Debates of June 5th, 2012

Opposition Motion—Scientific and Social Science Expertise

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

Madam Speaker, my goodness, Conservatives are worried about whether numbers are right or not. That is something we do not hear too often.

My research showed a cut of 20%. If that is slightly wrong, I apologize. But that is what my research turned up. I would be forthcoming with changing numbers if the Conservative government were forthcoming with numbers as well.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

Yesterday, hundreds of Canadians took part in the Black Out Speak Out campaign. Environmental groups and organizations such as Équiterre, Greenpeace, Ecojustice and the David Suzuki Foundation, as well as scientists and ordinary Canadians participated. All these Canadian Internet users came together to condemn the Conservative government's approach to the environment and democracy. Therefore, today it is very timely that we are debating the opposition motion concerning cuts to science and technology.

I believe this is a real tragedy because it will be some years until we see the impact of these cuts on our daily lives. Once again, it seems that the Conservatives are trying to mortgage our future with this omnibus bill. Honestly, as a young Canadian, I find it revolting.

Basically, the opposition motion is taking the government to task for three things: muzzling scientists; showing contempt for basic research and the social sciences; and cutting the research programs of various departments, including Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Statistics Canada and the various Canadian research councils, as well as closing the National Council of Welfare and the First Nations Statistical Institute.

The Conservatives had shown their contempt for science and research long before this most recent budget. During their first year in power, they cut off funding to a dozen or so research programs. That was also around the time when Status of Women Canada's budget was reduced in a draconian way and its mandate changed in order to specifically exclude any work related to research. The Conservatives had no interest in acknowledging gender inequality because that went against their ideology.

Then, in 2010, the Conservatives got rid of the long form census, an essential decision-making tool used by various federal departments, the provinces and municipalities, businesses and non-governmental organizations.

We cannot underestimate the importance of science and technology when it comes to the governance of the country. Let us not forget that several members of the Conservative government question basic climatology. Countless statements from across the way deny the impact of human activity on climate change. Just this week, journalist Mike De Souza reported that a Conservative MP wondered whether volcanoes might be the real culprits behind climate change.

I am not using this example to embarrass my hon. colleagues, but rather to underscore the importance of scientific experts in the governance of this country. After all, very few members in this House are experts in climate change. However, instead of learning more about the issue, my Conservative colleagues prefer to slash funding to the organizations and projects that used to play key roles in the governance of this country. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is one example of this. In short, we have a government that does not trust science and is willing to do whatever it takes to advance its ideological agenda, even denying the facts.

This leads me to another problem with this government: the muzzling of scientists. For some time now, it appears as though the Conservative government has been trying to hide important information from the public by preventing government scientists from speaking to the media.

For the record, I would point out the case of Mr. Tarasick, who was denied the right to speak to the media regarding his research on climate change. The same thing happened to Kristi Miller who studied the causes of the sockeye salmon collapse in British Columbia.

The prestigious publication Nature even called on the Canadian government on two separate occasions to give its scientists their freedom of expression back.

This is the context in which the majority Conservative government has presented its first budget. The scientific community had every reason to be wary. For the past five years, this government has been choosing to ignore any scientific proof that goes against its ideology and trying to muzzle anyone who does not think the same way, even going as far as cutting funding to anyone who does not share its ideology.

Several times now in this House, I have had the opportunity to criticize the cuts to science and the environment made by the Conservatives in the most recent budget.

In particular, I have condemned the government's decision to dismantle the round table on the environment. I am shocked that the government is eliminating this valuable policy tool just because the organization insisted on talking about the cost of failing to address climate change.

I am also appalled by cuts to science programs and jobs at Environment Canada. For example, a key mining and paper industry emissions monitoring program will be cut, as will the unit responsible for sustainable water management and the oil spill intervention team. To me, that is simply irresponsible.

At Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the situation is even grimmer: 1,000 jobs will be cut because of restructuring.

According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is likely to cut all of its science teams working on the impact of contaminants on aquatic ecosystems. In Quebec, this means that the St. Lawrence estuary, one of the most contaminated in North America, is at risk.

At the Maurice Lamontagne Institute in Mont-Joli, 22 employees are in danger of losing their jobs. The Laboratory of Expertise in Aquatic Chemical Analysis will be closed. And another three biologist positions will be cut in Sept-Îles, Gaspé and Cap-aux-Meules.

