Debates of March 9th, 2009

Opposition Motion -- Science, Research and Innovation

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burlington.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion brought forward by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for it addresses an issue that is of particular importance during a time when Canadians are increasingly feeling the pressures of a global economic downturn.

At the outset I would like to stress that this government's commitment to supporting science and technology is unwavering. We recognize that investment in science and technology, or S and T, holds the key to fostering the innovation, talent and ideas that enable modern environments to improve their competitiveness and productivity. We also recognize that this imperative is only further amplified when we consider that we are currently in the midst of the most synchronized recession of the post-war period. That is why budget 2009 makes S and T investments a central component of its efforts to help Canadians' economic prosperity.

Indeed, the more than $5 billion in new S and T spending announced in budget 2009 represents one of the largest ever federal budget allocations in this area. This major historic investment builds significantly on this government's already substantial commitment to S and T. In 2007-08, federal spending on S and T surpassed $10 billion, including $2.7 billion in spending on higher education research and development.

As a proportion of gross domestic product, that level of support for higher education R and D places Canada in a leadership position among G7 nations, a position that this government is committed to maintaining. It is our ongoing commitment to higher education R and D that I would like to focus on today.

In recent years, the Government of Canada has substantially increased funding for Canada's federal granting councils, the most direct way that we support academic research. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada received successive increases of $40 million a year, $85 million a year and $80 million a year in the budgets of 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. These increases are cumulative, ongoing and permanent.

I would like to take a moment to speak a little more about the important work of the granting councils. These agencies are arm's length organizations created by acts of Parliament. Their role is to support our nation's best research and brightest minds. Over the past couple of years, we have introduced a suite of multi-year flagship programs that are helping them do just that.

Budget 2007 saw the introduction of new programs focusing on fostering research partnerships involving businesses, academics and the public sector, partnerships that are critically important for translating Canadian efforts into world-class success and innovation.

These programs include, for instance, the business-led Networks of Centres of Excellence program. This initiative funds world-class, business-led, national networks that perform research in support of private sector innovation to deliver economic, health, social and environmental benefits to Canadians.

Another key initiative flowing from budget 2007 is the Centres of Excellence in Commercialization and Research program. This initiative brings together people, services and infrastructure to maximize the benefits of the government's investments in skills and research, and to encourage greater private sector involvement in science and technology.

As for budget 2008, it saw the introduction of programs emphasizing international research excellence. These include two major programs to position Canada as a magnet for the world's top students and researchers, and to promote the development and application of leading edge knowledge.

One is the Vanier Canada graduate scholarship program that will award 500 international and Canadian doctoral students with scholarships valued at $50,000 per annum for up to three years. These awards are internationally competitive, similar in value and prestige to the Fulbright scholarships in the U.S. and the Rhodes scholarships in the U.K.

The other is the Canada Excellence Research Chairs program to help Canadian universities compete for world-class researchers working in areas that will contribute to the competitiveness of our industries and help generate economic and social benefits for Canadians.

Our government's contribution to higher education R and D does not end with the granting councils. The previous three budgets have also included large research investments in other organizations. For instance, there is $590 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation for the modernization of research infrastructure at Canadian universities, colleges and other not-for-profit research institutions. There is $240 million for Genome Canada for large genomic research projects. There is $120 million for CANARIE to improve Canada's research broadband system. These entities are still spending the multi-year funding we provided to them in previous budgets. Now that I have discussed the past, let me look toward the future.

Budget 2009 builds even further on our ongoing support for higher education R and D. It includes a massive university and college infrastructure program that will provide up to $2 billion to support deferred maintenance and repair projects at post-secondary institutions. These projects will not only put Canadians to work and provide stimulus to communities throughout the country, they will also enhance the research capacity of post-secondary institutions, enabling them to attract talent and provide a better educational experience for the highly skilled workers of tomorrow.

To compliment this major investment in university and college infrastructure, budget 2009 also provides $750 million for leading-edge research infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation, or CFI. What is more, budget 2009 recognizes the important need to create opportunities for students and recent graduates to deepen and apply their skills, this at a time when they are facing a weakening labour market and businesses are investing less in research and development.

