In the platform analyses I’ve done so far (for the Greens, the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Liberals), I’ve focused mostly on the stuff around student finance. But in doing so, I’ve left out certain platform elements on science and innovation, specifically from the Liberals and the New Democrats.
There are some pretty broad similarities between the two parties’ programs, even though they package them somewhat differently. Both are long on promises about process. The Liberals will appoint a Chief Science Officer; the NDP will go one better, and appoint an Office of the Parliamentary Science Officer AND create a Scientific Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. Both promise to “unmuzzle” scientists; both promise to bring back the long-form census (which I personally find irritating – shouldn’t we at least try to move into 21st century with an administrative register?). Both promise to make government data “open”; additionally, the Liberals promise to ensure their policies are “evidence-based”. The word “independence” shows up a lot: Liberals want to give it to Statscan, without actually specifying what the word means; the NDP want to restore it to the granting agencies, without specifying what the word means. They also want to re-establish scientific capacity in government, but apparently aren’t allocating any money for it, so you know, take that with a grain of salt.
The differences, such as they are, are about where to spend the lucre. The Liberals have set aside an extra $600 million over three years for an “Innovation Agenda”, which will “significantly expand support to incubators and accelerators, as well as the emerging national network for business innovation and cluster support”. This, apparently, is meant to “create successful networks like the German and American partnerships between business government and university/college research”.
Genuinely, I have no idea what they are talking about. Which German and American programs? The Fraunhofer institute? The Tories already did that when they converted NRC to an applied research shop. As near as I can tell, this seems to be innovation-speak for “let’s give money to middle-men between academia and business”. Which is not promising. I mean, even assuming that early-stage commercialization is the real bottleneck in our innovation system (and where’s the evidence for that, evidence-based policy guys?), why is this the right way to go about fixing it? Weren’t the Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research supposed to do the same thing, albeit from another angle? Shouldn’t we – you know, wait for some evidence about what works and what doesn’t?
The Liberals also are promising another $100 million over three years to the Industrial Research Assistance Program, which would normally make me want to tear my eyes out, but apparently it’s all going into something that is meant to mimic the US Small Business Innovation and Research Program, which does tend to get high marks. But, significantly, there is not an extra cent for educational institutions, and not an extra cent for the granting councils.
The New Democrats, on the other hand, are talking much smaller sums: $105 million over four years to “support researchers in post-secondary institutions”. A helpful NDP staffer has clarified for me that this actually means money to the granting councils, which would make the NDP the only party to commit to more council funding. That said, unless inflation dips below 1% (unlikely, but not impossible), that amount is not enough to cover inflation.
So, take your pick here. On non-financial aspects of their policies, the two parties are essentially singing off the same sheet. Financially, the Liberals have more money on the table, but none of it appears to be heading to institutions. The NDP has a much smaller package, which will benefit researchers via the granting councils, but not by a whole lot.
Back next Friday with a final summary of the election and higher education.