Lyne Morissette, co-holder of the UNESCO Chair in Integrated Analysis of Marine Systems at the Université du Québec à Rimouski, did not hesitate to speak out about this attempt to silence science:

[This laboratory] is a jewel of marine science research in Canada. It provided scientific information that was crucial, but that probably did not suit the government, because these people worked extensively on the impact of hydrocarbons....It is no coincidence that these people were affected. Scientists are being muzzled, and the government does not want to hear what they have to say. It is clear that if [the Prime Minister] is not happy with something, he strategically cuts those who are getting in his way.

Also at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, the only French-language science library on fisheries will be shut down. The government is taking this opportunity to transfer administrative positions to Fredericton, in the fisheries minister's riding.

In response to these changes, as well as the changes to the Fisheries Act regarding fish habitat protection, four former federal fisheries ministers, including two Conservatives, have spoken out publicly.

Tom Siddon, the Conservative fisheries minister from 1985 to 1990, said this:

[The Conservatives] are totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act. They are really taking the guts out of the Fisheries Act and it’s in devious little ways if you read all the fine print...they are making a Swiss cheese out of [it].

The cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada are tarnishing our international reputation. Indeed, a group of scientists from Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research denounced the closing of the Experimental Lakes Area, an open-air laboratory made up of 58 lakes, with the following statement:

The general public in Canada and across the globe has gained from the numerous insights resulting from the trail-blazing research at ELA over the past 45 years. It seems incredible that, at this time, the Canadian government should choose to destroy this unique, world-class research facility.

In addition to cutting the research being done as part of various departments' regular activities, the Conservative government has begun to fundamentally change the activities of the main centres that are conducting research across the country.

Not content with reducing the overall research funding envelope, the government is embarking on a reorientation of the research being done at the National Research Council Canada towards applications that are geared to the needs of private business.

The major losers in this ideological reorientation are the human sciences and the basic research activities that have been deemed less “useful” or less “profitable” by this government.

Let me conclude by expressing the hope that Canada may one day have a government that respects its scientists and that bases its decisions on reason and facts rather than on ideology and calculating partisanship.

Our sick and our elderly deserve governments that know where to invest in health. Our provincial, municipal and aboriginal governments deserve a government with the data that allows for better support. Our anglers and hunters deserve a government with the information necessary to ensure the sustainable development of those resources. Our children and our generations to come deserve a government that is looking out for their economic, social and environmental future.

In short, Canadians deserve a government that takes into account the importance of science—something this Conservative government refuses to do.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member went to McGill University. In budget 2009, our federal government announced the knowledge infrastructure program, which did a number of things. It created jobs at the immediate time and it allowed for future research capacity at McGill. However, it also reduced tuition fee hike pressures, because the federal government is ultimately paying for university infrastructure.

The money went for brain imaging, upgrades and renovation of chemistry facilities, pulp and paper research and engineering innovation. With the province and federal government, it amounted to about $103 million to improve the research capacity. It was for all kinds of things, from basic to all the way through.

The NDP voted against that funding. It voted against that money going into Quebec, in particular to the member's own university, if I am correct. I am wondering if she could comment and justify why the NDP would vote against that measure?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to note that there have been enormous cuts to science. Despite the fact that the minister likes to cite specific projects and specific examples, when we look at the big picture, we see a brain drain happening in Canada. Young folks are leaving because they know that they cannot get funding for things like basic science.

Here on the NDP side we raise concerns with the government's tendency to take funding away from basic science and move it towards applied science. We know that we need both sides if we want to ensure a strong future. We know that the basic science from previous years, previous decades, has contributed to things that we have applied today. We know that advances in science in medicine have come from investments in basic science.

As I said in my speech, enormous cuts have been made to conservation programs, and I would like the minister to speak about those cuts.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question that is related to the question that was just posed by the Minister of Science and Technology.

Because of the cuts to the research tools and instrumentation program and the major resources support program, one avenue that scientists have been looking at to pay for needed equipment or for equipment repair is the indirect costs of research program. Therefore, they are going to be hitting up the universities to get money out of the indirect costs of research program. That is going to provide upward pressure on tuition fees. Would my hon. colleague care to comment about that?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we certainly cannot accuse this Conservative government of wanting to lower tuition fees, but that is not the subject of this debate.

We see that Quebec universities are currently suffering as a result of the cuts made by this Conservative government. My office and those of my colleagues have received letters from the Université de Sherbrooke that say that essential projects have been cut. Universities across the country are carrying out unique projects that are not being conducted anywhere else. By eliminating these projects, we are losing irreplaceable data, essential data, that are used internationally.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on her speech. She reminded us of the importance of having scientific data and evidence in order to advance and adjust our policies.

I would like her to quickly comment on the Conservatives' ideological attitude with regard to these cuts and how it undermines the integrity of the scientific community.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised an important point.