To this end, budget 2009 provides $87.5 million over the next three years to temporarily expand the Canada graduate scholarships program. This investment will provide an additional 500 doctoral scholarships and an additional 2,000 master's scholarships to support Canada's top students in pursuing advanced research training. Moreover, budget 2009 allocates an additional $3.5 million over two years to offer 600 more graduate internships through the industrial research and development internship program launched in budget 2007. This investment will help students gain hands-on research experience and firms will in turn benefit from an infusion of new knowledge and skills.

I trust that my remarks today have helped to illustrate our government's ongoing commitment to science and technology and to higher education research and development in particular. We know that investments in this area are essential to helping Canadians weather the current economic storm and creating a national competitive advantage in today's knowledge-based global economy.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. He listed a number of areas in which the government has invested in research, but he was actually quoting the moneys that were put into infrastructure for research. He is not talking about the moneys that our scientists need to actually do the research. That is the problem and that is the challenge we have, because the absence of investment in our scientists will cause them to leave.

In the United States, President Obama is investing $10 billion into basic research and science, and other money on top of that. India, China, Brazil and other nations are investing in these areas now. The failure to do this will result in our scientists leaving Canada.

The other big hole in his argument is the fact that he is quoting moneys that were already allocated for the next two to three years. The government did not invest new money for groups like Genome Canada and others to enable them to plan in the future for the three, five, seven and ten year cycles that are needed for basic research.

Would the member not acknowledge that failure and commit to actually change the government's flawed research and development proposals?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have made significant new investments in budget 2009. I will give a rundown of a few: the knowledge infrastructure program, $2 billion; clean energy technologies, $1 billion over five years; Canada Foundation for Innovation, $750 million; Canada Health Infoway, $500 million; modernization of federal labs, $250 million; and the list goes on. It is a total of $5.1 billion.

The member mentioned what President Obama is doing in the United States. I would point out that the moneys being spent there still do not match proportionally the money we are spending in Canada. This government has made significant investments in these areas.

We could talk about Genome Canada. In 2007 we invested $100 million over five years and $40 million over five years in budget 2008. This money is ongoing. The board of Genome Canada has said publicly that it is happy with the support. We look forward to continue working with it as a funding partner.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just does not get it. Research is our future and the Government of Canada should be putting some money into it. As my colleague said, it is not enough to put money into buildings and infrastructure. That is part of it, but the dollars have to go into the knowledge capacity to do research into the future for the long term.

I am the agriculture critic, and I have to tell the member opposite that the government is failing in agriculture research as well. In this area we are benefiting today from the research that was actually done in the 1970s and the 1980s. That is how long some research takes.

Does the government just not understand that if we are going to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, we need to have a long-term commitment? Researchers are not necessarily attracted by salaries. They have to be paid salaries equivalent to other areas, but they will follow the dollars in terms of knowledge discovery so they can be a part of something happening.

The Conservative government is absolutely failing in this regard and the member should admit it.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the government not delivering in the field of R and D. Since 2006 this government has put $2.4 billion into R and D. In the economic action plan of 2009 we are going to add another $5.1 billion. As to our government's funding for scholarships, at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, there is an increase of 50%. In the past three budgets this government has increased annual funding for Canada's three granting councils by a total of $2.5 million per year, providing more opportunities for scientists and researchers across the country to do more research.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for sharing his time with me.

It is my pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

Investments in science and technology are a central component of this government's ongoing efforts to address Canada's social and economic challenges. In my mind the facts are clear: countries that invest aggressively in innovation have high standards of living and a high quality of life. This is why on May 17, 2007 the Prime Minister released the federal science and technology strategy entitled, “Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage”.

This strategy is a bold and forward-looking plan to build a national competitive advantage based on science and technology. Fundamentally, the science and technology strategy represents a new approach to the government's science policy. It places the emphasis on practical applications and commercial outcomes from public investments in research, through research aligned with the innovation needs of businesses.

