Debates of March 9th, 2009

Opposition Motion -- Science, Research and Innovation

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and was pleased to hear her add the human side in this debate. I cannot thank her enough. I went through a similar experience.

I found it interesting that she talked about the new knowledge-based economy. We are hearing from the Conservative government that we have shovel-ready programs, which is great. To put it into bridges, streets, roads, et cetera, is wonderful, but I think what she was talking about was test tube-ready projects, if I may put it that way.

I want to give her the opportunity to comment, because she has set us on a path. It is not just what the United States is doing, although she referred to Barack Obama, but in essence it is that what we as a Liberal government did that now is going off track. The words she touched me with were “stable investments”. That is what I think this is all about. The government, it seems to me, has not really made an effort to provide the stability that is needed.

Could she comment on that aspect?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct when he says that what we need for science and technology in this country is stable funding. There has been quite a bit of talk about Genome Canada and the investments in it. What we did not see were new investments in Genome Canada, for example, or projects for the future.

I can say that these are incredibly important. They are incredibly important not just for the medical discoveries and the scientific endeavours of today, but for tomorrow. We cannot be involved in developments with international consortia. For example, I talked a bit about what is being done in the United States with regard to cancers. We do not have any new moneys to put on the table. There is no new funding. Projects that were accepted two years ago are being funded, absolutely, but there is no new money for new endeavours.

Also, I would like to add another huge concern. My other hon. colleague raised the same issue. We are concerned about the biotechnology industry, which does not have any secure funding at the moment. In the economic downturn, we are seeing challenges with regard to venture capital investments, and this is stymied as well.

At a time when we should be encouraging more investment and a knowledge-based economy, we have seen $148 million cut from the granting councils and no new money for Genome Canada. Of course, we all know that the venture capital market is also very tight. I am very sad to see this happening in our great country, and very sad that we will not be on the leading edge as we move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was not here when we presented probably the biggest budget in knowledge and in the knowledge-based economy that this country has ever seen. It was called “the knowledge advantage”. Our investments were in research and science, and we continue that. Regarding the stimulus package, after we had consultations from coast to coast, many stakeholders wanted to see us invest in universities.

The member talked about the investment per capita by the President of the United States. I wonder if she did the math, because I understand it is $21 billion, and we have exceeded that in our investments in science and technology. As well, how can she compare a country that has many more people than we do?

I wonder if she would like me to recite some of the quotes we have from the associations, universities and colleges, applauding us for what we have done for the graduate scholarships. Brock University said that the $5.1 billion investment in science and technology in 2009 will help further innovation and competitiveness. I would like the member to acknowledge that there has a been a long-term commitment by this government to science and technology specifically.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the fact that over the last eight or nine years successive governments, first the Liberal government and now the Conservative government, have chosen to continue to involve themselves in the knowledge-based economy in science and technology, because they recognize that it is the future of our country. It is the future of our medical system. It is the future of the jobs in this country, so I applaud the investments in universities. I applaud the fact that, over time, we have been able to recognize the investments required in science and technology.

However, a stimulus budget that has nothing in it for continued development in science and technology places us at a global disadvantage.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my allotted time with the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

It is imperative that this government support the aerospace industry. In recent years, the Conservatives have abandoned the forestry and manufacturing sectors to their fate. It is time this government of inaction became a real leader in aerospace, as we face this economic crisis.

As we know, at the end of 2006, the Conservative government abolished Technology Partnerships Canada, a program to support industry-based research, because it was perceived as wasteful by the western provinces, whose economy is resource based.

In April 2007, Ottawa announced with great fanfare the establishment of a program to support research in the aerospace industry. The fact is that the government simply revived the Technology Partnerships Canada program it had itself abolished, but with a budget cut by one-third and with all industries but aerospace being excluded. Industries such as the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and environmental industries, which are well established in Quebec, have been abandoned.

The Bloc Québécois calls on the federal government to substantially increase its support to research and development, and industrial research in particular.

One would nevertheless expect to see Quebec get its fair share of federal R and D spending, regardless of how inadequate that spending is. But, as in many similar instances, such is not the case. While Quebec accounts for 29% of total R and D spending in Canada, it receives a mere 24% of federal funding, while Ontario gets 48.3%.

Quebec is a world leader in the aerospace industry. It ranks 6th, behind the major players: USA, France, UK, Germany and Japan. The Montreal region, where 95% of the activity is concentrated, ranks 5th in the world as far as employment in this economic sector is concerned.

There are 250 aerospace companies in Quebec. These include 240 small and medium-sized businesses, which account for 49% of total jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry, along with 57% of payrolls, 62% of business revenues, and 70% of R and D expenses.