Science affects not only the fields of medicine and fisheries and oceans, but also the governance of the country. It is therefore essential that a government use its scientists' expertise. It is essential that this government make decisions that are based not on ideology but on facts and science.

By cutting funding for the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, this government can make ideological decisions without any watchdogs and without any scientists to tell it that its approach is not science-based. Unfortunately, we see a government that has chosen to govern based on ideology.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage in the debate. I want to thank my colleague who spoke earlier and did such a good job of outlining the problems that Canadians are facing at the hands of the government as it goes about hacking and slashing away at science, facts and knowledge.

When we raise concerns about various programs that are being cut, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of state gets up and talks about the money that the government is giving to a program or a university or the like. What he is missing is the real crux of the problem here.

It is not that those programs that the government is investing in are somehow wrong or bad; they are not. However, the danger is that it is cutting away research being done by government departments that is crucial in so many ways. I want to talk a bit about that in my few minutes that I have here today.

We are talking about environment science and fisheries science that enable us to understand two things. One is what development is doing to fish stocks and fish habitat—in other words, not just the fish but everything they eat, where they live and how they survive. That is what the government is attacking in the changes to the Fisheries Act. However, it is important science in that it allows us to know what impacts our activities are having on our environment, on other species, on plants and on the air we breathe.

I just participated in a discussion a few moments ago about the decision of the government, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to cut the Experimental Lakes project. This project has been in existence for four decades in northern Ontario and is made up of 58 small lakes. It does not just perform freshwater science in the laboratory; it has access to the ecosystem. It has access to living, breathing lakes on which it performs important research to determine the effects of various things we as humans do and the effects of development on that ecosystem. The government has decided to cut that.

I do not understand it. Scientists from around the world have condemned this decision, because they recognize the kind of contribution this one organization makes to research and science in the world with respect to how the animals within that ecosystem exist.

The other day there was a little story told by a former director of the Experimental Lakes Area, or the Freshwater Institute, as it is sometimes known, at our subcommittee. He talked about a study they were doing on acid rain and the acid rain levels that were being proposed to be set by government. They found that the levels did not affect the actual fish that were under review, so if they limited their study to that aspect, they would find that those levels of concentration were fine.

However, they went beyond that. They looked at the organisms, the other fish that those fish ate. They determined that the concentration level of acid rain that was being permitted did not affect that particular breed of fish, but it affected everything else that fish ate. In other words, if they had approved that concentration level of acid rain as permissible, it would not have directly killed that fish, but the fish would have starved to death, because all of the food that sustains that fish, allows it to thrive and reproduce, would have gone.

He made that point to underline the changes in the Fisheries Act which focus no longer on fish habitat, in other words the whole ecosystem, but focus most specifically on commercially viable fish. He pointed out that it is completely wrong-headed. He also made the point that the research that is being done by this institute, by the Experimental Lakes Area project, is so valuable. It has made so many important contributions, not only to this country, but to countries around the world in terms of its research.

It is just one example of the projects that have come under attack from the government. Just in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans alone there have been $80 million of cuts to the departmental budget. Much of it has been staff cuts to science and research, which undermine our ability to manage threats to the fisheries.

There is a whole host of things in here: libraries, archives, the elimination of DFO's ocean pollution monitoring program, which will cut 75 staff, including Canada's only marine mammal toxicologist. The Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research will not close, but its work will be seriously curtailed as a result of cuts. That makes me crazy.

I am from Nova Scotia, and there is under consideration the development of the old Harry site in the Gulf to drill for oil. There is talk that the government will ram through whatever it needs to ram through this House in order to ensure that bitumen gets shipped out to the west coast. There will be a whole plethora of tankers running up and down that dangerous coastline, running the risk of serious oil spills, on the east coast, on the west coast. We have not even started talking about the Arctic.

At the same time that it is moving forward with that kind of development, without the necessary checks and balances, it is cutting the science that is available to make sure we know what we are doing and how to go about it.

My time is up, but I want to share this with the House. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in Dartmouth, the community I represent. It appears from the media that he was not particularly well received. One of the questions he was asked was about the decision to cut funding for the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research.

People asked him why he would do that, and he said that it would not close and that work would be done by the private sector. I thought to myself, who, Exxon Mobil? Maybe the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers would now be the scientific watchdog with respect to offshore oil development and drilling and the effect it will have on our coastline. These are the kinds of things--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I try to keep the members apprised of the time that is available to them, but unfortunately we have run out of time. Now we will go to questions and comments.

The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale has been very helpful. He is very concerned about this file.