The science and technology strategy seeks to encourage firms to be innovators, to keep Canadians at the forefront of research and discovery, and to help Canadians acquire the skills they need to participate in the knowledge-based economy. The government's sustained commitment to science and technology is reflected in the succession of recent federal budgets that have made major ongoing multi-year investments in this particular area.

Measures introduced in the federal budgets in 2006, 2007 and 2008 will have resulted in more than $2.2 billion in new science and technology spending by 2011. Budget 2009 further builds on this commitment through one of the single largest federal budget investments in science and technology to date. The economic action plan laid out in the budget includes $5.1 billion in new science and technology spending in the areas of infrastructure, research, people and commercialization.

This new spending is aligned with Canada's science and technology strategy and has been targeted to address challenges arising from the deepening global economic downturn. It can be no surprise to anyone in this House that the Government of Canada is providing substantial ongoing support for science and technology. The Government of Canada spends over $10 billion annually on all forms of science and technology in Canada and provides a further $3.7 billion per year in support to the private sector through the science, research and experimental development tax credit.

The global economy is in the most serious recession since the post-war period, and the ongoing financial market crisis is worse since the 1930s. As such, the budget announced a range of stimulus infrastructure investments supporting Canada's research capacity. The $2 billion national university and college infrastructure program will be leveraged with matching funds from other partners. This initiative is complemented by a further $750 million of investment in the Canada Foundation for Innovation, CFI, to support high-end research equipment, labs and facilities.

At a time of economic uncertainty, the university and college infrastructure program will create and maintain jobs for engineers, architects, tradespeople and technicians. Just as important, by renovating our colleges and universities we will strengthen Canada's capacity to innovate and to translate research into meaningful benefits for Canadians. It will also help achieve the objectives of the science and technology strategy by enabling these institutions to develop the highly skilled workers Canada needs to succeed in the future.

A particular priority of the government's science and technology programming is higher education, at the university and college level and particularly in R and D. As a country Canada spends more on this form of research as a proportion of GDP than any other country in the G7. Canada spends the second-most after Sweden among the 30 countries that make up the OECD. I might add that the United States ranks 17th among the OECD countries in terms of its support for higher education R and D.

To ensure that university researchers and their students across the country have funding for their initiatives, the government has increased funding for the three federal granting councils for their core programming.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, or NSERC, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research have received permanent increases in their budgets, totalling $40 million per year in budget 2006, $85 million per year in budget 2007 and $80 million per year in budget 2008.

To ensure continued support for the overhead costs of this research, these same budgets have also provided annual increases of $40 million, $15 million and another $15 million, respectively, in indirect costs for research programs. All these increases represent ongoing permanent increases to their core funding.

To build on our record of excellence in higher education and to build on our existing Canadian strengths, budget 2009 provides $50 million to the Institute for Quantum Computing, in Waterloo, Ontario to build a new world-class research facility and $110 million to the Canadian Space Agency to provide for the development of advanced robotics and other space technologies.

Budget 2009 also recognizes that the S and T strategy needs to be at the core of our response to the major challenges facing Canadians. For instance, to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the government is investing $1 billion over five years to support clean energy technologies, including $150 million over five years for research and $850 million over five years for the development and demonstration of promising technologies, including large scale carbon capture and storage projects.

In support of northern research, budget 2009 provides $87 million over the next years to maintain or upgrade our key Arctic research facilities.

Budget 2009 also provides $170 million over two years to secure a more sustainable and competitive forest sector. This funding will be used by companies to develop new products and processes and to take action on new opportunities in the global marketplace.

Budget 2009 supports private sector research commercialization through enhanced support of IRAP, or the industrial research assistance program. This includes $170 million in funding over two years to double the amount of funding available to help small and medium-sized companies bring their technology projects to market. An additional $30 million will help companies hire over 1,000 new skilled post-secondary graduates to support their R and D activities.

Budget 2009 provides $87.5 million over three years to temporarily expand the Canadian graduates scholarships program to support an additional 1,000 students undertaking masters degrees in each of the next two years. It also provides funding for an additional 500 doctoral students over the next number of years. This initiative will allow students facing a weak job market to deepen their research skills.