Forty thousand people, over ten thousand of them engineers or scientists, work in the sector, which works out to 1 Quebecker in 200, and 1 out of 95 Montrealers. Per capita, there is no country in the world where aerospace occupies a more important place than in Quebec. And we are talking of quality jobs, with average earnings of $60,000. It is the main foundation of our cutting edge economy.

In fact, with its sales of more than $11 billion, 80% of that abroad, the aerospace industry is the mainstay of our cutting edge economy. It accounts for the bulk of our high tech exports and our R and D business investments.

While companies in the rest of Canada are mainly sub-contractors, Quebec is at the hub.

What is more, competition is likely to be stepped up, as the Chinese prepare to enter the field, and the Russians are interested in penetrating the regional jet market. If we are to ensure the survival and long-term development of our industry, the time to invest is right now. Let us not lose sight of the fact that research and development carried out today will result in the launch of a new aircraft only 10 or 15 years down the road. Today is the day to decide whether that aircraft will take off or stay stuck on the ground, and if it does the latter, our entire economy will be grounded along with it.

It is urgent that we develop a real aerospace policy. Whether the Conservative government likes it or not, laissez-faire, empty slogans and magical thinking are not policies. For a number of years now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the government to establish an aerospace policy that would provide companies with reliable and predictable support, thus enabling them to plan their development projects. Faced with the lack of interest from the members of federalist parties, the Bloc Québécois even submitted its own policy, which was very well received by the industry.

Unfortunately, under the Conservatives, the federal government seems to have decided to take Canada out of the game, which is catastrophic. Not only does the government not have an aerospace policy, but all of its actions—whether out of incompetence, blindness or both—serve to weaken this cornerstone of our economy.

And what about military procurements and the fact that the Conservatives have abandoned Quebec? Military procurements are excluded from trade agreements, so governments can buy anywhere they like, under any conditions they choose and thus maximize the benefits for our industry. In June 2006, the former minister of national defence and former military industry lobbyist announced that the federal government would be increasing its purchases of defence equipment by $17.1 billion in order to implement its defence plan, Canada First. The aerospace component of Canada First totalled $13 billion: $7 billion for new aircraft and $6 billion for in-service support and maintenance over 20 years.

The three aerospace procurement programs are: $1.2 billion to purchase four new Boeing C-17 heavy tactical transport planes, plus $2.2 billion for service and maintenance over 20 years. The total comes to $3.4 billion. The second is $1.4 billion to purchase 17 new Hercules C-130J tactical airlift aircraft from American manufacturer Lockheed Martin, plus infrastructure, support and maintenance for 20 years. The plane selected for this contract is Lockheed Martin's Hercules C-130J, for a total of $4.6 to $4.9 billion. The third program involves $2 billion to purchase 15 new Boeing Chinook medium to heavy lift transport helicopters, plus $2.7 billion for support over 20 years. None of these aircraft have been or will be built in Canada.

On Friday, February 2, 2007, the government bought four Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft. The contract specified that Boeing would have to buy or invest $3.4 billion in Canada, with half of that for aeronautics and defence and 15% for SMEs. The aircraft are to be built and serviced in the United States. Direct spinoffs from the contract will therefore be negligible. There will only be indirect spinoffs.

The contract does not specify the quality or geographic distribution of the investments. Boeing will invest where it sees fit and buy from whomever it chooses, even though Quebec's aeronautics industry represents between 55% and 60% of Canada's aeronautics industry. The decision was poorly received in Quebec, but the government did the same thing again on January 16, 2008, when it announced the purchase of 17 Hercules C-130J aircraft from Lockheed Martin. Once again, the Conservatives failed to specify proper spinoffs and did not require the company to invest in Quebec. The initial tenders do not bode well. They do not include any technology transfer, and purchases will be minimal: warehousing, nuts and bolts, containers, printing. The good-quality contracts the government talked about appear to have been nothing but a mirage.

The government could have ensured that Quebec received its fair share of good contracts. After all, it is the customer. Furthermore, trade agreements do not apply to military procurement and so it had the freedom to set the conditions it wanted with respect to spinoffs as well. It decided not to do so. The Quebec industry fought for and managed to obtain a fair share of the spinoffs from the purchase of the Boeing C-17 planes. We do not yet know about the other contracts but it is not looking good. Spinoffs from military contracts for the aerospace sector, which may total $9.2 billion, will go elsewhere. If Quebec were to receive its fair share, these contracts would generate 37,000 person-years of employment in Quebec—those are years of work for full-time employees.

