Debates of June 5th, 2012

Opposition Motion—Scientific and social science expertise

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

If the hon. member would like to comment and perhaps return to the motion at hand, which is rather general, I will leave it to the member to return to the subject.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that the truth is starting to hurt the opposition. You will agree with me that this motion before the House today is a pretty broad motion that brings in a whole realm of activities of the Government of Canada. It is rather an omnibus motion that gives us the opportunity on this side of the House to talk about all of the great things this government is doing and has been doing since it was elected in 2006 to help further the economy of this country.

We cannot talk about Library and Archives Canada without talking about growing the economy. That is the real problem we have with the opposition members. They do not understand that the resources that go into paying for these programs and services that Canadians value so much come from a growing economy. When there are more jobs in the economy, we have more resources to invest in health care, in education, in our heritage and in things like Library and Archives Canada, but they do not understand that.

It is a year since Canadians gave us a strong mandate to focus on jobs and the economy, to bring our budget back into balance and to ensure that we continue with economic growth so that we can continue the investments that Canadians have told us are their priorities. They have said to us that their priorities are for the government to focus on jobs and the economy, but they also want us to continue to focus on health care. That is why we have increased funding for health care to the highest level in Canadian history. How do the opposition members vote? They vote against it. They have voted against everything that this government does to improve the economy of this country and to help those who create jobs in this economy.

Here we are, a year later, still talking about issues in question period. The opposition members have nothing to talk about at all, so they are dragging up questions from the first days after the last election. They are talking about issues that are not the priorities of Canadians.

Then when we point out the fact that we have actually accomplished all of the things that Canadians have sent us here to do by focusing on jobs, by creating 750,000 net new jobs, by watching how we do our resource sector, by balanced economic growth and environmental protection, they get nervous and realize they are making a mistake, but they still vote against it.

They have an opportunity here with the budget bill that we are bringing forward, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, to actually do the right thing. They have the opportunity to do the right thing for Canadian families. They have the opportunity to do the right thing for small businesses. They have the opportunity to do the right thing for those industries that help create wealth, jobs and opportunity in this country. They can vote in favour of Canada's economic action plan. They can stop the delaying tactics that they are using on all of the committees and specifically on the next phase of Canada's economic action plan and start focusing on the priorities of Canadians: jobs, the economy, health care and those programs that Canadians have come to depend on as foundational to this government.

We will continue to do this on this side of the House because we know it is what is important to Canadians. I only hope that side of the House will actually, just for once, take off their partisan hats and put the interests of Canadians first.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague the following question.

He talks about his initiative. I would like to congratulate him because putting all government data online is a good initiative. However, if there are no data because of all the cuts that the government is making in research and at Statistics Canada, what data are they going to be putting online?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, on the War of 1812 alone, Library and Archives Canada is putting out some 73,000 images for Canadians to use. The portrait gallery is putting a number of portraits online.

We are trying to work with our provincial and municipal partners across this country to make sure we digitize the collections available here in Ottawa and make them available to people across the country.

The hon. member talks about the census. We heard the ironic spectre yesterday of the Liberals wanting us to jail people who are not filling out the census, after we have said it is not something we would do. We are seeing incredible information coming back from the census that could be used by communities across this country to provide programs and services.

There will be lots available to Canadians through the digitization projects, not only through Library and Archives Canada but also through the National Film Board. I encourage the hon. member to take a look, because there are some really great things happening in both of them.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, as my uncle used to say, “Hang on there, skipper; there is more to this than meets the eye.”

I would suggest the member look at the program, the NADP, which has provided small and medium-sized grants to these local communities.

I get the feeling that the government is only looking at the act of taking a picture and putting it onto a CD. There is more to it. There is a storytelling element to this that archivists can provide. These small grants that were provided under this cancelled program really provide the expertise for the smallest of communities—church groups, ethnic groups and aboriginal communities—to tell a story.

I would like the hon. member to comment. Does he not agree that this is not just about putting a picture on a CD, but about telling a story? It is the narrative that needs to be done, and that takes a small investment from a program that the Conservatives have just cancelled.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is about telling stories and it is about unleashing the potential that we have, not only in our national museum but in those across the country, to tell that story. That is why the government, through the economic action plan, has made significant investments in arts and culture across this country.

I referenced my own two museums. I referenced the Whitchurch-Stouffville Museum, which received a $2 million boost through Canada's economic action plan. That offsets some of the other initiatives that the town could not do, which is leading to more participation at the local museum. The same goes for the Markham Museum. It has an incredible collection that the staff wants to digitize to make available to their community. They are starting to do that because this government has invested in health care.