The government's focus on large scale revitalization of national research infrastructure is occurring within the context of an already well-funded research system, resulting from a succession of recent federal budgets, has made major ongoing multi-year investments in S and T.

As I mentioned earlier, the budget builds upon the strengths of previous budgets where our government has provided funding for specific initiatives, such as past investments in university research equipment through the Canada Foundation for Innovation, advanced genomics research through Genome Canada, improving the research for broadband systems across the country, supporting advanced physics research through the Perimeter Institute, a range of international research networks through the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, and support for our international health research awards through the Gairdner Foundation.

Finally, I want to highlight one thing from my area. There is a new automotive innovative fund of $250 million that was established in budget 2008, of which I am very proud, to increase the research intensity of this important Canadian industrial sector. As we know, the automotive sector is going through some difficulties.

All these entities are still spending the multi-year funding provided in these budgets that have been awarded.

To conclude, we have been spending on the S and T strategy. We y have a strategy that this government put in place a couple of years ago under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Prime Minister Harper. We understand the need and the desire for Canada to be a leader in infrastructure that will provide for good quality research in our country so we can develop a—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I must remind the hon. member for Burlington not to use proper names in the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the hon. member's comments with regard to the OECD and Canada's ranking of second in investments in higher education. I also note, in terms of the OECD on Canada's rank as a percentage of R and D spending of the GDP, that Canada ranks behind Sweden, Finland, Japan, Korea, the United States, Germany, Austria, Denmark, France and Australia. Canada has a 1.94% investment to Sweden's 3.74%.

Does the member recognize that more investment is required for Canada to be internationally competitive?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of sitting in the industry committee with the hon. member. We cannot be number one in everything, but we are working on it. That is why we have a strategy. That is why we are spending more money. We are spending $5.1 billion on new investments in budget 2009.

We have an action plan to make a difference. We have an action plan for Canada to bring us higher up as a competitor against other OECD countries. We are number two behind Sweden in terms of GDP. We have some room to grow, and we are growing. That is why we are committed to this strategy for science and technology. That is why we are spending this money. I believe that is why the Liberal Party is supporting the budget.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2008, the Prime Minister and the former minister of cake unveiled a science and technology policy that was disappointing, to say the least.

The government is stating new priorities, but not announcing any measures. Its priorities address Canada's needs more than Quebec's. Ottawa wants to play a more immediate role in our universities by directing research conducted by graduate students, but the document does not respond to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology report on the manufacturing industry, which suggested substantially increasing federal funding for research and development and making tax credits for R and D refundable.

Can the member tell me whether the government should take this committee report into consideration and act on its recommendations? I would also mention that the committee report was unanimous.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we have allocated money that can be used for research in such sectors as forestry.

At the beginning of the member's question, there was a comment about Quebec. I point this out for hon. member across. If he checks the website on Canada research chairs under Quebec, the total spent is $27.3 million. We are funding research chairs at École Polytechnique Montréal, McGill University, Université de Montréal, Université de Sherbrooke, Université du Québec and a number of institutes, including the Institut national.

We are spending millions and millions of dollars. We believe that research in science and technology is not just for one area of the country, but for all areas. That is why we are investing right across the country.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the investments we are making in science and technology in this budget, in some cases they are investments that perhaps are not lining us up with what is going to happen in North America. The American administration is going to invest billions and billions in renewable energy. We are going to miss out on that with the kind of work done in this budget.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That is absolutely incorrect, Mr. Speaker. We have a $1 billion program in our action plan for research and development of new technologies, green technologies, that will assist our country in being a leader in this area.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the Budget; the hon. member for Malpeque, Food Safety; the hon. member for Mississauga South, Access to Information.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Just before death, Sir Isaac Newton described how humbled he was to have glimpsed a fraction of the coming research revolution. He reflected, “I seem to have been...like a boy...whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”.

Today that truth is better explored. Gravitational wobbles detect new planets. Probes land on Mars and show us that it once teamed with organisms. Hard physics and complex optics make objects invisible. Ordinary skin cells behave like stem cells, with the possibility of new treatments and cures for diseases as deadly as ALS.

