Centre for Internet and Society

Constitutional Analysis of the Information Technology (Intermediaries' Guidelines) Rules, 2011

ujwala — 2012-10-31T08:44:41Z

Ujwala Uppaluri provides a constitutional analysis of the Information Technology (Intermediaries' Guidelines) Rules notified in April 2011, and examines its compatibility with Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary of Salient Provisions

The Information Technology (Intermediaries’ Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (‘the Intermediary Guidelines’) were notified in April, 2011 as rules enacted in exercise of powers conferred under section 87(2)(zg) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended) (‘the IT Act’).

Rule 2 of the Intermediary Guidelines imports definitions for key terms from the IT Act. Notably, this includes an importation of Section 2 (w) by Rule 2 (i), which defines “intermediary” broadly in the following terms:

“ “intermediary”, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes;”

Rule 3 whose margin note indicates that it is limited to due diligence measures to be adhered to by intermediaries nevertheless also raises other liabilities by creating a regime to censor content, pre-publication as well as once content has been made publically available online.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 inventories the classes of content which are deemed actionable, with only clause (i), clause (c), clause (e) and, arguably clause (h), of that rule addressing the national interest, public order and security restrictions cognizable under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The remainder of grounds includes private claims such as content which “belongs to another person”[1], or otherwise infringes proprietary rights[2], or is “defamatory”[3]. Still others are terminologically indeterminate and purely subjective, with the terms “grossly harmful”, “harassing” and “disparaging” being examples.

This sub-rule also includes a number of redundancies. While there is reference to libelous as well as defamatory content in clause (b), it is well established that Indian law does not admit of the former concept, instead dissolving the common law distinction between the two to treat them alike.[4] There is also clause (e), which prohibits content which is all ready illegal for violating the provisions of an existing statute and the residuary phrasing of the clause (b)’s reference to content which is “otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever”.

The sub-rules immediately following the list in Rule 3(2) address the consequences of users publishing content listed in that rule:

Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 provides that intermediaries will not knowingly deal in any manner whatsoever, whether by hosting, publication, transmission or otherwise, with any content of the types that are listed in the previous clause.

Sub-rule (4) of rule 3 creates a complaints mechanism in respect of content incompatible with Rule 3 (2) by requiring intermediaries to disable access to offending content within 36 hours of obtaining knowledge themselves or on being brought to “actual knowledge” by an “affected person”. The Intermediaries Guidelines do nothing to clarify what would amount to “actual knowledge”, to indicate in unambiguous terms, which parties would have sufficient locus to bring complaints in order to be deemed an “affected person” for the purposes of these provisions or to suggest that there is a procedure or timeline for action by the intermediary, such that requirements such notice to the author of the content and time for the preparation of a defence by the author and/or the intermediary are accounted for. Rule 3 (4) also requires that all information which is taken down be preserved, along with “associated records” for a duration of atleast ninety days for investigative purposes.

Sub-rule (5) of rule 3 mandates that intermediaries inform users that non-compliance with the Intermediary Guidelines, inter alia, is a ground for the exercise of their right to terminate access or usage rights and remove non-compliant content.

Finally, sub-rule (11) of rule 3 requires intermediaries to name Grievance Officers to receive complaints on any matters relating to the computer resources made available by the intermediary, including for non-compliance or harm in terms of Rule 3 (2). This officer is bound to respond to the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint.

In the result, the Intermediary Guidelines create a two-track system by which private censorship is legitimized online. In the first place, intermediaries can take down content on their own motion where they are of the opinion that the content falls under any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 3 (2) or, alternatively, do so in response to a complaint, in terms of Rule 3 (4).

In addition to the provisions relating to censorship, the Intermediary Guidelines also provide for information to be given over to government agencies making a request with lawful authority and in writing under sub-rule (7) of rule 3, for data protection measures in accordance with the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Information) Rules, 2011 notified under Section 43A of the IT Act to be adhered to (sub-rule (8) of rule 3) and for intermediaries to report and share information realting to cyber security with CERT-In (sub-rule (9) of rule 3).

Areas of Infirmity

It is doubtful whether the Intermediary Guidelines could pass constitutional muster, on several grounds:

Compatibility with Article 19 (1) (a) and (2)

(a) Applicability of Article 19 (2) to Rule 3 (2) Grounds

In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[5] the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom to propogate and disseminate ideas. It also held that very narrow and stringent limits govern the permissibility of legislative abridgment of the right of free speech. Ordinarily, any abridgement of free speech by means of censorship must be compatible with one or more of the grounds provided for under Article 19 (2), and the Supreme Court held in Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India[6]that limitations on the exercise of the Article 19(1)(a) right which do not fall within Article 19(2) cannot be upheld.

Further, the right to free speech applies across all media, and the internet is no exception. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal[7], the Supreme Court reflected the understanding that where media are different, such that the treatment accorded to them must be different in accordance with that indicia of difference, it will treat them as such in order to uphold fundamental rights. More specifically, in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India[8], the Supreme Court opined (in obiter) that the internet, as a unique medium of expression, deserved a different standard of protection than other mediums that have preceded it.

Rule 3 (2) of the Intermediary Guidelines, which lists the grounds for censorship, is not complaint with Article 19 (2) for two reasons:

First, many of the grounds mentioned have no constitutional basis whatsoever. Rule 3 (2) prohibits, inter alia, content which “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”, in addition to content which is simply illegal, and should be actionable ex post rather than prohibited ex ante (content infringing intellectual property under Rule 3 (2) (d), for example). Most of the terms employed are not legal standards, but merely subjective indicators of personal sensitivities, while still others though legal do not figure in Article 19 (2). Since the whole scheme of the Intermediary Guidelines is premised on these extra-constitutional grounds, they are, as a whole, subject to being to being struck down.

Second, the restriction is unreasonable because instead of preserving rights online in accordance with Ajay Goswami, the Intermediary Guidelines unjustifiably abridge the right to speak and receive information on the internet. The Intermediary Guidelines overreach in their scope, by including as actionable content which is not itself punishable when communicated via any other medium. For example, disparaging speech, as long as it is not defamatory, is not criminalised in India, and cannot be because the Constitution does not allow for it. Similarly, content about gambling in print is not unlawful, but now all Internet intermediaries are required to remove any content that promotes gambling.

(b) Nature of Censorship: Directness of Censorship and Legitimacy of Private and Prior Censorship

In judging whether a statute is constitutional, the effect that the statute will have on the fundamental rights of citizens must be examined. The Supreme Court held in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India[9] that the test was to examine whether the effect of an impugned action was to abridge a fundamental right, notwithstanding its object.

Further, while it is true in light of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India[10] that pre-censorship is permissible within the Indian constitutional scheme, this permissibility is qualified. Prior censorship may be undertaken only within closely regulated circumstances, such as under the grounds in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and even then, only by an appropriately empowered governmental entity.

The Intermediary Guidelines create mechanisms for the abridgement of the freedom of speech which amount to indirect and unjustifiable prior censorship, contrary to Article 19 (2):

Firstly, while the state does not itself censor under these rules, it has empowered private, commercial entities to do so vide the Intermediary Guidelines. These rules thus transfer the executive power of censorship to private intermediaries. This amounts to an indirect form of censorship for the purposes of the Bennett Coleman test and has the result of increased censorship on the Internet because the state granted legislative sanction to such a system, although it does not censor by itself or through a state agency. The Intermediary Guidelines, and specifically Rule 3 (4) read with Rule 3 (2), place a burden on intermediaries to decide on the lawfulness of content as a pre-condition for their statutory exemption from liability. An intermediary, on receiving a complaint, to ensure that it continues to receive the protection offered by Section 79 of the IT Act, will be forced to disable access to the content posted by a user. Thus, the direct effect of the rules will be strict censoring of content posted on-line by users. The rules will have a direct effect on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, that are imposed by a statute or executive orders are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Secondly, while prior censorship is permissible only in a strictly limited range of cases, the Intermediary Guidelines allow for an unrestrained and unlimited degree of prior and arguably invisible censorship. Rule 3 of the Intermediary Guidelines clearly envisages such a system of prior censorship. Whereas the consequences for passively displaying content incompatible with Rule 3(2) would be a complete waiver and dissolution of the Section 79 immunity that would ordinary accrue to neutral intermediaries, intermediaries or complainants have no obligation in respect of ensuring the tenability of complaints and the grounds cited in them. The Intermediary Guidelines do not draw a distinction between arbitrary actions of an intermediary and take-downs subsequent to a request. Further, the inclusion of a residuary clause in Rule 3 (2) (b) allowing pre-censorship of content which is “unlawful in any manner whatever”, also indicates that the Intermediary Guidelines allow the use of the exceptional instrument of not only allows private censorship, but that they actively encourage it as the default rule rather than the exception without any justification whatsoever.

(c) Vagueness and Overbreadth: Possibility for Over-Censorship

Vagueness in the terms of a restriction to free speech is grounds for it to be struck down, even where the ground is apparently broadly constitutional. The Supreme Court held in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India[11] that the Constitution must be interpreted in order to enable citizens to enjoy their rights to fullest measure, subject to limited permissible restrictions. In Romesh Thapar[12] the Supreme Court also held that a legislation authorizing the imposition of restrictions on free speech in language wide enough to cover restrictions which are permissible as well as extra-constitutional will be held to be wholly unconstitutional.

The grounds listed in Rule 3 (2) of the Intermediary Guidelines are highly subjective, private interest grounds which are not defined either in the Intermediary Guidelines or in the IT Act itself. These include terms such as “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”. Consequently, the Intermediary Guidelines constitute unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, with Rule 3 (2) containing vague terms which, in addition to falling beyond the purview of Article 19(2), cover only private and subjective grounds, incapable of objective definition or application.

Further, the Intermediary Guidelines do no precisely define the term “affected person” employed in Rule 3 (4). Thus, complaints from any party, including those uninvolved or unaffected by content must all be complied with, without qualification.

In the result, the vagueness of the grounds in Rule 3 (2) and the diffuse terminology of “affected person” leaves Rule 3 (2) grounds serving as placeholders for whatever claim a complainant, having no locus whatsoever, chooses to bring, without regard for whether it is constitutional or even legal. Online content is thus treated as presumptively illegal and take down of content as the presumptive course of action. Additionally, there is a further consequence to the vagueness and overbreadth of the terms in Rule 3 (2): because of the indeterminacy in the grounds listed thereunder, intermediaries tasked with enforcing the law will tend to err on the side of caution and censor, rather than keep speech accessible online. There is empirical evidence to show that cautious intermediaries will over-censor and over comply with complaints in order to avoid liability under Section 79 of the IT Act.[13]

(d) Contravention of International Human Rights Norms & Horizontal Application

The censorship regime constructed by the Intermediary Guidelines is non-compliant not only with domestic requirements under the Constitution, but also with India’s obligations under international human rights law under Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), under the UN Human Rights Council’s Report of the Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (2011)[14](‘Special Rapporteur’s Report’) and the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Internet Freedom (2012)[15] (‘UN Internet Freedom Resolution’).

While the ICCPR as well as the UDHR guarantee a right to free speech “through any…media of…choice” in their respective Articles 19, the Special Rapporteur’s Report and the UN Internet Freedom Resolution recognize the need for special efforts to be undertaken by states to preserve free speech on the internet. The former document justifies censorship only in the most limited circumstances and makes specific mention of the commercial interests that may be implicated in delivering free speech.

Through the Intermediary Guidelines, the Indian state creates a system by which the right to free speech can be systematically violated by private and undisclosed entities and even empowers them to do so, without imposing any constitutional safeguards whatsoever. Thus, egregious violations of the right to free speech and expression are a direct and inevitable consequence of the Intermediary Guidelines. To the degree that the Indian Supreme Court has enagaged with free speech online, it appears from Ajay Goswami that it would apply standards consistent with international law obligations to rectify the Intermediary Guidelines to meet them.

Further, the Indian Supreme Court has held, where necessary for their true enjoyement, that fundamental rights may involve a degree of horizontality in their application. In other words, private action could be guided by fundamental rights, such as in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[16] which evidences the Supreme Court’s willingness to hold that private entities could be held to constitutional and international human rights law standards where that is necessary for the real rather than illusory enjoyment of fundamental rights.

As a result, the Intermediary Guidelines are also liable to be struck down for their failure to recognize and account for the role of private interests while empowering them with the right to curtail fundamental rights.

Compatibility with Article 21

(a) Adverse Impact on Privacy (and consequently on Free Speech)

A constitutional right to privacy has been read into Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty in several instances by the Supreme Court. The State is consequently under an obligation to refrain from interfering, whether by itself or through any of its agencies, with private lives and spaces. By the same coin, laws which encourage unwarranted state or societal intrusions into private life will contravene the victim’s Article 21 right. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India,[17] the Supreme Court held that Article 21 privacy protected individuals against the interception and monitoring of private communications by the state in the absence of sufficient safeguards.

Also, an individual’s privacy interests in information relating to him are not dissolved merely because information is not confidential or because another entity has some property interest in that information. In District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank[18], the Supreme Court recognized that even where the search of private documents was concerned, Article 21 protected “persons not places”, i.e., that the privacy interest did not vest in property or communications but, rather, in the rightsholder himself.

The Intermediary Guidelines include no limits whatsoever on the scope of disclosures that government agencies can demand or expect to retain, in contravention of Article 21.

Specifically, Rule 3 (4), which requires data retention for a statutory minimum of ninety days of content taken down as well as “associated records”, violates users’ rights to privacy. In addition to the financial and technical burden (in storing and securing data) imposed by the Intermediary Guidelines in requiring potentially unlimited data retention by intermediaries, there is no clarity as to what or how much information precisely must be held in the form of “associated records”. Instead of subjecting data to limited and closely qualified retention by private intermediaries, and thus limiting the impairment of the fundamental right to privacy to the minimum possible degree necessary, Rule 3 (4) imposes blanket data retention requirements.

Further, Rule 3 (7), which makes any information held by an intermediary subject to being disclosed to the government upon request is also inconsistent with the requirement that the right to life and personal liberty be violated only in accordance with fair, just and reasonable procedures. Notwithstanding that Rule 3 (7) is consistent with Section 67C of the IT Act and specific rules framed in regard to the surveillance of communications, it is also unconstitutional because it fails to include any safeguards whatsoever in the process of surveillance. These would include, as minimum obligatory conditions in light of PUCL, the requirement that the surveilled be informed of the surveillance and be allowed to challenge its propriety ex ante or its procedural regularity ex post, or atleast administrative or judicial review ex parte.

(b) Non-compliance with Due Process and Natural Justice Requirements

Article 21 explicitly includes a due process guarantee. This means that the right to life and personal liberty, and its constituent rights, can be interfered with only through constitutionally consistent procedures. A cornerstone of fair procedure, compliant with the rule of law, is the notion of natural justice. Consequently, Article 21 contemplates that the procedure by which fundamental rights are curtailed will satisfy natural justice principles.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[19] the Supreme Court held that natural justice was not a rigid or mechanical term, but one that referred to those practices and principles that would ensure “fair play in action”. In addition the Court held that all deviations from natural justice requirements must be supported by a sufficiently justificatory “compelling state interest”. Specifically, in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel[20], the Supreme Court held that the principle of natural justice required the satisfaction of the audi alteram partem rule, which consisted of several requirements, including the requirement that a person against whose detriment an action is taken be informed of the case against him and be afforded a full and fair opportunity to respond. Finally, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[21] the Supreme Court held that the absence of due notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond would vitiate any holding to the rightsholder’s detriment.

The Intermediary Guidelines fail to satisfy the requirement of natural justice, and particularly the rights to prior notice as well as that of the affected party to a hearing:

By requiring that content be taken down swiftly (within 36 hours of complaint, under Rule 3 (4)) and by failing to require the author of the content to be informed of the complaint and its contents, the Intermediary Guidelines violate the author’s right to notice and consequently affect his/her right to prepare and present a defence at all. In practice, authors of content which is the subject of a complaint may never know of the complaint or even of the fact of the take down, given the absence of any mechanism under the rules by which they could have been informed. In a scheme for silent, invisible censorship, authors are never afforded an opportunity to challenge the take down, just as they have no opportunity to rebut the initial complaint. In addition, at any event, it is the intermediary, a biased private entity whose immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act could be called into question based on the outcome, who must make the determination as to the legality of the content.

While there is nothing to prohibit intermediaries from informing authors on the receipt of a complaint, the limited time within which action must be taken means that such intermediaries would risk liability for non-compliance with the compliant and a waiver of their Section 79 immunity, where the content is not taken down, whether because communication does not occur within the 36 hour timeframe or because an author elects to resist takedown. By creating a system in which takedowns necessarily occur in response to complaints, irrespective of their legitimacy, the Intermediary Guidelines presume and rule in favour of the complainants and in favour of (private) censorship instead of presuming in favour of the preservation of the fundamental right to free speech, or even maintaining neutrality between the two ends.

Compatibility with Article 14

The guarantee of “equal protection of laws” requires equality of treatment of persons who are similarly situated, without discrimination inter se. It is a corollary that that persons differently situated cannot be treated alike. In E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[22] the Supreme Court held that arbitrary or unfair actions necessarily run counter to Article 14. The Supreme Court explained in M/S Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[23] that arbitrary actions are actions which are unreasonable, non-rational done capriciously or without adequate determining principle, reason or in accordance with due judgment. In addition, Article 14 also requires that state action be reasonable. In Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation[24] it was held that discretion must be exercised objectively, and that what is not fair or just will be unreasonable, and subject to being struck down as unconstitutional.Additionally, Article 14 also requires that the basis upon which classifications are undertaken for the purposes of same or differential treatment be reasoned and fair. The Supreme Court held in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana[25] that the state’s failure to support a classification on the touchstone of reasonability, with the existence of intelligible differentia or the rational basis of achieving a stated object, will be ground for it to be held arbitrary and unreasonable. Finally, all state action having the potential to curtail Article 14 must be reasonable, justifiable, undertaken in exercise of constitutional powers and be informed and guided by public interest. The Supreme Court held to this effect in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir[26].

The Intermediary Guidelines contravene Article 14 on the following grounds:

First, intermediaries who are not similarly situated are treated alike. Rule 2 (i) imports the IT Act’s omnibus definition of the term “intermediary”, such that all classes of intermediaries, ranging from intermediaries which control the architecture of the internet and the hardware which enables it to run (such as ISPs and DNS providers) to intermediaries that enable content creation, sharing and communications online (such as email clients, content aggregators, social networking services and content hosts), are empowered to censor and are required to comply with complaints regarding content. Intermediaries, for the purposes of the IT Act and the Intermediary Guidelines, thus refer to a large and disparate group of providers of services enabling access to as well as use of the Internet. Reasoned state action must recognize that their liabilities must necessarily vary with the specific type of service that each provides. The Intermediary Guidelines fail to do so, and are consequently incompatible with Article 14.

Second, the Intermediary Guidelines treat the same or similar content across media differently, without apparent justification. More specifically, users of the internet are unfairly discriminated against. All of the Rule 3 (2) grounds which are not explicitly mentioned in Article 19 (2) in particular reflect this discriminatory, unreasoned treatment. To illustrate, the prohibition under Rule 3 (2) on the display of any content online when it relates to gambling treats speakers using the internet differently from speakers communicating this content via any other medium of communication. Given that nothing in the nature of the medium itself attaches a new or different character to the content, criminality or liability must attach to such content in a medium-neutral fashion. So, while content qualifying as seditious under law remains so across media, whether it be print, audio or video broadcast or online, the same as not the case for communications on the internet. In other words, while gambling itself may be prohibited under law, speech or expression involving it is nowhere prohibited under law. While such content is legal and protected across print and broadcasting media, the same content is liable to take down online. This would amount to discriminatory treatment of equal content merely because speakers choose the internet, and the speech occurred online.

Third, the Intermediary Guidelines accord unrestrained discretion in the curtailment of fundamental rights to private functionaries, without any guidance whatsoever. This should have been the sole reserve of the state. In addition to the lack of guidance, the breadth of the grounds for censorship in Rule 3 (2), some of which are themselves incapable of precise and non-subjective application, means that private censorship can occur to an arguably unlimited degree. Expecting compliance with such terms, and attaching liability (for intermediaries) or a curtailment of fundamental rights (for generators of content), without the provision of a right to challenge or even, more fundamentally, be informed is both unreasonable and arbitrary.

Similarly, Rules 3 (4) and 3 (5) empower intermediaries to take down content without providing any realistic opportunity of hearing to its author. Intermediaries are accorded an adjudicatory role to the intermediary in deciding questions whether or not authors can access their fundamental right to free speech in the process. This role is ordinarily reserved for competent courts or administrative authorities, which are subject to constitutional checks and balances and a general obligation to preserve and promote fundamental rights. Assigning such functions to a self-interested private entity without any accountability whatsoever is both unreasonable as well as arbitrary.

Finally, the Intermediary Guidelines fail to account for the public interest because they directly restrict the public’s freedom of speech and expression, without any justifiable reason, and privilege the personal and not necessarily constitutional sensitivities of private complainants instead. Rule 3(3) in effect vests an extraordinary power of censorship in intermediaries, entities which operate on the basis of private interest and outside the limits of administrative or even the most basic human rights control. Safeguards must apply to power-bearers to the degree and in the manner required in relation to the nature of the power, rather than its holder, if fundamental rights are to be legislatively preserved. While the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India[27] extended the applicability of natural justice principles from judicial bodies alone and quasi-judicial bodies to administrative bodies as well, the applicability of such principles still remains limited to state entities. In other words, there is an acknowledged difficulty in applying public law standards to private, commercial entities.

The Intermediary Guidelines thus vest the right to abridge core fundamental rights (under Articles 14, 19 and 21) in private delegates operating outside public law controls that constrain the scope in which the power can be exercised and ensure that citizen interest can be preserved. In the alternative, they also failed to provide for other safeguards to prevent abuse to the detriment of fundamental rights private delegates of governmental power, even as they granted such powers in unlimited terms. As a result, the Intermediary Guidelines evidence thoughtless, arbitrary, unreasoned and unjust state action.

Vires vis á vis the Parent Act

While it is permissible within the constitutional scheme for legislative functions of the Parliament to be delegated to a degree, they may be struck down on several grounds. In general, per Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,[28] subordinate legislation can be challenged not only on any of grounds on which the parent legislation is vulnerable to challenge, but also on the grounds that it does not conform to parent statute, that it is contrary to other statutes or that it is unreasonable, in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. Notably, the Court also held here that subordinate legislation is liable to being struck down where it fails to conform to constitutional requirements, or, specifically that “it offends Article 14 or Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution”.