We have uploaded a lot of those costs through Canada's economic action plan, which the opposition members voted against, whether the costs were for infrastructure for roads or bridges or all those cultural and sporting institutions. They consistently voted against all of that.

We are trying to work with our partners to alleviate those high costs that they cannot afford so that they can put more money into arts and culture. We are actually getting the job done.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, just to bring it back to the larger issue of science, I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could let me know what he thinks about who should be asking the fundamental research questions. Is it scientists or is it big industry?

His government is moving the research agenda toward making scientists answer the questions of big industry, whereas the scientists are saying that they are the ones best suited to ask these questions.

I am wondering where the hon. member stands on this debate.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us be fair. We do not consider those people who create jobs and investments and wealth in this country to be a disease that we need to run away from. On this side of the House, we believe that the people who create jobs and investments—small, medium and indeed large businesses—are actually important to the growth of the Canadian economy.

We have supported scientific research across this country through Canada's economic action plan. The member was not here for parts of the economic action plan, but if he were to look at the economic action plan, he would see significant reinvestments in our colleges and universities in research chairs across this country.

The one thing we could always depend on is that the NDP would vote against that, and so would the Liberals. When it comes to scientific research and expanding the economy, we get the job done; they do everything they can to stand in the way of that growth.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to my hon. colleague's speech, it seemed to me that he really wanted to avoid talking about science and the use of a scientific approach to good governance.

The reason for my hon. colleague's emphasis on the economy and it all being about growing the economy is that those members do not want to face honest accounting of what is going on in the country. Just as an example that I would bring up to him, the Soviet Union had a lot of economic growth for many decades, but the economy and the society was rotten at the core and they were not willing to be honest with themselves as to what was going on in their country. That is the sort of thing that can go wrong.

Why does my hon. colleague not want our government to be honest with itself and the Canadian people?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, what an absolutely disgusting question from that member.

The member's party on that side actually clapped when he compared this government to the Soviet Union, which massacred hundreds of thousands of people and was responsible for all kinds of atrocious crimes across the world. What an absolutely disgusting thing for that member to say. It really showcases the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. Those members will do anything, say anything, to try to convince Canadians that they actually care about anything, but they do not.

We are going to focus on jobs and the economy, and we are going to do that so we can pay for health care, so we can pay for the things in my department, such as Canadian Heritage, Library and Archives Canada and our national museums, all things they consistently vote against.

What a disgusting way to try to win points in a debate.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will tell the House what is disgusting.

I find it completely ridiculous, and even hypocritical, that a Conservative member should rise and list the things against which the NDP has voted, while we are debating a bill of more than 400 pages under a time allocation motion. That is what is hypocritical, disgusting and ridiculous.

Many cuts have been announced. I would like to name just a few of them: the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy; the Major Resources Support Grant, the Discovery Grants and the Research Tools and Instruments Grants have been eliminated at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; and the First Nations Statistical Institute has been abolished.

One would think that this government has no confidence in science. Could the member tell us why not?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, that itself highlights the difference between the opposition and the government.

It is quite clear to us that the opposition does not understand the budget implementation act. We understand that. Those members probably have not read it. They do not care to talk about all of the important initiatives that are within Canada's economic action plan that will unleash job creation and potential in this economy. They do not get it. They do not understand that. I get that.

We are going to continue to focus on all those things Canadians want us to focus on, because it is the right thing to do. What the opposition does not understand is that by growing the economy, by putting in place initiatives that will help people create jobs, there is more revenue for the government to invest in health care, in culture, in heritage, in education, including some of the things we did through our economic action plan, which included improvements to our colleges and universities, which included research chairs to a number of our institutions.

How do they vote? They vote against it. Then they get upset when we talk about the fact that they voted against every single initiative this government has brought forward to improve the economy. Whether it is housing, they vote against it, or whether it is research, they vote against it. No matter what it is, opposition members vote against it. They stand for nothing, and now they are getting caught up in a web of lies they have tried to sow with Canadians. On this side of the House we will stand up for those Canadian taxpayers and jobs, because it is the right thing to do.

[Claude Gravelle]

You are disgusting.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on a point of order.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do have thick skin in most circumstances, but I just want to note the fact that the people in my riding sent me here with the largest plurality in the entire country. I am not sure it is parliamentary to call the representative of the largest riding in Canada “disgusting” and the opinions of the people I represent “disgusting”.

I wonder, Madam Speaker, if you might ask the hon. member to take a moment to maybe apologize, not only to me but to the 250,000 people I represent who did not send members of Parliament here to call each other disgusting and other names like that.

