Debates of Oct. 25th, 2012

Criminal Code

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at third reading on the private member's bill brought forward by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, whose intentions were very good in seeking to amend the Criminal Code to treat offences against war memorials more seriously.

We listened with great interest to his presentation, to the witnesses who came to the hearing, and to submissions that were made to the committee during the deliberations on this bill.

Of course, we abhor, as all citizens do, the desecration of monuments to our dead, particularly our war dead. We see this type of behaviour occurring. I would not say it is rampant, because the people speaking about it had to go back a number of years to come up with examples that were known nationally to the public, but it is something that we all abhor. I think there has been no other time in our recent history where the sacrifices of our soldiers and men and women in uniform have been more honoured, more recognized and more appreciated by citizens.

However, we are talking about an amendment to the Criminal Code here. When doing that, I think that as legislators we have to do our job, which is to pay attention to what the Criminal Code is all about, what it is trying to do, what it is seeking to achieve and to look at other aspects of the Criminal Code, the other offences that are included, and to ensure that any amendments to the Criminal Code fit in with the scheme of the code and the types of penalties given for other offences.

In doing so, we also have to keep in mind the principles of justice and sentencing, which provide that the punishment must fit the crime. The crime is broader than the particular action, but includes the state of mind of the person who commits the crime, the circumstances surrounding the crime and the damage that may be done, including the extent of the damage, the intent, the seriousness, et cetera.

When we start applying those principles to this legislation, well-intentioned though it might be, we find that it falls down. It falls down because it imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for the desecration or damaging of a war memorial, which does not exist for damaging a church property, a synagogue or, as my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood said, a Holocaust memorial. We are treating these differently, with a sentence that could in fact be for up to 10 years in jail. The mandatory minimum would be there regardless of the circumstances of the offence, as cultural property invites a larger sentence when necessary. However, that is already there. We already have a mischief provision in the Criminal Code covering the kind of offence we are talking about. It is one that could easily be, and is, prosecuted under existing legislation.

There may have been complaints to our committee by people who said that the courts let off certain people lightly. The people who were let off lightly in these cases probably deserved stronger sentences than they got. However, I do not even think the mandatory minimums in this particular legislation would have satisfied the seriousness of the offences committed in those cases. We have a very simple provision in our Criminal Code and our criminal justice system for inadequate sentences. If someone is inadequately sentenced by the court, there is an appeal process. If there is not sufficient motivation to appeal to ensure that a proper sentence is passed, that is unfortunate, but that happens in our society.

The mandatory minimums here would not have satisfied the concerns of witnesses who came forward.

On the other hand, we did have a number of other witnesses and submissions holding the view that where serious matters of damage to war memorials where significant intent was involved, where criminal behaviour was clearly contemplated, where stealing metals or whatever off a memorial was done with an intent to destroy a monument, they would, should and could attract significant sentences.

We had a letter presented to the committee from no greater authority in terms of respect for our veterans and war dead than the Royal Canadian Legion. The president of the Dominion Command provided a letter saying that the Legion was supportive of the intent of Bill C-217 to include incidents of mischief against a war memorial as a part of our Criminal Code, but indicated that it felt that the provision of appropriate penalties suitable to the individual particulars of an incident should reflect the nature of these acts and that there should be latitude in assessing the gravity of the situation. Patricia Varga said:

The punishment should fit the crime and although no incident of this nature can be condoned, there should be provision for restorative justice measures with a mandated dialogue between veterans groups and the offenders. There should be provision where offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, to repair the harm they have done, by apologizing to a group of Veterans, or with community services. It provides help for the offender to avoid future offences and provides a greater understanding of the consequences of their actions.

We agree completely with that approach. One of the most publicized incidents in the Canadian context happened a number of years ago when a couple of individuals were caught urinating on the National War Memorial not two blocks from here. There was, as anticipated and expected, great outrage across the country with respect to that. The individuals were taken in by the Royal Canadian Legion and essentially made to understand the seriousness of what they had done because they did not appreciate the seriousness of what they had done. They were extremely apologetic and ashamed of what they had done and then assisted the Royal Canadian Legion in its work on a volunteer basis after that.

