science advisory structure