What would a true aerospace policy consist of? A transparent government would offer a clear and consistent program in support of research and development. It would make R and D tax credits refundable. It would re-institute the technology partnerships program, cover 20% to 30% of research and development costs and change repayment terms so that the risk is truly shared by both the company and the government. That would require a fixed and predictable commitment to financing of sales, especially exports. EDC financing of sales contracts would have to match Embraer financing of 80% of contracts, rather than the 40% provided here in Canada. EDC turns a profit; it earned $4 billion over the past three years.

The current level of funding provided by IRAP-TPC—the TPC component for small and medium-sized enterprises—to a program for aerospace SMEs must be increased substantially. A true loan guarantee program must be established to increase businesses' working capital. SMEs must be given a greater role in product development and allowed to bid on larger contracts. A program to help small businesses obtain certification and accreditation with larger companies should be implemented.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was reading an email earlier from Rosemary Cornell, a professor at the department of molecular biology and biochemistry at SFU. She stated:

The new budget is continuing to decimate science research. The $175,000 committed to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation is TOTALLY MISDIRECTED. What researchers need is a huge increase in operating funds, as Obama is doing in the States. We have enough empty buildings full of instruments that are not running because there are no positions for technicians to do so...The capturing of bright lights from the States that we have been seeing in the last few years is going to do a 180 degree shift, and we will once again see bright Canadian researchers heading south.

I wonder what my hon. colleague's opinion of this is. Does he have any comments on the current budget and its allocation of operating funds for research?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. The operating funds the government intends to give to universities are one thing, but if more money were provided to allow our students to go further and if they were handsomely subsidized at that stage, we would see the results.

We can have the best students and the best graduates, but the laboratory technology is also necessary for them to be top performers, and that is what the government has cut.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague indicated earlier that, while allowing subsidies for the oil industry, which does not seem to be struggling too much right now, the Conservative federal government was making cuts in the aviation industry, among others.

Did I understand him correctly? Also, what is the current situation in that regard?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is totally right. The situation now is that oil companies are getting funding, doing research and development and being given a lot of money in tax credits. Basically, the government is cutting in research and development in the aviation industry while at the same time paying for research and development to clean up Alberta because of the tar sands.

The contrast is striking.

On the one hand, polluting industries get paid to pollute through tax credits; then, taxpayers money is used to try and find ways to clean up. On the other hand, cuts are made to the aviation industry in Quebec, which is left to fend for itself.

This government has to step up to the plate when it comes to making investments. Where the C-17 aircraft and Chinook helicopters are concerned, we are not getting anything in Quebec, yet we are building them. First, the contract is awarded to an American company; then, because this is military equipment, Canada is given the choice as to where it wants these aircraft built. Now, because we are in the midst of an economic crisis, we will help the United States without first helping ourselves.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, beginning in 1995, the Chrétien Liberals unilaterally cut $25 billion from transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and other programs. The Liberals will say this is ancient history but they would be wrong, because the effects of these responses to short-sighted planning by the Liberals are still being felt to this day, and of course their support for this current budget is assisting the Conservatives in cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in primary research in this budget.

I wonder what my hon. colleague from Quebec's opinion would be on this matter.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a little more time on the second question, that is, what I think of the Liberals, who supported the budget. When the House resumed in October, I think the Liberals could have decided to pursue the coalition.

In my opinion, if that party had stood up for itself, we would have a great deal more than what we have now. What we are getting now from the Conservative government is a big fat zero. From that moment on, if the Leader of the Opposition had wanted to show real leadership, we would have achieved something much smarter than what we have now.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague who gave a good description of the overall picture. The Liberal Party motion is very relevant in today's economic climate of globalization, where competition is extremely fierce and comes from around the world. As we know, in order to compete, we must focus on the basics such as innovation, research and development. Nearly everything must start with those basic elements, if we really want to succeed economically. However, the reality is that most elements that can be affected by, and that should be the focus of innovation, research and development, are not getting enough attention. As my hon. colleague indicated, this affects many areas, from aerospace and defence to pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

The Prime Minister, along with the well-known member for Beauce—although not well-known for his parliamentary work—presented the policy statement on science and technology. We must revisit that in order to better understand what is going on behind all of this. The statement was disappointing, to say the least. The government announced new priorities, but no new measures. Those priorities were definitely more in line with Canada's needs than those of Quebec. Ottawa wanted to be more directly involved in our universities, by redirecting more student research to graduate programs.

As my colleague said, the document does not respond to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology report on the manufacturing industry, which recommended substantially increasing federal funding for industrial research and making tax credits for R and D refundable. By the way, what was happening in the textile industry at the time is still happening in the softwood lumber industry. Innovation and research and development were needed in these sectors at the time, just as they are needed today. These priorities therefore meet Canada's needs much better than Quebec's.