That is an example. I am not saying that every example is like that, but we do have a Criminal Code where serious offences can be treated seriously and the courts are mandated to do that in terms of how they approach sentencing.

In addition to that approach, we heard from Terrence Whitty, the national leader of the Air Cadet League of Canada, who talked about incidents in which he had been involved in with working with cadets. The Air Cadet League puts on camps and there was an incident where a particular memorial was being vandalized annually as part of a prank. Officials took the approach of ensuring that every child who went to that camp understood how important it was and that it was a memorial to Japanese veterans. Underscoring the seriousness and importance of it led to the fact that this place has now became an object of veneration by the young people and not somethingsubjet to pranks.

Those are some examples but obviously not the serious ones that my colleague opposite is talking about. However, I would say to him and to all members that serious matters should be taken seriously by the court and the law is adequate to do it right now.

I will just summarize what a professor of law said in his presentation. He said that the bill was not necessary, that other offences already prohibit the conduct, that there was no need for a minimum punishment, that damaging war memorials already attracts a higher sentence than other forms of mischief and that higher sentences would not deter the typical offender.

I thank the member for bringing the bill forward but we will not be able to support it because of the nature of the bill, that the mandatory minimums there, that it is not proportional and that the Criminal Code already deals with the problem.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to give a short preamble. The bill was introduced following numerous acts of vandalism a few years ago against Canadian war memorials. Let us be clear: we condemn these acts and all such acts.

Like all my colleagues who spoke before me, I have the deepest respect for our veterans. At Remembrance Day ceremonies, we will all be taking part in a number of different events in our respective constituencies. It will be an opportunity to show our support and recognition for our soldiers and our veterans.

The fact that Canadians visit war memorials indicates just how deeply the people of Canada feel about the men and women of the Canadian Forces and about those who fell in the field of battle. Whenever a war memorial is desecrated, we can only condemn such a gesture.

However, I would like to distance myself from the comments made by my hon. colleague from Dufferin—Caledon about the scope of this bill. As noted by my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, the official opposition critic for veterans, those who desecrate a war memorial do so carelessly. For that reason, I believe that the penalties provided in this bill are too severe. Moreover, adding minimum sentences would likely have a negative impact on the already high cost of our correctional system.

Veterans and active members of the Canadian Forces deserve decent services from the government. New Democrats believe that the best approach would be to show unconditional, concrete and strong support. This means an appropriate use of resources and proper support to ensure that people who have served Canada can live well and prosper in society. Furthermore, the Criminal Code already provides general forms of remedy.

For all these reasons, we will not be supporting C-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

To conclude, allow me to mention something I learned from my experience as a teacher and criminologist: it is important never to forget that education is the most powerful form of prevention. I will not support this bill because it is too repressive and gives very little consideration to prevention.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials). This bill focuses particularly on mischief relating to commemorative monuments to honour our veterans. It was proposed and introduced by the Conservative member for Dufferin—Caledon. Its purpose is to ensure that the memory of Canadian soldiers who fell in the wars and missions in which Canada has participated over the decades and centuries is respected.

I would first like to say, of course, that I am proud of Canada's historical involvement in the defence of peace and liberty. I am also very proud of the men and women in uniform who serve Canada today and those who have served our country in the past. I would also like to point out that it will soon be Veterans' Week, when we will all have the opportunity to think about and show our respect for our fallen soldiers and for those who were lucky enough to come back. I am convinced that everyone agrees on that.

I would like to come back to the bill itself. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to add a provision about mischief relating to memorials honouring our veterans. The Criminal Code already has penalties for mischief in general and mischief with respect to property such as a memorial. I quote:

Every one who commits mischief in relation to property...

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There are already provisions in the Criminal Code that a judge can apply. These provisions refer to mischief in general, but include memorials to our veterans.

Section 430 of the Criminal Code provides for more severe penalties for mischief relating to religious property, if the commission of the mischief is motivated by hate or racism. This also applies to cultural property. In addition, anyone who commits mischief that causes danger to the life of a person is liable to life imprisonment.

Bill C-217 would amend section 430 of the Criminal Code on mischief. It would establish a fine of not less than $1,000 for a first offence, a sentence of not less than 14 days for a second offence, and imprisonment for not less than 30 days for each subsequent offence, when the mischief is committed in relation to a war memorial.