It is a well-accepted proposition that delegated legislation which travels outside the scope of its enabling law will not stand as valid. It was held in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd [29] that a delegate cannot alter the scope of the act under which it has been it has been empowered to make rules, or even of a provision or principle included there under. In State of Karnataka v. Ganesh Kamath[30] the Supreme Court held that “it is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent there with or repugnant thereto”. Similarly, in KSEB v. Indian Aluminium Company[31], it held that“subordinate legislation cannot be said to be valid unless it is within the scope of the rule making power provided in the statute”.

The Intermediary Guidelines were enacted under Sections 79(2) and 87(2)(zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended). While the latter provision explicitly grants the Central Government rule-making powers by which it can lay out guidelines to be followed by intermediaries in order to comply with Section 79(2), it appears that the rules in their current form appear to have been drafted based on a misunderstanding of Section 79.

Section 79(2) itself merely clarifies the circumstances in which intermediaries can claim that intermediaries are not liable for content where they do not initiate the transmission of potentially actionable content or select its recipient, modify its contents and observe all necessary “due diligence” requirements under the IT Act and rules.

The extent to which the Intermediary Guidelines alter the intent and scope of section 79 (or other provisions of the IT Act, in some cases) clearly leaves them ultra vires the parent statute. The specific instances of deviation by the Intermediary Guidelines from the IT Act are listed below:

First, Rule 3 (3) is ultra vires section 79 of the IT Act. Where this rule expressly prohibits the hosting, publication or initiation of transmission of content described in Rule 3 (2), section 79 does not intend any prohibition. All that it does is to waive the immunity otherwise accorded to intermediaries where the conditions specified are not satisfied. In other words, the section is optional, rather than mandatory and punitive: whether or not an intermediary can claim immunity will depend on whether it chooses to comply with section 79 (2).

Second, Rule 3 (4) requires intermediaries to take steps to disable access to within 36 hours of receiving a complaint in relation thereto. This is inconsistent with section 69B of the IT Act, which lays down in detail, the procedure to be followed to disable access to information. Since section 69B is statutory law, Rule 3 (4), being mere delegated legislation, will have to yield in its favour.

Third, Rule 3 (7) is ultra vires sections 69 and 69B, and falls outside the scope of section 79 (2). Rule 3 (7) provides that intermediaries must comply with requests for information or assistance when required to do so by appropriate authorities. This provision has no relation to the contents of section 79, which regulates intermediaries’ liability for content, and under which these rules were notified. In addition, rules have already been issued under the properly relevant sections, namely sections 69 and 69B, to provide a procedure to be followed by the government for the interception, monitoring, and decryption of information held by intermediaries. Rule 3 (7) is not consistent with the rules under sections 69 and 69B, as it removes all safeguards that those rules included. Under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption) Rules 2009, for instance, permission must be obtained from the competent authority before an intermediary can be directed to provide access to its records and facilities while Rule 3 (7) makes intermediaries answerable to virtually any request from any government agency.

[1]. Rule 3 (2) (a).

[2]. Rule 3 (2) (d).

[3]. Rule 3 (2) (b)

[4]. Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“Defamation” is defined to include both written and spoken words).

[5]. AIR 1950 SC 124.

[6]. AIR 1958 SC 578.

[7]. AIR 1995 SC 1236.

[8].(2007) 1 SCC 170.

[9]. AIR 1973 SC 106.

[10]. (2011) 8 SCC 372.

[11]. AIR 1962 SC 305, ¶31.

[12]. Supra, n.5.

[13]. Centre for Internet & Society, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 available at cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf.

[14]. UN Document no. A/HRC/17/27.

[15]. UN Document no. A/HRC/20/.13.

[16]. AIR 1997 SC 3011.

[17]. AIR 1997 SC 568.

[18]. (2005) 1 SCC 496.

[19]. 1978 SCR (2) 621.

[20]. AIR 1985 SC 1416.

[21]. AIR 1999 SC 2583.

[22]. AIR 1974 SC 555.

[23]. AIR 2002 SC 322.

[24]. AIR 1993 SC 935.

[25]. (2001) 7 SCC 545, 548, ¶10.

[26].1980 AIR 1992.

[27]. AIR 1970 SC 150.

[28]. AIR 1986 SC 515.

[29]. AIR 1997 SC 2502.

[30]. (1983) 2 SCC 40.

[31]. AIR 1976 SC 1031.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/constitutional-analysis-of-intermediaries-guidelines-rules

Conference on the Digitalization of the Indian Legal System

Leilah Elmokadem — 2016-11-16T15:34:36Z

On Legal Services Day, November 9, 2016, LegalDesk.com collaborated with iSPIRT to host a conference on the “Digitalization of the Indian Legal System”. The event invited prominent speakers to present their organizations’ work and to participate in a panel discussion followed by a Q&A period for the audience.

The co-founder of DAKSH Society of India, Kishore Mandyam, opened the event with a thought-provoking presentation on the efficiency levels of the current legal system and the kinds of progress that can be brought about by technological reforms. Members of LegalDesk.com then presented their ideas and then introduced their newest white paper on Legal Digitalization, providing a brief overview of the study and summarizing the most relevant sections. The panel discussion then proceeded, moderated by Sanjay Khan Nagra, a policy expert at iSPIRT Foundation. He facilitated an insightful and conducive discussion around the advantages, disadvantages, risks and incentives of digitalizing the Indian legal system. On the discussion panel was Kishore Mandyam from DAKSH Society and Prabhuling K Navadgi, the Additional Solicitor General of India.

The objectives to the conference, as per its website, were to: (1) examine the current legal framework and the possibility of amendments in laws to facilitate digitalization of the system, (2) asses the potential of India Stack in digitalizing the legal system, (3) to identify statutes which require amendment, (4) identify the hurdles and roadblocks in the path towards digital reform of the legal ecosystem, and (5) suggest amendments to the act and potential areas of improvement. With those objectives in mind, this blog post intends to provide a brief overview of the main narratives shared in the conference and to identify some of the loopholes and unanswered questions that I was left with by the end.

Improved efficiency is the dominant narrative used to advocate for the digitalization of the Indian legal system. According to LegalDesk.com, the current Indian legal system relies mostly on paperwork, resulting in thousands of courts and over a million advocates accumulating lackhs of ongoing cases and an enormous pile of pending cases, mostly due to insufficient information. It is stated that the traditional methods of legal documentation, paperwork and court work must change through awareness, technology and pursuance by the government, as it needs to be implemented throughout the country. The key idea here is that digital transactions are faster and simplify the process of storing information. The ultimate desired outcome here, then, is increased efficiency and transparency.

One must question, however, if this narrative may be overly generous with the credit it gives to technology. IT systems, like many other manmade structures, are always bound to glitch and crash. It would be useful, then, to question whether the legal system is a department that can afford the complications that inevitably accompany a digital transformation. If portals or servers fail at critical times (i.e. when a person needs to confirm their trial date, submit a document before a deadline, or any other pressing procedures), the consequences may in fact outweigh the convenience brought about by overall digitalization. This is not to imply that the legal system cannot or should not undergo a digital transformation. Rather, it is to pose the question of whether the government will dedicate sufficient funds and expertise towards developing a resilient and reliable IT system for the courts. The conference was strongly centered on the concept that technology is always the way forward. This is a positive idea but one must pay special attention to the complications that may arise with the digitalization of a system that must function in a particularly time-sensitive manner – and to ensure that these complications can be managed efficiently and effectively should they arise. This then, requires more than a mere push for digitalization. Introducing new technological platforms is a positive step towards digitalization. However, there is a need for a detailed, government-authorized plan on how the judicial system will efficiently and smoothly undergo this digital transformation in a sustainable and resilient manner.

A presenter from LegalDesk.com mentioned Estonia’s model of complete digital governance as an example of successful digitalization: “If a small country like Estonia can do it, why can’t we?” While it is useful to draw examples and lessons from other countries, it is also crucial to recognize the contextual differences between countries. The presenter’s point was that Estonia is small in both size and population and has just recently gained independence in 1991—and has nonetheless been able to undergo technological reform and completely digitalize governance systems. India’s case is extremely different as one can logically argue that digital inclusion is more difficult to accomplish for large, spatially dispersed populations. Furthermore, the socioeconomic disparities in India, particularly in income and literacy, contribute to an immense digital divide that Estonia did not, to any comparable extent, face in order to digitalize governance over 1.3 million individuals. This is not to suggest that India cannot become a world leader in digital governance, or become comparable to Estonia. Rather, this is to highlight the importance of recognizing historical, political and sociocultural differences between countries when comparing governance models and digitalization processes. There is a need to indigenize digital reform strategies and platforms in India to cater to its unique context and vast diversity. This can be done by focusing on issues such as the language of digital governance, ensuring sufficient distribution of access to public digital platforms, and prioritizing the inclusion of all socioeconomic classes. I would argue that digitalization could come at a greater cost than benefit if it perpetuates the exclusion of the underprivileged members of society, especially from a system as critical as the judiciary. These topics were alarmingly overlooked in the conference.

The topic of privacy was also quite overlooked in the conference. As a step towards digital transformation, LegalDesk.com presented the new eNotary technology, which would be implemented by utilizing a combination of Adhaar based authentication, eSign, digilocker systems such as India Stack and video/audio recorded interviews. With the eNotary system, attestation, authentication and verification of legal instruments can be done remotely. This is expected to make paperwork easier, faster and more secure, as individuals would log into digital platforms using their Adhaar numbers to perform their judiciary procedures. A member of the audience asked about privacy concerns associated with digitalizing the legal records or property ownership information of individuals. Kishore Mandyam, from DAKSH, answered confidently with a statement that privacy is not a pressing issue here. He asserted that privacy concerns are a western construct that we have adopted in urban parts of India but that is not a concern for the majority of locals. It is clear, however, from examples such as the United States’ predictive policing practices, that accumulating data regarding the legal affiliations of individuals can result in discriminatory practices if this data does not remain strictly confidential to protect the privacy rights of citizens. This is not to mention the other forms of discrimination that can arise from the accumulation of such data, such as the targeting of certain demographics by corporate marketing and credit scoring practices that rely on trends in big data. To keep citizens’ legal records and affairs out of these databases, a digital legal system must be securely encrypted and protected by rigid privacy policies. India may have a varying context that leads to different privacy concerns with regards to a digital legal system. In any case, special attention must be given to privacy and security rights of individuals as their Adhaar numbers become attached to all their online personal data, including their legal records and judicial affairs.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/conference-on-the-digitalization-of-the-indian-legal-system

Comments to the proposed amendments to The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Divyansha Sehgal and Torsha Sarkar — 2023-02-07T15:21:47Z

This note presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India, on the proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“proposed amendments”). We thank Isha Suri for her review of this submission.

Preliminary

In these comments, we examine the constitutional validity of the proposed amendments, as well as whether the language of the amendments provide sufficient clarity for its intended recipients. This commentary is in-line with CIS’ previous engagement with other iterations of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

General Comments

Ultra vires the parent act

Section 79(1) of the Information Technology (IT) Act states that the intermediary will not be held liable for any third-party information if the intermediary complies with the conditions laid out in Section 79(2). One of these conditions is that the intermediary observe “due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observe such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.” Further, Section 87(2)(zg) empowers the central government to prescribe “guidelines to be observed by the intermediaries under sub-section (2) of section 79.”

A combined reading of Section 79(2) read with Section 89(2)(zg) makes it clear that the power of the Central Government is limited to prescribing guidelines related to the due diligence to be observed by the intermediaries while discharging its duties under the IT Act. However, the proposed amendments extend the original scope of the provisions within the IT Act.

In particular, the IT Act does not prescribe for any classification of intermediaries. Section 2(1) (w) of the Act defines intermediaries as “with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”. Intermediaries are treated and regarded as a single monolithic entity with the same responsibilities and obligations.

The proposed amendments have now established a new category of intermediaries, namely online gaming intermediary. This classification comes with additional obligations, codified within Rule 4A of the proposed amendments, including enabling the verification of user-identity and setting up grievance redressal mechanisms. The additional obligations placed on online gaming intermediaries find no basis in the IT Act, which does not specify or demarcate between different categories of intermediaries.

The 2021 Rules have been prescribed under Section 87(1) and Section 87(2)(z) and (zg) of the IT Act. These provisions do not empower the Central Government to make any amendment to Section 2(w) or create any classification of intermediaries. As has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Another v. Ganesh Kamath & Ors that: “It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that conferment of rule making power by an Act does not enable the rule making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto.” In this light, we argue that the proposed amendment cannot go beyond the parent act or prescribe policies in the absence of any law/regulation authorising them to do so.

Recommendation

We recommend that a regulatory intervention seeking to classify intermediaries and prescribe regulations specific to the unique nature of specific intermediaries should happen through an amendment to the parent act. The amendment should prescribe additional responsibilities and obligations of online gaming intermediaries.

A note on the following sections

Since the legality of classifying intermediaries into further categories is under question, our subsequent discussions on the language of the provisions related to online gaming intermediary are recommended to be taken into account for formulating any new legislations relating to these entities.

Specific comments

Fact checking amendment

Amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) states that intermediaries are obligated to ask their users to not host any content that is, inter alia, “identified as fake or false by the fact check unit at the Press Information Bureau of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or other agency authorised by the Central Government for fact checking”.

Read together with Rule 3(1)(c), which gives intermediaries the prerogative to terminate user access to their resources on non-compliance with their rules and regulations, Rule 3(1)(b)(v) essentially affirms the intermediary’s right to remove content that the Central government deems to be ‘fake’. However, in the larger context of the intermediary liability framework of India, where intermediaries found to be not complying with the legal framework of section 79 lose their immunity, provisions such as Rule 3(1)(b)(v) compel intermediaries to actively censor content, on the apprehension of legal sanctions.

In this light, we argue that Rule 3(1)(b)(v) is constitutionally invalid, inasmuch that Article 19(2), which prescribes grounds under which the government restrict the right to free speech, does not permit restricting speech on the ground that it is ostensibly “fake or false”. In addition, the net effect of this rule would be that the government would be the ultimate arbiter of what is considered ‘truth’, and every contradictions to this narrative would be deemed to be false. In a democratic system like India’s, this cannot be a tenable position, and would go against a rich jurisprudence of constitutional history on the need for plurality.

For instance, in Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India, the Supreme Court had held that ‘the freedom of the press rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.’ Applying this interpretation to the present case, it could be said that the government’s monopoly on directing what constitutes “fake or false” in the online space would prevent citizens from accessing dissenting voices and counterpoints to government policies .

This is problematic when one considers that in the Indian context, freedom of speech and expression has always been valued for its instrumental role in ensuring a healthy democracy, and its power to influence public opinion. In the present case, the government, far from facilitating any such condition, is instead actively indulging in guardianship of the public mind (Sarkar et al, 2019).

Other provisions in the IT Act which permit for censorship of content, including section 69A, permit the government to only do so when content is relatable to grounds enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In addition, in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, where, the constitutionality of section 69A was challenged, the Supreme Court upheld the provision because of the legal safeguards inherent in the provision, including offering a hearing to the originator of the impugned content and reasons for censoring content to be recorded in writing.

In contrast, a fact check by the Press Information Bureau or by another authorised agency provides no such safeguards, and does not relate to any constitutionally recognized ground for restricting speech.

Recommendation

The proposed amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) is unconstitutional, and should be removed from the final draft of the law.

Clarifications are needed for online games rules definitions

The definitions of an "online game" and "online gaming intermediary" are currently extremely unclear and require further clarification.

As the proposed amendments stand, online games are characterised by the user's “deposit with the expectation of earning winnings”. Both deposit and winnings can be “cash” or “in kind", which does not adequately draw a boundary on the type of games this amendment seeks to cover. Can the time invested by the player in playing a game be answered under the “in kind” definition of deposit? If the game provides a virtual in-game currency that can be exchanged for internal power ups, even if there are no cash or gift cards used as payout, is that considered to be an “in kind” winnings? The rules, as currently drafted, are vague in their reference towards “in kind” deposits and payouts.

This definition of online games also does not differentiate between single or multiplayer games, and traditional games like chess which have found an audience online such as Candy Crush (single player), Minecraft (multiplayer collaborative) or chess (traditional). It is unclear whether these games were intended to fall within the purview of these amendments to the rules, and if they are all subjected to the same due diligence requirements as pay-to-play games. This, in conjunction with the proposed rule 6A which allows the Ministry to term any other game as an online game for the purposes of the rules, also provides them with broad, unpredictable powers . This ambiguity hinders clear comprehension of the expectations among the target stakeholders, thus affecting the consistency and predictability of the implementation of the rules.

Similarly, "online gaming intermediaries" are also defined very broadly as "intermediary that offers one or more than one online game". As defined, any intermediary that even hosts a link to a game is classified as an online gaming intermediary since the game is now "offered" through the intermediary. As drafted, there does not seem to be a material distinction between an "intermediary" as defined by the act and "online gaming intermediary" as specified by these rules.

Recommendation

We recommend further clarification on the definitions of these terms, especially for “in kind” and “offers” which are currently extremely vague terms that provide overbroad powers to the Ministry.

Intermediaries and Games

"Online gaming intermediaries" are defined very broadly as "intermediary that offers one or more than one online game". Intermediaries are defined in the Act as "any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that message or provides any service with respect to that message".

According to the media coverage (Barik, 2023) around these amendments, it seems that there is an effort to classify gaming companies as "online gaming intermediaries" but the language of the drafted amendments do not support this. An “intermediary” status is given to a company due to its functional role in primarily offering third party content. It is not a classification for different types of internet companies that exist and thus must not be used to make rules for entities that do not perform this function.

Not all gaming companies present a collection of games for their users to play. According to the drafted definition multiple platforms where games might be present like, an app stores where multiple game developers can publish their games for access by users, a website that lists links to online games, a social media platform that acts as an intermediary between two users exchanging links to games, as well as websites that host games for users to directly access may all be classified as an "online gaming intermediary" since they "offer" games to users. These are a rather broad range of companies and functions to be singularly classified an "online gaming intermediary".

Recommendation

We recommend a thoroughly researched legislative solution to regulating gaming companies that operate online rather than through amendments to intermediary rules. If some companies are indeed to be classified as “online gaming intermediaries”, there is a need for further reasoning on which type of gaming companies and their functions are intermediary functions for the purposes of these Rules.

Comments can be downloaded here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-to-proposed-amendments-to-it-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules

Comments to the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Anamika Kundu, Digvijay Chaudhary, Divyansha Sehgal, Isha Suri and Torsha Sarkar — 2022-07-07T02:39:28Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) presented its comments on the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (‘the rules’), which were released on 6 June, 2022 for public comments.

These comments examine whether the proposed amendments are in adherence to established principles of constitutional law, intermediary liability and other relevant legal doctrines. We thank the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) for allowing us this opportunity. Our comments are divided into two parts. In the first part, we reiterate some of our comments to the existing version of the rules, which we believe holds relevance for the proposed amendments as well. And in the second part, we provide issue-wise comments that we believe need to be addressed prior to finalising the amendments to the rules.

To access the full text of the Comments to the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-to-draft-amendments-to-the-it-rules-2021

Comments on Information Technology (Security of Prepaid Payment Instruments) Rules, 2017

amber — 2017-03-23T01:54:28Z

The Centre for Internet and Society submitted comments on the Information Technology (Security of Prepaid Payment Instruments) Rules, 2017. The comments were prepared by Udbhav Tiwari, Pranesh Prakash, Abhay Rana, Amber Sinha and Sunil Abraham.

1. Preliminary

1.1. This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society^[1] in response to the Information Technology (Security of Prepaid Payment Instruments) Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).^[2] The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEIT) issued a consultation paper (pdf) which calls for developing a framework for security of digital wallets operating in the country on March 08, 2017. This proposed rules have been drafted under provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000, and comments have been invited from the general public and stakeholders before the enactment of these rules.

2. The Centre for Internet and Society

2.1. The Centre for Internet and Society, (“CIS”), is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, and open access), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security.

2.2. This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved, especially the privacy and data security of citizens. CIS is thankful to the MEIT for this opportunity to provide feedback to the draft rules.

3. Comments

3.1 General Comments

Penalty

There is no penalty for not complying with these rules. Even the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 doesn’t have penalties. Under section 43A of the Information Technology Act (under which the 2011 Rules have been promulgated), a wrongful gain or a wrongful loss needs to be demonstrated. This should not be a requirement for financial sector.

Expansion to Contractual Parties.

A majority of these rules, in order to be effective and realistically protect consumer interest, should also be expanded to third parties, agents, contractual relationships and any other relevant relationship an e-PPI issuer may delegate as a part of their functioning.

3.2 Rule 2: Definitions

Certain key words relevant to the field of e-PPI based digital payments such as authorisation, metadata, etc. are not defined in the rules and should both be defined and accounted for in the rules to ensure modern developments such as big data and machine learning, digital surveillance, etc. do not violate human rights and consumer interest.

3.2 Rule 7: Definition of personal information

Rule 7 provides an exhaustive list of data that will be deemed to be personal information for the purposes of the Rules. While information collected at the time of issuance of the pre-paid payment instrument and during its use is included within the scope of Rule 7, it makes no reference to metadata generated and collected by the e-PPI issuer.

3.3 Rule 4: Inadequate privacy protections

Rule 4(2) specifies the details that the privacy policies of each e-PPI issuer must contain. However, these specifications are highly inadequate and fall well below the recommendations under the National Privacy Principles in Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy chaired by Justice A P Shah.

Suggestions: The Rules should include include clearly specified rights to access, correction and opt in/opt out, continuing obligations to seek consent in case of change in policy or purpose and deletion of data after purpose is achieved. Additionally, it must be required that a log of each version of past privacy policies be maintained along with the relevant period of applicability.

3.4 Rule 10: Reasonable security practices

Problem: Financial information (“such as bank account or credit card or debit card or other payment instrument details”) is already invoked in an inclusive manner in the definition of ‘personal information’ in Rule 7. Given this there is no need to make the Reasonable Security Practices Rules applicable to financial data through this provisions: it already is, and it is best to avoid unnecessary redundancy.

Solution: This entire rule should be removed.

3.5 Rule 12: Traceability

Problem: There is a requirement created under this rule that payment-related interactions with customers or other service providers be “appropriately trace[able]”. But it is unclear what that would practically mean: would IP logging suffice? would IMEI need to be captured for mobile transactions? what is “appropriately” traceable? — none of those questions are answered.