Only through research can Canadians carry on longer and more productively, even with a cancer diagnosis, and ensure our food and water supply is safe for consumption.

Research improves the lives of Canadians and our economy through exciting discoveries in aerospace to astronomy and biotechnology to nanotechnology.

Sir Joseph Rotblat, 1995 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, recommended that researchers formally commit to serving society. Scientists should work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. Scientists should consider the ethical implications of research before they take any action.

President Obama understands that research is fundamental to meeting America's needs. During his inaugural speech he promised:

We'll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories

What is even more exciting is that President Obama is backing his words with action and money. He appointed top scientists to key positions, including Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary and Harvard physicist John Holdren as head of the White House Office of Science and Technology. Moreover, the Obama administration is adding $10 billion to finance basic research in the United States. In stark contrast, the three agencies that fund basic research in Canada must cut spending by $148 million over the next three years.

It is my fervent hope that President Obama's research appreciation and optimism will spread to Canada, as last year an editorial in Nature criticized our government for closing the office of the national science adviser, scepticism about the science of climate change and silencing federal researchers.

It is time to realize that when it comes to finding solutions to our common problems, research matters. For example, 10 year cancer survival rates have doubled over the last three decades because of painstaking scientific research. In Canada the benefits of university research and development are $15 billion, or about 2% of Canada's annual GDP, and 150,000 to 200,000 jobs.

Research matters more than ever before because the challenges we face are greater, climate change, emerging diseases, shrinking biodiversity, the potential benefits are larger and because we are at a turning point in history. Canadians will make an historic transition from the age of discovery to the age of mastery. Biotechnology and genetics, for example, will allow for DNA screening and gene therapy and a future of unprecedented health and longevity.

The Conservative government is unfortunately attempting to direct research toward subjects its perceives as priorities. The federal budget identifies temporary increases in graduate scholarship funding, but SSHRC scholarships will be focused on business-related degrees. This is a flawed strategy, as no one can predict with any certainty what the most successful innovations in technologies will be in the future.

As Canada's best-known scientist and Nobel laureate, John Polanyi, wrote almost a decade ago:

We have struggled for a long time to come to terms with the fact that our universities serve the public interest best when free of government interference in academic affairs.

During an economic downturn, it might be tempting to direct funding to projects that appear likely to provide early returns, but support for wide-ranging untargeted research has time and again proven to be the better investment. Countries and companies that maintain and increase their investments in research and development during difficult times emerge stronger and more competitive when the recovery begins.

Criticism of this government's budget has come from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the French Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers, representing more than 65,000 academics and general staff across Canada, wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister. Researchers are worried that attempts are being made to specify what scientific studies are undertaken and funded, or rather, underfunded.

Targeting research funding is not a new issue for the Conservatives. The 2008 federal budget pre-set that increased funding for NSERC could only be spent on research in the automotive, fishing, forestry and manufacturing sectors. SSHRC was limited to spending new funding in two areas: environmental impacts on Canadians, and economic development needs in northern communities.

The 2009 federal budget provided no new money for Canada's granting councils that fund university research. NSERC had already lost more than 100 jobs in 2007, and now has to cut $27.6 million over three years. The budget also failed to provide funding for Genome Canada, the principal funder of large-scale research projects in areas such as agriculture and cancer.

James Turk, CAUT's executive director, warns that “lack of funding and increasing government micro-management means we could lose a lot of our top researchers”.

James Drummond, chief scientist at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory in Eureka, describes his situation: He will be able to improve the lab through new infrastructure funding but will not be able to afford to operate it, as the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences received no new money in the budget. Without new funding, the foundation will shut down by March 2010, along with 24 research networks studying climate change.

As a scientist and a former professor, I know urgent action is needed to help safeguard research, keep talent in Canada, and build for a better economy, environment and society. The government must increase funding for Canada's three granting councils and should match, on a proportional basis, the support offered in the United States. The government should ensure that programs and scholarships funded by the granting agencies are not restricted to specific fields and are judged only on the basis of merit by the research community.

