Debates of March 9th, 2009

Opposition Motion -- Science, Research and Innovation

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these numbers are not made up. We are all very well aware. We put the government on probation and added very clear conditions to this budget and to our acceptance of it because we know that the government is extremely adept at what we call the smoke and mirrors trick. It puts something out front and it thinks everyone will be lured into believing it is so.

However, the granting councils have been cut. They say so. Every researcher and scientist have been on the Hill in the last three weeks complaining about the cuts.

International magazines, like Nature Magazine, are talking about science in retreat in Canada. Scientists everywhere are talking about the fact that when we give them money to build a building, but they cannot put people in the building, do research in the building and do not have any ability to maintain the work they do in that building, the building itself is useless.

The smoke and mirrors are cute and this building things that are shovel-ready is important, but those are short term jobs. We are talking about long term jobs in a very competitive world in which Canada will need to be smart and in which research and development will be the coinage of the future. That boat is leaving and Canada is not on it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville.

I am pleased to speak today to the motion put forward by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. There can be no doubt that this government takes funding for research and development very seriously.

Indeed, budget 2009 provides for $5.1 billion in additional funding for science and technology, which represents one of the single largest federal budget investments in S and T to date. This massive investment builds on the more than $2.2 billion our government has pledged for new S and T funding in the previous three budgets.

In my remarks, I want to focus on one key component of this budget 2009 S and T funding: the $2 billion set aside to enhance university and college infrastructure. Through Canada's economic action plan, our government is taking immediate action to improve infrastructure. In fact, we are launching one of the largest infrastructure building projects in our country's history.

Part of that undertaking is Canada's new knowledge infrastructure program. This program will provide up to $2 billion over two years to support deferred maintenance, repair and expansion projects at our universities and colleges.

There are two key reasons for focusing on infrastructure. The first is to provide a short-term boost to economic growth. In the face of the first global recession in 60 years, organizations such as the G20, the G7 and the International Monetary Fund have called for coordinated economic stimulus in all industrialized nations. In both Canada and the United States, investments in infrastructure have been identified as a key component of our efforts to stimulate economic activity and job creation.

Most importantly, Canadian first ministers agreed in January on the need for coordinated infrastructure spending by all levels of government. Accelerating repairs, maintenance and construction at universities and colleges will therefore provide substantial stimulus in communities across Canada. When chosen carefully, infrastructure projects create new good jobs in construction, engineering, science and technology, and manufacturing.

The second reason for focusing on university and college infrastructure is that it is essential to position Canada for long-term growth. In our extensive consultations with Canadians prior to budget 2009, we heard from individual universities and colleges and from national organizations such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

They all told us that a major portion of their campus infrastructure is at or near the end of its normal life cycle. Quite simply, it does not meet the needs of today's students and researchers. Addressing the rapidly deteriorating state of their infrastructure was, therefore, their number one budget priority.

We listened and responded, establishing the $2 billion knowledge infrastructure program. Not only will this program provide a short-term boost to the economy, but it will also help position Canada for future success by enhancing the research capacity of our universities and colleges. This will help them attract students and provide a better educational experience for tomorrow's highly skilled workers.

Given the current economic situation, we must act quickly. For this reason, the Minister of Industry will be launching the program today in Halifax. To ensure that the money flows quickly, we will of course be working closely with provinces and territories.

In fact, last week the Minister of Industry and the Minister of State (Science and Technology) wrote to their provincial and territorial colleagues, asking them to identify priority projects on which work could begin immediately. To break ground on these projects quickly, we are taking action now to reduce red tape and needless duplication.

Through this program, federal funding will provide up to 50% of the total eligible costs of a project. The remaining funding can come from the universities or colleges themselves, provincial or territorial governments, the charitable sector or the private sector.

We will be assessing projects against two key factors. The first factor is project readiness, meaning how quickly the proposed project can move forward to provide economic stimulus on a timely basis. The second factor, of course, is project merit. For both universities and colleges, project merit will include the extent to which the project generates immediate economic benefits and supports job creation.

The university component will give preference to projects that improve the quality of research and development at the institution. The college component will support projects that strengthen their ability to deliver advanced knowledge and skills training to students.