Suggestion: The NPCI’s practices and RBI regulations, for instance, seek to limit the amount of information that entities like e-PPI providers have. These rules need to be brought in line with those practices and regulations.

3.6 Rule 5: Risk Assessment

Rule 5 requires e-PPI issuers to carry out risk assessments associated with the security of the payments systems at least once a year and after any major security incident. However, there are no transparency requirements such as publications of details of such review, a summary of the analysis, any security vulnerabilities discovered etc.

Suggestion:

Broaden the scope of this provision to include not just risk assessments but also security audits.
Mandate publication of risk assessment and security audit reports.

3.7 Rule 11: End-to-End Encryption

The rule concerning end-to-end encryption (E2E) needs significantly greater detailing to be effective in ensuring the the protection of information at both storage and transit.

Suggestions: Elements such as Secure Element or a Secured Server and Trusted User Interface, both concepts to enable secure payments, can be detailed in the rule and a timeline can be established to require hardware, e-PPI practices and security standards to realistically account for such best practices to ensure modern, secure and industry accepted implementation of the rule.

3.8 Rule 13: Retention of Information

Problem: Rule 13 leaves the question of retention entirely unanswered by deferring the future rulemaking to the Central Government.

Suggestions: Rule 13 should be expanded to include the various categories of information that can be stored, guidelines for the short-term (fast access) and long-term storage of the information retained under the rule and other relevant details. The rule should also include the security standards that should be followed in the storage of such information, require access logs be maintained for whenever this information is accessed by individuals, detail secure destruction practices at the end of the retention period and finally mandate that end users be notified by the e-PPI issuer of when such retained information is accessed in all situations bar exceptional circumstances such as national security, compromising an ongoing criminal investigations, etc.

3.9 Rule 14: Reporting of Cyber Incidents

Rule 14 is an excellent opportunity to uphold transparency, accountability and consumer rights by mandating time- and information-bound notification of cyber incidents to customers, including intrusions, database breaches and any other compromise of the integrity of the financial system. While the requirement of reporting such incidents to CERT-In is already present in the Rule 12 of the CERT Rules, the rule retains the optional nature of notifying customers. The rule should include an exhaustive list of categories or kinds of cyber incidents that should be reported to affected end users without compromising the investigation of such breaches by private organisations and public authorities. Further, the rule should also include penalties for non-compliance of this requirement (both to CERT-In and the consumer) to serve as an incentive for e-PPI issuers to uphold consumer public interest. The rule should be expanded to include a detailed mechanism for such reporting, including when e-PPI issuers and the CERT-In can withhold information from consumers as well as requiring the withheld information be disclosed when the investigation has been completed. Finally, the rule should also require that such disclosures be public in nature and consumers not be required to not disseminate such information to enable informed choice by the end user community.

Suggestion:

(1) In Rule 14(3) “may” should be substituted by “shall”.

(2) Penalties of up to 5 lakh rupees may be imposed for each day that the e-PPI issuer fails to report any severe vulnerability that could likely result in harm to customers.

3.10 Rule 15: Customer Awareness and Education

Problem: Rule 15 on Customer Awareness and Education by e-PPI issuers does not take into account the vast lingual diversity and varied socio-economic demographic that makes up the end users of e-PPI providers in India, by mandating the actions under the rule must account for these factors prior to be propagated.

Solutions: The rule must ensure that e-PPI issuers track record in carrying out awareness is regularly held accountable by both the government and public disclosures on their websites. Further, the rule can be made more concrete and effective by including mobile operating systems in their scope (along with equipments), mandating awareness for best practices for inclusive technologies like USSD banking, specifying notifications to include SMS reports of financial transactions, etc.

3.11 Rule 16: Grievance Redressal

Problem: Rule 16 lays down the requirement of grievance redressal, without specifying appellate mechanisms (both within the organisation and at the regulatory level), accountability (via penalties) for non-compliance of the rule nor requiring a clear hierarchy of responsibility within the e-PPI organisation. These factors seriously compromise the efficacy of a grievance redressal framework.

Solutions: Similar rules for grievance redressal that have been enacted by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority for the insurance sector and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India for the telecom sector can and should serve as a reference point for this rule. Their effectiveness and real world operation should also be monitored by the relevant authorities while ensuring sufficient flexibility exists in the rule to uphold consumer rights and the public interest. Proper appellate mechanisms at the regulatory level are essential along with penalties for non-compliance.

3.12 Rule 17: Security Standards

Problem: Rule 17 empowers the Central Government to mandate security standards to be followed by e-PPI issuers operating in India. While appreciable in its overall outlook on ensuring a minimum standard of security, the Rule needs be improved upon to make it more effective. This can be in done by specifying certain minimum security standards to ensure all e-PPI issuers have a minimal level of security, instead of leaving them open to being intimated at a later date.

Solutions: Standards that can either be made mandatory or be used as a reference point to create a new standard under Rule 17(2) are ISO/IEC 14443, IS 14202, ISO/IEC 7816, PCI DSS, etc. Further, the Rule should include penalties for non-compliance of these standards, to make them effectively enforceable by both the government and end users alike. Additional details like the maximum time period in which such security standards should be implemented post their notification, requiring regular third party audits to ensure continuing compliance and effectiveness and requiring updated standards be used upon their release will go a long way in ensuring e-PPI issuers fulfil their mandate under these Rules.

^[1] http://cis-india.org/

^[2] http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft-rules-security%20of%20PPI-for%20public%20comments.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-information-technology-security-of-prepaid-payment-instruments-rules-2017

CIS Seminar Series: Information Disorder

aman — 2021-08-11T11:17:57Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is announcing the launch of a seminar series to showcase research around digital rights and technology policy, with a focus on the Global South.

The CIS seminar series will be a venue for researchers to share works-in-progress, exchange ideas, identify avenues for collaboration, and curate research. We also seek to mitigate the impact of Covid-19 on research exchange, and foster collaborations among researchers and academics from diverse geographies. Every quarter we will be hosting a remote seminar with presentations, discussions and debate on a thematic area.

Seminar format

We are happy to welcome abstracts for one of two tracks:

Working paper presentation

A working paper presentation would ideally involve a working draft that is presented for about 15 minutes followed by feedback from workshop participants. Abstracts for this track should be 600-800 words in length with clear research questions, methodology, and questions for discussion at the seminar. Ideally, for this track, authors should be able to submit a draft paper two weeks before the conference for circulation to participants.

Coffee-shop conversations

In contrast to the formal paper presentation format, the point of the coffee-shop conversations is to enable an informal space for presentation and discussion of ideas. Simply put, it is an opportunity for researchers to “think out loud” and get feedback on future research agendas. Provocations for this should be 100-150 words containing a short description of the idea you want to discuss.

We will try to accommodate as many abstracts as possible given time constraints. We welcome submissions from students and early career researchers, especially those from under-represented communities.

All discussions will be private and conducted under the Chatham House Rule. Drafts will only be circulated among registered participants.

Please send all abstracts to workshops@cis-india.org.

Theme for the first seminar (to be held on an online platform)

The first seminar will be centered around the theme of ‘Information Disorder: Mis-, Dis- and Malinformation.’ While the issue of information disorder, colloquially termed as ‘fake news’, has been in the political forefront for the last five years, the flawed attempts at countering the ‘infodemic’ brought about by the pandemic proves that there still continues to be substantial gaps in the body-of-knowledge on this issue. This includes research that proposes empirical, replicable methods of understanding the types, forms or nature of information disorder or research that attempts to understand regulatory approaches, the layers of production and the roles played by different agents in the spread of ‘fake news’.

Accordingly, we invite submissions that address these gaps in knowledge, including those that examine the relationship between digital technology and information disorder across a spectrum of fields and disciplines. Areas of interest include but are not limited to:

Information disorders during COVID-19
Effects of coordinated campaigns on marginalised communities
Journalism, the State, and the trust in media
Platform responsibility in information disorder
Information disorder in international law/constitutional/human rights law
Information disorder as a geopolitical tool
Sociopolitical and cultural factors in user engagement

Timeline

Abstract Submission Deadline: August 25th
Results of Abstract review: September 8th
Full submissions (of draft papers): September 30th
Seminar date: Tentatively October 7th

Contact details

For any queries please contact us at workshops@cis-india.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-seminar-series-information-disorder

Big Data in India: Benefits, Harms, and Human Rights - Workshop Report

Vidushi Marda, Akash Deep Singh and Geethanjali Jujjavarapu — 2016-11-18T12:58:19Z

The Centre for Internet and Society held a one-day workshop on “Big Data in India: Benefits, Harms and Human Rights” at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi on the 1st of October, 2016. This report is a compilation of the the issues discussed, ideas exchanged and challenges recognized during the workshop. The objective of the workshop was to discuss aspects of big data technologies in terms of harms, opportunities and human rights. The discussion was designed around an extensive study of current and potential future uses of big data for governance in India, that CIS has undertaken over the last year with support from the MacArthur Foundation.

Contents

Big Data: Definitions and Global South Perspectives

Aadhaar as Big Data

Seeding

Aadhaar and Data Security

Aadhaar’s Relational Arrangement with Big Data Scheme

The Myths surrounding Aadhaar

IndiaStack and FinTech Apps

Problems with UID

Big Data: Definitions and Global South Perspectives

“Big Data” has been defined by multiple scholars till date. The first consideration at the workshop was to discuss various definitions of big data, and also to understand what could be considered Big Data in terms of governance, especially in the absence of academic consensus. One of the most basic ways to define it, as given by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA, is to take it to be the data that is beyond the computational capacity of current systems. This definition has been accepted by the UIDAI of India. Another participant pointed out that Big Data is not only indicative of size, but rather the nature of data which is unstructured, and continuously flowing. The Gartner definition of Big Data relies on the three Vs i.e. Volume (size), Velocity (infinite number of ways in which data is being continuously collected) and Variety (the number of ways in which data can be collected in rows and columns).

The presentation also looked at ways in which Big Data is different from traditional data. It was pointed out that it can accommodate diverse unstructured datasets, and it is ‘relational’ i.e. it needs the presence of common field(s) across datasets which allows these fields to be conjoined. For e.g., the UID in India is being linked to many different datasets, and they don’t constitute Big Data separately, but do so together. An increasingly popular definition is to define data as “Big Data” based on what can be achieved through it. It has been described by authors as the ability to harness new kinds of insight which can inform decision making. It was pointed out that CIS does not subscribe to any particular definition, and is still in the process of coming up with a comprehensive definition of Big Data.

Further, discussion touched upon the approach to Big Data in the Global South. It was pointed out that most discussions about Big Data in the Global South are about the kind of value that it can have, the ways in which it can change our society. The Global North, on the other hand, has moved on to discussing the ethics and privacy issues associated with Big Data.

After this, the presentation focussed on case studies surrounding key Central Government initiatives and projects like Aadhaar, Predictive Policing, and Financial Technology (FinTech).

Aadhaar as Big Data

In presenting CIS’ case study on Aadhaar, it was pointed out that initially, Aadhaar, with its enrollment dataset was by itself being seen as Big Data. However, upon careful consideration in light of definitions discussed above, it can be seen as something that enables Big Data. The different e-governance projects within Digital India, along with Aadhaar, constitute Big Data. The case study discussed the Big Data implications of Aadhaar, and in particular looked at a ‘cradle to grave’ identity mapping through various e-government projects and the datafication of various transaction generated data.

Seeding

Any digital identity like Aadhaar typically has three features: 1. Identification i.e. a number or card used to identify yourself; 2. Authentication, which is based on your number or card and any other digital attributes that you might have; 3. Authorisation: As bearers of the digital identity, we can authorise the service providers to take some steps on our behalf. The case study discussed ‘seeding’ which enables the Big Data aspects of Digital India. In the process of seeding, different government databases can be seeded with the UID number using a platform called Ginger. Due to this, other databases can be connected to UIDAI, and through it, data from other databases can be queried by using your Aadhaar identity itself. This is an example of relationality, where fractured data is being brought together. At the moment, it is not clear whether this access by UIDAI means that an actual physical copy of such data from various sources will be transferred to UIDAI’s servers or if they will just access it through internet, but the data remains on the host government agency’s server. An example of even private parties becoming a part of this infrastructure was raised by a participant when it was pointed out that Reliance Jio is now asking for fingerprints. This can then be connected to the relational infrastructure being created by UIDAI. The discussion then focused on how such a structure will function, where it was mentioned that as of now, it cannot be said with certainty that UIDAI will be the agency managing this relational infrastructure in the long run, even though it is the one building it.

Aadhaar and Data Security

This case study also dealt with the sheer lack of data protection legislation in India except for S.43A of the IT Act. The section does not provide adequate protection as the constitutionality of the rules and regulations under S.43A is ambivalent. More importantly, it only refers to private bodies. Hence, any seeding which is being done by the government is outside the scope of data protection legislation. Thus, at the moment, no legal framework covers the processes and the structures being used for datasets. Due to the inapplicability of S.43A to public bodies, questions were raised as to the existence of a comprehensive data protection policy for government institutions. Participants answered the question in the negative. They pointed out that if any government department starts collecting data, they develop their own privacy policy. There are no set guidelines for such policies and they do not address concerns related to consent, data minimisation and purpose limitation at all. Questions were also raised about the access and control over Big Data with government institutions. A tentative answer from a participant was that such data will remain under the control of the domain specific government ministry or department, for e.g. MNREGA data with the Ministry of Rural Development, because the focus is not on data centralisation but rather on data linking. As long as such fractured data is linked and there is an agency that is responsible to link them, this data can be brought together. Such data is primarily for government agencies. But the government is opening up certain aspects of the data present with it for public consumption for research and entrepreneurial purposes.The UIDAI provides you access to your own data after paying a minimal fee. The procedure for such access is still developing.

Aadhaar’s Relational Arrangement with Big Data Scheme

The various Digital India schemes brought in by the government were elucidated during the workshop. It was pointed out that these schemes extend to myriad aspects of a citizen’s daily life and cover all the essential public services like health, education etc. This makes Aadhaar imperative even though the Supreme Court has observed that it is not mandatory for every citizen to have a unique identity number. The benefits of such identity mapping and the ecosystem being generated by it was also enumerated during the discourse. But the complete absence of any data ethics or data confidentiality principles make us unaware of the costs at which these benefits are being conferred on us. Apart from surveillance concerns, the knowledge gap being created between the citizens and the government was also flagged. Three main benefits touted to be provided by Aadhaar were then analysed. The first is the efficient delivery of services. This appears to be an overblown claim as the Aadhaar specific digitisation and automation does not affect the way in which employment will be provided to citizens through MNREGA or how wage payment delays will be overcome. These are administrative problems that Aadhaar and associated technologies cannot solve. The second is convenience to the citizens. The fallacies in this assertion were also brought out and identified. Before the Aadhaar scheme was rolled in, ration cards were issued based on certain exclusion and inclusion criteria.. The exclusion and inclusion criteria remain the same while another hurdle in the form of Aadhaar has been created. As India is still lacking in supporting infrastructure such as electricity, server connectivity among other things, Aadhaar is acting as a barrier rather than making it convenient for citizens to enroll in such schemes.The third benefit is fraud management. Here, a participant pointed out that this benefit was due to digitisation in the form of GPS chips in food delivery trucks and electronic payment and not the relational nature of Aadhaar. Aadhaar is only concerned with the linking up or relational part. About deduplication, it was pointed out how various government agencies have tackled it quite successfully by using technology different from biometrics which is unreliable at the best of times.

The Myths surrounding Aadhaar

The discussion also reflected on the fact that Aadhaar is often considered to be a panacea that subsumes all kinds of technologies to tackle leakages. However, this does not take into account the fact that leakages happen in many ways. A system should have been built to tackle those specific kinds of leakages, but the focus is solely on Aadhaar as the cure for all. Notably, participants who have been a part of the government pointed out how this myth is misleading and should instead be seen as the first step towards a more digitally enhanced country which is combining different technologies through one medium.

IndiaStack and FinTech Apps

What is India Stack?

The focus then shifted to another extremely important Big Data project, India Stack, being conceptualised and developed by a team of private developers called iStack, for the NPCI. It builds on the UID project, Jan Dhan Yojana and mobile services trinity to propagate and develop a cashless, presence-less, paperless and granular consent layer based on UID infrastructure to digitise India.

A participant pointed out that the idea of India Stack is to use UID as a platform and keep stacking things on it, such that more and more applications are developed. This in turn will help us to move from being a ‘data poor’ country to a ‘data rich’ one. The economic benefits of this data though as evidenced from the TAGUP report - a report about the creation of National Information Utilities to manage the data that is present with the government - is for the corporations and not the common man. The TAGUP report openly talks about privatisation of data.

Problems with India Stack

The granular consent layer of India Stack hasn’t been developed yet but they have proposed to base it on MIT Media Lab’s OpenPDS system. The idea being that, on the basis of the choices made by the concerned person, access to a person’s personal information may be granted to an agency like a bank. What is more revolutionary is that India Stack might even revoke this access if the concerned person expresses a wish to do so or the surrounding circumstances signal to India Stack that it will be prudent to do so. It should be pointed out that the the technology required for OpenPDS is extremely complex and is not available in India. Moreover, it’s not clear how this system would work. Apart from this, even the paperless layer has its faults and has been criticised by many since its inception, because an actual government signed and stamped paper has been the basis of a claim.. In the paperless system, you are provided a Digilocker in which all your papers are stored electronically, on the basis of your UID number. However, it was brought to light that this doesn’t take into account those who either do not want a Digilocker or UID number or cases where they do not have access to their digital records. How in such cases will people make claims?

A Digital Post-Dated Cheque: It’s Ramifications

A key change that FinTech apps and the surrounding ecosystem want to make is to create a digital post-dated cheque so as to allow individuals to get loans from their mobiles especially in remote areas. This will potentially cut out the need to construct new banks, thus reducing the capital expenditure , while at the same time allowing the credit services to grow. The direct transfer of money between UID numbers without the involvement of banks is a step to further help this ecosystem grow. Once an individual consents to such a system, however, automatic transfer of money from one’s bank accounts will be affected, regardless of the reason for payment. This is different from auto debt deductions done by banks presently, as in the present system banks have other forms of collateral as well. The automatic deduction now is only affected if these other forms are defaulted upon. There is no knowledge as to whether this consent will be reversible or irreversible. As Jan Dhan Yojana accounts are zero balance accounts, the account holder will be bled dry. The implication of schemes such as “Loan in under 8 minutes” were also discussed. The advantage of such schemes is that transaction costs are reduced.The financial institution can thus grant loans for the minimum amount without any additional enquiries. It was pointed out that this new system is based on living on future income much like the US housing bubble crash. Interestingly, in Public Distribution Systems, biometrics are insisted upon even though it disrupts the system. This can be seen as a part of the larger infrastructure to ensure that digital post-dated cheques become a success.

The Role of FinTech Apps

FinTech ‘apps’ are being presented with the aim of propagating financial inclusion. The Technology Advisory Group for Unique Projects report stated that as managing such information sources is a big task, just like electricity utilities, a National Information Utilities (NIU) should be set up for data sources. These NIUs as per the report will follow a fee based model where they will be charging for their services for government schemes. The report identified two key NIUs namely the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) and the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN). The key usage that FinTech applications will serve is credit scoring. The traditional credit scoring data sources only comprised a thin file of records for an individual, but the data that FinTech apps collect - a person’s UID number, mobile number. and bank account number all linked up, allow for a far more comprehensive credit rating. Government departments are willing to share this data with FinTech apps as they are getting analysis in return. Thus, by using UID and the varied data sources that have been linked together by UID, a ‘thick file’ is now being created by FinTech apps. Banking apps have not yet gone down the route of FinTech apps to utilise Big Data for credit scoring purposes.

The two main problems with such apps is that there is no uniform way of credit scoring. This distorts the rate at which a person has to pay interest. The consent layer adds another layer of complication as refusal to share mobile data with a FinTech app may lead to the app declaring one to be a risky investment thus, subjecting that individual to a higher rate of interest .

Regulation of FinTech Apps and the UID Infrastructure

India Stack and the applications that are being built on it, generate a lot of transaction metadata that is very intimate in nature. The privacy aspects of the UID legislation doesn't cover such data. The granular consent layer which has been touted to cover this still has to come into existence. Also, Big Data is based on sharing and linking of data. Here, privacy concerns and Big Data objectives clash. Big Data by its very nature challenges privacy principles like data minimisation and purpose limitation.The need for regulation to cover the various new apps and infrastructure which are being developed was pointed out.

Problems with UID

It has been observed that any problem present with Aadhaar is usually labelled as a teething problem, it’s claimed that it will be solved in the next 10 years. But, this begs the question - why is the system online right now?

Aadhaar is essentially a new data condition and a new exclusion or inclusion criteria. Data exclusion modalities as observed in Rajasthan after the introduction of biometric Point of Service (POS) machines at ration shops was found to be 45% of the population availing PDS services. This number also includes those who were excluded from the database by being included in the wrong dataset. There is no information present to tell us how many actual duplicates and how many genuine ration card holders were weeded out/excluded by POS.

It was also mentioned that any attempt to question Aadhaar is considered to be an attempt to go back to the manual system and this binary thinking needs to change. Big Data has the potential to benefit people, as has been evidenced by the scholarship and pension portals. However, Big Data’s problems arise in systems like PDS, where there is centralised exclusion at the level of the cloud. Moreover, the quantity problem present in the PDS and MNREGA systems persists. There is still the possibility of getting lesser grains and salary even with analysis of biometrics, hence proving that there are better technologies to tackle these problems. Presently, the accountability mechanisms are being weakened as the poor don’t know where to go to for redressal. Moreover, the mechanisms to check whether the people excluded are duplicates or not is not there. At the time of UID enrollment, out of 90 crores, 9 crore were rejected. There was no feedback or follow-up mechanism to figure out why are people being rejected. It was just assumed that they might have been duplicates.

Another problem is the rolling out of software without checking for inefficiencies or problems at a beta testing phase. The control of developers over this software, is so massive that it can be changed so easily without any accountability.. The decision making components of the software are all proprietary like in the the de-duplication algorithm being used by the UIDAI. Thus, this leads to a loss of accountability because the system itself is in flux, none of it is present in public domain and there are no means to analyse it in a transparent fashion..