Regarding federal research, we know that the government puts a great deal of emphasis on technology transfers to companies and plans to focus its own research on the needs of industry. This federal priority meets Ontario's needs more than Quebec's. Quebec is the only place in North America where commercial companies do most of the research themselves. This means that they are less dependent on technology transfers from federal research activities.

In Ontario, the federal government accounts for 83% of government research funding, while the Ontario government provides 16.9%. In Quebec, the Quebec government provides 31.8% of research funding, nearly a third. Quebec therefore gets less federal support. Quebec receives only 19.4% of the funding for research done directly by the federal government, while Ontario gets 58.3%. Technology transfers will likely follow the same pattern.

To help Quebec, Ottawa would have had to distribute its own research activities better and provide more support for companies that fund research themselves. That is not what it did. It has also interfered more directly in universities. The government is critical of the fact that university research has little practical application in industry. It therefore plans to get more involved in directing university research in technical fields such as engineering, so that discoveries can then be transferred to industry. Without increasing funding, it will focus its support more on these areas.

As we know, after years of encroachment into education, the federal government is today investing more than the Government of Quebec into Quebec university research. It plans to use these funds to more closely direct the areas of research by our post-graduate students.

The government plan is in fact a ploy to disguise new oil subsidies. It is announcing that it will refocus research activities in the national interest from the social and economic points of view. It has set four priorities: environmental sciences and technologies; natural resources and energy; health sciences and technologies and related life sciences; information and communications technologies.

In Quebec, the two main R and D industries are aerospace and defence, along with pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Ottawa, on the other hand, does not consider them priorities. There is a concern that its support for environmental technologies and energy will only use taxpayer dollars for research activities that will lessen oil and gas company pollution.

Many points have been touched on, so I would like to revisit the university situation. A graduate student has sent me an email in which he questions the government's intentions, after reading on page 107 of the 2009 budget that “Scholarships granted by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will be focused on business-related degrees”. He is not the only one to question this.

Having checked the figures, the student in question writes that there is an announcement in the budget of an increase of 20% in SSHRC funding. He wonders about this new condition, and whether this measure will apply solely to business-related degrees. He also wonders whether this new condition will hamper the awarding of past funding, and whether this is a separate increase with a new condition attached, or whether the government is changing the entire Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and making its funding subject to this new condition.

He also wonders why these funds are meant for business-related degrees, adding that the Conservatives are behind the problems we are now facing, that is, the economic crisis. He goes on to say that it is not fair to other fields that used to be funded, such as law and sociology in particular, and that plurality and diversity of areas of study should be maintained.

He also mentioned that the Conservatives provided $50 million to the Institute of Quantum Computing, located on the campus of the University of Waterloo. This is, he says, the institute that developed the Blackberry. The owner of that company already funds the university rather generously. It does sound like what the federal government is seeking is a return on investment.

The newspaper today reports that the Conference of Rectors and Principals of Quebec Universities denounced such tied funding, which they perceive to be a denial of the usefulness of research in social sciences and humanities during these times of economic crisis. It denounces and condemns the Conservatives' interference in determining the direction research should take.

In these times of economic crisis, grants are obviously important for innovation, research and development. To follow the logic in the email I received from that student about who discussed business-related degrees, I would say that perhaps substantial grants should be given in science and economics so that our economists can finally change some rules or adjust certain basic rules to ensure that our economy will get better and better.

In the current context of globalization where competition is fierce, there things are important in both the manufacturing and forestry industries, and these are innovation, research and development.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Sherbrooke.

He mentioned that, on page 107 of the recently passed Liberal-Conservative budget, the government states that scholarships granted by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will be focussed on business-related degrees. I would like him to expand on that and talk about who gets hurt when such specific criteria are imposed.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, students and university administrators are concerned about what will happen to research subsidies that were supposed to be granted to humanities, and perhaps even those that were meant for health sciences. A lot of research has been done and is still going on in areas other than business. What will the criteria be for the new program? This is a very serious issue. The budget only mentions business, but engineering is important too.

As I said earlier, private enterprise is responsible for most of the research and development going on in Quebec. If the government subsidizes universities directly, it will be harder to ensure that technology transfer benefits our companies. Innovation is important to businesses, whether they are in manufacturing or forestry, as we have already pointed out many times, and research and development are just as important. We have repeatedly told the government that it should invest more in these areas in order to protect them. There is also the aerospace sector, which we discussed earlier. Quebec should also be getting its fair share of defence spending. The pharmaceutical industry is also big in Quebec. That is why research and development are so important.

