Ted Hsu

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it seems as if this getting a bit out of hand. However, if people would like to apologize for calling each other disgusting, I think maybe the first person who used that word in the last few minutes should start with an apology.

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to my hon. colleague's speech, it seemed to me that he really wanted to avoid talking about science and the use of a scientific approach to good governance.

The reason for my hon. colleague's emphasis on the economy and it all being about growing the economy is that those members do not want to face honest accounting of what is going on in the country. Just as an example that I would bring up to him, the Soviet Union had a lot of economic growth for many decades, but the economy and the society was rotten at the core and they were not willing to be honest with themselves as to what was going on in their country. That is the sort of thing that can go wrong.

Why does my hon. colleague not want our government to be honest with itself and the Canadian people?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell my why the Conservatives have decided to eliminate the National Council of Welfare? This organization gives advice to the federal government on how to best improve the living conditions of low-income Canadians. In addition, it only costs about $1 million, which is 10% of what the Conservatives are planning to spend on advertising in their budget.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the point of this debate today is not so much a chance for the government to rattle off the ways it spends money, but to ask whether it takes seriously the advice of scientists, natural and social scientists in Canada. However, I am pleased to have the chance to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

To talk to natural scientists and social scientists, namely economists, they will tell us that the government needs to do much more than it currently has done on the issue of climate change. In particular, it needs to do a lot more to compensate for the negative externality, the fact that we do not have to pay for emitting fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

How can the parliamentary secretary talk about supporting scientists when the government will not listen to scientists on something which is probably one of the most important pieces of advice that natural scientists and social scientists have given to the government today?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, rattling off a list of projects that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans spends money on misses the point of the motion.

Let me address one of the points of the motion by asking the minister about muzzling scientists and not letting them talk to people.

If we go back to the announcement that Conservative Minister John Crosbie made in 1992 announcing the moratorium on the cod fishery and we try to understand how it is that we fished out all the cod without realizing it, we realize that fishery scientists thought there was a bunch of fish out there but the inshore fisherman, who actually went out and tried to catch fish, were saying that the number of fish was decreasing, as was their size.

The government scientists and the inshore fishermen were not talking. What they really should have done was sat down and said, “Boy, we disagree on the state of the cod population. We'd better sit down and resolve this”. If they had done that, we may not have fished out the Atlantic cod.

What I want to ask my hon. colleague is this. Does he not agree with me that, if the government scientists had been talking with the people in Canada and exchanging ideas and information, we would have been in a better state in this country?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat a reaction that I had to the speech by the of the minister of state and I had the same reaction to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

I believe the parliamentary secretary has missed the point of this motion. The point is not that we should not be funding the knowledge infrastructure program, the point is whether the government will listen to advice from scientists and people who have made measurements, observed the country, done their homework and figured out and analyzed the situation.

Will the government take advice that it does not agree with or that embarrasses it? Will it have a scientific approach to good governance as opposed to simply funding technology or ensuring that we have good buildings and facilities in our country?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that just as we were talking about nanotechnology I was reading an email from a very prominent nanotechnology researcher who is worried about whether he should be leaving the country to do his research.

My question is about the Experimental Lakes Area. It is a bit strange that in the last couple of years, in the fiscal years ending 2010 and 2011, there was about $800,000 spent by the Conservative government when it was still a minority government on a state-of-the-art research facility in the Experimental Lakes Area. That is when it was a minority government, maybe being careful and afraid to do what it really wanted to do. Now we have a majority government and the Conservatives decide they want to kill the Experimental Lakes program.

Would my colleague comment on the change in behaviour of the Conservatives, spending money to build a state-of-the-art research facility when they were a minority government, and then when they are a majority government and can really do what they want to do, killing the funding for the Experimental Lakes Area?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question that is related to the question that was just posed by the Minister of Science and Technology.

Because of the cuts to the research tools and instrumentation program and the major resources support program, one avenue that scientists have been looking at to pay for needed equipment or for equipment repair is the indirect costs of research program. Therefore, they are going to be hitting up the universities to get money out of the indirect costs of research program. That is going to provide upward pressure on tuition fees. Would my hon. colleague care to comment about that?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my goodness, Conservatives are worried about whether numbers are right or not. That is something we do not hear too often.

My research showed a cut of 20%. If that is slightly wrong, I apologize. But that is what my research turned up. I would be forthcoming with changing numbers if the Conservative government were forthcoming with numbers as well.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, this gives me a chance to talk about something in the speech given by minister of state.

It is true that the government funded CANARIE, the ultra-high-speed Internet backbone that is used by researchers, hospitals and universities. However, it was only funded for two years instead of five years and it was only funded at a fraction of the previous level of funding.

We are talking about working in a knowledge economy. More and more, we are sending larger amounts of data across the country and around the world. That is why it is so important, if we want our researchers in the public sector to be competitive in the world, to give them that ultra-high-speed Internet backbone to participate in the knowledge economy.

I am surprised that the government did not renew its previous level of funding, which was for five years and was, I believe, 20% or 30% higher than the funding level that is in the current budget. This is a basic tool that our researchers in Canada need in order to be competitive. Having seen that, I do not know, really, what the government's strategy is and why it did that.