As I stated, the current provisions of section 430 of the Criminal Code already deal with such mischief as destruction of or damage to property. In general, there is enough latitude in the penalties to impose a penalty that is appropriate to the situation. Furthermore, the bill provides for minimum sentences for those found guilty of mischief relating to a war memorial. We do not agree with minimum sentences, because they eliminate any latitude the judge may have to determine the appropriate sentence based on his or her own judgment, and they preclude an assessment of the situation and the reason for the mischief.

When there is mischief against a war memorial, it is important to determine whether the deed was done intentionally and allow the judge the latitude to rule accordingly. It is important to know whether a person committed mischief in the knowledge that it was a war memorial or not. That is an important distinction to make. To make an informed judgment, one must be aware of the intentions underlying people's actions.

The member for Dufferin—Caledon introduced this bill to encourage the people of Canada to pay more respect to our veterans. That is the intended goal of this bill.

First of all, I do not think that Canadians lack respect for their fellow citizens who served or are currently serving in the Canadian Forces, and even more so for those who did not return. In my riding, when I was still a serving member of the Forces, what I saw was the very opposite, such as people going to pay tribute to veterans on Remembrance Day. These traditions may be in decline in some countries, but that is not the case in Canada. Secondly, there are much more concrete and effective ways of paying tribute to veterans. I hope that my colleagues will agree, because everyone should support these principles.

Another thing needs to be underscored. Of the many penalties for people who commit offences against war memorials, there is not one that requires the offender to understand what it means to be a veteran. No one who has committed mischief will be required to work as a volunteer at a Legion, for example, to give them an understanding of the role played by these veterans. They will not be required to understand the work veterans have done or the services they have rendered to our country.

The purpose of this bill is to encourage people to pay more respect to veterans, but this cannot be achieved through prison sentences or fines. This is not a good way to get people to think about veterans, to understand what they have done or what kind of people they are. The bill does not achieve the desired goal, which is to get people to show more interest in veterans.

There is something that disturbs me in this bill, and that is the way monuments are categorized. As I said earlier, I have enormous respect for veterans. In fact, I have served in the Canadian Forces, so theoretically, I am a veteran myself. Under the bill, vandalizing a war memorial is a more serious act of mischief than vandalizing a monument in honour of women or one paying tribute to the first nations. I do not think we are moving in the right direction when we classify monuments this way and treat mischief in relation to one monument as more serious than mischief in relation to another and accordingly deserving of a harsher sentence.

The right thing to do is to let judges know that Parliament believes that offences committed in relation to a war memorial are truly a shame, and that it hopes they will use the latitude the Criminal Code gives them at present, with respect to offences of mischief, to make the punishment fit the crime.

That is a much more rational approach than categorizing monuments and imposing sentences that are not really rational, because in every case the intent behind the act must be understood.

Was the person simply intoxicated, for example? In such cases, they may not even have realized what the situation was; they may not have been capable of distinguishing between a tree, for example, and a war memorial. I do not think such a case has the same impact as a case where someone intentionally destroys a war memorial because they are against the armed forces. We really have to be able to grasp the distinction and see the intent behind the acts.

Under the Criminal Code, at present, judges have complete latitude. I believe that judges are very intelligent people and are capable of seeing the intent behind the acts rationally and with discernment. I will therefore be opposing this bill.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials). Over the past several years, we have seen deplorable incidents across the country where war memorials have been vandalized. This includes a war monument at the front of Malvern Collegiate, just outside of my riding of Toronto—Danforth, which was vandalized a few nights after it had been newly restored and rededicated.

Of course, my colleagues and I strongly condemn these and other disrespectful actions toward war memorials and monuments. That is common ground. We acknowledge and appreciate the hard work of people and communities throughout Canada who have ensured that those who served and sacrificed on behalf of all Canadians are honoured and that their memory is preserved. This memory, on our part, of those who fought to maintain the memory of others comes at no more appropriate time than a week or two before Remembrance Day.