Then there is biotechnology. Many of Quebec's universities are working hard in that industry, and the government should keep investing in it, and not just in sectors with immediate payback. All of these areas are important. Things are happening now, and the government should keep investing in what is most important. Above all, it should not invest in ways that hurt Quebec, as it is now shamelessly doing. It is obvious that Quebec is not getting its fair share of all the money allocated to R and D.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are cutting millions of dollars from research just when we need help, here in Canada, to stimulate the economy. As for the Liberals, they like to do a lot of talking about their support for science and technology but their record is not very good. I am sure that my colleague has difficulty accepting the fact that the Liberals continue to support the Conservative budget even though they themselves say it is not a good budget.

What impact does my colleague think this will have on universities and research?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the universities received funding for a certain period of time enabling them to carry out research in the humanities. What will they do when the majority of funding is channelled towards business? How will they be able to continue research at current rates and on several levels?

Just now, my NDP colleague said that “they like to do a lot of talking”. She was using part of the expression—namely, they have to walk the talk—often used by a unionist in my riding and that lends itself well to the Conservatives. When they go on talking and talking, they say all manner of things. But they have to follow through by taking action.

In this case, we are told that huge amounts of money are being channelled to research and development. That may be true. However, when expressed as a percentage of GDP, we fall behind other countries. According to the OECD, we are far behind other countries.

Substantial amounts should be invested directly into the sectors most affected by this economic crisis, such as the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We should ensure that our businesses can flourish thanks to innovation, research and development.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, a former astronaut and head of the Canadian Space Agency for bringing forward this important motion.

Scientists across the country are crying out about the lack of research funds in this particular budget. It extends right to my riding, the farthest one in the country right on the Alaska-Yukon border, where Norm, an anthropologist from Yukon College, is doing great work on ancient peoples on the border. He needs that research money and decries the cuts to the major research funding councils in Canada.

In the north, we also need funding for caribou. There are great northern caribou herds. The indigenous people, such as the Gwich'in in my riding, in the north depend on the caribou for their existence. These caribou herds include: Porcupine, Wager Bay, Bathurst, Cape Bathurst, Peary, Dolphin and Union, West and East Bluenose, Beverly, Ahiak, Lorillard, Pen Island, Qamanirjuaq, Southampton and Coats Island, Cape Churchill, Baffin Island, Rivière aux Feuilles, and Rivière George.

Some of the great caribou herds are declining. We have done a lot of research, but we still need to know where they are, how they organize themselves, what defines the population and its range, and how their numbers change from decade to decade.

I was also disappointed to hear, in one of the speeches this morning, that research money for fisheries has been cut. We have great fisheries needs in Yukon. The second staple of one of our first nations, the Gwich'in, when the caribou are not there, is salmon. Yet, the salmon had drastic declines this year on the northwest coast. I am lobbying the secretary of state to cut the pollock fishery bycatch, but that is not the only thing affecting them.

We need that ocean research. What about the warming of the Pacific Ocean? How does the change in the current affect the location of the fish? How does it affect diseases and how do we help bring back those chinook salmon stocks?

When the former deputy prime minister of Canada, Anne McLellan, announced $150 million for International Polar Year, it put Canada at the forefront of that great episode which is now just winding down. We cannot lose that momentum of Arctic research. We have to keep it going.

One of the areas that was embellished at that time was the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network. These are basically observations in the north. The north is very important for us to study, so we can improve lives for the indigenous and other peoples living in the north. There are over 350 researchers, but more work needs to be done. It needs to be made permanent so that there are no gaps in the research.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

The SAON has come up with an idea of a permanent Arctic Observing Forum, AOF. There will be a meeting on that soon, sponsored by the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee. I implore the government to make sure it does its part, along with the other northern nations in funding that Arctic Observing Forum, so that we can sustain the observations in the Arctic, so we can create those networks, fill in the gaps in research, and have the information necessary, especially at this time when changes in the Arctic are so rapid, so we can have a better environment, social conditions, and better economic and cultural conditions for the people of the north.

A high Arctic station is good, but we also need to embellish the other Arctic infrastructures, the Arctic Institute and the Cold Climate Innovation Centre in my riding as well as the great research centres in Nunavut and Northwest Territories. That has been done to some extent in this budget, and that is good.

It is great having these great stations, but if there are no scientists there, we can imagine the vision of all these beautiful stations in the north empty, no scientists, nothing happened. As one member said today, the infrastructure is like the car and the scientist is like the driver.

A perfect example is the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, PEARL, in Eureka. One cannot get much farther north than that. This is a great strength to our sovereignty in the farthest part of the far north. The Conservatives, who pretend to believe in sovereignty, are closing that down.