If we look at the balance of evidence, the fundamental challenge is that the government does not understand how science works. While it is prepared to invest in infrastructure, it is not ready to invest in people and research.

The challenge to Parliament is to seek to understand science and invest in our children's future. Research is the only way that we can address our most pressing challenges: climate change, disease, economic strife, hunger and poverty. Perhaps one day we will have answers to our planet's and humanity's greatest mysteries.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to ask the member which one of these investments she would not agree are good investments for science and research: the knowledge infrastructure program, $2 billion; the clean energy technologies, $1 billion over five years; the Canada Foundation for Innovation; the Canada Health Infoway, $500 million; modernizing the federal laboratories; the industrial research assistance program; the Canadian Space Agency; the Canada graduate scholarships; the industrial research and development internships; the Arctic research; the transformative technologies program, FPInnovations; or the Institute for Quantum Computing. That is $5.1 billion.

I would like to ask the member if she understands how important those are for our economy, as she said, and to have new technologies for a clean environment. They are all contributors to some of the shortcomings that she has spoken about in her speech.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member brought up the economy.

Over the last month our focus has been a stimulus package for the economy. Universities contribute $15 billion per year, 2% of GDP.

The question I have, then, is why would we cut back on funding to this fundamental research, $148 million cut back to our three granting agencies, when the U.S. is investing $10 billion? This will surely hurt Canada's competitiveness.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. It was outstanding.

Apropos to the minister's comments, I have a question for my colleague.

Members from the government have correctly listed a number of investments the government is putting forward, but those investments are actually investments in scientific infrastructure. They are not investments in the people who actually do the research. This is the fatal flaw in the government's plan.

Would the member not give the government a very constructive piece of advice: Please invest in the scientists who do the research in our country, for the absence of investing in our scientists will result in them leaving the country for green pastures?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the government has invested in infrastructure and that is appreciated. However, research cannot be undertaken if there are no operating funds, and there are no funds to people and the research. By cutting $148 million from the three granting councils hurts our competitiveness when the U.S. is giving $10 billion.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment.

I listened very carefully to both sides. At the time we took office in 1993, we were all concerned about having this brain drain. Once the Liberals took over in 1993 there was a tremendous effort to take care of the books, and the biggest investments, to put it on the record, were to invest in human resources.

As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, it is good to have the mortar and the bricks, but the human resources are just as important.

What happened statistically? All of a sudden, because of the right investments, we were having a brain gain.

I am sad about what I am sensing from the comments, that the brain drain is once again beginning, costing us quality jobs, quality people, and a quality lifestyle for Canadians.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the comments of my hon. colleague. Absolutely, a decade ago we had scientists leaving Canada. They started coming back.

In the last month we have already lost a number of key scientists, for example, in climate change.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect to the previous questioner, I am looking at statistics that show that the Liberals cut funding for NSERC and SSHRC by $179 million over three years in the mid-1990s and cut $25 billion in funding to the provinces. So I just do not see it lying in their mouths to stand up for research in this country.

I had an email from one of my constituents, Rosemary Cornell, who is a professor in the Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry. In short, she says that scientists would rather have an increase in operating funds to NSERC and CIHR than to CFI.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there to allow a very brief response before we move on. The hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are debating the current time and the need for research funding.

I would just like to point out that the United States has a long-range plan, and it never lets funding drop for the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. We need to do the same here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on the requirements for funding in science and technology. I know the biotech industry well. I have spent the last eight years of my life involved in the industry. It is an industry that offers both great challenges and great opportunities.

The Canadian biotech industry, the bio-based economy, is valued at about $78.3 billion. It employs 52,000 people. The GDP for bio-based companies is 6.4% of the economy, larger than both the automotive sector and the aerospace sector.

It positions Canada as a knowledge-based economy with the jobs of the future. However, today there are concerns in this growing industry. The change in investment strategy by the Conservative government has delayed projects and clinical trials work for many works, such as work being done on multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, cancers, and diabetes to name but a few.

Increased investment, a new infusion of moneys, is needed to secure Canada's position as a world leader in science and technology. It is vital that Canada look to the future and assure the country has the necessary science and technology infrastructure to retain and attract world-class scientists.