A broad range of projects can be supported through this program. For universities, eligible projects could include renewing and/or upgrading research labs, expanding buildings to meet R and D program needs, upgrading electrical and mechanical systems in buildings that house labs and expanding R and D space for technology transfer offices, business incubators and other facilities supporting university business collaboration.

For colleges, eligible projects aimed at improving the quality of teaching and training facilities could include classroom renovations, building expansions to meet teaching and training needs, enhanced information technology services and the renewal or expansion of office and meeting space for students.

I should also note that the knowledge infrastructure program will have an important positive impact on the environment. Eligible projects will include those that help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions and improve waste management at universities and colleges across Canada.

In closing, let me emphasize that our government understands its support for S and T today will reap benefits well into the future. It is the reason that 2007 the Prime Minister launched Canada's science and technology strategy, our plan to provide scientists with greater freedom to conduct research and to leverage the ability of entrepreneurs to innovate. It is also why we have increased funding for S and T in every single budget, including the considerable investments in budget 2009.

This initiative to enhance university and college infrastructure is the next substantive investment in the Government of Canada's multi-year S and T strategy, mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage. It will provide a significant short-term economic stimulus in communities across the country and it will enable our institutions to attract, train and retain the highly skilled workers of tomorrow. It will put many Canadians to work and it will address the critical need to revitalize our university and college infrastructure. The knowledge infrastructure program will create jobs for people now, while helping to secure the country's long-term prosperity.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question with regard to the knowledge infrastructure program. It is a very important program. I fully support the investments in this regard. However, I am concerned that money has not been placed to ensure that scientists could actually sit in these laboratories to do the work that is so important to Canada and to the world. I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.

Second, I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on the fact that Canada is not necessarily one of the top investors in science and technology. As I mentioned earlier, in the OECD we are perhaps number 10 or 12 on the list, with less than 2% of expenditures, while the top countries are at close to 4% of expenditures. These are concerns we have heard from the science and technology community. That community is quite concerned about the impacts this will have on the future of development in Canada.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises some important issues. It is interesting that in the House over the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of rhetoric, a lot of interesting so-called information from members of all parties, and numbers that bring into question the question of cuts, for example, to science funding.

The reality is that in terms of our science funding, we have invested $5.1 billion. We have invested more money in every successive budget in terms of science and technology infrastructure. More money is going into science and technology infrastructure than ever before in our country's history, with $205 million going to granting councils, for example, to provide stable, predictable long-term funding, something that was very important to them and that they asked for time and time again. I just cannot reinforce enough how important science and technology is to this government.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont on his work on this issue. I would like a little more specificity, particularly for the folks in the Kenora riding, around the knowledge infrastructure program.

I wonder if the member would comment briefly on two areas that concern us in the area of science and technology. What is this government's commitment in terms of forest research and industrial research so that we can improve our ways of producing and be sensitive and responsive to training for those kinds of developments?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are obviously facing a global crisis, one that has been caused by a financial meltdown in the United States and around the world. As we move forward, two things are extremely important. Obviously we need to maintain the track we were on, the track that put Canada in a very strong position relative to other countries. In fact, Canada is the only country in the G8 that continued to run a surplus for the last three years, while the other countries all ran deficits.

It is important to note that as we move forward in areas like forestry and industry, we must keep our eye on the long-term focus and at the same time step up with programs that are going to increase the productivity of Canadian workers, whether in forestry, industry or other areas, so that when we come out at the end of this, Canada is going to be even stronger. We are going to come out sooner and stronger than other countries in terms of our ability to compete in all these sectors.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would comment on some of the things that were said today.

The knowledge infrastructure program is very important to the University of Manitoba in my province, and I would like the member to expand a little on how this impacts on the labs that are deteriorating in our universities.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary and ask for a short answer, please.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that $2 billion will go a long way.

Something we heard time and time again at round tables was the importance of investing in university infrastructure. I heard it myself when I was talking to stakeholders across the country during budget consultations,

If we are going to get the payback from the substantial investments we are making in science and technology, we need to make sure that those researchers are working in absolutely the best environments possible to get the most out of the investment we have made in their skills and training. I think that is the ultimate importance of this $2 billion investment.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak to the important motion before us today, for it addresses an issue that is of particular importance to this government. It is an issue that has been a central focus of the government since its first day in power.