Personally, honouring military service is very close to my heart. For many years I have worn the ring that is on this finger, which my grandfather, a soldier in the Nova Scotia Highlanders, was wearing when he fell at the Battle of Drocourt-Queant in September 1918. He lost his leg that day and, as for so many who cheat death in battle, pain and trauma made post-war survival its own sort of battle. Eventually, my grandfather succumbed to the effects of his wounds. However, thank goodness for me, my mother was born before my grandfather passed away. What makes this connection particularly interesting is that she spent the last 15 to 20 years of her career working for a monument company that specialized not only in cemetery memorials but also in larger memorials. Most of the war memorials in Atlantic Canada were produced by the company my mother worked for in Windsor, Nova Scotia, including the World War II pilots memorial in Gander, Newfoundland, and a memorial replacing an older memorial in a town in Belgium, commemorating the 85th Battalion of the Nova Scotia Highlanders and its role in the Battle of Passchendaele.

My purpose in referencing my family history is to suggest that I do not come to this debate not appreciating the importance and value of memorials in our society and for our collective memory.

Bill C-217 proposes to amend section 430 of the Criminal Code, which is the section dealing with mischief, so as to provide for minimum mandatory fines of $1,000 for a first offence, 14 days in jail for a second and 30 days in jail for a third when the mischief is in relation to a war memorial or like structure, similar building or part of such a building or structure. However, the current provisions of section 430 of the Criminal Code already deal with mischief related to the destruction and defacing of property, including war memorials and monuments. The penalty provisions in the existing section 430 have provided the courts with an adequate scope for appropriate sentencing without the need for any mandatory minimums. No evidence at all was presented to the committee to suggest a need for mandatory minimums.

Section 430 of the code provides for greater maximum penalties for mischief in relation to churches, synagogues and so on, but again there are no minimum sentences.

In contrast to the current approach in the Criminal Code, Bill C-217 proposes adding a subsection to deal specifically with mischief relating to war memorials.

Like the sponsor of this bill, I want to emphasize that I believe we do have an obligation to protect these sacred spaces in our communities in order to honour the Canadians who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

As we heard from the sponsor of the bill, its intent is “to send a strong message that vandalism and desecration of our war memorials and cenotaphs will not be tolerated”.

Be assured that we, the NDP, support this intent. However, the means by which the bill proposes to send this message is not the right way.

As legislators, we must ask whether the imposition of greater mandatory penalties will achieve the purpose of encouraging respect for war memorials. Mandatory minimum sentences simply do not accomplish that end. They do not accommodate the reality of the divergent circumstances that judges are called upon to assess, which can lead them to the conclusion that something less than a mandatory minimum sentence is appropriate or can lead them to pursue alternative approaches or measures other than fines or jail time.

As my colleague from St. John's East, who was the former justice critic, and others have said, we must work hard to find a balance in legislation and so often mandatory minimum sentences upset that balance. I would also draw to everyone's attention the compelling testimony before the justice committee with respect to another bill before the House of former Supreme Court Justice John Major, who was elevated to the Supreme Court from the Alberta Court of Appeal. I recommend his thoughtful testimony. Two comments he made are worth mentioning now, just to give everyone a taste. On one hand, he said:

I'm still a little concerned about a minimum sentence that's absolute. Cases are not all the same, as you know, and the minimum sentence may be inadequate in a number of circumstances...but in other cases it may not be proper.

He went on to say:

It's just the variation in people that pushed me towards the view that a minimum sentence is something that I find has a lot of flaws.

That was said by a former Supreme Court justice who was known for being a very good jurist, but definitely a cautious, if not at times a conservative jurist. He told the justice committee that mandatory minimum sentences are problematic.

At work in committee, my colleagues, in particular the justice critic from St. John's East, proposed a series of amendments to the bill that would have allowed for greater judicial discretion. There is one in particular that I would like to draw attention to because it combines two philosophies that can live together with some balance. The NDP would have asked for an amendment that would have read as follows. “A court may delay imposing a punishment on a person convicted of an offence under [the subsection in question] to enable the person to make reparations for harm done to victims and the community. If the person makes reparations that, in the opinion of the court, are appropriate, the court may impose a punishment that is less than the minimum punishment provided for in that subsection.”