Let me read from The Globe and Mail, from a week ago:

The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which had been financing his work, received no new money in budget 2009...But without new funding, CFACS will shut down by March 2010 and 24 research networks that have studied climate change and related issues will close down with it.

Can we imagine closing down 24 research networks in that particular area?

The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences is very important and I cannot understand why the Conservatives would shut that down. It is Canada's only organization dedicated to funding university research on weather, the atmosphere and climate, and it did not receive any new funds in the recent budget.

As of 2008 all its funds have been fully committed and once these funds have been used, targeted support for climate and atmospheric science in Canada will simply no longer be available. Existing projects will start closing down in 2010 and the foundation's doors will close in early 2011.

New funds are required to support the continuation of high quality research aimed at federal policy needs to address the new and ongoing challenges related to the impact of changing climate conditions in Canadian society. And at the same time to support federal policy initiatives related to environmental commitments in strengthening the health, security and economic well-being of Canadians.

To date the foundation has also funded many initiatives where results coming from the research activities have led to breakthroughs in climatology, meteorology and oceanography. The results have found their way into the operations of both the federal government and private companies.

It funded 184 research grants at 35 Canadian universities and as a result either directly or indirectly supported over 400 Canadian researchers and the direct training of over 900 post-graduate students and post-doctoral research fellows, Canada's next generation of highly qualified and skilled people. All those 900 are gone.

The foundation committed over $115 million to the support of climate and atmospheric science and leveraged another $150 million in cash and in-kind support from partner organizations. CFCAS also committed one-third of its available funds of $30 million in university-led work on Arctic storms, melting permafrost, Arctic pollution, air quality, and changing sea ice conditions and the melting of Canada's glaciers.

Should CFCAS' doors close no other government agency has the mandate or funds to fill the resulting void. The loss of funding will significantly affect Canada's ability to undertake and participate in climate and atmospheric projects and initiatives both internationally and at home. A lack of new research funds will also result in the loss of both existing highly skilled personnel in university and government laboratories as well as the next generation of Canadian researchers.

Canada's economic redemption lies in the development and implementation of innovative ideas which in part are developed by highly skilled people supported by the appropriate resources. Experienced scientists in university and government laboratories are working on developing new ideas in technology and training young people for the future. Now is not the time for the evaporation of funds to support meteorology, climate, air quality and Arctic related science. A loss of these disciplines and their associated high quality personnel will leave decision makers and strategists ill-equipped to put Canada on a path to renewed economic prosperity while at the same time developing effective short- and long-term adaptation in emission reduction strategies.

Without new funds, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences will have to cease research activities which in turn will stop improvements in forecasting Arctic storms, understanding and predicting the melting of the Arctic sea ice and permafrost, understanding and predicting drought in western Canada, understanding and predicting Arctic ozone recovery, and predicting the effects of climate change on northern water resources.

In the recent budget, CFCAS did not receive new funding. Without renewed research funds, the Canadian climate and atmospheric science community is unlikely to stem the loss of existing highly skilled scientists and researchers from university and government laboratories, nor train Canada's next generation of highly skilled people in meteorology, climatology and oceanography.

I can say that this lack of information is one of the great crises facing the earth today. The earth's mean temperature has risen 0.8° since 1880. Most of the increase has occurred in the last 30 years and human activities have been largely responsible. The results on the north are more dramatic than anywhere else in the country. The effects on the northern people, on their food supplies, on their living conditions, and on their culture are dramatic. To cut all this funding for the hundreds of scientists make no sense at all.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from my neighbouring riding, the member for Yukon, for an excellent presentation on the requirements of climate change research in the north and the tremendous importance to the north and to the rest of the country in setting our future direction.

Having taken that in, why does the member think that the government is so reluctant to continue funding and working on these important research issues? Why is the government closing the tap for these organizations that provide this information and provide the basis of understanding these enormous issues?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and we have not heard the answer today from the government. Why is it making cuts, not only to all this northern science that I gave my speech on but to the three main granting councils in Canada? They had millions of dollars cut particularly in areas of scientific research. The government is not only making cuts but targeting them to scientists in a way that was never intended. I am sure the member will totally agree with me on this.

Imagine targeting social sciences research to economic outcomes. Obviously, we have issues related to culture, substance abuse, overcrowding and the modern world effect on people, their lives, their families and their understanding of themselves. Why is the government going to make a requirement of a research proposal in those social areas to be based on economic outcomes? It does not make any sense at all. I certainly do not have an answer to that question and I hope the member asks a government member when he or she next speaks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the government's attention to a particular issue that affects an area more importantly than anywhere else in our country. It is the issue of feedback mechanisms and feedback loops with respect to global warming. As the temperature goes up, methane in the northern permafrost is being released. Methane has a global warming capability that is many times that of carbon dioxide.