We have a scientist we have been funding in the area of nanotechnologies who has now come up with a microscopic switch. One of the uses of this switch is to warn drivers on our highways of deer. It is a motion detector that can switch on a flashing yellow light.

My hypothetical question is this. Now that the research is done, we should move that technology to the commercial side and get it out there to save people's lives. If we then we shift to a new project of more need to the nation--not take it back, but shift it--would that member interpret that kind of progress as a cut to science?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a beautiful example because that is important research. However, nanotechnology is also what the Experimental Lakes Area project is involved in. In fact, scientists around the world have referred to it as the world's only ecological supercollider. In other words, it is all about the use of ecological nanotechnology. I say for the minister of state to support that program, but also to support this program because it is doing equally, if not more, important work and that is the kind of threat the government would put the environment under.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that just as we were talking about nanotechnology I was reading an email from a very prominent nanotechnology researcher who is worried about whether he should be leaving the country to do his research.

My question is about the Experimental Lakes Area. It is a bit strange that in the last couple of years, in the fiscal years ending 2010 and 2011, there was about $800,000 spent by the Conservative government when it was still a minority government on a state-of-the-art research facility in the Experimental Lakes Area. That is when it was a minority government, maybe being careful and afraid to do what it really wanted to do. Now we have a majority government and the Conservatives decide they want to kill the Experimental Lakes program.

Would my colleague comment on the change in behaviour of the Conservatives, spending money to build a state-of-the-art research facility when they were a minority government, and then when they are a majority government and can really do what they want to do, killing the funding for the Experimental Lakes Area?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I had this to say earlier. When somebody said to me, “Do the members opposite just not care about information, facts and knowledge?” I said, “Not for a second”.

The women and men on the opposite side are not stupid. They are intelligent people, but the problem is this. What they have shown is if they do not agree with the science and it does not serve their purposes, then they are going to shut it down. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is gone. The National Council of Welfare is gone. The Experimental Lakes Area project is gone.

I do not understand why the government does not have the confidence that is necessary, and that Canadians demand from their government, to allow the House of Commons to be filled with differing opinions and ideas so we ensure that the decisions we make in the final analysis are based on sound research, sound facts and sound debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

In 2007 our government released our science and technology strategy. It lays out a framework to guide strategic investments with the goal of fostering Canadian advantage in three areas: entrepreneurial advantage, knowledge advantage and people advantage. This strategy is guided by four core principles: promoting world-class excellence, focusing on priorities, encouraging partnerships and enhancing accountability.

In 2009 we announced Canada's economic action plan in response to the global economic crisis. As part of this plan, and consistent with the S and T strategy objectives, the government created the knowledge infrastructure program. More commonly known as KIP, the $2 billion program was designed to provide significant, short-term economic stimulus in communities across Canada while enhancing the long-term training and research capacity of Canadian universities and colleges.

Including funds leveraged from the provincial and territorial governments, educational institutions and private sector partners, this program resulted in a total investment of more than $5 billion in 190 communities across the country. The work at these facilities created and maintained jobs for engineers, construction workers and many others when they were needed most. The impact that these investments had on research and training in Canada was truly remarkable and provided clear evidence of this government's commitment to research in Canada.

These projects contributed to the development of Canada's knowledge advantage by enhancing research facilities. KIP has improved the ability of institutions to conduct research in life sciences, information and communications technologies, energy and environment, and other disciplines, as well as in key sectors such as automotive and aerospace.

An example of our support for scientific research is our project at the University of Manitoba for its regenerative medicine renovation and development project. Thanks to funding from KIP and the province, a major renovation and expansion of the school's medical sciences building was completed. The expansion accommodated new labs, offices and study space to support new faculty, graduate students, lab technicians and post-doctoral fellows. The project enhanced the university's ability to educate future doctors and develop one of the top three regenerative medicine programs in Canada.

KIP helped develop Canada's people advantage by expanding training capacity at colleges and universities. In total, KIP projects added 2.2 million square feet to classrooms and training facilities, as well as 2.6 million square feet of laboratory space.

It may interest the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas to note that support under this category included a $39 million KIP project at the British Columbia Institute of Technology in his riding. Critical renovations to infrastructure at BCIT included state-of-the-art teaching technologies and sustainable building systems, including a micro-electricity grid. Furthermore, the project included completing seismic upgrades and modernizing safety and ventilation systems. The project was also designed to meet the requirements of LEED, leadership in energy and environmental design gold certification.

