Canada, Science Communication In

Government Context for S&T Communication in Canada

Canada adheres to a Westminster model of parliament similar to that in the United Kingdom. The two-house legislature is composed of the House of Commons, an elected body of 308 members of Parliament (MPs) representing constituencies from across the country, and the Senate, 105 senators who are appointed by the prime minister. Generally, the governing party wins the majority of the seats in the House of Commons, a system that gives the governing party (and especially the prime minister) substantial power to implement policies and regulation (as compared to the presidential system within the United States, where there is a clearer separation between the legislative and executive branches).

Theoretically, MPs play a key role in communication between their constituents and the government. A government of Canada poll conducted in the year 2000 showed that two thirds of Canadians regard individual communication with their MPs as a valued channel of involvement in policy issues. However, while they are well placed to hear views from their citizens (through town hall meetings, [Page 104]meetings at their constituency office, and so on), conveying those views to the party caucus and to the prime minister is difficult, especially if those views contradict the party's position on key issues. Individualism among Canadian MPs is not encouraged.

Another avenue to communicate about S&T issues within Canada's parliamentary system is offered by parliamentary committees. These are permanent committees that hold public hearings on bills currently being considered for legislation, where presentations from witnesses—who can be scientific experts, stakeholders, other public servants, or unaffiliated citizens—are heard. In practice, however, parliamentary committees have provided a limited venue for S&T communication, especially with respect to nonexperts. They generally depend on formal hearing procedures with technical witnesses who address specific points within proposed bills rather than political witnesses who can debate the underlying values and principles that direct the bill. Communication is further hampered by the adversarial and partisan style of interaction on these committees. Their activities are not well covered in the media, which cuts off another opportunity for broader public discussion and debate.

...