At the outset, I invite the members of the House to consider a few facts, some facts that clearly demonstrate our government's firm commitment to science and research.

The fact is in 2007-08 federal spending on science and technology surpassed $10 billion, including $2.7 billion on higher education research and development. As a proportion of GDP, this level of support for higher education research and development places Canada in a leadership position among G7 countries. It is a position, I might add, that the government is committed to maintaining.

The fact is Canada spends the second most in this area among the 30 countries that comprise the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, placing well ahead of the United States, which ranks 17th.

The fact is in November 2006 this government released its economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, a plan that underscored the critical importance of science and technology to our nation's prosperity and quality of life.

The fact is in May 2007 we built on “Advantage Canada” with the release of our science and technology strategy, “Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage”, a strategy that put forward the government's vision for building a sustainable national competitive advantage based on science and technology.

Not only have we articulated this bold vision for harnessing the positive social and economic impact of research, development and innovation, we have also launched a number of new initiatives to help bring that vision to life.

These initiatives are fostering the aspirations and ambitions of the highly skilled individuals who transform ideas into innovations. They are training the next generation of knowledge workers to meet the demands of the 21st century economy.

I would like to take a moment to tell the members of the House about some of these people focused initiatives.

Through budget 2007, we created a new industrial research and development internship program to help graduate students gain hands-on research experience and to benefit firms through an infusion of new knowledge and skills. We also expanded the Canada graduate scholarships program so it could support 5,000 students annually and help ensure a continuous supply of highly qualified personnel.

Through budget 2008, we created the Vanier Canada graduate scholarship program to make Canada a magnet for the world's most promising young minds. This premiere program will stand shoulder to shoulder with internationally recognized scholarship programs like Rhodes and the Fulbright.

Through budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan, we build on these initiatives in recognition of the critical contribution that highly skilled individuals will make to Canada's economic recovery and future success.

Indeed, at a time when these individuals face a weakening labour market, our government has put in place supports that will allow them to deepen and apply their skills. Specifically, budget 2009 allocates an additional $3.5 million over two years to offer up to 600 more graduate internships through the industrial research and development internship program.

It also announces $87.5 million over the next three years to provide a temporary expansion of the Canada graduate scholarships program. This funding will support an additional 500 doctoral scholarships and an additional 2,000 master's scholarships for some of Canada's brightest young minds. As a result of this investment, more scholarships are available to more students in all areas of study.

Let me take a moment to explain why our government has targeted the additional awards that will be granted by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to students undertaking business-related studies.

The Government of Canada's science and technology strategy, “Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage”, speaks to the need to foster more advanced business training in Canada as a means to improve innovation and the overall health of the economy. Our focus on an area critical to the nation's economic recovery is by no means an indication that this government does not recognize the important contribution of all social sciences and humanities disciplines to a vibrant economy and society.

Research in the social sciences and humanities advances knowledge and builds understanding about individuals, groups and societies. Knowledge and understanding, informed discussion on critical social, cultural, economic, technological and wellness issues may also provide communities, businesses and governments the foundation for a vibrant and healthy democracy. Rather, our focus on business-related studies will provide additional support and encouragement to students pursuing advanced training in an area critical to Canada's future economic success.

This is taking place within the context of a wide range of support for advanced skills training. Indeed the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will continue to award Canada graduate scholarships across the full range of social sciences and humanities through the ongoing Canada graduate scholarships program.

I trust my remarks today have helped illustrate our government's ongoing commitment to science and research and, in particular to our nation's brightest graduate students. The facts that I have presented today speak to the government's record in this area, a record that is beyond reproach.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague knows that I come from an area that has really been impacted by the economic slowdown. We have had significant job loss in Oshawa.

He talked about the wonderful investments that the government wants to make. However, I have noticed in the House lately that some in the opposition parties have been dithering. Some would say that they are obstructionist by playing politics, political ideology. They do not want to get this budget through.