I want to ask my colleague about the importance of addressing this and the failure of the government to deal with the climate change foundation. It is severely affecting our ability to deal with this issue. Once we get into these feedback loops, we will not be able to change them because they allow an ongoing release of methane into the atmosphere. This causes an increase in warming, an increase in warming of the oceans, and a reduction in the ability for the normal carbon sinks to absorb greenhouse gases.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca makes a very important point. It would be bad enough in normal times to be cutting the 135 research grants, 400 Canadian researchers and 900 post-graduate students by closing the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. That would be bad enough in normal times, but now that we have a rapidly changing situation out there, it is even more important to have these researchers keeping track of it.

He mentioned the feedback loop with methane that is captured in the permafrost and sitting on chunks on the ocean floor. That has a much greater effect than carbon dioxide. However, the feedback loop of the melting ice on the ocean also leaves a dark surface as opposed to a light reflecting surface. This accelerates the change and has dramatic effects. As the British and American security systems have said, it could cause tremendous security problems and upheavals around the world, both militarily and human-wise.

What a time to cancel the institutions that are keeping track of these dramatic changes. We need that information to provide solutions to the problems that are going to result.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak in favour of this motion and to speak with a great deal of anxiety for the future of Canada.

Canada is a small country with only 32 million people. If we are to not only survive but thrive in this world of global competitiveness and become productive competitively, to keep our jobs, to create new jobs and to stop the great brains from leaving Canada, we need to be smart. We are not a populous nation like China, India, the United States or the European Bloc. However, even though we may not have the quantity of workers, we can develop the quality of workers.

Canada's future lies in two important things. We need to invest in human capital. We not only need to have the best, the brightest, the most skilled and the most innovative and creative workers of the world but we also need to invest in important long term jobs in which Canada can play a big role in developing niche markets.

Canada has shown itself to be very good and particularly clever at things like environmental technologies, biomedical technologies, communications technologies and space technologies. Canada is a leader in all of these areas. The problem is that Canada is losing ground. If we are to compete in this global economy, Canada needs to be smart. Other nations of the world have figured this out. If we look at the United States, President Obama, in his stimulus package, spent six times more per capita than Canada spent on that technological knowledge based economy. We are falling behind the United States.

One can argue that the United States is a big country with over 350 million people so maybe we should look at the little countries. Let us look at Japan. Japan is actually spending about 3.4% of its gross domestic product on research and development and technology and innovation.

Finland is little country. We all know about Nokia phones. We all know that Finland is a leader in communications technology. Finland is spending 3.9% of its gross domestic product.

Sweden, which is leading the world in terms of automotive technologies and other technologies, is spending about 3.9% of its GDP.

When we compare Canada to those little countries, Canada is spending 1.9% of its gross domestic product on this.

I do not believe that the government gets the importance of research and development, not just commercial research and development, but basic research and development. It is basic research and development that, way back, put Canada in the driver's seat in creating insulin, in finding a treatment for diabetes with Banting and Best. We have followed through, more recently, with people like the Nobel Prize winner at UBC, Michael Smith, who found ways of creating new insulin substitutes using basic chemical science. It was Michael Smith that came to our government, the Liberal government, in 1993 when we were sitting around wondering why all of the great brains were leaving. We talked about the great brain drain. Everyone was concerned that people were going to the United States, Japan and Europe. People were going everywhere but staying here. We were losing some of our finest minds. We decided, together with people like Michael Smith, that we would invest in research and development, not only commercial research and development, but basic research and development in the niche areas where we felt that we already had established ourselves as leaders in the world.

In fact, in 1997, when we started the spending, we were number six in the G7 countries in terms of government spending on research and development. By 2003, Canada was number one in the G7 in research and development.

What we need is a vision to understand that we are talking about the sustainable jobs for tomorrow. We are going into the 21st century and we need to become a 21st century nation. We cannot compete with China in making cheaper T-shirts. We cannot compete with Mexico in making better and cheaper car doors in the automotive industry. We need to look at what we did earlier on in the 1990s when we created fuel cell technology for the automotive industry with Ballard Power Systems in British Columbia.

RADARSAT-2 is Canadian technology that came out of a partnership with MacDonald Dettwiler in Richmond. It is the only piece of technology that can focus in on a little street in a little town.

Out of that technology came Cassiopeia where we can upload and download enormous amounts of information. No other country has been able to do that. We have been doing it because of research and development.