These schemes are also being pushed through due to database politics. On a field study of NPR of citizens, another Big Data scheme, it was found that you are assumed to be an alien if you did not have the documents to prove that you are a citizen. Hence, unless you fulfill certain conditions of a database, you are excluded and are not eligible for the benefits that being on the database afford you.

Why is the private sector pushing for UIDAI and the surrounding ecosystem?

Financial institutions stand to gain from encouraging the UID as it encourages the credit culture and reduces transaction costs.. Another advantage for the private sector is perhaps the more obvious one, that is allows for efficient marketing of products and services..

The above mentioned fears and challenges were actually observed on the ground and the same was shown through the medium of a case study in West Bengal on the smart meters being installed there by the state electricity utility. While the data coming in from these smart meters is being used to ensure that a more efficient system is developed,it is also being used as a surrogate for income mapping on the basis of electricity bills being paid. This helps companies profile neighbourhoods. The technical officer who first receives that data has complete control over it and he can easily misuse the data. This case study again shows that instruments like Aadhaar and India Stack are limited in their application and aren’t the panacea that they are portrayed to be.

A participant pointed out that in the light of the above discussions, the aim appears to be to get all kinds of data, through any source, and once you have gotten the UID, you link all of this data to the UID number, and then use it in all the corporate schemes that are being started. Most of the problems associated with Big Data are being described as teething problems. The India Stack and FinTech scheme is coming in when we already know about the problems being faced by UID. The same problems will be faced by India Stack as well.

Can you opt out of the Aadhaar system and the surrounding ecosystem?

The discussion then turned towards whether there can be voluntary opting out from Aadhaar. It was pointed out that the government has stated that you cannot opt out of Aadhaar. Further, the privacy principles in the UIDAI bill are ambiguously worded where individuals only have recourse for basic things like correction of your personal information. The enforcement mechanism present in the UIDAI Act is also severely deficient. There is no notification procedure if a data breach occurs. . The appellate body ‘Cyber Appellate Tribunal’ has not been set up in three years.

CCTNS: Big Data and its Predictive Uses

What is Predictive Policing?

The next big Big Data case study was on the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS). Originally it was supposed to be a digitisation and interconnection scheme where police records would be digitised and police stations across the length and breadth of the country would be interconnected. But, in the last few years some police departments of states like Chandigarh, Delhi and Jharkhand have mooted the idea of moving on to predictive policing techniques. It envisages the use of existing statistical and actuarial techniques along with many other tropes of data to do so. It works in four ways: 1. By predicting the place and time where crimes might occur; 2. To predict potential future offenders; 3. To create profiles of past crimes in order to predict future crimes; 4. Predicting groups of individuals who are likely to be victims of future crimes.

How is Predictive Policing done?

To achieve this, the following process is followed: 1. Data collection from various sources which includes structured data like FIRs and unstructured data like call detail records, neighbourhood data, crime seasonal patterns etc. 2. Analysis by using theories like the near repeat theory, regression models on the basis of risk factors etc. 3. Intervention

Flaws in Predictive Policing and questions of bias

An obvious weak point in the system is that if the initial data going into the system is wrong or biased, the analysis will also be wrong. Efforts are being made to detect such biases. An important way to do so will be by building data collection practices into the system that protect its accuracy. The historical data being entered into the system is carrying on the prejudices inherited from the British Raj and biases based on religion, caste, socio-economic background etc.

One participant brought about the issue of data digitization in police stations, and the impact of this haphazard, unreliable data on a Big Data system. This coupled with paucity of data is bound to lead to arbitrary results. An effective example was that of black neighbourhoods in the USA. These are considered problematic and thus they are policed more, leading to a higher crime rate as they are arrested for doing things that white people in an affluent neighbourhood get away with. This in turn further perpetuates the crime rate and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In India, such a phenomenon might easily develop in the case of migrants, de-notified tribes, Muslims etc. A counter-view on bias and discrimination was offered here. One participant pointed out that problems with haphazard or poor quality of data is not a colossal issue as private companies are willing to fill this void and are actually doing so in exchange for access to this raw data. It was also pointed out how bias by itself is being used as an all encompassing term. There are multiplicities of biases and while analysing the data, care should be taken to keep it in mind that one person’s bias and analysis might and usually does differ from another. Even after a computer has analysed the data, the data still falls into human hands for implementation.

The issue of such databases being used to target particular communities on the basis of religion, race, caste, ethnicity among other parameters was raised. Questions about control and analysis of data were also discussed, i.e. whether it will be top-down with data analysis being done in state capitals or will this analysis be done at village and thana levels as well too. It was discussed as topointed out how this could play a major role in the success and possible persecutory treatment of citizens, as the policemen at both these levels will have different perceptions of what the data is saying. . It was further pointed out, that at the moment, there’s no clarity on the mode of implementation of Big Data policing systems. Police in the USA have been seen to rely on Big Data so much that they have been seen to become ‘data myopic’. For those who are on the bad side of Big Data, in the Indian context, laws like preventive detention can be heavily misused.There’s a very high chance that predictive policing due to the inherent biases in the system and the prejudices and inefficiency of the legal system will further suppress the already targeted sections of the society. A counterpoint was raised and it was suggested that contrary to our fears, CCTNS might lead to changes in our understanding and help us to overcome longstanding biases.

Open Knowledge Architecture as a solution to Big Data biases?

The conference then mulled over the use of ‘Open Knowledge’ architecture to see whether it can provide the solution to rid Big Data of its biases and inaccuracies if enough eyes are there. It was pointed out that Open Knowledge itself can’t provide foolproof protection against these biases as the people who make up the eyes themselves are predominantly male belonging to the affluent sections of the society and they themselves suffer from these biases.

Who exactly is Big Data supposed to serve?

The discussion also looked at questions such as who is this data for? Janata Information System (JIS), is a concept developed by MKSS where the data collected and generated by the government is taken to be for the common citizens. For e.g. MNREGA data should be used to serve the purposes of the labourers. The raw data as is available at the moment, usually cannot be used by the common man as it is so vast and full of information that is not useful for them at all. It was pointed out that while using Big Data for policy planning purposes, the actual string of information that turned out to be needed was very little but the task of unravelling this data for civil society purposes is humongous. By presenting the data in the right manner, the individual can be empowered. The importance of data presentation was also flagged. It was agreed upon that the content of the data should be for the labourer and not a MNC, as the MNC has the capability to utilise the raw data on it’s own regardless.

Concerns about Big Data usage

Participants pointed out that privacy concerns are usually brushed under the table due to a belief that the law is sufficient or that the privacy battle has already been lost.
In the absence of knowledge of domain and context, Big Data analysis is quite limited. Big Data’s accuracy and potential to solve problems needs to be factually backed.
The narrative of Big Data often rests on the assumption that descriptive statistics take over inferential statistics, thus eliminating the need for domain specific knowledge. It is claimed that the data is so big that it will describe everything that we need to know.
Big Data is creating a shift from a deductive model of scientific rigour to an inductive one. In response to this, a participant offered the idea that troves of good data allow us to make informed questions on the basis of which the deductive model will be formed. A hybrid approach combining both deductive and inductive might serve us best.
The need to collect the right data in the correct format, in the right place was also expressed.

Potential Research Questions & Participants’ Areas of Research

Following this discussion, participants brainstormed to come up with potential areas of research and research questions. They have been captured below:

Big Data, Aadhaar and India Stack:

Has Aadhaar been able to tackle illegal ways of claiming services or are local negotiations and other methods still prevalent?
Is the consent layer of India Stack being developed in a way that provides an opportunity to the UID user to give informed consent? The OpenPDS and its counterpart in the EU i.e. the My Data Structure were designed for countries with strong privacy laws. Importantly, they were meant for information shared on social media and not for an individual’s health or credit history. India is using it in a completely different sphere without strong data protection laws. What were the granular consent layer structures present in the West designed for and what were they supposed to protect?
The question of ownership of data needs to be studied especially in context of a globalised world where MNCs are collecting copious amounts of data of Indian citizens. What is the interaction of private parties in this regard?

Big Data and Predictive Policing:

How are inequalities being created through the Big Data systems? Lessons should be taken from the Western experience with the advent of predictive policing and other big data techniques - they tend to lead to perpetuation of the current biases which are already ingrained in the system.
It was also pointed out how while studying these topics and anything related to technology generally, we become aware of a divide that is present between the computational sciences and social sciences. This divide needs to be erased if Big Data or any kind of data is to be used efficiently. There should be a cross-pollination between different groups of academics. An example of this can be seen to be the ‘computational social sciences departments’ that have been coming up in the last 3-4 years.
Why are so many interim promises made by Big Data failing? A study of this phenomenon needs to be done from a social science perspective. This will allow one to look at it from a different angle.

Studying Big Data:

What is the historical context of the terms of reference being used for Big Data? The current Big Data debate in India is based on parameters set by the West. For better understanding of Big Data, it was suggested that P.C. Mahalanobis’ experience while conducting the Indian census, (which was the Big Data of that time) can be looked at to get a historical perspective on Big Data. This comparison might allow us to discover questions that are important in the Indian context. It was also suggested that rather than using ‘Big Data’ as a catchphrase to describe these new technological innovations, we need to be more discerning.
What are the ideological aspects that must be considered while studying Big Data? What does the dialectical promise of technology mean? It was contended that every time there is a shift in technology, the zeitgeist of that period is extremely excited and there are claims that it will solve everything. There’s a need to study this dialectical promise and the social promise surrounding it.
Apart from the legitimate fears that Big Data might lead to exclusion, what are the possibilities in which it improve inclusion too?
The diminishing barrier between the public and private self, which is a tangent to the larger public-private debate was mentioned.
How does one distinguish between technology failure and process failure while studying Big Data?

Big Data: A Friend?

In the concluding session, the fact that the Big Data moment cannot be wished away was acknowledged. The use of analytics and predictive modelling by the private sector is now commonplace and India has made a move towards a database state through UID and Digital India. The need for a nuanced debate, that does away with the false equivalence of being either a Big Data enthusiast or a luddite is crucial.

A participant offered two approaches to solving a Big Data problem. The first was the Big Data due process framework which states that if a decision has been taken that impacts the rights of a citizen, it needs to be cross examined. The efficacy and practicality of such an approach is still not clear. The second, slightly paternalistic in nature, was the approach where Big Data problems would be solved at the data science level itself. This is much like the affirmative algorithmic approach which says that if in a particular dataset, the data for the minority community is not available then it should be artificially introduced in the dataset. It was also suggested that carefully calibrated free market competition can be used to regulate Big Data. For e.g. a private personal wallet company that charges higher, but does not share your data at all can be an example of such competition.

Another important observation was the need to understand Big Data in a Global South context and account for unique challenges that arise. While the convenience of Big Data is promising, its actual manifestation depends on externalities like connectivity, accurate and adequate data etc that must be studied in the Global South.

While the promises of Big Data are encouraging, it is also important to examine its impacts and its interaction with people's rights. Regulatory solutions to mitigate the harms of big data while also reaping its benefits need to evolve.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/big-data-in-india-benefits-harms-and-human-rights-a-report

Amnesty International calls for review of 66A of IT act

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T06:19:45Z

The review seeks to bring the Act in line with international human rights law standards on freedom of expression.

This article by Nirmalya Behera was published in the Business Standard on November 28, 2012.

Joining in the row over arrest of two girls in Maharastra for Facebook comments, the human rights group, Amnesty International, has called for review of the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In a letter to Kapil Sibal, Union minister for Communications and Information Technology, the London based human right watchdog has asked for reviewing the section and bringing it in line with international human rights law standards on freedom of expression.

The human rights group and the Centre for Internet and Society believe that Section 66A, which was amended in 2008, is not in line with the constitution of India and internationally accepted standards on freedom of expression. They termed the section as imprecise and over board.

Amnesty has also called for laying down clear and comprehensive explanations of the restrictions on free speech either in the IT act or in the rules in order to prevent the abuse of the provision by various state law enforcement officials and frame the explanations after consulting it with the public.

“The Internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression. People have the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs without fear, or interference. But under Section 66A, even a peaceful posting could lead to a prison sentence of up to three years”, it said in its letter.

It may be noted that two girls- Shaheen Dhada and her friend Renu Srinivasan were arrested on November 19, after Dhada had lamented in a Facebook post about the shutdown in Mumbai due to Bal Thackeray's funeral and were later released on bail.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/business-standard-november-28-2012-nirmalya-behera-amnesty-international-calls-for-review-of-66a-of-it-act

Accessing pirated content might lead to prison term & Rs 3-lakh fine

praskrishna — 2016-08-23T02:47:52Z

India puts onus of downloading and viewing pirated content on individuals.

The article by Alnoor Peermohammed was published in the Business Standard on August 22, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The central government is putting the onus of downloading and viewing of copyrighted content from sites it has blocked (with the help of internet service providers) on users.

Visiting torrent (a particular type of files) websites while on Tata Communications’ network recently had users being shown a message that viewing or downloading content on those sites could land them in prison for up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 3 lakh.

“There is not enough room in our prisons to keep these infringers and enough time in our courts to try them. It might sound very exciting as a message to put out but, essentially, they’re trying to scare people into good behaviour,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at research firm Centre for Internet and Society.

There has been no change to the Copyright Act of 1957 or the Information Technology Act of 2000 for the updated notice being shown to users upon visiting blocked sites. Under these provisions, visiting a site, which is blocked is not illegal, unless it is child pornography.

“Copyright infringement happens all the time and even in developed countries, the rates are very high. Crackdowns on individuals and consumers are never going to solve the problem,” added Abraham.

Experts say the most the government could do is prosecute a couple of people and make examples of them, to dissuade others. This practice is followed globally. There are no examples, though, in India of prosecution for copyright infringement of online content.

The recent alteration of the statement seen by users on Tata networks was done on the directives of the Bombay High Court, after the company appealed that showing individual messages for why each website was blocked was not feasible. The resulting message sparked media frenzy that visitors of blocked websites could now be imprisoned.

Other media reports revealed that the recent blocking of websites by internet service providers was prompted by court orders to prevent piracy of Dishoom, the Bollywood movie.

Globally, there’s been a move to clamp on torrent websites which host pirated content, aided by large information technology entities such as Apple or Facebook. Last month, the US authorities arrested Kickass Torrents’ founder, Arten Vaulin, and blocked all the domains of the website, only to have it resurface a day later.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-22-2016-accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-and-rs-3-lakh-fine

‘The IT Act is fine, but its interpretation is not’

praskrishna — 2012-12-21T10:08:43Z

Several organisations such as the Alternate Law Forum and Centre for Internet and Society are campaigning to amend the IT Act 2000. However, SV Raghavan, scientific secretary, office of PSA to the government of India, stated that the law in place is fine but the stakeholders need to be educated on implementing it better.

The article was published in DNA on December 19, 2012.

Raghavan, who was at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) in the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) on Tuesday to give a lecture on cyber security, specifically singled out the controversial Section 66 that can hold a person viable for posting ‘offensive’ content online. The IT Act 2000 is constituted to keep such law breakers under check.

“The IT Act 2000 gives specific powers to some of the law agencies to take action. In cyberspace, nearly 90% of the users don’t come with any malicious intentions. Now there is a large concerted effort across the country, to teach policemen how to apply this law and interpret it. There is also an effort to teach the judiciary to interpret the law correctly, so that the right people are held accountable,” he said.

“No matter what you do, when the law is written in English, sometimes it comes across two dimensional and the original intent of the law may be lost, which is why there are agencies who are dedicated to teaching the judiciary on how to interpret it,” he added.

As for cyber security amongst civilians, vigilance is simply all it takes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-bangalore-december-19-2012-the-it-act-is-fine-but-its-interpretation-is-not

3rd Canadian Science Policy Conference

praskrishna — 2011-11-23T15:57:58Z

The Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) organised the 2011 conference at the Ottawa Convention Centre from 16 to 18 November 2011. Sunil Abraham spoke in the session on Global Implications of Open and Inclusive Innovation.

Conference Objectives

The Canadian Science Policy Conference fills a critical gap in the Canadian science policy environment by providing a permanent national forum for discussing science policy issues. The main objectives of the conference were to:

to provide an inclusive forum at the national level to identify, discuss and provide insights into the current Canadian science, technology and innovation policy issues;
to forge stronger linkages and create networking opportunities among science policy stakeholders;
to provide a venue for a new generation of scientists, entrepreneurs and policy makers to interact, innovate and shape the future of Canadian science policy landscape which is required for a knowledge-driven economy;
to provide a supportive environment for innovative ideas and projects in science policy, and encourage further collaborations across sectors;
to lay the foundation for a centre dedicated to science, technology and innovation policy.

Agenda

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

8:00 am - 6:00 pm
Registration Opens
9:00 am - 3:00 pm

Optional Workshop - Science Policy 101 (additional charges apply)
Part I: Understanding the Nuts and Bolts…
This workshop will provide a general overview of science policy, both in terms of “policy for science” and “science for policy.” The introductory session assumes participants have no prior knowledge of science policy and is intended for researchers, policy analysts, journalists/communicators, students and others interested in gaining a basic understanding of science policy definitions, concepts, governance, key players, key issues, funding, science advisory mechanisms, etc. Led by experts in science policy, the workshop will underscore the importance of scientists’ understanding the impacts of science in the policy-making process and the impacts of policy-making on the research enterprise.

Part II: Career Development Workshop: So You Want to do Science Policy...
Potentially interested in science policy but not sure where to turn? Join us to explore career opportunities and job-seeking strategies at the intersection of science and policy. You'll hear from and interact with a variety of science policy professionals at various stages of their careers and who have walked quite different paths to get to where they are. The workshop will explore skills needed to succeed in science policy and describe several avenues for learning more about science policy. Whether your background is in the sciences, engineering, public policy or whatever, if you have an interest in working in science policy this is an excellent opportunity to expand your professional network. The workshop will also be your opportunity to suggest how the Canadian Science Policy Centre can best support your career development needs and aspirations in science policy.

Jeff Kinder, Ph.D
Manager, S&T Strategy - Innovation and Energy Technology Sector
Natural Resources Canada
Jeff Kinder has over twenty years of experience in government science and in science and technology (S&T) policy in the U.S. and Canada. His experience in the U.S. includes work at the National Science Foundation, the National Academies' Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, and research in applied ocean acoustics at the Naval Research Laboratory. In Canada, Jeff has worked as Senior Policy Advisor in Science and Innovation at Industry Canada and in support of the Council of Science and Technology Advisors (CSTA), the external board that advised Cabinet on the management of federal S&T from 1998-2007. He is currently Manager, S&T Strategy, at Natural Resources Canada. Jeff’s research and teaching focuses on S&T policy, government laboratories, innovation systems and science advisory mechanisms. He is the co-author with Bruce Doern of Strategic Science in the Public Interest: Canada's Government Laboratories and Science-Based Agencies (University of Toronto Press, 2007) and is working on a history of the Science Council of Canada. He holds a PhD in Public Policy, an M.A. in Science, Technology and Public Policy and a B.S. in Physics.

Jason Blackstock, Ph.D
Senior Fellow CIGI & Research Scholar
IIASA Austria
With a unique background in physics, technology and international affairs, Dr Jason J Blackstock is a leading international policy adviser and scholar on both emerging geoengineering technologies, and the interface between science and global governance institutions. A physicist by training (PhD) and trade (PPhys), as well as a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School (MPA), Jason is the Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at CIGI (the Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada) and a Research Scholar at IIASA (the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria), where he leads several international research projects evaluating the scientific, political and global governance implications of climate change, energy transitions, and emerging geoengineering technologies. Jason has also been elected Associate Fellow of the World Academy of Arts and Science, and is an adjunct member of faculty at the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE).

1:00 pm - 3:00 pm
CSPC Supporter’s Caf (by invitation only, open to supporters and community partners)

3:30 pm - 5:15 pm
Science and Humanitarian Efforts - POSTPONED TILL 2012

Challenges for Young Researchers: Insights from the 2011 PAGSE Symposium
Fuelling Science Policy – new leaders speak out. Young scientists and engineers comprise a critically important, mobile pool of talent that stands to change the geography of knowledge in fundamental ways. Join a discussion with outstanding early career researchers from across Canada, as they present provocative views on the challenges and opportunities they face in driving the science agenda in this country over the next 25 years.
Your panelists for this session will come from the top-tier of young Canadian researchers. Prior to the conference this select group will be working together to develop the specific challenges that will be discussed. Members of this group will be identified during the session.

Moderator
Rees Kassen, Ph.D.
University Research Chair in Experimental Evolution
University of Ottawa
Despite being less than a decade into his career, Dr. Rees Kassen has quickly developed an international reputation. To the astonishment of more established colleagues, he has already published an impressive four papers in the field’s most prestigious journal, Nature. During his time at the University of Ottawa he has developed a strong independent research program and attracted more than $500,000 in research funding. In the process he has proved his strengths in designing and executing microbial experiments to test theory in ecology and evolution. Dr. Kassen manages to serve on a number of committees both at the university and in the community. His work has also attracted considerable media attention, and has been highlighted in the popular press such as CBC-Radio, the Toronto Star, Danish daily newspapers a podcast for the American Society of Microbiologists.

Arctic and Northern Science Policy and International Diplomacy
Canada’s share of the Earth’s arctic region is perhaps the largest in the world, but given the shared nature of arctic sovereignty, environmental stewardship and scientific research in this region must proceed within a spirit of international collaboration. Following on the heels of the third International Polar Year (2007-2009), this panel invites commentary from various international arctic stakeholders on the way that science and diplomacy interact and support one another in the process of researching Earth’s northern regions.

Moderator
Anita Dey Nuttall, Ph.D
Associate Director ( Research Advancement)
Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta
Dey Nuttall's research focuses on the interface between science and politics in the Polar Regions, and in particular how a nation’s science policy and strategic interests influence and determine the development of its national Antarctic programs. She is currently developing new research on Canada’s strategy for polar science and development of the Canadian Antarctic Research Program.

David Hik, Ph.D
Professor - University of Alberta
President - International Arctic Science Committee
David Hik, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Northern Ecology in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alberta, and President of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). From 2004-2009 he was also Executive Director of the Canadian International Polar Year (IPY) Secretariat.

His research program is focused on experimental and long-term studies of plant-herbivore dynamics and interactions in Arctic and alpine environments. For the past 20 years, most of this work has been conducted in the mountains of the southwest Yukon.