The government declined to work with us or accept that amendment, but the committee heard testimony that suggested that approach would be recognized as an appropriate one by many in Canada. I was struck by a letter received from the Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion. I am going to read two short passages from that letter. It states:

Our membership is strongly in favour of recognizing the serious nature of these incidents and in consideration of the feelings and emotions expressed by all Canadians against such acts....

We do however feel that the provision of appropriate penalties suitable to the individual particulars of an incident should reflect the nature of these acts and there should be latitude in assessing the gravity of the situation.

The punishment should fit the crime and although no incident of this nature can be condoned, there should be provision for restorative justice measures with a mandated dialogue between veterans groups and the offenders. There should be provision where offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, to repair the harm they have done, by apologizing to a group of Veterans, or with community services. It provides help for the offender to avoid future offences and provides a greater understanding of the consequences of their actions.

I remind those listening that this letter was from the Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion.

I would much prefer to stand with the approach of the Royal Canadian Legion that has veterans and our historical memory with respect to wartime first and foremost in their minds than with an approach that relies on mandatory minimum sentences as some kind of salvation for the serious problem, which I again acknowledge, of the desecration of memorials.

I will end by drawing attention to the case of the Ottawa National War Memorial, where teens charged with urinating on that site ended up working with the Royal Canadian Legion. They were not fined or sent to jail, but they learned and are continuing to work with the Royal Canadian Legion in an educational mode. I believe that we should follow the lead of the Legion.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Dufferin—Caledon to conclude debate on Bill C-217, which is my bill to protect war memorials and cenotaphs.

First, I would like to thank all members who participated in the debate in the various stages of the bill, which recognizes the importance of honouring and respecting the memory of those who have given their lives in service to Canada. I would especially like to thank again the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who gave this bill thorough scrutiny.

As members know, Bill C-217 seeks to amend the Criminal Code by adding significant penalties for any person convicted of mischief against a war memorial, cenotaph or other structure honouring or remembering those who have died as a consequence of war. The bill seeks to impose minimum penalties of a fine of not less than $1,000 for a first offence, prison of not less than 14 days for a second offence and prison of not less than 30 days for all subsequent offences.

The government moved an amendment at committee, which was accepted, to adjust the maximum penalty under indictment from five years to ten years. This is a technical amendment to keep the bill in line with the rest of the Criminal Code section on mischief. It was suggested by officials of the Minister of Justice and I am grateful for his intervention and support.

It must be pointed out that both opposition parties voted against the government's amendment and against the bill itself at committee. That says to me that they are not interested in seeking to deter individuals from damaging our most honoured places.

When I first addressed the House on the bill on November 3, 2011 and again in a subsequent debate, I cited many examples of desecrated war memorials and cenotaphs that underscore the seriousness of the problem and the need for concrete action by the House. Just a couple of months ago, an inukshuk dedicated to our soldiers in Afghanistan that stood outside Legion headquarters here in Ottawa was toppled and damaged. That was shameful.

Remembrance Day is fast approaching. It is a time when Canadians reflect on the proud heritage and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. That heritage was brought to the floor at committee, where I was joined by two proud veterans who made it clear to members how emotional this is for them. Their moving and passionate testimony was a clear example of why Bill C-217 is necessary.

It is of the utmost importance that Bill C-217 be enacted to protect the dignity of those structures and places in our communities where we honour our war dead and pay tribute to the service of men and women in uniform. Bill C-217 would help remind Canadians that soldiers' sacrifices will never be forgotten or unappreciated. Canada will continue to honour her fallen through the protection of such important structures and will punish those who disrespect them.

The opposition has suggested in the past and even tonight that rehabilitation or restorative justice is the appropriate response to those who have committed these horrific acts. Bill C-217 is not opposed to such a response but seeks punishment first for those who displayed such profound disrespect for war memorials and cenotaphs. I would remind members that a judge is free to order whatever restorative justice he or she wishes after the perpetrator has been ordered to pay at least a $1,000 fine.

The truth is that had these vandals been forced to think about the gravity of their actions prior to the damage committed, they would not likely have proceeded with such acts. Bill C-217 would make sure that potential vandals know the punishment for their crimes and therefore would think twice before proceeding with such acts due to the knowledge of the much stronger criminal sanctions to come.