Could my colleague tell what the importance is of getting this money out quickly and what he thinks about the opposition dithering or slowing down this process? Right now my community needs this money. Could he comment on that issue?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is the budget, Canada's economic action plan, addresses so many areas of importance. I do not understand why anyone would be opposed to what the government has put forward in our plan.

There is so much in the area of science and technology: $2 billion for a knowledge infrastructure program; $1.5 billion over five years for clean energy technology, something that is very important in my riding with the opening of the new GreenField Ethanol plant, which just took its first load of corn. It will help not only the economy and the jobs that it will bring to my riding, but also it will help the farmers who, for too long, have needed help and assistance. This will help those farmers and it will help the environment as well.

There is so much more. I could go on and on about how Canada's economic action plan is helpful to the economy. I do not understand why any hon. members in the House would oppose the economic action plan.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the member very much, but the last member asked a very good question about dithering.

Why has the finance minister dithered with this budget so tragically by putting in things that have nothing to do with the economy, major things that I know he and every other parliamentarian, who would want to do their duty, would want to look at carefully over time through the established process?

There are things such as changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and changes to pay equity, which have tens of thousands, if not millions, of people upset. Changes to the Competition Act have the Canadian Chamber of Commerce upset. These are all things that were not instrumental in this recovery package.

I agree with him 100%. We have to get this money out as quickly as possible. I hope it has been a lesson learned from the past that the government will not put in these red herrings to slow down the process.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Yukon and the work he does in the House.

The member spoke about the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I spoke to the local chamber of commerce in Brockville a week or so ago. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance spoke to that same chamber this past Thursday night.

The fact is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has commended the efforts of this government in bringing forward Canada's economic action plan. It has encouraged the government to see this through.

I am encouraged by the support from the hon. member to see Canada's economic action plan get through. I encourage him to push his friends in the other place to see it goes through as quickly as possible so this money can reach Canadians and help improve our economy.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when people talk about the money that is not there for research, it is not only Liberals or scientists. It includes people like David Emerson who was a member of that government. He has said that now is the time when we really have to keep pushing resources into research and our educational institutions, bemoaning the fact that it is not being done.

I know and respect my colleague who is a decent person. What does he think about the Minister of State for Science and Technology telling the university teachers to “shut up” and that they had “burned their bridges” because they disagreed with him? Is that the way we should be conducting ourselves as parliamentarians?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had so much commendation about this economic action plan from people in the education sector. I will quote President Jack Lightstone, Brock University, “The $5.1 billion investment in science and technology in Budget 2009 will help to further innovation and competitiveness, not just at Brock University but also at institutions across the country. This investment will help attract and retain the best researchers in the world”.

There has been so much support from the educational sector. I know those people want to see Canada's economic action plan put in place so this money can begin to flow.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is a beautiful place. As well as being one of the most beautiful places, I think it is probably the cultural capital of Canada, being home to both Sidney Crosby and the Trailer Park Boys.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by the distinguished member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

The member for Westmount--Ville-Marie is one of the most distinguished new parliamentarians. In fact, he is a hero to many Canadians, as the first Canadian in space, and his long history in the navy and the scientific community. I commend him for putting this motion forward.

In fact, even my beautiful 12-year-old daughter, Emma, was asked to do a science project the other day and she is going to do the science project on the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. I want to thank him not only for putting this motion forward but for actually getting my daughter interested in politics just a little tiny bit.

Since I was elected back in 2004 first on the government side and now in opposition, post-secondary education and research have been very close to my heart.

I had the opportunity early on to be the chair of the Liberal caucus committee on post-secondary education. I have worked with members like the member for Halifax West and senators like Senator Wilfred Moore, Senator Terry Mercer and many others.

My concern is that the Conservative government is dramatically failing the research community. It is a concern I had when the Conservatives were elected as government and it is a concern that continues to this day. I was worried that they would roll back the clock on research, or even worse, start to pick and choose the type of research they would support, which is a very dangerous thing to do. It will not come as a surprise to many that is exactly what they did. On both counts I think they have lowered the bar and we find ourselves in the situation where research and innovation in Canada is threatened, notwithstanding how the Conservatives stand up in this place and other places and bluster about all the money they put into it, but we have heard that before in other areas. I think of areas such as literacy where they talk about the great investments they have made, but when we go across this country it is hard to find them on the ground.