Stephanie Meakin
Science Advisor
Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada
Stephanie Meakin has a background in biology with more than 20 years experience as a policy and science advisor to various government and non-governmental organizations, including Inuit organizations at the national and international levels. She is currently the Science Advisor for the Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada and has spent eight years as lead researcher with ArcticNet on various research programs and projects.

Russel Shearer
Chair - Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)
& Director - Northern Science and Contaminants Research Directorate
Aboringal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Russel Shearer is the Director of the Northern Science and Contaminants Research Directorate within Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). Mr. Shearer is also the Chair of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) working group, which is one of six working groups that carry out the work of the Arctic Council. Additionally, Mr. Shearer serves as the Chair of the Research Management Committee for ArcticNet, which is a network of Centres of Excellence, focussed on studying the impacts of climate change within the costal Canadian Arctic. Mr. Shearer has published a number of papers on the presence and impact of contaminants within the North and works primarily under the auspices of the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP).

Roberta Burns
US Arctic Officer
US State Department
Jenkins R&D Review Panel Report Recommendations - Implications for Canadian Business
The Jenkins Report on the effectiveness of $6.5 Billion spent annually in federal programs to support business R&D and innovation, calls for a “rebalancing” away from R&D tax credits - in favour of the increased use if “direct” funding for business. It also recommends a centralization of program delivery, a dismantling and transition of key NRC Institutes and programs such as IRAP, and enhanced roles for the Business Development Bank of Canada and government procurement in supporting Canadian SMEs. Would these recommendations assist Canadian business to conduct more research and innovation activity? The panel will explore these issues.

Moderator
David B. Watters
President
Global Advantage Consulting Group Inc.
David Watters worked for 30 years in the federal government as a senior executive and Assistant Deputy Minister in a variety of Economic Ministries including Industry Canada, Treasury Board and Finance Canada. He was the Assistant Deputy Minister in Finance Canada for Economic Development and Corporate Finance, where he helped to shape the economic and innovation investments in five federal Budgets. David then established the Global Advantage Consulting Group Inc. (Ottawa) and is the President of this strategic management consulting firm. The firm provides advice to corporate, association, and government clients in Canada and abroad about strategy development, innovative business models, the design and management of commercial networks, and enhanced decision-making, particularly in the areas of new technology investments, innovation/commercialization, trade, and energy/climate change projects, programs and policy.

David holds an Economics degree from Queen’s University as well as a Law degree in corporate, commercial and tax law from Queen’s Law School. He was also an adjunct Professor at the University of Ottawa Management School for seven years teaching International Negotiation to MBA students.

Celine Bak
Partner
Russel Mitchel Group
Céline Bak is an internationally recognized author, speaker and consultant on clean technology and on innovation and commercialization. She published and authored a ground-breaking national report on clean technology and on commercialization – the 2010 SDTC Cleantech Growth & Go-to-Market Report. Also published by her firm, the 2011 Canadian Clean Technology Industry Report builds on the 2010 baseline data set for Canada’s multibillion dollar clean technology industry that Analytica Advisors projects has the potential to attain $60 billion in annual revenues by 2020.

She is the co-founder of the Canadian Clean Technology Coalition that was struck to create the conditions required to make Canada’s clean technology industry an driver of Canada’s economic and energy productivity as well as an enabler for Canada’s green house gas reduction targets. Céline sits on the Clean Tech Advisory Board for the Department of Foreign Affairs and is a technical advisor to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for Climate Prosperity. She was the co-chair of the 2011 Canadian Cleantech Summit and sits on the nominations committee for the Canada Clean50. She is the chair of the Canada-Brazil Working Group for Clean Technology and Green Energy. She resides in Ottawa with her husband and three daughters.

Michael Turner
Vice President, System Strategies
Wesley Clover International
Wesley Clover International, based in Ottawa, Canada, is an investment & management firm with interests in leading edge information technology & communications companies, digital media, real estate and resort properties. As a member of the executive team Michael Turner provides strategic advice and support on technology issues and government innovation policy. In addition to his work with Wesley Clover, Michael also provides consulting services in these domains as well as in the use of Information & Communications Technologies within government, in Canada and internationally. Prior to joining Wesley Clover, Michael spent much of his career with the Canadian Federal Government, most recently as a senior official accountable for executive leadership and management of ICT operations for the Canadian Federal Government’s common services agency, Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC). He also served for a time as the Departmental CIO. During this period, Mr. Turner was a key member of the team responsible for Canada’s success in implementing Internet based e-Government services for its citizens and businesses.

Mr. Turner spent 25 years with the Canadian Coast Guard prior to his responsibilities at PWGSC. While with the Coast Guard. Michael served in a series of engineering and management positions of increasing responsibility. This included representing Canada for several years on various technical committees and then the Governing Council of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization, based in London. For several years, Mr. Turner was the Deputy Commissioner - Canadian Coast Guard. Since leaving the public service, his consulting and advisory work has included projects, workshops and presentations in Australia, S.E. Asia, Africa, Europe, India and Ottawa. He has also participated in the development and delivery of an ICT and e-Government management training program for developing country governments. In 2008, Mr. Turner was a member of the City of Ottawa’s ‘Mayor’s Task Force on e-Government’, the recommendations from which are currently being implemented.

Dan Clow, Ph.D
Director Policy, Advocacy and Alliances Development
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Dr. Dan Clow leads the internal Policy Team at GSK focusing on health, industrial, pharmaceutical and biologics policy at the National level and through cross-functional efforts at the Federal, Provincial and Territorial levels. He also oversees a national field-based team serving as GSK’s point of contact for patient advocacy groups and professional organizations (including medical associations and societies). Dan completed his undergraduate and graduate degrees at Queen’s University, graduating with his Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology in 1988. His neuroscience research interests led him to subsequently complete a post-doctoral fellowship in the Department of Anatomy at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Upon returning to Canada in 1990 he joined the pharmaceutical industry in a medical affairs capacity. Dan joined Glaxo Wellcome (now GSK) in 1996 and spent 10 years in the Government Affairs and Private Payer arena. In 2006, he joined the Medical Division where he managed the respiratory business serving as a strategic scientific partner to the marketing division and managing the respiratory collaborative research trials with Canadian scientists and clinicians. In late 2008, he returned to the Public Affairs Division to take on the policy assignment. In 2011 his role and team was expanded to include the mandate for managing relationships with patient advocacy groups and professional organizations.

Dan is a founding member and past chair of the Group Insurance Pharmaceutical Collaborative (GIPC) and recipient of the Rogers Who’s Who in Healthcare for his work in private sector and employer-based health management. He is currently a member of both the Policy and Stakeholder Relations Committees at Rx&D.

6:00 pm - 6:30 pm
Opening Ceremonies
6:30 pm - 7:30 pm
Keynote Panel - Big Picture Perspective on Science & Innovation Policy
With continuing uncertainty about the global economy and with persistent public policy challenges that respect no borders, science and innovation policy is of increasing importance for governments and organizations across Canada and around the world. How do leaders from various perspectives view the "big picture"? What are the key challenges and opportunities in the decade ahead and how can science, technology and innovation help to address them? How can states improve the performance of their science, technology and innovation systems to ensure better health outcomes, a safe and secure environment, and sustainable prosperity for their citizens? How are macro-decisions on the state of science and innovation policy being made, and what foundations can support efficient national innovation systems.

Introductions
Dr. Suzanne Fortier
President
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Dr. Suzanne Fortier has served as President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) since January 2006. She was re-appointed to this position in November 2010. During her first five years, Dr. Fortier brought a renewed focus on excellence to the agency. Changes to NSERC’s funding structure ensure that the best researchers receive the funding they need to conduct world-class research. NSERC now engages more closely with industries to initiate research and development projects with academic partners. Dr. Fortier has also forged stronger relationships with other federal granting agencies and organizations to increase the number and scope of joint initiatives available to researchers. For example, a collaboration between National Research Council Canada, Business Development Bank of Canada and NSERC resulted in an ambitious new national initiative in nanotechnology.

Before her appointment to this position, Dr. Fortier held a number of senior research and administrative positions at Queen’s University. She joined Queen's University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry in 1982 after holding research positions at the Medical Foundation of Buffalo and National Research Council Canada. She then served as Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, Acting Vice-Principal (Research), and Associate Dean in the School of Graduate Studies and Research before being appointed Vice-Principal (Research) in 1995. Most recently (2000-05), she was Vice-Principal (Academic).

Moderator
Véronique Morin
Science Journalist
Tele-Quebec
Véronique Morin is a journalist in both print and television with over 20 years experience who believes strongly that Science should have an important place in daily newscasts. She is currently working as science journalist for the science magazine program « Le Code Chastenay » on the public network Tele-Quebec, writing freelance magazine articles, as well as developing a documentary project. Recently (idea and research) her documentary “Time Bombs”, about Canadian veterans who have participated in atomic bomb tests, received the awards of « Best documentary” from the New York International Independent Film and Video festival, « Best Documentary » from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and Veronique was nominated for “Best research” at the Gemeaux awards 2008. Veronique Morin was president of the Canadian Science Writers' Association (CSWA) from 2001-2005.

She was elected the first president of the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ) from 2002-2004. She also serves as a judge on numerous awards recognizing excellence in journalism.

Rémi Quirion, OC, Ph.D., CQ, FRSC
Chief Scientist & Chariman of the Board
Fonds de recherche du Québec
On September 1, 2011, Rémi Quirion, OC, PhD, CQ, FRSC, became Québec's first chief scientist. As such, he chairs the boards of directors of the three Fonds de recherche du Québec and advises the Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade on research and scientific development issues. Until his appointment as chief scientist, Rémi Quirion was the vice-dean for science and strategic initiatives in the faculty of medicine at McGill University and senior university advisor on health sciences research. He was the scientific director of the Douglas Mental Health University Institute Research Centre, a full professor in the department of psychiatry at McGill University and the executive director of the International Collaborative Research Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Professor Quirion was the first scientific director of the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction (INMHA), one of Canada's 13 health research institutes.

His work helped to elucidate the roles of the cholinergic system in Alzheimer's disease, of neuropeptide Y in depression and memory and of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in pain and opiate tolerance. Rémi Quirion earned his PhD in pharmacology from Université de Sherbrooke in 1980 and carried out his postdoctoral training at the National Institute of Mental Health in the United States in 1983. He has over 650 publications in prominent scientific journals and is one of the most extensively cited neuroscientists in the world. He has received several awards and honours, including the Ordre national du Québec (Chevalier du Québec, CQ) in 2003, the Prix Wilder-Penfield (Prix du Québec) in 2004 and the Order of Canada (OC) in 2007. Mr. Quirion is also a member of the Royal Society of Canada.

Ian Chubb
Chief Scientist
Australian Government
Professor Ian Chubb was appointed to the position of Chief Scientist on 19 April 2011 and commenced the role on 23 May 2011. Prior to his appointment as Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb was Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University from January 2001 to February 2011. He was Vice-Chancellor of Flinders University of South Australia for six years and the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Monash University for two years while simultaneously the Foundation Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics for 16 months.

In 1999 Professor Chubb was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for “service to the development of higher education policy and its implementation at state, national and international levels, as an administrator in the tertiary education sector, and to research particularly in the field of neuroscience”. In 2006 he was made a Companion (AC) in the order for “service to higher education, including research and development policy in the pursuit of advancing the national interest socially, economically, culturally and environmentally, and to the facilitation of a knowledge-based global economy”. In 2000, Professor Chubb was awarded a Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa) from Flinders University. He was made the ACT’s Australian of the Year in 2011 for his contribution to higher education.

R. Peter MacKinnon
President, University of Saskatchewan
& member of the STIC State of the Nation Working Group
Originally from Prince Edward Island, Peter MacKinnon has lived in Saskatoon since 1975. He previously served the University of Saskatchewan as Dean of Law and Acting Vice-President (Academic) and was appointed President of the University in July, 1999. Educated at the University of Saskatchewan, Queen's and Dalhousie, Mr. MacKinnon articled in Kingston and was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1975 and to the Law Society of Saskatchewan in 1979. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1990. He is currently a member of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service; a member of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council of Canada; a member of the Board of the Saskatoon Airport Authority; a former Chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and has been a Chair or member of several public service boards, councils and committees since his appointment as president.

Recent awards include honorary degrees from the Memorial University of Newfoundland and the University of Regina and the Canadian Bar Association’s Distinguished Service Award in Saskatchewan (2005). Peter MacKinnon is currently serving his third term as President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan.

7:30 pm - 9:00 pm
Mingling Politics and Science Reception
9:00 pm - 10:00 pm
DUST

Thursday, November 17, 2011

7:30 am - 8:30 am
Registration & Continental Breakfast
8:30 am - 8:40 am
Welcome Address
Jim Roche
President & Chief Executive Officer
CANARIE Inc.
Jim was appointed President and CEO of CANARIE in February 2010. He is a successful entrepreneur with over twenty-five years of leadership experience, having been a founding member and General Manager at Newbridge Networks Corporation (now Alcatel-Lucent), a co-founder and CEO of Tundra Semiconductor (now IDT), the CEO of CMC Microsystems and the founder and CEO of Stratford Managers, a company he continues to lead. In addition to his corporate duties, he also serves on numerous boards and committees including the ICT Advisory Board for DFAIT, the Committee of Research Partnerships for NSERC, the Expert Panel on Business Innovation for CCA and others. He is also an Executive-in-Residence at the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa and is frequently called on to speak about entrepreneurship, commercialization of innovation, and strategy development.

Jim holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Queen’s University, where he graduated at the top of his class and won multiple scholarships. He has added to his management skills through intensive programs at Stanford, Ivey, Queen’s and elsewhere.

8:40 am - 10:10 am
Building Stronger Communities Through Innovation
How do we build innovative communities? This is a central challenge for Canada in the 21st century since innovative communities form the foundation of a prosperous country. As more than a decade of research on industry clusters has shown, a robust innovation system can have a profoundly positive impact on local communities when it translates into high quality jobs, industrial growth, new enterprises, improved public infrastructure and services and a cleaner, healthier environment. But building innovation into our communities takes the involvement of individuals and institutions across the spectrum of society. Universities, colleges, research hospitals, private companies, governments and non-profit agencies, along with the talented, creative people that work in these organizations, must be free to work together and share their knowledge and ideas. Yet fostering collaboration and knowledge exchange between different organizations, with different interests and capacities can be challenging. Successful collaboration requires time, resources, communication, shared goals, commitment and risk-taking.

A panel of leading Canadian thinkers in inter-sectoral and inter-organizational collaboration will discuss how university and college researchers can work with local businesses to translate new knowledge into new creative products and beneficial services. They will look at the role of research hospitals in contributing to both the health and wealth of local communities. And they will discuss best practices in overcoming the institutional and cultural barriers to collaboration.

Chair
Gilles G. Patry, Ph.D
President and CEO
Canada Foundation for Innovation
On August 1, 2010, Dr. Gilles G. Patry became the fourth President and CEO of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). Following a long and distinguished career as a consultant, a researcher, and a university administrator, Dr. Patry brings to the CFI a wealth of experience from both the private and academic sector .

Dr. Patry holds a B.A.Sc. and M.A.Sc. in civil engineering from the University of Ottawa, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis in environmental engineering. He was an environmental engineering consultant (1971-78) before becoming professor of civil engineering at École Polytechnique de Montréal (1978-83) and then at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. (1983-93). Dr. Patry’s research program at McMaster led him to develop an innovative modelling concept for the simulation of wastewater treatment plant dynamics, and ultimately, to launch a Hamilton-based consulting company, Hydromantis, Inc. His research focuses on modelling, simulation and control of environmental systems.

Chair
Marie Carter, FEC, P.Eng
Chief Operating Officer
Engineers Canada
Marie is the chief operating officer of Engineers Canada. For seven years, she was the organization’s director of professional and international affairs and secretary to its Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board and International Committee. Her work includes ensuring the implementation of Engineers Canada’s Strategic Plan, which includes activities related to the development and maintenance of national qualification standards for admission to, and the practice of, professional engineering in Canada international activities to enhance the mobility of Canadian engineers. Marie also ensures proper management of resources, distribution of products and services to Engineers Canada’s members and that business operations run smoothly. Marie has also been responsible for projects to increase the recognition of foreign credentials for internationally-educated engineering graduates.

Prior to joining Engineers Canada in April 2001, Marie worked for 13 years in transportation engineering consulting and carried out various environmental assessment studies. Marie graduated with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Carleton University in Ottawa in 1989.

Respondent and Facilitator
Chad Gaffield, Ph.D
President
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Chad Gaffield, one of Canada’s foremost historians, was appointed president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) on September 18, 2006. Gaffield came to SSHRC from the University of Ottawa, where he held a University Research Chair and was the founding director of the Institute of Canadian Studies. During his 20-year University of Ottawa career, he also served as vice-dean of graduate studies and on the executive committee of the board of governors. He is a former president of the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Dr. Kevin Smith
President and CEO
St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
& St Joseph's Lifecare Centre Brantford
Dr. Smith is President and CEO of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton and St Joseph's Lifecare Centre Brantford since 2009; and CEO of St Mary's General Hospital Kitchener-all members of the St Joseph's Health System. He is also Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine - Faculty of Health Sciences of McMaster University. Dr. Smith's experience also includes work and training in the areas of medical curricula development, management training for academic health professionals, performance and incentives models for enhanced creativity and productivity and numerous roles in both University and Teaching Hospitals. Dr. Smith is currently co-leading the Government's Emergency Department and Alternate Level of Care initiative, and is also playing a leadership role in the Premier's delegations to China. Dr. Smith also contributes as chair or member of various Provincial and National bodies as well as various private and philanthropic Boards.

Fred Morley
Executive VP & Chief Economist
Greater Halifax Partnership
Fred Morley is Executive Vice-President and Chief Economist of the Greater Halifax Partnership since 2002, an organization focused on retaining and expanding existing business and bringing new investment to Halifax. A former professor at Saint Mary’s University, Fred Morley has also served as senior economic advisor to the Government of Nova Scotia, senior policy analyst at the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and as senior manager at Nova Scotia Business Inc. He serves as a member of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the boards of the International Economic Development Council in Washington DC, the Acadia Centre for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Saint Mary’s Business Development Centre. He holds undergraduate degrees in chemistry and economics from Dalhousie University and did graduate work at Dalhousie and Saint Mary’s University.

Fassi Kafyeke
Director, Strategic Technology
Bombardier Aerospace
Fassi Kafyeke joined Bombardier Aerospace in 1982. In 1996, he became Manager of Advanced Aerodynamics. As Chief Aerodynamicist, he was responsible for aerodynamic design and development wind tunnel testing for all Bombardier Jets (Global Express, CRJ-700, 900 and 1000, Challenger 300, C-Series. In 2007, he became Director of Strategic Technology, in charge of all engineering research and development activities of the company. He has several publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings and is the author of a book on Computational Fluid Dynamics. In 2001, he was the recipient of the Grand Prix d’Excellence of the Order of Engineers of Québec. In 1980, Dr. Kafyeke graduated from the University of Liege (Belgium) with a degree in Aerospace Engineering. The following year he completed his Master’s degree in Air Transport Engineering at the Cranfield Institute of Technology (England) and in 1994, he received his Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering (Aerodynamics) from École Polytechnique de Montréal.

Hon. Mike Harcourt
Lawyer, Community Activist, and former BC Premier
Mike Harcourt is a former Premier of British Columbia, Mayor of Vancouver and City Councillor. He is a passionate believer in the power of cities and communities to improve the human condition. As such, as a speaker, author and advisor internationally on sustainable cities, he was appointed to serve on numerous committees, namely as Chair of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee for Cities and Communities, Co-chair the National Advisory Committee on the UN-HABITAT World Urban Forum, and as a member of the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy. Mr. Harcourt’s exemplary career as Lawyer, Community Activist, and Politician has been honoured, with the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service, the Canadian Urban Institute’s Jane Jacobs Lifetime Achievement Award and the UBC Alumni Achievement Award of Distinction for contributions to British Columbia, Canada and the global community.

10:10 am - 10:30 am
Coffee Break
10:30 am - 12:00 pm
The Role of K* in Strengthening Science-Policy Integration
This fast-paced and interactive session will begin with short (~3-minute) presentations by each panelist, followed by two sets of round-table discussions among participants and each of the six panelists, and a short wrap-up segment. Knowledge translation and brokering (KT-KB) are part of an increasingly-recognized spectrum of knowledge transfer approaches that can significantly contribute to strengthened science-policy integration. The “K*” concept was first discussed at Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) 2010 in Montreal and encapsulates the variety of terms used by practitioners in this field, including Knowledge Translation, Brokering, Management, Mobilization, Transfer, Adoption etc. These K* approaches recognize the need for active engagement across the science-policy spectrum, and for careful consideration of users’ information needs, preferred format, time frame and communication mechanisms. K* approaches are increasingly being adopted in a variety of fields, including health, environmental sustainability, education, agriculture and international development. Building on the successful one-day KT-KB workshop held during CSPC 2010, this year’s panel will engage the broader CSPC community and:

Provide insight into this active, emerging field;
Showcase practical and tangible examples of the value and power of KT-KB and other K* approaches in Canada and internationally;
Develop the theme of demonstrating the impacts of Knowledge Mobilization activities;
Be a waypoint for the first international K* Summit in 2012, and subsequent development of a multi-sectoral forum and White Paper for K* issues nationally and internationally.

Convenor
Alex T. Bielak, Ph.D
Senior Fellow and Knowledge Broker
United Nations University
Dr. Alex Bielak is a member of the faculty at the United Nations University and also serves as Senior Advisor to the Chair of UN-Water. As Senior Research Fellow and Knowledge Broker in the freshwater programme at the UNU’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH, the U.N. Think Tank on Water) Alex also leads a new Knowledge Management and Mobilization (K*) initiative for the Institute. Previously Alex was Environment Canada’s first-ever Director, Science and Technology Liaison with a mission of communicating science knowledge to targeted audiences and linking science with policy development. Before that he spent over a year as A/Director General, S&T Strategies Directorate, where he set up the Directorate and led the team developing EC's new Science Plan. A NATO Scholar, he has also held senior positions with Canada’s National Water Research Institute, NGOs, and other federal and provincial government departments.

Alex holds a PhD degree in Freshwater Biology from the University of Waterloo and has served on numerous National and International Boards and Committees. Recently appointed as an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Communication Studies and Multi-Media at McMaster University, recognition of his professional and volunteer activities includes a UW Science Faculty “Distinguished Alumni Award” on the occasion of UW’s 50th Anniversary and appointment as the first Honorary Member of the Canadian Rivers Institute in 2011.

