Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has been around since 1988. Its goal was to provide an independent body, an independent voice, not just as an advocate around the environment, but as a body that had the explicit goal of bringing together dissenting voices at a round table, a place where environmentalists, business, labour, academics, and all kinds of different parties—sometimes with very opposing views—could debate issues, hopefully work through issues, and thereby develop better policy. It has been an organization that has been a strong voice not just in bringing together research, but in promoting sustainable development solutions.
Mr. Mai has just said that there are these opposing views—pardon me, I think it was Mr. Brison—that you can have jobs or the environment and that somehow they're in opposition, when in fact you see successful economies around the world—like Germany, for example, which has been a leader in green technology—using the transition to a more sustainable economy as an economic development measure. You can see how successful they've been at that and how they've been exporting the products they create and exporting that technology.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has produced a number of worthy reports. It has been very active on the issue of water. It has recently looked at Canada and U.S. climate change policy, because of course we want to understand how we work together with our largest trading partner. Also, it has helped build solutions and opportunities for business to evolve by using more sustainable solutions.
But as an independent body, it has not always nodded in agreement with the direction of the federal government. In some cases, it has been critical, but it has also raised warning flags where there are problems. Just recently, the national round table had been saying publicly that delays in regulating greenhouse gas emissions mean that we're locking in old infrastructure for decades to come, and saying how we need to be looking at modernizing more energy-efficient infrastructure. By pointing the way to more helpful directions, these points are perhaps critical of the government but useful to the government.
It's a tragedy and I think a travesty to see this organization cut—eliminated. It's not a large budget, but it's a very useful addition to Canada's public debate. This is part of a government approach that tends to want to eliminate and defund voices and organizations that don't agree with it. It gives the appearance of being anti-science and anti-data, because when they disagree with data and when they disagree with science, they want to silence that science.
We've had a debate today with an NDP opposition day motion on the whole issue of scientific expertise and making sure that we preserve and protect the value of scientific and social science expertise. But much of what's happening through this omnibus budget bill and the other changes the government is making, whether it's cuts to Library and Archives Canada or cuts to the National Research Council, Statistics Canada, the National Council of Welfare.... We've seen so many examples of this.
I can only feel that the officials who work for the federal government must dread the data they come out with if it's at odds with the direction this government takes. I think this is just another example of a paranoid approach. The federal government doesn't want to engage in debate and dialogue and therefore come up with better solutions.
We're opposed to this. Again, it's another example of an item that should never have come before the finance committee. It should be before the environment committee, but here we are.