Bill C-217 sends a clear message that vandalism and desecration of any Canadian cenotaph or war memorial will not be tolerated. We owe it all to the men and women who have fought and continue to fight in the Canadian Forces for our great country.

I thank all hon. members for their consideration of Bill C-217 and I urge them to support it when it comes time for a vote.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 31, 2012, immediately before the time provided for private member's business.

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

The Environment

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

As such, we move to the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North on the Environment.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to follow up on a question I asked earlier this year regarding the value of the Experimental Lakes Area in Kenora and the government's reckless decision to axe it.

Some of the best and brightest environmental scientists in the world have been doing one of a kind research in these 58 lakes in Northern Ontario for decades. The ELA is the only site in the world where research is conducted over many years on entire freshwater ecosystems. However, in one of the worst examples of penny-wise but pound-foolish mismanagement, after over 40 years of groundbreaking scientific research, the government is eliminating the program to save $2 million a year, or that is what it says. This is way less than the government spends on chauffeurs, limos and orange juice for its ministers.

The ELA is a huge point of pride for Canada, one which places us at the forefront of global freshwater research. The federal government once shared Canadians' appreciation of the ELA, contributing $3 million just in capital investment dollars to the program alone in the last 10 years. Indeed, after announcing an investment of nearly $800,000 in 2010, the Conservative member for Kenora proudly praised the program for “...helping to establish Canada as a leader in knowledge creation, and attracting the jobs and growth that go with it”.

Research done at the ELA is used by governments worldwide and has had a profound and immeasurable impact on the quality of life of countless Canadians. It has directly informed policy changes around the world, including air pollution regulations to reduce acid rain in Canada and the U.S. and bans on harmful chemicals in our laundry and dish detergents around the world.

The true value of the ELA lies in the key role it plays in protecting the quality of life of Canadians, our environment and our fisheries. What really makes this decision senseless is the meagre savings that result from closing the ELA. According to internationally celebrated scientist, Dr. David Schindler:

Few scientific projects of any sort have had the global impact of ELA, and certainly none can match it on the basis of scientific return per dollar spent.

However, we all know that this reckless decision was not really about saving money at all. The ELA has been considered a model government program since its inception. The Auditor General has repeatedly given the program outstanding reviews regarding its financial management. The government subsidizes only a portion of its $2 million in operating costs and even then it is shared between departments. I ask if saving this small amount sounds like a reasonable sum in return for jeopardizing the health of Canadians and the health of our lakes and fisheries, especially when this investment leverages many millions more in vital research funding.

The government's argument that it can simply shift this research elsewhere is completely false. Numerous scientists have said the ELA is the only place in the world where this research can be conducted properly. Cash strapped universities do not have the budgets to take over the facility. I note that months after its announcement to close the ELA the government still has not found anyone to take it over.

This decision has been roundly criticized by experts around the world. Ordinary Canadians have also spoken out to voice their disapproval. So far, over 25,000 have signed a petition demanding the government reverse its decision.

Over 2,000 scientists marched here on the Hill this past summer to mourn the death of evidence in the Conservative government's policy and dozens of towns in Northern Ontario, including Kenora and Dryden, have passed resolutions to keep the facility open. Polls show a majority of Canadians oppose closing the ELA. I ask—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to respond to my hon. colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North on the important issue of the Experimental Lakes Area.

Through the deficit reduction action plan, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, like every department, conducted a full review of its operations and is implementing measures to reduce the cost of operations and program delivery in order to eliminate the deficit and contribute to current and future prosperity.

As a result of this review, Fisheries and Oceans Canada recognized that it does not require whole lake or ecosystem manipulation, such as was being done at the Experimental Lakes Area facility.

However, we do acknowledge the unique opportunity that the facility represents for other researchers and we would welcome the opportunity to transfer the Experimental Lakes Area facility to another organization that can continue to manage the facility and ensure that it is available to other researchers.

The department is working actively to find another operator. Departmental officials are in discussions with various parties that may have an interest in the continued operation of the Experimental Lakes Area facility. A successful conclusion to those discussions will be reached as quickly as possible.