Convenor
Shannon deGraaf
Senior Science Policy Analyst, S&T Liaison
Environment Canada
Shannon joined Environment Canada’s S&T Liaison team as a Science-Policy Analyst in January 2009. Shannon’s work with S&T Liaison has focused on communicating science activities and results to various decision-making audiences including senior management, practitioners and policy communities; contributing to best practices in science-policy linkages through the development of the Strengthening Science-Policy Linkages Study Series; and highlighting the role of knowledge translation and brokering tools in federal science-based departments and agencies through the development of an Interdepartmental Compendium of KT-KB Tools. Prior to joining S&T Liaison Shannon has had more than ten years of experience in Environment Canada’s Great Lakes Program with a focus on outreach. Shannon has a degree in Environmental Studies from Brock University.

Amanda Cooper
KNAER Program Manager, Research & Knowledge Mobilization
and RSPE Research & Program Coordinator
Amanda Cooper specializes in research-practice-policy relationships. Her interests professionally and academically revolve around improving research use in public services. Currently, she is managing the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research (KNAER), www.knaer-recrae.ca, an ambitious effort to improve knowledge mobilization in education across Ontario. Amanda has also been the coordinator for the Research Supporting Practice in Education program at OISE, www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe, since its inception in 2007. There is growing awareness that research mediation by intermediary organizations is integral to knowledge mobilization. Amanda’s doctoral research analyzes efforts made by 44 knowledge mobilization intermediaries (third party, research brokering organizations) that facilitate linkages between research producing contexts and research using contexts to increase research use and its impact in education across Canada. She provides talks, workshops and consulting on knowledge mobilization for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, intermediaries and other organizations across sectors.

Katrina Hitchman, Ph.D
Manager of Strategic Programs
Canadian Water Network
After finishing her Honours Bachelor of Arts degree at Mount Allison University, Katrina completed her master’s and PhD degrees in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Waterloo. Katrina joined the Canadian Water Network in February 2009 to assist in the development and management of CWN partnership-based programs, particularly the evolving research consortia. Katrina conducted a comparative organizational analysis examining the organizational structure and functions of Canadian and international organizations that share CWN’s mandate of using research to inform practice and policy. As CWN continues to explore consortia-based models for putting its research to work, she will focus on the development of knowledge translation tools for researchers and research users, evaluating the success of CWN programs, and pursing opportunities to enhance CWN’s profile as a leading knowledge translation and brokering organization.

David Phipps, Ph.D
Director, Research Services & Knowledge Exchange
York University/ResearchImpact
ResearchImpact

David is responsible for the management and support of research services (research grants and contracts, research ethics, technology and knowledge transfer); participates in strategic planning; negotiates research contracts and grants, manages research data and develops research performance measurements; ensures compliance with government policies and the University mandate.

Louise Shaxson
Senior Research Fellow, RAPID
Overseas Development Institute (UK)
& Associate, Delta Partnership
Louise is a senior research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute, UK’s leading think tank on international development; and an associate of Delta Partnership, an international management consultancy company based in London. Her particular area of interest is evidence-based policymaking and the links between knowledge and policy. She has authored and provided guidance on the provision of expert scientific advice to senior policy officials, what constitutes robust evidence for policy making, advised on horizon scanning projects and has published several journal articles and book chapters relating to evidence-based policy making. She has co-authored a forthcoming book on Knowledge, policy and power in international development: a practical guide which will be published by The Policy Press/University of Chicago Press in 2012.

Over the past few years, Louise became acquainted with a group of Canadians who shared her interested in evidence-based policy and, in particular, knowledge translation and brokering. Most recently, she was involved with CSPC where she gave a presentation on the distribution of responsibility in policy delivery and relating issues at the Canadian Science Policy Conference in Montreal last October.

Global Implications of Open and Inclusive Innovation
The context of innovation is being transformed by the growing ubiquity of affordable technologies, such as mobiles, even in the most remote parts of the world. In a June 4 2011 New York Times article, Thomas Friedman indicated that “Carlson’s Law” was an important consequence of these changes: “In a world where so many people now have access to education and cheap tools of innovation, innovation that happens from the bottom up tends to be chaotic but smart. Innovation that happens from the top down tends to be orderly but dumb,” observes Curtis Carlson, the CEO of SRI International. As a result, he says, the sweet spot for innovation today is “moving down,” closer to the people, not up, because all the people together are smarter than anyone alone and all the people now have the tools to invent and collaborate.” In emerging economies, new business models and innovative forms of entrepreneurship are flourishing, particularly in the informal sectors. What can Canada learn from these innovations? How should science policies respond? This panel will attempt to inform debates about the relationship between science policy, intellectual property regimes, changing technological platforms and private sector innovation. To do so, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the organizer of this panel will bring together experts from Canada, Brazil, South Africa and India to discuss emerging evidence on these issues, as well as recommendations for decision-makers.
Moderator

Matthew Smith
Program Officer
International Development Research Centre, Canada
Matthew Smith oversees research on the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to foster sustainable development and socio- economic equity at the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), a Canadian crown corporation. Before joining IDRC, Smith did postgraduate research on the interaction between technology and society, in particular the impact of e-government systems on citizens’ trust in the government of Chile. He has published on this subject and others, including the concept of openness to broaden access and inclusion. Smith holds a PhD in information systems and an MSc in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (England), as well as an MSc in artificial intelligence from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland).

Sunil Abraham
Executive Director
Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India
Sunil Abraham is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore India. He founded Mahiti in 1998 which aims to reduce the cost and complexity of Information and Communication Technology for the Voluntary Sector by using Free Software. Today, Mahiti employs more than 50 engineers and Sunil continues to serve on the board. Between June 2004 and June 2007, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Jeremy De Beer
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law
University of Ottawa
Jeremy is an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. His expertise is in the area of technology and intellectual property law. He has a graduate degree in law from the University of Oxford, and degrees in business and in law from the University of Saskatchewan. His research and recent publications address topics ranging from digital copyrights to biotechnology patents, with particular emphasis on the intersection of technology, intellectual property and international development.

Pria Chetty
Associate Director
Technology and Innovation Law, PricewaterhouseCoopers, South Africa
Pria Chetty is the Associate Director, Technology and Innovation Law at PricewaterhouseCoopers in South Africa. She completed her law degree in 2000 and went on to specialise in Electronic and Intellectual Property Law . She is the founder of Technology and Innovation Law Firm, Chetty Law, in South Africa, which has provided legal and strategic advisory services to a wide range of clients including public sector agencies, NGO’s, local and internationally listed companies and South Africa’s most innovative entrepreneurs. She was identified as one of the Brightest Young Minds in South Africa and later, in 2006, featured in Maverick magazine as one of five young attorneys making their mark in legal practice in South Africa.

Science Culture, Organized and Prioritized: Three National and International Initiatives
Culture is big: annually, some 290 million citizens actively participate in the exhibitions, programs, events and outreach initiatives organized by 2,400 science centres worldwide. Other types of institutions, radio, internet, and film build further on that reach. This session will examine three recent initiatives that seek to organize, define, and take strategic advantage of the work of hundreds of diverse science engagement and knowledge creation organisations nationally and internationally. Increasingly, strategic focus among this diverse set of content and communication partners is bringing new attention to science engagement for the benefit of national and global society.
This session will examine Inspiring Australia, an initiative of the Australian government to create regional networks of diverse engagement organizations and connect them effectively with the science knowledge creators in order to better execute science engagement in that country. We will also examine a initiative to benchmark "science culture" in order to better measure future progress . And finally we will examine a global initiative by science centres to use science engagement in a truly global context.

Moderator
Tracy Ross
Executive Director
Canadian Association of Science Centres (CASC)
Tracy Ross is the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Science Centres, the national network that serves more than 45 charitable science centres, science museums and similar organisations that inspire 8 million people annually with learning experiences in science. The association is a national platform for collaboration, networking and tackling common issues. In May 2012, the association will be holding its 10th annual conference in Ottawa hosted by the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation. Tracy graduated from Queen’s University at Kingston in 1996 with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Environmental Chemistry, and from the University of Toronto in 2000 with a Master’s degree in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology. She got her start with science centres as a host at the Ontario Science Centre where she delivered a variety of lively demonstrations, developed a new tabletop experience, and facilitated learning with visitors of all ages. She has served on the Board of Directors of the Science and Technology Awareness Network and the steering committee for National Science and Technology Week. She lives in Ottawa, where, as an avid sailor, she also serves on the Board of Directors of the Nepean Sailing Club.

Lesley Lewis
Chief Executive Officer
Ontario Science Centre
Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Science Centre since 1998, Lesley Lewis has led a major evolution of the landmark cultural attraction. Under Ms Lewis’ leadership over the past decade, the Science Centre has significantly renewed two thirds of its public spaces focusing on embracing new audiences, engaging visitors of all ages with science, scientists and innovation as well as incorporating current science news into daily offerings. From 2000 to 2006. Ms. Lewis spearheaded the Centre’s $47.5 million Agents of Change transformation.

As CEO, Ms. Lewis has sharpened the organization’s focus on extending its brand, audience reach and relevance. The Science Centre introduced an array of programs designed to ensure accessibility to all members of the community.

She is a respected member of the international science centre community, and has been active in global forums describing the Ontario Science Centre’s evolution into a new model for public engagement with science.

Ms Lewis is an invited member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Committee on Science and Technology Engagement with the Public. She also currently serves on the Board of Directors of Tourism Toronto. From 2007 to 2009, she was President of the global Association of Science Technology Centers based in Washington D.C. She was a member of the China Association for Science and Technology’s international advisory committee for a new science and technology museum in Beijing that opened in 2009 and Chair of the Fifth Science Centre World Congress which was hosted by the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto in 2008. In that capacity she led the development of the Toronto Declaration, the science centre field’s first-ever shared global statement of beliefs and goals.

Prior to joining the Ontario Science Centre, Ms. Lewis was the Executive Director of the Ontario Heritage Foundation for six years and for three years Executive Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Denise Amyot
President and CEO
Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation
Denise Amyot is currently, President and CEO of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation whose mandate is to foster scientific and technological literacy throughout the country. The Corporation and its three museums – the Canada Agriculture Museum, the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, and the Canada Science and Technology Museum – tell the stories of Canadian ingenuity and achievement in science and technology.

She has worked both in National Headquarters and in regions in several federal departments including central agencies, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, National Defense, Natural Resources Canada, and Canadian Heritage. In her former three roles as Assistant Deputy Minister, she was respectively responsible for leading and managing leadership development programs and developing policies for employees and executives throughout the public Service of Canada, the corporate management services, as well as public affairs and ministerial services. She has worked extensively in policy and line operations in the context of programs and service delivery, in social, economic, and cultural areas. She also worked for few years with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Ms Amyot is the former President of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, Vice-President of the Head of Federal Agencies Steering Committee, and member of the Board of Governors at the Ottawa University and at the Algonquin College. She is the former President of the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada and former President of the Communications Community Office. Ms Amyot has obtained a Master's degree in Education and three Bachelor degrees in Biology, in Arts and in Education.

11:30 am - 1:30 pm
CANARIE Showcase & Exhibitor Tours
12:00 pm - 12:45 pm
Lunch
12:45 pm - 1:15 pm
Special Keynote Address by the Minister of State (Science and Technology)
Join the The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Member of Parliament for Cambridge & North Dumfries, and Minister of State (Science and Technology).

Hon. Gary Goodyear
Minister of State (Science and Technology)
Member of Parliament for Cambridge & North Dumfries
1:20 pm - 2:50 pm
Funding Innovation, Measuring Societal Impacts and Informing Science Policy
A major challenge for Canadian science policy is related to what areas of science to invest in, how best to make budget allocations that will address the needs of society while benefiting the Canadian economy, and then assessing the impact of those investments. As health care costs continue to rise, there are ongoing efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health system. Research is recognized as a valuable investment to optimize the delivery and provision of health care, with nearly one quarter of Canada’s R&D spend, but is an incremental and iterative endeavor. The pathway from research to improved health and systems is neither linear nor simple. The complexity is amplified by the multitude of players involved; researchers, industry health care providers, policy makers, and the public. Research funders recognize the need for greater collaboration in providing innovative solutions to understanding how investments in health research make a difference to the health and wellbeing of Canadians. Consequently, this symposium brings together presenters from three Canadian research funding organizations, an academic Institution and one non-profit think tank.
Our panel examines methodologies used to analyze and demonstrate research impact. These methodologies are helping to elucidate and clarify the various pathways through which health research leads to societal wellbeing. The panel moderator will engage participants in the discussion with an aim to advance the science of impact assessment such that it will meet the needs of science policy and justify science spending to the public.

Moderator
Pierre Therrien
Director Market Structure & Framework Policy Analysis
Industry Canada
Pierre Therrien is Director, Market Structure and Framework Policy Analysis at Industry Canada within the Economic Research and Policy Analysis (ERPA) Branch. Prior to join ERPA, Pierre worked for several years in another sector within Industry Canada in the Science and Innovation Sector, where he led several projects related to the measurement science and innovation impact measures. Pierre also spent two years at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris, France, where he coordinated several projects to develop new policy-relevant indicators related to government public support to R&D.

Laura McAuley
Manager, Impact Assessment Unit
Canadian Institutes for Health Research
Laura McAuley, MSc. is the Manager of the Impact Assessment Unit at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. She led the initial implementation of the CIHR impact assessment framework and now continues to lead the ongoing refinement and methodological development in this area at CIHR. Laura has worked in the area of health research evaluation for the past seven years building on previous experience working in academic health research spanning the four pillars.

Kathryn E. Graham
Director, Performance Management
Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions
Kathryn E. Graham, Ph.D. is the Director of the Performance Management Department at Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions located in Alberta. Her experience is in the development, implementation and management of evaluation frameworks and conducting evaluations of health and research at the level of the program, organization and at multi-sites. She has a Ph.D. in applied psychology from the University of Cranfield, England with a specialization in occupational psychology, measurement, evaluation and human factors.

Ghislaine Tremblay
Director of Evaluation and Outcome Assessment
Canada Foundation for Innovation
Ghislaine Tremblay is the Director of Evaluation and Outcome Assessment at the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Over more than a decade she has held a variety of leadership roles in managing S&T funding programs and brings this broad expertise to the evaluation team that she leads. In her current role, Ms Tremblay has overseen the development of the Performance, Evaluation, Risk and Audit Framework, the Overall Performance and Value for Money Audit and outcome measurement study methodology and implementation.

Eddy Nason
Director, Toronto Office
IOG
Eddy Nason is the Director of the IOG’s Toronto office and their lead on health and innovation policy work. He specializes in research evaluation, particularly focusing on ROI approaches, and research impact framework and indicator development. He has advised research funders in the UK, Netherlands, Ireland, Australia and Canada on impact evaluation.

Education and Training of Scientists
Over the past 15 years, there has been an enormous shift in the human resources performing scientific research. The training period has lengthened significantly and adjustments must be made to address the growing concerns of young scientists. Many individuals, who do not have permanent positions, share a unique set of experiences and challenges that need to be better addressed in order to avoid wasting the substantial resources invested in their education and training.
This panel aims to address two main themes:
1. Are we producing too many biomedical research trainees?
2. What careers will the large majority of highly specialized PhDs undertake and who should facilitate these transitions?
Presentations and discussion from Alan Bernstein (Founding Director of CIHR), Angela Crawley (Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars), Suzanne Fortier (President of NSERC), and Olga Stachova (COO, MITACS) will be introduced and moderated by David Kent (University of Cambridge and founder of http://scienceadvocacy.org).

Moderator
David Kent , Ph.D
CIHR Postdoctoral Fellow
University of Cambridge
Dr. David Kent is a CIHR postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cambridge, UK. He currently sits on the executive of the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars and created the website The Black Hole which provides information on and analysis of issues related to science trainees in Canada. Previously, Dr. Kent served as joint coordinator for the UBC branch of the Let’s Talk Science Partnership Program (2004-07), an award winning national science outreach program. Dr. Kent grew up in St. John’s, NL, obtained a B.Sc. in Genetics and English Literature at the University of Western Ontario and completed his Ph.D. in blood stem cell biology at the University of British Columbia. He has been awarded scholarships or fellowships from the CIHR, NSERC, the Canadian Stem Cell Network, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, and the Lady Tata Memorial Trust. His current laboratory research focuses on normal blood stem cells and how changes in their regulation lead to cancers.

Dr. Angela Crawley
Vice-Chair of Operations
Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars
Dr. Angela M. Crawley received a B.Sc. in Microbiology and Immunology at McGill University (’99) and then earned a Ph.D.in the Dept. of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph. Her doctorate addressed the regulation of immune responses in pigs, for the eventual improvement of vaccination strategies. In 2004, Angela moved to Ottawa to work as postdoctoral fellow (PDF) in Dr. Jonathan B. Angel’s laboratory at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), partnered with the University of Ottawa. Angela is researching anti-viral mechanisms of human immune response in the context of HIV infection. Dr. Crawley held a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN). She will begin her appointment as an Assistant Scientist at the OHRI and an Assistant Professor in April 2012 (to be funded by an OHTN Junior Investigator Development Award). While a postdoc, Angela was one of the founders of the uOttawa Faculty of Medicine Postdoc Association (2006, president 2007-09) and she also founded the uOttawa Postdoc Association (2009, president 2009-10). Angela was awarded a Postdoctoral Award of Excellence by uOttawa’s Faculty of Medicine (2007) recognizing scientific achievement and community involvement. Angela is also a member of a National Postdoc Stakeholders Working Group compiling recommended policies for the fair and equitable treatment of postdocs across Canada. She has attended some postdoc-related conferences including the 7th Annual Meeting of the National Postdoctoral Association (Houston, TX, USA, 2009) and, as a former president of the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars (CAPS), was an invited speaker for at the Annual Canadian Association of Graduate Studies meeting (Toronto, Nov. 2010). Angela is currently the Vice-Chair of Operations for CAPS.

Olga Stachova
Chief Operating Officer
Mitacs
Olga Stachova joined Mitacs in October 2000 and plays a key role in the organization's success. As Chief Operating Officer, her responsibilities include oversight of the overall operations and management, responsibility for delivery strategy for all Mitacs programs, their implementation, ongoing evaluation and monitoring, as well as allocation of Mitacs resources, human resources management and oversight of budgetary expenditures.

Olga has a Master’s Degree in English and Philosophy from the University of Constantine the Philosopher in Nitra, Slovakia. Prior to emigrating to Canada, she was Senior Project Manager at Management Partners, the leading company in the Slovak HR market. She was highly successful in her role of recruiting personnel for international organizations opening subsidiaries in Slovakia.

Olga is the recipient of the 2009 Business in Vancouver Forty under 40 Award.

Dr. Alan Bernstein
Founding President
CIHR 2000-2007
Dr. Alan Bernstein is the former executive director of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, an international alliance of researchers and funders charged with accelerating the search for an HIV vaccine. Previously, he served as the founding president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2000-2007), Canada’s national agency for the support of health research. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto, and following postdoctoral work at the ICRF in London, Dr. Bernstein joined the Ontario Cancer Institute (1974-1985). In 1985, he joined the new Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, was named its Associate Director in 1988 and then its Director of Research (1994-2000). Author of over 200 scientific publications, Dr. Bernstein has made extensive contributions to the study of stem cells, hematopoiesis and cancer. He chairs or is a member of advisory and review boards in Canada, the US, UK, and Australia. Dr. Bernstein has received numerous awards and honourary degrees for his contributions to science, including the 2007 Medaille du merite from the Institut de Recherche Clinique de Montreal, the 2008 Gairdner Wightman Award and the Order of Canada in 2002.

Dr. Suzanne Fortier
President
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Dr. Suzanne Fortier has served as President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) since January 2006. She was re-appointed to this position in November 2010. During her first five years, Dr. Fortier brought a renewed focus on excellence to the agency. Changes to NSERC’s funding structure ensure that the best researchers receive the funding they need to conduct world-class research. NSERC now engages more closely with industries to initiate research and development projects with academic partners. Dr. Fortier has also forged stronger relationships with other federal granting agencies and organizations to increase the number and scope of joint initiatives available to researchers. For example, a collaboration between National Research Council Canada, Business Development Bank of Canada and NSERC resulted in an ambitious new national initiative in nanotechnology.

Before her appointment to this position, Dr. Fortier held a number of senior research and administrative positions at Queen’s University. She joined Queen's University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry in 1982 after holding research positions at the Medical Foundation of Buffalo and National Research Council Canada. She then served as Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, Acting Vice-Principal (Research), and Associate Dean in the School of Graduate Studies and Research before being appointed Vice-Principal (Research) in 1995. Most recently (2000-05), she was Vice-Principal (Academic).

Putting the Social in Canada’s Innovation Policy
The social sciences and human sciences matter. All of the big, "wicked" problems such as poverty, housing, immigration, security, diversity, climate change, at risk kids, Aboriginal issues, social determinants of health, to name a few, embrace issues related to social and human sciences. New solutions that address these issues are social innovations. But what's the role of social and human science research in fostering social innovations? How can the public, private, community and academic sectors collaborate on social innovation to benefit Canadians and Canadian communities?

Moderator
Graham Carr
President
Canadian Foundation of Humanities and Social Sciences
Graham Carr is President of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS). Representing more than 85,000 faculty and students at 79 Canadian universities and 80 scholarly associations CFHSS is the national voice for university research and training in HSS disciplines. Carr is also Professor of History and Dean of Graduate Studies at Concordia University. He was previously Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Science. Trained at Queen's University in Kingston and the University of Maine at Orono, Carr is a specialist in North American cultural and public history. He has published in the fields of literary and music history, popular culture, cultural policy, cultural diplomacy and social memory studies. His current research focuses on Cold War cultural exchanges involving the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

A member of the executive of the Northeastern Association of Graduate Schools, Carr also serves on the Advisory Committee on Communications, Marketing and Programming for Canada's National Capital Commission.

Claudia Krywiak, Ph.D
Director, Partnership Development and Corporate Planning
Ontario Centres of Excellence
Claudia Krywiak is Director, Partnership Development and Corporate Planning, for the Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE). OCE drives economic development by advancing the commercialization of publically-funded research outcomes, building industry-academic collaborations, and fostering the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. Claudia brings experience in developing successful partnerships to facilitate innovation and is interested in the development of new strategies that foster a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship and build partnerships between the private and not-for-profit sectors. Prior to joining OCE, Claudia held the position of Vice-President, Business Development (Ontario) at Mitacs, a national organization linking academia, industry and the public sectors to develop new tools to support the growth of Canada’s knowledge economy.