Why is this so important? Investments in science and technology may seem like vague concepts without much impact on our day-to-day lives, but allow me to tell the story of a dear friend, a kind and smart colleague, a man who loved life and his family.

Rod Benson met every day with a smile. He worked hard, loved golf, was thrilled when he married, and overjoyed when his daughter was born. He was a person we would all like to call a friend. On a summer's day, at the age of 32, Rod played a game of golf surrounded by his friends and family. With no notice, no warning, his heart stopped. His first symptom of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy was death. That was about seven years ago. Today, because of investments by the people of Canada in science and technology, his life would have been saved.

Research pioneered at Memorial University, located in Newfoundland and Labrador, by Dr. Terry-Lynn Young with Dr. Pat Parfrey and Dr. Sean Connors led to a discovery of a mutation in a novel gene. Newfoundland and Labrador has a founder population that makes it a powerhouse for genetic research. It is a globally recognized resource and offers great opportunity.

This discovery went from the laboratory bench to the bedside when my former company, Newfound Genomics, developed a diagnostic tool that would determine with relative ease and little expense who carried the gene.

I recently read the publication Research that Makes a Difference, published by Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, that told the story of Vicki Connolly. When Ms. Connolly was tested last year and found not to have the gene, she cried for days. Not all the members of her family were so fortunate. Her brother died at age 42, her son at age 38, and her sister died young. Her sister had eight children, five of whom have the gene, as well as three of her grandchildren.

Because of groundbreaking science and research, defibrillators have now been implanted in those with the gene and lives have been spared. That is the impact of investments in science and technology. This was all made possible through investments in Genome Canada, the Atlantic Innovation Fund, and the granting councils, who make groundbreaking globally impacting research able to be done in this country: lives saved, health care costs lowered, highly skilled and internationally recognized researchers working in our communities, companies like Newfound Genomics working towards discoveries that could lead to medical breakthroughs, prospering and employing people, not abstract concepts but tangible results.

Governments around the globe are making decisions to invest in science and technology, decisions that give their citizens a foot forward on the road to innovation, discovery and economic recovery. In recent weeks, in his address to the American people, Barack Obama set his sights on finding a cure for cancer within the next decade and has made a clear commitment to restoring the emphasis on research and development.

The U.S. has recognized the value of scientific endeavour and is investing billions of stimulus dollars in advanced biomedical research, energy efficiency and renewable energy exploration. This investment is a strategy to build a competitive, progressive, knowledge-based economy, one that Canada should clearly be embracing.

In Norway, governments have committed a full 15% of that country's stimulus package to research and support for innovation in the life sciences sector and information technologies. The United Kingdom recently created the Ministerial Industry Strategy Group. It consists of CEOs of pharmaceutical and biotech companies and its purpose is to identify mechanisms to protect pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies from the current downturn. Further steps are being taken in Europe by the EU to provide fiscal incentives, grants and subsidies to further R and D investments.

Clearly, Canada must invest strategically in R and D. We must not be outpaced by competing governments that have recognized the opportunities that exist in the biotech industry. This is not simply a question of striving for current competitiveness and making comparable investments. We need to look beyond the immediate fiscal crisis to a vision of a success for the future.

By setting the right framework for scientific investment today, we can ensure that Canada's biotech companies and researchers are well positioned for success down the road. We must define our path of success now, as we are ready to compete as the global economy changes. Failure to do so is an unparalleled opportunity lost by the Conservative government.

As parliamentarians, we have to ask ourselves and each other how we can improve our great country. How do we move it forward? How do we ensure a better future for our citizens, a future that holds the promise of good health, a clean environment, better jobs and an improved standard of living? How do we achieve the promise of tomorrow? One way to do so is through continued, improved, secured, stable investments in science and technology.

Let us not waver in our determination to build a better Canada. Let us ensure that the government reinvests in research funding to build Canada into a competitive, progressive, knowledge-based economy. Let us work toward discoveries that lead to medical breakthroughs. Let us remember Rod Benson.