If this is the new civility in the NDP, I would hate to see what happens when civility breaks down on that side of the House.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, if the member from that side of the House wants to apologize to Canadians for misleading them and saying that the NDP voted against this and voted against that and we do not know what we are voting against, I will consider apologizing to him.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems as if this getting a bit out of hand. However, if people would like to apologize for calling each other disgusting, I think maybe the first person who used that word in the last few minutes should start with an apology.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before we continue along that path, I would like to remind all members to be judicious in their choice of language. The word “disgusting” has been bandied around. I think it is not a polite term. I am not sure it is unparliamentary, but it is certainly not a polite term. I would not like to see it used about a person, particularly.

At this point, I would like to ask all members to be judicious in their use of language in this House. This is the Parliament of Canada. I think all Canadians expect us to be respectful. Certainly, there is not necessarily agreement, but there must be respectful language in our debates.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary want to pursue this point?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kingston and the Islands raised a point. What I did call disgusting was his question. Any time a member equates a particular party, a duly elected government, with a regime that was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and untold atrocities, I do think that is a disgusting question.

However, I still have not heard an apology from the member of the NDP for calling the representative of the largest riding in Canada disgusting. I do not think that is parliamentary, Madam Speaker, and his explanation does not suffice.

I hope you will review some of that and, if some of that was picked up in the transcript, you will demand that the member apologize, not only to me but to this House, for such a lack of decorum and for the continued slide of the NDP towards gutter politics.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not calling him disgusting. I was calling what he was saying disgusting. Lying to the Canadian public is disgusting, and it should be held as that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I think that I will review the record and, if appropriate, I will come back to the House with a ruling.

For now, I think perhaps he has clarified his intent. I did not hear whatever was said, but his intent was not to personalize the debate.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will try to stop using bad words, even though we are being told that we are getting caught up in a web of our own lies. That is quite something to say as well. I have to wonder if the word “lies” is unparliamentary language. Regardless, I will share my time with my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Once again, we are gathered here to talk about the blind cuts being made by this government. Unfortunately, some competent people who actually know about these subjects are currently leaving the room, which is too bad because I would have re-read today's motion to them:

That, in the opinion of the House, Canadian scientific and social science expertise is of great value and, therefore, the House calls on the Government to end its muzzling of scientists; to reverse the cuts to research programs at Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Library and Archives Canada, National Research Council Canada, Statistics Canada, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; and to cancel the closures of the National Council of Welfare and the First Nations Statistical Institute.

The purpose of today's debate is to protect those people in the public service who aim to fuel the debate with objective facts and observations. It is something scientific. Several people said earlier that some people on the other side were having difficulty accepting scientific facts. I would not say that it is because a portion of them are creationists, but there are some people across the way who think that the world is flat or who thought that for some time, anyway.

Today, we wonder if some are denying certain facts deliberately. Why? Is it because of their religious views or because they have strong ties to large companies that, of course, would themselves prefer to choose environmental data analyses with results that suit them better? What is their motivation?

I do not know, but there is a reason why this is the theme of our opposition day: science generally does seem to be losing more and more ground. My colleague who is a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage was just called to order on that very issue. I do not believe that this is a topic that he tries to avoid at all costs, but he certainly has his hands full.

This man constantly has to defend the positions of the Conservatives on heritage, archives, libraries and culture, so many issues that they obviously do not care about, with the exception of an editorial line of narrow thinking and a precise reading of history, which they try to shove down our throats with a vengeance. With the exception of those two specific themes, they do not care about those issues.

But when one is the representative in the House of the people at the Department of Canadian Heritage who are responsible for those areas, when one is responsible for constantly defending those issues on behalf of a team that does not care, one is constantly busy. The Minister of Canadian Heritage said himself on TV that his team was constantly backstabbing him because he stood up for the CBC and other noble cultural issues associated with fine arts and Latin literature, in their view.

I even heard him say just now that he was very proud of cutting the ribbon at an institution. I would rather hear him talk fondly about organizations he has a connection with than talk about the cuts that the Conservatives are currently making.

But what I am really interested in, for example, is the doublespeak on Library and Archives Canada. Earlier I heard the hon. member opposite praise the merits of digitization. Of course, that probably has to do with a date in history that adds up to 21 exactly—yes, I am talking about 1812. I have no doubt that he is really interested in that because he likes numbers a lot.

All that aside, they talk about public servants who are digitizing information so that it can be shared. However, the current bill will mean that 50% of the archivists will be laid off, something that seems to me in fact to be completely illogical.