Claudia received her Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Toronto in 2003 and worked for Bruker BioSpin, a world leader in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) technology, where she supported the customer base in the Canadian market and developed working relationships with industrial and academic researchers in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceuticals, and materials science.

Allyson Hewitt
Advisor, Social Innovation & Director, Social Entrepreneurship
Social Innovation Generation
Allyson leads the social innovation programs at MaRS including the Ontario node of the national initiative, Social Innovation Generation (SiG@MaRS). This program supports social entrepreneurs and promotes social innovation under the headings Advise! Convene! Accelerate! SiG@MaRS has also recently announced a groundbreaking Centre for Impact Investing and is working of a series of Innovation Solutions Labs to tackle complex challenges. A life long social innovator, she most recently worked at SickKids where she led Safe Kids Canada and was a passionate advocate for children. She was also the Executive Director of Community Information Toronto where she initiated 211, providing streamlined access to human service information. For this work she received the Head of the Public Service Award and several other prestigious awards for meritorious public service.

Allyson has been leading and volunteering in not-for-profit organizations for over 25 years. Her academic background is in Criminology, Law, Public Affairs, Voluntary Sector Management and Organizational development including Leading Change.

David Phipps, Ph.D
Director, Research Services & Knowledge Exchange
York University/ResearchImpact
ResearchImpact
David is responsible for the management and support of research services (research grants and contracts, research ethics, technology and knowledge transfer); participates in strategic planning; negotiates research contracts and grants, manages research data and develops research performance measurements; ensures compliance with government policies and the University mandate.

2:50 pm - 3:10 pm
Coffee Break
3:10 pm - 4:40 pm

GPS Genome Canada - Genomics and Regulatory Science
This panel is the final event in Genome Canada’s 2011 GPS series: Where Genomics, Public Policy and Society Meet, dedicated to facilitating a dialogue between federal policymakers and researchers exploring issues at the interface of genomics and its ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social aspects (or GE3LS). Under the overarching theme of “Translational Genomics,” ad the range of activities that help “move genomics out of the laboratory and into the market, the clinic, or society at large,” the 2011 series previously considered intellectual property, as well as other means to optimize the impact of genomic research beyond commercialization.

This panel will turn its attention to “regulatory science” and the policy questions that arise at the interface of science and regulations when assessing scientific and technological applications that result from advances in genomics, from a safety, efficacy or quality lens and from the perspective of other relevant considerations. The panel discussion will begin with the presentation of a draft policy brief commissioned by Genome Canada and prepared Drs. Bruce Doern and Peter Phillips, two leading Canadian science policy scholars, followed by invited commentaries from policy-makers and private sector representatives. The audience will be invited to participate in a plenary discussion to help refine the policy brief.

Moderator
Karine Morin
Director, National GE3LS Program
Genome Canada

As Genome Canada’s Director, National GE3LS Program, Karine Morin oversees activities related to the ethical, economic, environmental, legal and social (GE3LS) aspects of genomics research. Prior to joining Genome Canada, Karine was a Senior Ethics Policy Advisor at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). She also conducted research on ethical, legal and social issues related to genomics at the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Science, Society and Policy.

Karine worked in the US for several years as the Director of Ethics Policy at the American Medical Association, and previously as an Ethics and Health Policy Associate at the American College of Physicians. Before leaving Canada, she worked for the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (Krever Commission). Karine holds a Masters in Law (LLM) from the University of Pennsylvania and is a graduate of McGill University School of Law, where she obtained a joint degree in civil (B.C.L.) and common law (LL.B). Over the years, she has published widely in bioethics and law, and has taught as an adjunct at several universities in the US and Canada.

Bruce G. Doern, Ph.D
Professor, Researcher, Author, Consultant
Carleton University, School of Public Policy and Administration (retired)
Dr. Bruce Doern is the author of over 70 books and monographs and numerous other articles and studies on Canadian and comparative public policy and regulatory governance in areas such as food and health, biotechnology, science and innovation policy, government labs; environmental policy; energy policy; and consumer policy. He has recently completed a book (with Prof. Michael Prince) on Three Bio-Realms: Biotechnology and the Governance of Food, Health and Life in Canada (University of Toronto Press, in press). He is presently the co-editor of How Ottawa Spends, the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration’s annual review of national priorities and fiscal policy (McGill-Queen’s University Press). He recently served as the CIBC Scholar-in-Residence at the Conference Board of Canada. He also served as Director of the Carleton Research Unit on Innovation, Science and Innovation (CRUISE) at Carleton University.

He is a consultant and advisor to numerous federal and provincial departments and to international bodies such as the OECD on innovation, science, regulatory and other governance issues. He was an advisor to the 2004 federal External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation. As Emeritus Professor, he teaches global governance in the Politics Department at the University of Exeter in the UK and he is Distinguished Research Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University.

Peter W.B. Phillips
Professor of Public Policy
Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School
University of Saskatchewan
Dr. Peter Phillips is Professor of Public Policy in the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon, Canada. He earned his Ph.D. in International Political Economy at the London School of Economics and practiced for 13 years as a professional economist and senior policy advisor in Canadian industry and government. At the University of Saskatchewan, he has held the Van Vliet Research Chair, created and held an NSERC-SSHRC Chair in Managing Technological Change, was a founding member and director of the virtual College of Biotechnology and was founding director of the graduate school of public policy.

He has had visiting appointments at the LSE, the OECD, the European University Institute and the University of Western Australia, is associate editor of AgBioForum, a leading on-line journal, was a member of the NAFTA Chapter 13 expert panel on GM maize in Mexico and was a founding member of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. He has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Agri-food Policy Institute, the Estey Centre for the Study of Trade, Law and the Economy, and Ag West Bio Inc., which operates a biotech venture fund.

His current research focuses on governing transformative innovation, including regulation and policy, innovation systems, intellectual property management, trade policy and decision systems. He is co-lead and principal investigator of a $5.4 million Genome Canada project entitled Value Addition through Genomics and GE3LS (VALGEN) which runs 2009-13 and has been an applicant and investigator on more than 15 peer reviewed grants worth more than $150 million. He has been author or editor of eight books—his latest, Governing Transformative Technological Innovation: Who’s in charge? was published by Edward Elgar in 2007—and more than 70 journal articles and book chapters.

Dr. Vratislav Hadrava, Ph.D
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Pfizer Canada inc.
Vratislav Hadrava obtained his MD diploma at Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic and PhD degree from Department of Medicine, Division of Experimental Medicine at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. He completed his postgraduate research training at the Neurobiological Psychiatry Unit at Department of Psychiatry, McGill University. He has published articles in peer reviewed journals in the domain of hypertension, vascular smooth cell proliferation, mechanism of action of antidepressants and anxiolytics and clinical psychopharmacology.

Vratislav Hadrava initiated his career in pharmaceutical industry in 1995 at Pfizer Canada and has held positions of increasing responsibilities in areas of Medical Affairs, Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs.
He is currently Director, Regulatory Affairs at Pfizer Canada.

Vratislav Hadrava collaborated in numerous projects with clinical researchers from academia and Pfizer international, mainly in the area of mental health disorders. He acquired broad experience in clinical development and commercialization of new medicines and has developed a particular interest in the regulatory and pharmacovigilance aspects of pharmaceutical medicine.

Over the last years he has participated in several initiatives such as Health Canada/CIHR sponsored National Placebo Working Committee (2002-2004), Expert Advisory Committee on the Vigilance of Health Products (2007-2009) and Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network Advisory Committee (2009-2010).

Kwasi Nyarko, Ph.D
Regulatory Science Advisor
OFFICE OF POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
Health Canada
Kwasi A. Nyarko, Ph.D, is currently Regulatory Science Advisor, Office of Policy and International Collaboration, Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate, Health Canada. At Health Canada he has also worked with the Marketed Health Products Directorate with a unit responsible for post-market surveillance for biological products, including blood. Dr. Nyarko obtained his doctorate in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Kwasi has extensive experience in the development of science-based policies, guidance documents for industry, as well as development of national standards and regulations related to biologic and genetic therapies for human use. Dr. Nyarko is actively involved in the development of regulatory frameworks for a wide range of biological products regulated by BGTD such as the regulatory frameworks for vaccines, radiopharmaceuticals, pharmacogenomics, and plant molecular farming products. Dr. Nyarko has been involved in projects at the national and international levels and was instrumental in the development of the regulatory framework for subsequent entry biologics (biosimilars).

Erika van Neste
Innovation and Growth Policy Division
Strategic Policy Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

The Impact of Investments in Innovation Intermediaries
Governments and businesses around the world invest in innovation intermediaries that help a diverse range of firms of different ages, sizes, and endowments innovate and succeed. Heightened concern for transparency and accountability has meant that these enabling organizations and programs report on a range of metrics, possibly including their impact on client and member firms. In this panel we explore the state of the art of the assessment of innovation intermediary impact from a range of perspectives: Canadian and European, practitioner and academic, ICT and biopharmaceutical industries. Panel members will consider what is proven, possible, desirable, and to be avoided in terms of impact assessment methodologies, and the degree to which different constituencies seek, avoid, are provided with, ignore, and use assessments of intermediary impact. The objective is an improved understanding of an issue that is central to innovation intermediary purpose and the ability of intermediaries to contribute to the innovation systems of which they are a part.

Moderator
Nobina Robinson
CEO
Polytechnics Canada
Nobina Robinson was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Polytechnics Canada in May 2009. Polytechnics Canada is a national alliance of Canada’s leading research-intensive, publicly funded colleges and institutes of technology. Mrs. Robinson held progressive appointments in the federal government and non-profit sectors since 1990. She began her public service career in 1990 when she joined the Treasury Board Secretariat as a management trainee. Two years later, she became a Foreign Service Officer and was posted as a political officer to the Canadian Embassy in Havana from 1994 to 1997. From 1998 to 2002, Mrs. Robinson led FOCAL, a policy institute on Canada’s relations with the Americas. Before joining Polytechnics Canada, Mrs. Robinson was the Ottawa-based Senior Government Relations Advisor for Seneca College, responsible for federal advocacy for one of Canada's largest colleges. Mrs. Robinson has a B.A. from Amherst College, an M.A. from Oxford University (Commonwealth Scholar 1985-1988) and has pursued post-graduate studies at Yale University. In October 2010, Mrs. Robinson was named to the Expert Panel undertaking the Review of Federal Support to Research and Development.

Mario Thomas, Ph.D
Senior Vice President
Ontario Centres of Excellence
Dr. Mario Thomas is an accomplished senior executive with impressive international credentials in the management of innovation. With over 30 years in leadership roles directing corporate development and commercialization, he creates remarkable value for all stakeholders. Mario Thomas brings extensive experience filled with achievements driving successful development collaborations and financial ventures. Dr. Thomas was promoted to Senior Vice-President, Ontario Centres of Excellence in June 2010. Before being appointed Managing Director of the Centre for Commercialization of Research at the Ontario Centres of Excellence in April 2009, Dr. Thomas was Partner in the venture firm T2C2 Capital. His previous experiences include CEO and co-founders of two start-up companies; senior level positions in business development, marketing and scientist. He is the founding chairman of the International Commercialization Alliance. He holds a PhD in chemistry and a BSc from Université Laval in Quebec City, as well as a diploma in business administration from École des Hautes Études Commerciales of Université de Montréal. He is also a Chartered Director with the ASC designation in board governance. Dr. Thomas brings an in-depth background in board level functions both as a board member and in managing board relations as an executive.

Margaret Dalziel
Associate Professor, School of Managment, University of Ottawa
& VP Research of The Evidence Network
Margaret Dalziel is an associate professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at the Telfer School of Management of the University of Ottawa, and VP Research of The Evidence Network. Margaret joined the University of Ottawa in 2001 with 15 years experience in technology development and research management at McGill University and the Canadian Space Agency. Her current research focuses on the assessment of interventions to promote innovation, and on describing the architecture of the economy in terms of inter-industry relations. With generous support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, her research has resulted in some 60 articles including publications in academic journals such as Research Policy, the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, and the British Journal of Management. During 2008-2009 Margaret was a visiting professor at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China.

Raine Hermans, Ph.D
Head, Unit for Strategic Intelligence
Tekes (Finland)
Raine Hermans is the Head of Unit for Strategic Intelligence since January 2010. He started with Tekes as a Director of Regional Networks at Tekes in September 2007. The Regional Networks consist of 14 technology development departments all over in Finland. One of his most important future challenges is to coordinate synchronizing the distinctive regional strategies together and with the one of Tekes’. Raine acted as the visiting professor (managerial economics of biotechnology) at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Illinois USA, from 2006 to 2007. Raine has also led a group of multidisciplinary corporate and industry analysts for several years with Etlatieto Ltd and ETLA, the Research Institute of the Finnish Economy. Raine has a Ph.D. degree in industrial engineering and management (Helsinki University of Technology) and a master’s degree in economics (University of Helsinki). He has published several articles in international journals and edited academic books. The most recent articles are related to technology management and economic forecasting.

Natalie E. Dakers
CEO
Centre for Drug Research and Development
Natalie E. Dakers is a leading figure in the Canadian biotechnology industry and currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Drug Research and Development (CDRD), an innovative organization in British Columbia with a mandate to address the commercialization gap between early-stage technologies arising out of university-based research and investment opportunities. Under Ms. Dakers’ leadership, CDRD has signed affiliation agreements with major research institutions in Canada and forged important strategic relationships with Pfizer Canada and Genome British Columbia. With its over 20,000 square feet in specialized lab space and more than $12 million invested in state-of-the-art equipment, CDRD has attracted over 70 employees and 260 investigators. To date, CDRD has raised and secured approximately $74 million in funding and was named a Centre of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR). Ms. Dakers is active in a number of business and scientific organizations, including Past Chair of BC Biotech (now LifeSciences British Columbia), the association supporting and representing the province’s biotech, medical device and life sciences community. Currently, Ms. Dakers is a board member of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), BIOTECanada and the International Science and Technology Partnership Canada (ISTP Canada). Previously, Ms. Dakers also served on the Boards of Genome Canada, Genome BC, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Ms. Dakers is an Adjunct Professor in UBC’s Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences and a member of the Council of Canadian Academies’ Expert Panel on Business Innovation. Ms. Dakers received a Peak Award for Performance and Excellence in 2004. In 2009, Ms. Dakers was the recipient of BIOTECanada’s Gold Leaf Award for Industry Leadership.

Using Science Policy to Improve Health Outcomes in the North
The Canadian North has become a focus for politicians and researchers alike within recent years. This increased attention has not only helped to reignite Canadians’ awareness of the North, it has also shed light on certain disparities. Many Northerners, especially Aboriginal people, suffer from poorer health in comparison to other Canadians. This panel will explore the current health challenges in the North, and discuss how science policy can be used to help improve the situation. Overall, the goals of this panel are to:

Raise awareness about health issues in the North and the challenge of addressing those issues
Show how building up the scientific presence within the North will help to improve health outcomes among Northerners
Reiterate the notion that scientific work cannot take place in isolation – rather it must be a collaborative activity which is engaged in by many different, yet inter-connected, communities
Reaffirm the need for governments, communities, and academia to work together.

Moderator
Sandra Lister
Manager, Science Policy Coordination
Health Canada
Sandra Lister is the Manager of the Science Policy Coordination Unit (SPCU) within the Policy, Planning and Coordination Division of Health Canada's Strategic Policy Branch. The SPCU provides senior management with strategic analysis and advice on complex, horizontal and multi-dimensional S&T and science policy issues. Ms. Lister oversees the secretariat to the departmental Director General Science Committee and the Northern Health Evidence Sub-Working Group, which is responsible for leading the Health Portfolio’s contribution to the Northern Strategy. Additionally, Ms. Lister is an active member on several working groups which support the Federal S&T Strategy, the Federal Integrated Northern S&T Strategy (FINeST) and the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS).

Dr. Pertice Moffitt
Nurse Educator
Aurora College
Dr. Pertice Moffitt is a nurse educator in the undergraduate program at Aurora College, Yellowknife Campus, Yellowknife, NT; an Adjunct Professor with Dalhousie University; and, as well, she also teaches graduates students at Athabasca University. Additionally, Dr. Moffitt is the Manager of the Health Research Programs for Aurora Research Institute at the North Slave Research Centre in Yellowknife. Dr. Moffitt's research interests are with Circumpolar Health, Cultural Diversity and Women's Health utilising the qualitative methods of ethnography, photovoice and fourth generation evaluation.

Dr. Kue Young
Professor
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
Dr. Kue Young is a professor in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto and TransCanada Chair in Aboriginal Health & Well-being. He is President of the International Network for Circumpolar Health Research and a former co-chair of the Arctic Council’s Human Health Expert Group. Much of Dr. Young's professional career has been devoted to northern and Aboriginal health research, with a major focus on the prevention of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. In 2010 he was appointed Member of the Order of Canada for "his contributions and commitment to advancing the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples, notably as a leading scholar in the field of Aboriginal health research.”

Christopher Cornish
Regional Director, Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Health Canada - Northern Region
Christopher Cornish is the regional Director of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation for Health Canada’s Northern Region. Northern Region is responsible for delivering on Health Canada’s mandate in the three northern territories, managing and administering health promotion and disease prevention programs, the Non-Insured Health Benefits program for First Nations and Inuit, and the Territorial Health System Sustainability Initiative. Northern Region also serves as the departmental link on circumpolar health and research activities and plays an instrumental role in supporting the Government of Canada’s Northern Strategy. Prior to joining Health Canada, Mr. Cornish served in various policy roles at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Sarah Kalhok Bourque
Manager, Northern Science and Contaminants Research
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Sarah Kalhok Bourque is the Manager of Northern Science and Contaminants Research with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In this capacity, Sarah Kalhok Bourque manages the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP), established in 1991. Prior to this, Sarah Kalhok Bourque was part of the core team that developed Canada’s Program for the International Polar Year (IPY), which was designed along policy-relevant themes of “Climate change impacts and adaptation” and “Health and well-being of Northern communities”, and she was subsequently Manager and Science Manager of the Government of Canada Program for IPY. Now based in Ottawa, she used to call the North her home while working for the Aurora Research Institute in Inuvik, Northwest Territories. Her perspective on northern/Arctic science and policy comes from program experience at the local, national and international level.

4:40 pm - 6:00 pm
Sponsor Showcase & Networking
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Keynote Panel - Science and Politics in Canada
This is a non-partisan and cross party discussion, among former scientists and current politicians, on the interface between science and government. The panel will discuss:

The barriers and potential solutions for greater interaction between the scientific and political communities in Canada
How to encourage and facilitate the greater participation of scientists in politics.

Introductions
Pierre Meulien, Ph.D
President and CEO
Genome Canada
Pierre Meulien was appointed President and CEO of Genome Canada in 2010. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Meulien served as Chief Scientific Officer for Genome British Columbia from 2007 to 2010 where he promoted the organization’s ongoing scientific strategy, focusing on the science of genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics within the larger realm of biotechnology and life sciences. Facilitating the translation of genome based technologies into end user communities across many life science sectors was also a key responsibility.

From 2002 to 2007, Dr. Meulien served as the founding CEO of the Dublin Molecular Medicine Centre (now Molecular Medicine Ireland) which linked the three medical schools and six teaching hospitals in Dublin to build a critical mass in molecular medicine and translational research. The Centre managed the Euro 45 Million “Program for Human Genomics” financed by the Irish government and was responsible for coordinating the successful application for the first Wellcome Trust funded Clinical Research Centre to be set up in Ireland.

For over 20 years, Dr. Meulien has managed expert research teams with a number of organizations, including Aventis Pasteur in Toronto (Senior Vice President of R&D), and in Lyon, France (Director of Research). He also spent seven years with the French biotechnology company Transgene in Strasbourg, France as a research scientist and part of the management team. Dr. Meulien’s academic credentials include a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and a post-doctoral appointment at the Institut Pasteur in Paris.

Marc Garneau
Former Astronaut
MP for Westmount Ville-Marie, Quebec
Marc Garneau has served his country his entire professional career, beginning with the Canadian Navy and then as an astronaut and President of the Canadian Space Agency , and now in political life. Garneau resigned from the Canadian Space Agency to run under the Liberal banner in Vaudreuil–Soulanges in 2006. After the last federal elections, he remained very involved in politics and played a determining role in the Liberal Renewal Commission by drafting its Science and Technology position paper. He also helped draft a number of resolutions aimed at clarifying the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, the resolution of fiscal unbalance and the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Hon. Hélène LeBlanc
MP for LaSalle-Emard, Science and Technology Critic
Hélène is an agronomist and project manager for the Conseil d’assainissement et d’aménagement du ruisseau Lacorne.
Hélène has taught French in Vancouver and Ottawa and was an interpreter/guide for the Canada Museums of Science and Technology Corporation in Ottawa. She was also an assistant to persons suffering from Alzheimers for the organization Baluchon Alzheimer and an agro-environment officer with the Fédération de l’Union des producteurs agricoles de l’Outaouais-Laurentides.
Hélène has a Bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Ottawa and a Bachelor of Science degree in agriculture and environment from McGill University.

Dr. Kellie Leitch
MP for Simcoe Grey
Dr. Kellie Leitch is the Member of Parliament for Simcoe-Grey and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and to the Minister of Labour. Prior to her election on May 2, 2011, Dr. Leitch was an orthopaedic paediatric surgeon at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Dr. Leitch was also an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto, Chair of the Ivey Centre for Health Innovation and Leadership, and Director of the Health Sector MBA program at the Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario. Dr. Leitch received the Order of Ontario in 2010 for her work advocating for children. Dr. Leitch was selected as one of Canada's Top 40 Under 40 for her work in both medicine and business in 2005. Dr. Leitch previously served as Chair of the Expert Panel for the Children's Fitness Tax Credit in 2006, which made recommendations to the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, regarding the best ways to implement the tax credit designed to encourage health and fitness among Canadian children and youth. In 2008, Dr. Leitch authored the report entitled: "Reaching for the Top: A Report by the Advisor on Healthy Children & Youth". The report is a "call to action" for government and industry on key issues affecting Canadian children and youth.
Dr. Leitch earned her Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Toronto in 1994, MBA from Dalhousie University in 1998, completed the Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Program in 2001 at the University of Toronto, and became a Fellow of Paediatric Orthopaedics at the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles/University of Southern California in 2002.