The Conservative government's decision to cut support for research punishes the tremendous efforts of researchers across the country, many of whom came back to Canada or came to Canada in the first place because of the huge investments made, some $12 billion in investments, by the previous Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. These investments were transformative and they were the right thing to do.

In the mid-1990s this country was just coming out of the pounding it took at the hands of the Conservative Mulroney government. The funding agencies were in an awful lot of trouble.

I remember being very involved. In fact, I was the president of the Heart and Stroke Foundation in Nova Scotia. The funding that we were getting from the Medical Research Council was diminishing almost to nothing. Researchers who were doing important work were coming to us and we could only fund a minute percentage of that research because the MRC was no longer funding that important research.

It was in the mid-1990s after cleaning up the deficit and debt of the previous government that we saw the creation of this incredible research community in Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Genome Canada, the creation of thousands of research chairs and the incredible increase in funding for the granting councils.

CIHR had an immediate impact. I could see it. I am not a scientist, nor am I a medical person, but I could see the impact of CIHR and the leveraging of money that CIHR created under the distinguished and effective leadership of Alan Bernstein.

These significant investments led cutting-edge research, including the development of the BlackBerry, which some members of the House use on occasion.

I recall a wonderful evening last October after the election. I was invited to a dinner in Toronto by Paul Genest, a great Canadian, and his association, the Council of Ontario Universities. They were honouring former prime minister Jean Chrétien for the work that he did on innovation, research and education.

People like Jeffrey Simpson have written about the investments that were made in research in this country at the end of the last century and early in this century by the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, as well as John Manley, with the support of Kevin Lynch and other bureaucrats who saw the need for Canada to reinvest in its research community. Those investments in many ways turned Canada around. We did in fact reverse the brain drain. Every community in this country that has a university, community college or polytechnical institute can point to researchers, to work that is being done in their communities because of those investments.

In my own area of Atlantic Canada, it was accompanied by an investment through ACOA in the Atlantic innovation fund. The federal government could see that in an area like Atlantic Canada it was very difficult to get venture capital or find funding partners for the commercialization of research. It created the Atlantic innovation fund, which put some $300 million into research and innovation that otherwise could not have happened in Atlantic Canada.

That is the kind of leadership Paul Genest recognized last October when he invited Mr. Chrétien to speak to that group. Mr. Chrétien, in his wonderful way, said it was not done because it was popular, as there probably are not that many votes in research and innovation, but it is the right thing to do and if we talk about productivity, it is the best thing to do.

During the Republican years of George Bush, funding for research and innovation was generally tossed aside. Funding was not only cut but it was banned for important research into stem cells, for example, although just today President Obama reversed that policy. He did so because he knows that this type of research will save lives and give hope to American citizens.

While Republicans were cutting funding for research and innovation beginning in 2000, the Liberal government of the day was investing heavily, to the tune of some $12 billion between 1998 and 2005. The good news is that we reversed the brain drain. The problem, as we all now know, is we have the spectacle of the Conservative government cutting funding for research and innovation and cutting funding to the granting councils. The Conservatives are putting at risk the significant gains Canada has made over the last decade.

Let us compare this to the Americans. The new president at his inauguration sent the clear message that research and innovation are to be a cornerstone of his administration. He has allocated billions of dollars, enormous funds into research and innovation. It is a little embarrassing how out of touch, how shortsighted and narrow-minded the government in Ottawa is, and the sooner that the government is defeated at the right opportunity, the better.

It is no secret that there are elements within the Conservative government that are probably, to be generous, a little suspicious of science, and I would say, particularly suspicious of social scientists. Why? The Conservatives are intent on turning back the clock on research and academic study. Why? Because the type of scholarly work done by our social scientists, those involved in the humanities, tend to contradict the views of the Conservative government. I wonder if the cutbacks to those researchers and their work is the result of the conclusion that the government knows it is wrong on issues like child care, justice and women's issues, to name a few.