While the ELA will be ending as a federal facility, the department will continue to conduct freshwater research in various locations across Canada. Departmental scientists and biologists will continue to conduct relevant research that is essential to guide fisheries protection polices and regulatory decision-making.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has an active freshwater science program in many priority areas, including aquatic invasive species, species at risk and freshwater fish habitat. This past summer, departmental scientists and biologists were in the field conducting research on freshwater ecosystems in various locations across Canada where science advice is needed to guide sustainable development and enhance economic prosperity.

The department will continue to invest in priority scientific research, including environmental science. The department has recently launched a fund for research on aquatic ecosystems. The strategic program for ecosystem-based research and advice began funding aquatic research projects across the country this summer.

Furthermore, the department continues to collaborate with numerous other partners in freshwater science, including provincial governments, universities, non-government organizations and industry partners.

University networks, under the auspices of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, have been established to create synergies and fund aquatic science in Canada. These networks include: HydroNet, which focuses on ecosystem impacts of hydroelectric facilities; the Canadian Healthy Oceans Network focusing on marine biodiversity research; and the capture fisheries network program focusing on ecosystem health and productivity research in relation to fishing.

Results of these research collaborations are part of the scientific information that the department uses to develop policies and make decisions about our aquatic environment and fisheries resources.

We will continue to build scientific knowledge about our aquatic environment and fisheries resources to support long-term sustainability and conservation objectives in the most effective and cost efficient manner.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the member for his response, I am sure he knows that the whole ecosystem research done at the 58 experimental lakes simply cannot be duplicated anywhere else. Experts have explained this many times but the Conservatives would rather continue to ignore the evidence. This facility has attracted brilliant researchers to Canada and its closure will only send another signal that science is not welcome in Canada anymore.

The government has had programs to revitalize fish stocks and clean up the environment but these will not help much if it insists on eliminating the research that will actually prevent problems in the first place.

Will the government please do the right thing and just keep the Experimental Lakes Area open and perhaps give its member for Kenora a hope for keeping his seat in the next election?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that we do recognize the quality scientific research that has been conducted at the Experimental Lakes facility. That is why we look forward to transferring the facility to another operator who will ensure that this type of foundational research continues.

Just as ecosystems and the priorities of Canadians evolve, so do our investments in science. Be assured, Fisheries and Oceans Canada remains a science-based department and the Government of Canada will continue to invest in science.

Scientists and biologists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada continue to conduct research on freshwater ecosystems in support of the department's mandate. The department will continue to use this important scientific knowledge to inform decisions and to support long-term sustainability and conservation objectives.

Science and Technology

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stood in the House last May to question the Conservatives' reckless cuts to major science-based programs and projects.

These ideological cuts undermine the talent and innovation of our Canadian researchers and scientists. Because of the government's war on science, we have lost good-paying jobs in many fields, including the Canadian space industry.

We are losing a world-renowned research facility in the Experimental Lakes Area, and the government has signalled to the scientific community that its work is not only unappreciated but that it is also undermining the Conservative agenda.

Since coming to power, scientists are often barred from speaking to the media or to the general public without obtaining consent from the Prime Minister's Office. Even then, they can only go with a chaperone.

There is one particular case of the government's mismanagement I would like to highlight this evening. It is an example of government incompetence that is putting an entire industry at risk and has already cost hundreds of people jobs in the space industry. I want to make it clear that these are high-paying, high-skilled jobs that have been lost. Here I am talking about the RADARSAT Constellation mission, which would see a Canadian-made, designed and manufactured earth observatory satellite sent into space.

After funding phases A, B and C, the government has been wavering for months on the funding of phase D, the final phase that would see the satellites actually built and deployed.

The RADARSAT Constellation mission is the crown jewel of Canada's satellite program, a boon to our science and technology sector that puts us on the global map. RADARSAT has a diverse multi-mission. It will monitor icebergs on the east coast, as well as flow and ridging, potential spills and pipelines on the west coast, flooding and forest fires in central Canada, and it will help to maintain Arctic sovereignty by monitoring the Northwest Passage.

Further delays in funding would put Canadians' safety at risk and jobs on the line. Earlier this month, COM DEV, a Canadian company that is a subcontractor to the RADARSAT program, announced the loss of 31 specialized workers. This on the heels of major job losses at MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates earlier this year.