As a volunteer, Dr. Leitch served as a council member on the NRC (National Research Council of Canada), a Board member of Genome Canada, a Director on the YMCA (GTA) board of directors, Vice President of CANFAR (Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research), and is the founder of The Sandbox Project. In addition, Dr. Leitch hosts an annual golf tournament to raise funds for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

Reza Moridi, Ph.D
Ontario MPP - Richmond Hill
An award-winning scientist, engineer, educator, business leader and community activist who has lived in Richmond Hill since 1991, Reza Moridi was first elected to the Ontario Legislative Assembly in 2007. Upon his election, Reza was appointed by Premier Dalton McGuinty as the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. He was also appointed to the Cabinet Committee on Economy, Environment and Resources Policy. Prior to his election, Reza was the Vice-President and Chief Scientist of the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada. His 17 year career at this Institute provided him with a thorough understanding of the nuclear industry of Canada as well as the application of radiation and nuclear materials in a large variety of industry and health care sectors. Over the years, Reza has contributed significantly to the understanding of nuclear materials, radiation and radiation safety by the public, students, educators and workers in Canada. In recognition of his contributions, the Canadian Nuclear Society presented Reza with the Education and Communication Award in 2001.

In recognition of Reza’s outstanding contributions to the profession of Health Physics (radiation protection), the US Health Physics Society presented Reza with the Fellow Award in 2002. For his original contribution to physics and engineering, Reza was elected as Fellow of the UK Institute of Physics (1986) and Fellow of the UK Institution of Engineering and Technology (1992). Education, energy, innovation, environment, health and prosperity are key issues of interest to Reza.

7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Genome Canada Reception - Induction of 2011 Members to the Canadian Science and Engineering Hall of Fame
Friday, November 18, 2011
7:30 am - 8:30 am
Continental Breakfast
8:30 am - 8:40 am
Opening Statement of the Day: International Year of Chemistry

Bernard West, Ph.D
President/Chair of the Board
Westworks Consulting/Ontario BioAuto Council
Bernard West holds a BSc and a PhD in chemical engineering from the University of Manchester where he also taught for 6 years. In 2008 he was President and CEO of CANSOLV Technologies of Montreal, and was previously President and COO, Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited. Prior to that, he had 30 years of experience in the chemical industry with Rhone-Poulenc, Imperial Oil [ Esso ] and Polymer Corporation.

Bernard has also been very active in industry associations and industry-government bodies; member of the Board of the Canada’s Chemical Producers Association (Chair 1995–1997), Chair of The Chemical Institute of Canada, Chair of the Society of Chemical Industry–Canadian Section, member of the Board of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (Washington, D.C.).

He is currently; Chair of the Board of Ontario BioAuto Council, Co-Chair of the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance, Co-Chair of the Canadian Green Chemistry and Engineering Network, and Chair of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technologies in the National Research Council of Canada. He is an associate member of the IUPAC Committee on Chemical Industry representing Canada and a member of the board of Life Sciences Ontario.

8:40 am - 10:10 am
Drivers of Innovation in the Chemical-Related Industry Sector
In its 2011 Brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering (PAGSE) states that “a highly skilled workforce is an essential component of the innovation pipeline. Canada has done well to improve its capacity to train the next generation of researchers and innovators. Clearly we are on our way to building the next generation of cutting-edge researchers that will fuel the innovation pipeline. However employment prospects for highly skilled workers are bleak. A large part of the problem is that businesses in Canada invest very little in research and development (R&D), so they have little need to hire highly skilled workers. Canadian graduates have trouble finding good jobs, especially R&D jobs in industry”.
This session will explore the factors that drive industrial research and development in several of Canada’s largest chemical-related trade sectors. What are the strengths and weaknesses of our national and provincial science, economic and other related policies and regulations that attract or hinder research investments in Canada? Does research have to be carried out in Canada, in all cases, in order for the country to benefit? Are our industry / academic partnerships and commercial centres working - and producing results?
Moderator

Avrim Lazar, Ph.D

CEO & President
Forest Products Association of Canada
Avrim Lazar is President & CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada, since Jan. 1, 2002 and he is chair of the Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products (ACPWP) to the United Nations. Mr. Lazar has held senior policy positions in the government of Canada in the Ministries of Justice, Agriculture, Environment and Human Resource Development. During this period he was responsible for national policy in areas as diverse as climate change, biodiversity, child poverty, employment insurance and labor force training.

Mr. Lazar was Chair of the Committee of the Whole of the Second UN Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1995. He also chaired the National Business Association Roundtable and is the Past-President of the International Council of Forest and Paper Associations (ICFPA). Mr. Lazar taught high school in Vancouver and Zambia from 1969 to 1973. Over the years, Mr. Lazar has given many courses in the graduate studies programs at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University. Mr. Lazar holds degrees in science and education, including a B.Sc (1968) from McGill University, a B.Ed (1970) and a PhEd in Ed (1976) from the University of Ottawa.

Craig Crawford
President & CEO
Ontario BioAuto Council
Craig has served on numerous government and industry committees and non-profit boards that have advocated support for biobased industries in both Canada and the United States. He has acted as a consultant to the federal and Ontario governments on the bioeconomy and wrote a framework for developing biobased industries in Canada. He has been actively involved in identifying research and business opportunities in the new bioeconomy for more than a decade.

Craig is currently the President and CEO of the Ontario BioAuto Council. The Council’s vision is to make Ontario a global leader in the manufacture of automobile parts, construction materials and packaging from biological feedstocks. Its mission is to unite Ontario’s largest economic sectors (i.e. agriculture, forestry, oil, chemical, manufacturing and automotive), research community and government around viable strategies aimed at building a province-wide bioeconomy.

David Yake, Ph.D
Director - Corporate Process Innovation, Research & Business Development
DuPont Canada
David Yake has more than 31 years of global R&D, business, sales and marketing leadership with DuPont. He received his MS and Ph.D in Chemical Engineering from Iowa State University in 1980. He served six years with DuPont in Asia as regional business and marketing manager and director of the company’s Chemical Solutions business, leveraging broad based open innovation across the region to establish a sustainable growth platform. During the last five years David has lived in Canada and led the Research and Business Development Centre in Kingston, Ontario, and the DuPont Center for Process Innovation - a global corporate leveraged technology based business that specializes in developing and scaling-up technology solutions to commercial level. In Canada, the organization’s key role is to identify key growth opportunities and collaborate with global businesses to commercialize innovative solutions that meet market needs.

Dave Collyer
CEO & President
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
David Collyer was appointed President of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) on September 15th, 2008, after serving as President and Country Chair for Shell in Canada. In his current position, Mr. Collyer is responsible for leading CAPP’s activities in education, communications and policy / regulatory advocacy on behalf of its members representing over 90% of the upstream petroleum production in Canada.

During his 30 year career tenure with Shell, Mr. Collyer held a broad range of technical, business and senior leadership roles. These included positions in conventional oil and gas, oil sands, marketing and transportation and downstream commercial marketing, as well as cross-business roles such as strategy and planning, communications and sustainable development. He also participated in a two year Executive Exchange assignment with the federal government in Ottawa.

Mr. Collyer holds a petroleum engineering degree and an MBA from the University of Alberta, and belongs to a range of professional affiliations including the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) as well as the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). He has also been a member of a number of not-for-profit boards.

10:10 am - 10:30 am
Coffee Break
10:30 am - 12:00 pm
How do we build resilient communities in the face of climate change?
The science is complex, the picture is daunting, the impacts all too real. A global challenge, climate change is creating environmental, economic and social upheaval, particularly in coastal and northern communities.
What strategies are available to those communities to mitigate and adapt to climate change and its impact on their ecosystems? Are there governance and policy hurdles hindering the development and implementation of such strategies? Can and will local actions make a difference? As part of the conference’s “Exploring the True North Strong and Free: Reflections on Northern Science Policy” theme, this panel will engage in an inspiring conversation on community activism, sustainability and resilience in Canada’s northern communities.

Moderator
James Baxter
Founding Editor and Publisher
iPolitics
Over the past 25 years, Baxter has been an award-winning sportswriter, political journalist, bureau chief and editorial writer. A third-generation public affairs journalist, Baxter’s work covering politics, first in Ottawa and then in Alberta, earned him a prestigious Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University in 2008, where his studies focused on the future of media businesses and the role of the press in democracy. Born and raised in Ottawa, he holds degrees in international relations, journalism, and media administration. He lives in Ottawa with his wife, Sarah, and three young children, coaches football and soccer, and is an exuberant skier.

Frances Abele
Academic Director of the Carleton Centre for Community Innovation
Professor of the School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University
Dr. Abele has written widely on Canadian public policy and the northern political economy, publishing over 80 books, articles, book chapters and technical reports. With a northern research career stretching back thirty years, she is the author of an oft-consulted study of employment training in the Northwest Territories (Abele 1989) and numerous articles and technical reports on northern economic and political issues. She is an expert on federal northern policy, publishing regularly on this theme, and on the implications for the federation of governance innovations pursuant to the modern treaties. Abele is co-author and co-editor of the first comprehensive examination of northern development policy to include a balanced complement of authors from northern and southern Canada (Abele, Courchene, St-Hilaire and Seidle, 2009). As deputy director of research for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the 1990s, Abele was responsible for the Commission's research on the North, and portions of the work on governance and economy. She has worked in partnership with northern organizations in Canada and abroad, ranging from the North-West Academy of Public Administration, Murmansk, Russia to community governments in Canada, where she currently collaborates with the Hamlet of Igloolik and community partners in Deline.

Gordon McBean
Professor, Joint Appointment with Geography and Political Science
& Research Chair at the Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction, University of Western Ontario
Professor, Joint Appointment with Geography and Political Science
Dr. Gordon McBean received his B.Sc. in Physics and Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of British Columbia and a M.Sc. in Meteorology from McGill University. He was a scientist in Environment Canada from 1970 to 1988 when he was appointed Professor and Chair of the Atmospheric Science Program at the University of British Columbia. In 1992, he was appointed Head, Department of Oceanography. From 1994 to 2000, he was Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the Meteorological Service of Environment Canada. He was appointed to his present position in July 2000. Dr. McBean's research interests are in atmospheric and climate sciences, ranging in scope from the natural sciences of the phenomena to the policies of governments and responses of people to them. He is undertaking new research on the changing climate and weather systems in the Arctic, and investigating the role of science in changing government policies. An area of interest is the changing occurrence of extreme weather events with climate change, their influence on public systems and strategies for adaptation. In addition to his activities at UWO, Dr. McBean is active nationally and internationally. He is Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and a member of the scientific committee for the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, the Board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Northern S&T Committee, and the Canadian Committee for the International Polar Year. He was a lead author for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Earlier in his career he participated in the first Polar Experiment planning meeting and as chair of the World Climate Research Programme helped create the Arctic Climate System Study (ACSYS). He has received the Patterson Medal for distinguish contributions to meteorology by a Canadian and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society.

Ian Mauro
Canada Research Chair in Human Dimensions of Environmental Change
Mount Allison University
Ian Mauro is a Canada Research Chair in "human dimensions of environmental change" at Mount Allison University, in New Brunswick. He is both a researcher and filmmaker, with a PhD in environmental science, and his work focuses on hunter, farmer and fisher knowledge regarding environmental change, specifically issues related to food security and global warming. As part of his doctorate, he co-directed "Seeds of Change" (www.seedsofchangefilm.org), a highly controversial film that was banned from being released by the University of Manitoba, and created one of the largest academic freedom battles in Canada. For his postdoctorate, Mauro teamed up with Zacharias Kunuk and Igloolik Isuma Productions to develop "Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change", the world's first Inuktitut language film on the topic. The film is available for free on our website (www.isuma.tv/ikcc). This upcoming year, Mauro will be collaborating with Sheila Watt-Cloutier - acclaimed Inuk climate change advocate and Nobel Prize nominee - who will be working on her forthcoming book as a Visiting Scholar at Mount Allison. Ian can be contacted through email at imauro@mta.ca.

Jamal Shirley
Manager, Research Design and Policy Development
Iqaluit Research Centre, Nunavut Research Institute
Jamal Shirley is Manager of Research Design at the Nunavut Research Institute in Iqaluit. He grew up in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, and has lived in Iqlauit since 1997. An advisor to researchers working in the social, natural and biological disciplines in Nunavut, Jamal contributes to research design, data collection, analysis, and public outreach for a wide range of studies. He has served on the advisory board for the Arctic Storm Studies Project, and as a member of Canada’s National Committee for International Polar Year. As a member of the Nunavut Government’s Sustainable Development Advisory Group Jamal contributes to the development of policy and strategies relating to resource development, climate change adaptation, land use planning, and wildlife management in Nunavut. Jamal also works directly with Nunavut community groups to develop research proposals and identify funding and partnerships.

What do some of the fastest growing S&T Firms in Canada think about Canada's Innovation Policy?
The policy community has no shortage of indicators and creative ideas to support more innovative economies and high quality services to and opportunities for Canadians. The challenge, rather, is to determine the right mix of indicators to monitor for a desired outcome in a particular sector, and the right approach to policy development and implementation for the same sector outcomes. This panel will set out to identify the most influential policies and gaps in policy for fast-growing S&T firms in Canada. The discussion would explore issues of incentives, trade, HQP, innovation strategy and partnerships as they are influenced by policy and implemented through management practice. The panelists will be invited to explore one or two of these issues to a greater depth that speaks to specific policy and management linkages.
The panelists represent some of the fastest growing S&T companies in Canada, moderated by Dr. Charles Davis, Research Chair in Media Management and Entrepreneurship at Ryerson University, and of the Innovation Systems Research Network.

Moderator
Charles Davis
Professor
Ryerson Unversity's School of Radio and Television Arts
Charles Davis is a professor in Ryerson Unversity's School of Radio and Television Arts (Faculty of Communication and Design) and is cross-appointed with the Entrepreneurship and Strategy Department in the Ted Rogers School of Management. He currently teaches and conducts research on management and policy in industries that produce experience goods - with special interest in innovation and new product development in the software and content layers of mediated creative industries. He is currently involved in research projects on media product innovation, media labour, media industry clusters, audience responses to media offerings, corporate governance of innovation, and digital entrepreneurship. His recent graduate and undergraduate teaching includes courses in media management, new product development, political economy of media industries, audience analysis, innovation in experience-producing industries, cultural economy, and media entrepreneurship. He teaches in Ryerson's MA in Media Production program, in the Ryerson/York MA/PhD program in Communication and Culture, and in Ryerson's MBA/MSc in Management of Technology and Innovation program.

David Arthurs
President
Hickling Arthurs Low
Dr. David Arthurs is the President of Hickling Arthurs Low (HAL). David specializes in economic analysis, policy development, and strategic planning for public sector science and technology organizations. David has a BASc in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Waterloo, an MBA from the University of Ottawa, and a PhD from the School of Business at Queen's University

Curtis VanWalleghem, MBA, BEng, PMP
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrostor Inc
Mr. VanWalleghem currently leads energy storage start-up Hydrostor Inc. Curtis has spent the last 10 years helping companies set and execute on their strategy. Prior to Hydrostor, he was Sr. Manger in Deloitte's Corporate Strategy Consulting Practice where he advised some of the top energy companies in Canada and around the globe. He has also held positions at Bruce Power, Celestica Inc, and CIBC.

Nicolas Morgan
Vice-President, Business Development and Marketing
Morgan Solar
Nicolas Morgan is a co-founder of Morgan Solar, and leads the company’s Business Development and Marketing efforts. He holds a Bachelor of Social Science in Anthropology and a post-graduate degree in Applied Information Technology. Before coming to Morgan Solar at the start of 2008, Nicolas spent two years in Spain as a senior manager for FON Technologies, a Web 2.0 start-up. At FON, Nicolas coordinated the activities of business development teams in Europe, North America and Asia. Prior to this, Nicolas worked at Ernst & Young as a risk management and business process advisor to the Ontario electricity sector.

Glen Martin
President and COO
Pod Generating Group
Glen has over 20 years experience in early-phase project development in space and high technology sectors. Most recently he served as co-founder and Senior Adviser in Business Development at ProtoStar Limited, a satellite operator focused on direct-to-home satellite television services in Asia. Prior to co-founding Pod Generating Group, Glen worked with NASA, Motorola, Hughes and Raytheon on advanced space systems and international business development. He previously worked for McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, Boeing Canada and Rolls-Royce Canada. He holds a Bachelor of Technology in Aerospace Engineering from Ryerson University and an MBA from the University of Southern California.

Reaching out with Big Science
The public often learns of developments in science in the media distilled from press offices at peer-reviewed journals or universities. In a few cases, research institutions such as the Mayo Clinic and CERN have also developed a reputation for being seen as authoritative sources of science news and information for the public. In recent years, the Canadian research landscape has grown to feature a number of ‘big science’ facilities. These institutions, such as TRIUMF, Ocean Networks Canada, the Canadian Light Source, SNOLab and the Perimeter Institute, conduct research at the forefront of science – often at the convergence of science disciplines and with a scope and scale that is larger than traditional research institutions in government or the academy. In addition to research, all of these laboratories also engage in a number of forms of public engagement and outreach, ranging from media relations to classroom education. In a media landscape where science reporting is becoming increasingly fractured, what role do Canada’s big science facilities have in being sources of science news, information and education?

Moderator
Matthew Dalzell
Communications Coordinator
Canadian Light
Matthew Dalzell is the Communications Coordinator and Staff Writer at the Canadian Light Source, Canada’s national synchrotron facility in Saskatoon. His role includes media relations, strategic communications and telling stories about the science done at the CLS as an embedded science writer. One of the items on his ‘bucket list’ was fulfilled soon after starting at the CLS in 2004: appearing on CBC radio’s Quirks and Quarks. Matt earned a M.Sc. in Geology, specializing in palaeontology, as well as bachelor degrees in Science and Education, all from the University of Saskatchewan. He taught high school in Saskatoon and rural Saskatchewan, and spent several years on full-time service with the Royal Canadian Navy as a reserve staff officer and instructor. Matt is also chair of lightsources.org, an international communications collaboration of synchrotrons and other high-energy light source facilities.

John Matlock
Director, External Relations & Public Affairs
Perimeter Institute
John Matlock is the Director of External Relations and Public Affairs, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical physics. John and his team are responsible for a wide range of Perimeter Institute's strategic communications and relationships. Since 2004, John has led a wide range of activities, including special events with Stephen Hawking, the award winning "Quantum Tamers" documentary (viewable in sixty countries), and the successful "Quantum to Cosmos: Ideas for the Future" festival, reaching over one million on-site, online and via television. Prior to joining Perimeter, John was an award winning news producer in both the CTV and CBC news organizations. In transferring his skills to science communications, he has guided others in a successful "rule of three" - tied to content, conversation and coordination.

Penny Park
Executive Director
Science Media Centre of Canada
Penny Park is the Executive Director of the Science Media Centre of Canada, with extensive hands-on experience in radio and television science journalism. From 1980 to 1995, she worked as a producer and senior producer with Quirks and Quarks, the award-winning weekly science program on CBC radio. Since 1995, Penny has been with the Discovery Channel, where she helped develop the show now called Daily Planet. Originally from Montreal, she first earned a BA from the University of New Brunswick, studying linguistics, followed by a B.Sc (honours) in biology from the University of Guelph, graduating there in 1980.

Tim Meyer, Ph.D
Head of Strategic Planning & Communications
TRIUMF
Dr. Timothy I. Meyer is Head of Strategic Planning and Communications at TRIUMF, Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics. He coordinates interactions with elected officials, stakeholders, the general public, and the media. Tim oversaw preparation and successful approval of the laboratory’s five-year plan 2010-2015 and played a role in Canada’s national discussions about producing medical isotopes using accelerators. He came to TRIUMF in late 2007 from the U.S. National Academies in Washington, D.C., where he served as an expert in science and public policy as a senior program officer at the Board on Physics and Astronomy. Dr. Meyer joined the U.S. National Academies after earning his Ph.D. in experimental particle physics from Stanford University. Tim has been recognized for excellence in public-policy analysis and communication strategies. In 2010, he chaired a strategic communications review of the U.S. DOE’s premier plasma and fusion science laboratory managed by Princeton University. When not working, Tim reads pulp fiction on his Kindle, plays volleyball, and follows his gourmet-chef wife around the kitchen to wash the dishes.

Jay Ingram
Science Broadcaster and Writer
Jay Ingram was the host of Discovery Channel Canada’s Daily Planet from the first episode in January, 1995 to June, 2011. Daily Planet is the only hour-long, prime-time daily science show in the world. Prior to joining Discovery, Jay hosted CBC radio’s national science show, Quirks and Quarks, from 1979 to 1992. During that time he won two ACTRA awards, one for best host, and several Canadian Science Writers’ awards. He wrote and hosted two CBC radio documentary series and short radio and television science stories for a variety of programs. He was a contributing editor to Owl magazine for ten years, and wrote a weekly science column in the Toronto Star for twelve. Jay has also written eleven books - which have been translated into twelve languages - and is working on more.

Jay has received the Sandford Fleming medal from the Royal Canadian Institute for his efforts to popularize science, the Royal Society’s McNeil medal for the Public Awareness of Science and the Michael Smith award from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. He is a Distinguished Alumnus of the University of Alberta, has received five honorary doctorates and is a member of the Order of Canada.

12:00 pm - 12:45 pm
Lunch
12:45 pm - 12:55 pm
Luncheon Address - PIPSC

Gary Corbett
President
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Gary Corbett brings over 30 years of experience in the public and private sectors to his role as President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). Mr. Corbett represents 60,000 members including more than 23,000 scientists, researchers and regulators who work in government departments, agencies and laboratories.

A former employee of Natural Resources Canada, Gary worked as a scientist conducting operational research in the coal mining industry in Cape Breton. Relocating his family to Ottawa following the close of the coal industry in 1998, he focused his attention on policy development as it pertains to the role of public science and evidence-based decision-making.

As National Vice-President and then President of the Institute, Gary Corbett has ensured that PIPSC is actively engaged in the search for solutions to the challenges facing Canadian science. He initiated and chaired successful Science Policy Symposiums in 2007 and 2010. Mr. Corbett is also strongly committed to advocating on behalf of Canada's public science and its public scientists.
1:00 pm - 1:30 pm
Keynote Luncheon Address
1:30 pm - 3:30 pm
Examining the Prospects of a Canadian Science Policy Centre

The original agenda was published in the CSPC website, follow it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/canadian-science-policy-conference