Every month or so I have the honour of sponsoring a breakfast for the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences which works with SSHRC, the granting council. I am very pleased that for the last number of breakfasts there have been representatives from all parties. At the breakfast a social scientist talks to us about his findings. It is a provocative session, followed by questions and answers. We have talked about everything from marriage to money, anything people could think of.

The topic this week is “Political Minefields: Religion in post-secular society”. Dr. Paul Bramadat, who is the director of the Centre for Studies in Religion and Society at the University of Victoria, will lead us in that discussion. Mr. Speaker, I invite you personally to come to that breakfast. I will buy you breakfast. It is free anyway, but please come. I would be honoured to buy you and any other member of the House breakfast.

I have a concern that the Conservatives view facts as a nuisance. I think they put their ideology above independent researchers and above conclusions that are based on fact. They put politics before people.

Just last week we heard that the Minister of State for Science and Technology exploded and lost control in a meeting with the Canadian Association of University Teachers. What triggered that reaction? What would cause the minister and a staff member to tell those visitors that they should shut up? Was it because the university reps had the temerity to tell the Conservative minister that cuts to the granting councils were wrong-headed, that the squeezing out of the independent science adviser, Dr. Arthur Carty, was a cause for concern? The government has got it wrong again.

It is my view that the Conservatives love power but hate government. They would like to support research that they can control. That is not how things should be done.

This past weekend there was an article in the Ottawa Citizen which talked about science, and there have been a number of articles recently. Members of the government will say, “The member does not know what he is talking about. We put $5.2 billion into this stuff”. There are an awful lot of smart people who are looking at that and saying that is hogwash.

In fact, the day after the budget came down, I received a letter from somebody who is very involved in science and research at Dalhousie University. The note, which he sent to the department, stated:

Hi everyone:

With the budget announcement on Tuesday, I have had the chance to digest a bit more information about the impact of the proposal on research. In brief -- it's not good!

The government's science and technology strategy, S & T, remains the philosophical underpinning of the gouvernment's “thinking”.

As you see form the table below, from the budget document, the “streamlining” to improve “effectiveness” is not-so-subtle “code” for cuts to tri-council funding to achieve new programs -- this is the really, really bad news. What all this double-speak means is that over $87M will be cut from granting councils by the 2011-12 fiscal year. The government is cloaking budget cuts in the language of new programs to support post-secondary education.

What we see again is what the government is so good at, which is pitting one group against another group. The Conservatives do it with regions. They do it with income groups. The tax cuts have helped one group at the expense of another. Everything is boutiqued; everything is for one person over somebody else. That is not how it should be.

Research and innovation is too important to play around with. Social sciences and humanities research is particularly important. Research can give us amazing perspectives. A scientist can look through a microscope and examine a cell in a heart. A social scientist can study a group of people and peer into the soul of a nation. What they are finding when they peer into the soul of our nation is that the people of Canada are governed by a government that is not up to the task. That is the problem in research, in innovation, in technology, and that has to change very soon.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 10 at 3 p.m. at the end of government orders.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Does the member have unanimous consent to see the clock as being at 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to elaborate further on a question I posed in the House on Monday, February 2, regarding the status of the Canada health transfer and the cutbacks in that area to a number of provinces.

We all know that the Canada health transfer is the glue that keeps our national health care system together. It binds us together in terms of ensuring that every province has the money that is required to ensure that non-profit, public administration of health care in this country continues.

For many years it has been a political football. Under the Liberals back in 1995, the famous Paul Martin budget took a huge bite out of health transfers. In fact, in one fell swoop we lost $6 billion for health, education and other social programs, representing the biggest bite out of our health and social programs in this country in the history of medicare, and we are still recovering from that phase.

In 2004 the provinces finally convinced the federal Liberal government of the time to put back some of the money, and we ended up with the 2004 accord, which announced $41 billion over 10 years following 2004. That is the formula in place today.

It came as a big surprise to us when the budget was announced on January 27. Lo and behold, the money the provinces expected for the Canada health transfer fell short, to the tune of $106 million for British Columbia, $83 million for Quebec, $78 million for Newfoundland and Labrador, $38 million for Alberta and $13 million in my own province of Manitoba.