The biggest investment was with Genome Canada when we brought back a young Simon Fraser University graduate named Dr. Marco Marra who was at Johns Hopkins. He was the foremost mouse imprinter in genomics in the world. He came back to head up genomics with a lot of people who admired his work and were working with him in the United States. With this investment, we shifted from a brain drain to a brain gain.

Those are the kinds of things that our Liberal government was talking about in the 1990s and early 2000 when we looked at doubling and tripling the budget. We put $12 billion into research and development. We saw the brain drain end and the brain gain occur. Canada was taking its place in the world. We saw RIM. We saw fuel cell technology.

Canada is an international leader in communication technology with RIM. Everybody has a Blackberry. Members may remember when everybody was worried that the Blackberry era would end because RIM was involved in a big court case. The U.S. Congress was concerned that it would have to shut down. This is the kind of stuff we are talking about.

We just heard some members talking about the recent Canadian Arctic environmental and atmospheric studies that are going on. Twenty-four research facilities depend on the work being done there in terms of climate change and atmospheric change. That work is no longer being funded and it will die in 2010, taking 24 facilities with it. The world has been looking to us as a leader in that kind of environmental technology but we are letting the world down.

Let us look at space technology. Canada is building something called the Thirty Metre Telescope and the world is waiting for it. The U.S. and Europe want to build a similar telescope and they want Canada to build it for them. Members can just imagine what that would mean to Canada as a leader in the world in astronomy.

People are waiting to get the okay from Canada and they need $170 million from the government over five years but they cannot get an answer from the government. The people are waiting to hear back. The Canadian team is hiding its head in embarrassment because it does not know what to do. If the Canadian team does not get to build that telescope and the government does not put that money forward as a key partner, China and India are waiting in the wings with their hands held out saying that they will do it.

Not only will we need to compete with China for T-shirts, but we will need to compete with it in research and development and technology, as will with India. Think of the number of people who will be working in those industries. We need to be smart but we are not being smart.

Does the government not get it? Does it understand basic research? Does it understand applied research? When the government talks about shovel-ready jobs, does it realize it needs to think about welding-ready jobs like the telescope I talked about?

The government cut $148 million from the key granting bodies and $27.8 million from NRC. No wonder people in the Canadian Medical Association are saying that we think about shovels instead of test tubes.

Do members know that the HIV-AIDS treatment came out of Genome Canada, that the newest asthma treatment came out of Canada, that the sequencing of the SARS virus in 24 hours came out of Canada, that the fundamental puzzles of biology, such as the T-cell receptor, that will help us cure diseases in the future, came out of Canada?

We are dumbing down this country. Canadian jobs will suffer and our place in the world will suffer. Let us turn that clock back to where we have been going and bring ourselves back up instead of pulling ourselves down.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague's speech is a heartfelt appeal for science and for scientific development in Quebec and in Canada.

However, I found one thing very intriguing and it can be found on page 107 of the budget that was passed by the Liberals and Conservatives. In my opinion, this budget was written by the Liberals and delivered by the Conservatives. The Liberals are speaking out against this budget, but they will vote in favour of it, in a real show of political schizophrenia.

On page 107 of the budget, there is an announcement that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada will focus on scholarships for business-related research. That is a far cry from the Liberal member's speech in which she said she wanted to defend scientific development. In the end she will vote, along with her party, to ensure that business will receive more scholarships in universities.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes when we are in the middle of a crisis, as we are now, in the middle of a recession, it is about making choices. It is about deciding whether we will play politics or support Canadians who are losing their job in the forestry sector and the automotive sector. We need to get people back to work and to get rid of the credit crunch. People need to know if they can pay their mortgage or lose their house.

We had to make a fundamental choice and we made that choice. However, there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that we put the government under probation. We tied huge strings and conditions to passing the budget. When we get our reports in June and in September, we will see if the government failed or passed. We will then know whether we need to move forward to help Canadians in this economic time or whether we will just sit and speak.

In the meantime, we need to push the government to do the right thing, which is what we are doing today.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the hon. member referred to cuts to the granting councils. A few seconds ago she also talked about playing political games.

I am curious. The hon. member surely knows that the government invested $205 million in the granting councils in order to provide them and researchers with stable, predictable, long term funding, $205 million more increased funding. The hon. member must know that.

She also must know that in budget 2009 there is an additional $87.5 million to the granting councils to expand the Canada graduate scholarships program, and $200 million at the NRC to expand IRAP.

I am wondering if the hon. member could just explain why she feels that she needs to basically make up numbers that are not true and present them to the House instead of telling the full story.