$12-billion spending review could alter Canada’s science priorities for next 5 years

Low-priority R&D programs for government, universities and industry could be cut or scaled back as part of the federal government’s current expenditure review, which will see $12 billion in federal spending reallocated from low to higher priority items over the next five years. S&T champions are cautiously optimistic that the reallocation could result in more money for research related to priority areas such as climate change and innovation. But, as yet, no decisions have been made.

The chief scientist at Natural Resources Canada says this review differs from the 1990s program review. First, it is supposed to be a reallocation, not a cut. Second, S&T is now on the radar of the central agencies. “I have never seen the central agencies, particularly Treasury Board, learning so much about science in government,” says Dr. Yvan Hardy. “I don’t expect to see the prime minister adding a billion dollars to the government science efforts, but I don’t expect anything harsh.”

Like other departments and agencies, NRCan was given an October 12 deadline to identify 5, 7.5 and 10% in spending cuts from low priority areas. The $12-billion review is part of a mammoth exercise being overseen by the Cabinet-level Expenditure Review (ER) committee. The ER is separate from one led by Treasury Board which is reallocating $1 billion annually from government spending starting this year (see page 1).

The ER will undoubtedly have an impact on Canada’s S&T community — from universities that rely on $1.5 billion annually from the three granting councils, to industry subsidy programs and regional economic development agencies, as well as the science-based departments themselves which have seen little or no increases in their base budgets since the last program review.

The concern is that progress made over the past seven years to strengthen Canada’s research capacity could be eroded. That’s not something that Canada’s National Science Advisor (NSA) wants to see happen. Although Dr. Arthur Carty has no direct role in the ER, he is acting as an intermediary to bring together various stakeholders to discuss the issues. Carty is heading up two informal committees — one representing the granting councils and foundations, and a second of deputy ministers from science-based departments and agencies — that are dealing with the short- and long-term issues facing the S&T system in Canada.

The key messages coming from those meetings are that Canada needs to protect the investments it has made in R&D, says NSA executive director Kevin Fitzgibbons. The government also needs to consider horizontal S&T issues in government as a whole, focus on long-term priorities, develop more effective partnerships across the R&D system and, “be prepared to reallocate resources.”

“Dr. Carty is also cognizant that this kind of level of funding can not go on indefinitely,” adds Fitzgibbons. “We have got to work ourselves into a steady state that is sustainable.”

That some R&D initiatives will be scaled back, eliminated or devolved to the provinces, universities or private sector appears to be a given. The unknown is what R&D priorities can expect to receive new money. Fitzgibbons says he does not want to pre-judge the ER process, but says he’s “pretty confident” that science will do “quite well” in the end.

One S&T veteran says that for the review to be effective, science departments and agencies must be open minded to change. “A healthy review would involve, for example, looking at certain subsidy programs and asking if this is a worthwhile S&T path that is being followed, and to what extent can it be it privatized more than it is already,” says Dr. Stefan Dupré, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. “Hopefully the government, to the extent that it is positive about S&T policy, and I believe it is, would use whatever savings result from this kind of review to finance new programs, or to put more resources into existing ones that really are promising.”

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright, ADM science at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, says reviewing spending priorities is a necessary exercise for governments. She admits, however, that the exercise has been a difficult one for all departments. “We’ve had some success in identifying where we would realign from and where to, but it is difficult,” she says. “The demand is always for more science, not less.”

One way to reduce spending, she adds, is by sharing more research facilities, both within government and with academia.

Two separate reviews now ongoing at Treasury Board could help to identify opportunities for closer collaboration across government. One will include an inventory of all government research infrastructure. A separate review is tagging all science expenditures across departments. The reviews would help to identify, for example, who in government is spending what on water, northern S&T or climate change.

Developing closer linkages between science-based and other departments is also part of the ER exercise. As well, the ADMs’ S&T Integration Board, established in 2003 to identify ways to strengthen horizontal governance and linkages between the 10 science-based departments and agencies, will be discussing the ER exercise at a December meeting.

“We’re not looking at the (review) from the cuts end of the telescope,” says Dr. John Leggat, ADM S&T at Defence R&D Canada. “We’re looking at it from the opportunity end and trying to put in place a process whereby we can figure out how we can better lever off one another’s strengths, facilities, infrastructure, partnerships and international contacts.”

The ER committee plans to submit recommendations to the prime minister this fall, for implementation in the 2005 Budget.

R$