That amount of money creates huge problems for a health care system that is struggling to keep up with demands and needs. As I said back then, it creates more lineups for surgery, more hallway medicine and more doctor and nurse shortages.

The minister at the time simply said there was nothing to fear, that we should not worry, that the budget was fine, that no promises were being broken, that the government was not cutting back and that in fact it was putting all this money into health transfers, so we should just sit down and be quiet.

That was not the case. That is not what actually happened. The minister and the government played games with the commitment made to the provinces over equalization and health transfers. The Conservatives took from one pot and put into another. They advanced their formula to move toward a per capita funding system, taking money out of provinces like Manitoba.

It was not until a huge uproar occurred and we raised the question in the House that finally the government acknowledged that it had made a mistake. Shortly after the budget, those affected provinces received communication that the money would be restored, that the money they had assumed would be there for health care would be put back and that this would exist for two years.

That is great. I am glad the government listened. I am glad we made a difference, but the fact of the matter is that it has only delayed the problem for another two years, and the government is bent on putting in place a new formula that actually still shortchanges the provinces and breaks an agreement made between the present Prime Minister and the provinces for a reasonable, systematic formula and process for equalization and Canada health transfers.

The provinces are outraged that the Conservatives have broken their word and that they are arbitrarily changing matters. They would like some answers from the government so that they can be sure that they can plan for the future in an area as fundamental as health care.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first let us be clear that our Conservative government is protecting transfer support during these challenging economic times.

We all recall that the old Liberal government shamelessly slashed transfer payments to provinces and territories to balance their books, forcing hospitals and universities to suffer. Our Conservative government will never do that. We will ensure provinces and territories have the long-term growing support required to provide the vital health care, educational and other transfers for the social services families need.

Despite what the member suggests, there have been no cuts to Canada's health transfer. In fact, federal support for health care is at an all-time time. Indeed, in 2009-10 the Canada health transfer will rise by $1.4 billion, reaching $24 billion. What is more, that support will continue to grow at 6% annually, reaching over $30 billion in 2013-14. We are not making any cuts to this historic level of that funding, nor will we change the legislated growth path of the health transfer.

However, we are responding to a shift in the economic circumstances of some provinces, most notably in Ontario, a shift that has resulted in unfair treatment of health transfers. In budget 2009, we set out the principles that will ensure fundamental fairness of health transfers, helping facilitate the move to equal per capita cash in 2014-15.

We recognize the need for provinces to have time to adjust to this new allocation formula. We also acknowledge the provinces' desire for more consultation on how to best move forward to meet health care needs for all Canadians while maintaining fairness in the transfer program.

That is why we decided on a transitional approach to implementing the equal per capita principle. Bill C-10, the budget implementation act, will ensure fair treatment for Ontario with respect to health transfers. Without this change, Ontario would not receive its fair share of health transfers. For 2009-10 and 2010-11, fairness for Ontario will be achieved through a separate payment. This will have no impact on Canada health transfer cash for any other province.

Again, no province will see a decline in their health transfers over 2008-09 levels as a result of this change. In fact, Manitoba will receive $903 million from the Canada health transfer in 2009-10, $43 million more in 2008-09. Rest assured that provinces like Manitoba can continue to count on long-term growing support from our Conservative government during these challenging economic times.

If the member for Winnipeg North will not take my word for it, she should contact her NDP provincial cousin, the NDP finance minister for Manitoba, Greg Selinger. He said, “The federal budget is good for the province and will stimulate the slowing economy. The budget had something in it for everyone, from consumers to businesses”.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact it is as a result of discussions with the Minister of Finance in Manitoba that I brought this issue to the House. A resolution was seen as a result of that dialogue.

I am glad to see that the federal government did respond and that it corrected an error it had made. Now we would like to see the government go a little bit further and actually respect the O'Brien panel, which dealt with the whole question of equalization and put in place a formula that all provinces supported, a formula based on a rational, thoughtful process. It was that process that was arbitrarily changed in this budget by the present Prime Minister and finance minister. What is still at stake is a return to cooperation at the federal-provincial level.

Finally, given that this is a stimulus budget, we would ask the federal government to open up the money that is allocated for infrastructure to include health facilities and wellness centres.