There will always be a need for archivists. Right now, the Conservatives are saying quite enthusiastically that it is marvellous to have access to information. They are patting themselves on the back and saying it is extraordinary that today culture is available on the Web, but on the other hand, they are making cuts. It seems they are taking credit for properly managing the troops, they are congratulating the archivists for their good work, but then they are telling them to get lost. That is what they are saying.

I myself went to meet with the archivists, when they were in town 10 days ago. They were completely shattered. Honestly, no one is more passionate about knowledge than the people at Library and Archives Canada. These people are only interested in the truth, in history and in facts.

No one is in a better position than they are to assess the thoughtlessness with which these cuts are being made, under a gun. Because cuts had to be made, the Conservatives just found a place where cuts could be made and they cut. What happened at that point? The cuts were not made in any visible areas, but rather in an obscure area. What happens when they do not know what it is they are cutting?

Is it not true that the most important thing in a home, or in a society is its foundation, its culture, its history? It is crucial. As we speak, we may well be in a period of restraint. We will have to find out whether things are going well in Canada, or not. We no longer know for sure, because it changes from day to day, according to our colleagues opposite.

The NDP believes that work must be done in broad daylight and that the best antiseptic is sunlight, that the best way of knowing we are doing the right thing is to do it in the open. This is something that I criticize constantly. Watching the Conservatives, we see that they work in the shadows. They decided to make cuts in places where it would not be too obvious.

It is clear that if 100 archivists showed up in a park in Ottawa, it would be a rather low-key affair. In their heart of hearts, they would rather not breathe fire, wave placards or set fire to mailboxes. They are intellectuals, they are pragmatists, and they are rational people. Of course, they will be against these cuts. There is no better target for cuts than people like them, people who usually work behind the scenes. If the government decided to cut back on snow removal because of a shortage of money, that would really be obvious. But cuts to archiving will go through like a letter in the mail—assuming there is no lockout.

I would also like to mention another very sad program. Actually, the program is not sad at all; on the contrary, it is a wonderful program. But it too was arbitrarily cut. It is called the national archival development program. What is deplorable about it is that we constantly hear from the people opposite about the value of a penny here and a penny there. But we all know the value of a dollar.

It is all a question of choice and of management. You have to know how to manage wealth creation and sharing. This is a very strange example. The national archival development program is being cut, though its main feature was getting communities involved. With each dollar invested by the federal government, people managed to interest private partners in the community so that they could organize local exhibitions and enhance local archives. But the choice was made to cut it. Once again, it was an arbitrary cut.

What is sad in all this is the short-term, panicked vision. That kind of behaviour is what scares me most at the moment. We can feel that everyone associated with the Conservative government is afraid; they are afraid of being cut and they are afraid to speak out loud and clear.

I have seen constant examples of that fear from people who have come to testify about the cuts. It can even be seen in the Prime Minister's staff.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to give us an example of how Archives Canada has revealed or provided evidence of an error made in the past and provided us with the opportunity to correct it, reconcile with the past and move forward to the future.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt about the hon. member's good faith, but I did not really understand his question very well. However, I appreciate his candid, honest reaction.

I will simply say that, when I was at the demonstration 10 days ago, I met a man who told me how devastating it was to see that his work was being threatened. Actually, he was working on something that the hon. member might be able to relate to. He was involved with the archiving of aerial photographs of Canada. I do not recall their date, but they were clearly very old photographs. To take them, you needed a plane and a camera. That tells you how old they were. I am no aeronautical engineer or expert photographer. But it was still clear to me how relevant it was to have a portrait of Canada from the air at that point in time. And if those photographs are not archived properly, information will certainly be lost when someone is trying to talk about our country, about the erosion of riverbanks, or any kind of subject that has nothing political about it and does not deal with the art of mime or dance. Those are things that should normally interest the hon. members opposite.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to my colleague across the way denigrate the major investments we have made in education, research and commercialization. I want to read a couple of quotes that people from the university environment have made.

From the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the chair, the president of UBC, said:

In the face of tough fiscal choices, the government showed leadership by continuing its investments in research, innovation, research infrastructure and university-private sector collaborations...These investments will build a stronger future for our society and economy.

Paul Davidson, the president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, said:

The budget provides new opportunities for talented graduate students to gain research experiences in companies across Canada...We’re also pleased the budget recognizes the importance of deepening international education and research linkages.

This is feedback from people who are actually doing that research, directing it and benefiting by it. How can NDP members say that they have such great knowledge about the research that is being done when people like this are applauding the government—