All of this uncertainty is caused by the government. It is saying that it is committed and has been saying this for months, but it refuses to sign the contract or to provide the timelines necessary to complete the RADARSAT Constellation mission.

COM DEV CEO Mike Pley has said that while Canada has a world-class space program, it is at risk of slipping, and with funding running out, many more job losses are expected.

Rob Young, an analyst with Canaccord Genuity who follows COM DEV, said that Ottawa is hurting major suppliers such as COM DEV and MacDonald Dettwiler by not laying out a long-term spending plan for the space agency. This is something that the government has promised for four years. Not surprisingly, it is a promise made but not kept.

I hope that the government will end its war on science and reason, and that scientists will be able to conduct their research without fear of government persecution. I have been to MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates and have seen some of the fantastic work they are doing in robotics, satellite design and other projects.

Since the first budget came out in March, we have been waiting and waiting to see the contract signed. Why has the government not done so?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, our government has shown a strong and long-standing commitment to science and technology since the release of the science and technology strategy in 2007. The strategy recognizes the important link between knowledge and the capacity to innovate in the global economy, and more important than having a strategy, we have actually been implementing it, unlike previous governments.

Supporting publicly funded research remains important to this government. Our investments help support world-class Canadian researchers and help us achieve key social goals, such as improving public health, building a strong and vibrant economy, and ensuring a clean and healthy environment for future generations of Canadians.

A recent study by the Council of Canadian Academies has shown the results of our efforts stating that Canada's science and technology enterprise is healthy, growing, internationally competitive and well respected. Our research enterprise is ranked fourth in the world, a resounding endorsement of our government's commitment to supporting science.

Economic action plan 2012 continues to build on this trend, creating a comprehensive and forward-looking agenda that will deliver high quality jobs, economic growth and sound public finances. It builds on our positive record of achievement to help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy that benefits all Canadians. By focusing on the drivers of growth and job creation, innovation, investment, education, skills and communities, we will solidify, strengthen and draw upon the entrepreneurial sector's role as the driving force behind Canada's economy.

We recognize that despite high levels of federal support for R and D, Canada continues to lag in business R and D spending, commercialization of new products and services, and productivity growth. That is why we asked an independent panel of experts, led by Mr. Tom Jenkins, to review federal investments in business R and D and provide advice on optimizing this support.

Through its response to elements of the Jenkins panel, budget 2012 also announces a new approach to supporting innovation that will more actively pursue business-led initiatives to better meet private sector needs.

Far from cutting innovation and reducing our ability to compete in the knowledge-based economy, economic action plan 2012 invests an additional $67 million in 2012-13 to support the National Research Council in refocusing its efforts toward business-driven, industry-relevant applied research that will help Canadian businesses develop innovative products and services.

We intend to build on proven approaches used by successful global innovation players, carefully adapted to the Canadian reality.

In addition, economic action plan 2012 doubles R and D support to small and medium sized companies through the industrial research assistance program.

Through these measures, we have taken action because we are committed to turning ideas and innovations into new marketable, competitive and beneficial products that result in jobs, growth and prosperity for all Canadians in the years ahead.

Our government has a plan that we set out in 2007. The real test is not putting out plans but implementing them. We have demonstrated that we are on the right track and we will stay the course in science, technology and innovation.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I asked a question about the RADARSAT constellation mission program and its funding, and the parliamentary secretary did not even mention RADARSAT once in that very lengthy recitation.

The minister stood here in May and said very much the same words, that the Conservative government has done more for science than ever before, but the science community has very clearly told us otherwise. Over the summer, scientists from across Canada took to the lawn of Parliament to mourn the death of evidence. Scientists protested the cuts to scientific institutions and the muzzling of researchers.

When the government came to power in 2006, it was with promises to make government more transparent and responsive. Instead of changing Ottawa, Ottawa changed the Conservatives.

I will ask my questions again. When will the RADARSAT constellation mission program be funded? What is the government doing? Does it have timelines? This came out in March with the last budget. We are now in October. The uncertainty in the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the background of my colleague opposite, but I am a researcher and I can speak definitively of how this government's investment in research has benefited researchers on the ground just like myself.

With respect to the hon. member's question about Canada's ability to innovate and compete in a modern, knowledge-based economy, this government has a proven track record.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

RADARSAT?