Also in the member's riding, the government funded a major overhaul of Simon Fraser University's chemistry facility. With $24.4 million in KIP funding, SFU completed a $49.4 million overhaul of the facility that brought the labs up to modern standards. Built to the LEED gold standard, the extensive improvements included a new exterior envelope and roof, seismic bracing, new fume hoods, lab benches, new heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and upgraded mechanical, electrical and safety systems.

A total of 380 projects increased the energy efficiency of campuses, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 175,000 tonnes of CO₂, which is the equivalent of the emissions of 34,000 passenger cars. These projects also provided estimated operational savings of $23 million per year.

One particularly interesting example is the construction of a 120,000 square foot environmental demonstration and training facility at the Nova Scotia Community College. The hon. member who just spoke might be interested in that. It incorporated solar panels, planted rooftops, living walls covered with vegetation, wind turbines, photovoltaic panels and geothermal heating and cooling.

Roughly half of all KIP projects resulted in significant health and safety improvements, addressing areas such as accessibility for persons with disabilities, fire safety, security systems, air quality, water leakage and resistance to earthquakes.

Finally, the program helped develop Canada's entrepreneurial advantage through new and expanded business incubation facilities that supported effective collaboration between academia and the private sector. These facilities are crucial in helping to accelerate the commercialization of the academic research into products in the marketplace, to expose more professors and students to real world applications and to encourage more private sector innovation and growth.

One of the best examples of this type of project is the MiQro Innovation Research Centre at Université de Sherbrooke. The Government of Canada partnered with the province of Quebec on this $218 million project to build a centre of excellence for electronic research and assembly. The new MiQro Innovation Research Centre is expected to become a world leader in assembling the next generation of microchips, thanks to collaboration with key local industry partners, including IBM Canada and Teledyne DALSA, Inc.

In just 31 months, KIP went from concept to conclusion and provided key stimulus to our economy at a critical time. In addition to supporting scientific research infrastructure, the program also clearly demonstrated the government's commitment to sound management of public finances.

The Auditor General's report examined the effectiveness of the implementation of all economic action plan programs, including KIP, and noted, “the total time needed to design, review, and approve programs was reduced from the approximately six months normally required to two months”. The AG's report held up KIP as “an example of speedy implementation”.

The report recognized the effectiveness of KIP's project monitoring and reporting systems, its speedy implementation and its effective collaborations with provinces and territories, as well as colleges and universities. Thanks to those partnerships, KIP stands out as a tremendous example of governments working together to take action during a time of great economic uncertainty.

We are quite pleased that the Auditor General of Canada confirmed that the program was delivered effectively and efficiently. KIP not only made a difference in meeting immediate economic challenges, but it also set the foundation for future prosperity in the knowledge economy. The program was an excellent demonstration of our strong commitment to supporting Canada's science and technology sector. The investments made provided a strong base for research and helped create new facilities that would help attract new students and provide a better educational experience for tomorrow's highly skilled workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat a reaction that I had to the speech by the of the minister of state and I had the same reaction to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

I believe the parliamentary secretary has missed the point of this motion. The point is not that we should not be funding the knowledge infrastructure program, the point is whether the government will listen to advice from scientists and people who have made measurements, observed the country, done their homework and figured out and analyzed the situation.

Will the government take advice that it does not agree with or that embarrasses it? Will it have a scientific approach to good governance as opposed to simply funding technology or ensuring that we have good buildings and facilities in our country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that maybe I missed the point of the opposition motion today. I would suggest that there really is no point to the opposition motion today.

In terms of the member's comment about taking the advice of the experts, the Minister of State for Science and Technology takes the advice of those experts every day. The minister meets with stakeholders across the country on a regular basis in round tables and meetings where he hears their views.

We only have to look as far as economic action plan 2012 to see how the government has taken that advice. We can see things like the reinvesting of $37 million annually, starting in 2012-13, to the granting councils to enhance their support for industry and academic research partnerships. I have more lists I could go through if I get another such question.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really obvious how narrow-minded the government opposite is when we hear responses like that, and especially when the minister insults members opposite by belittling what they are saying. For nearly a year, the government has been trying to muzzle any opposition.

We are talking about science and technology. These fields advance civilizations, from Galileo to Newton and from Darwin to Einstein. These people had to face similar opposition.

Now, the government is putting Canadian scientists on the chopping block. Once again, the government's narrow-mindedness is muzzling these voices.

I have to wonder how the government, which claims to be responsible and open-minded, can oppose a motion like the one that was moved today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about research and listening to Canadians. Before he voted against the budget in 2012, I wonder if he actually took the time to take a look at the budget document. If he had taken that time, he would have seen some interesting investments that were made in the interests of all Canadians, investments like $60 million for Genome Canada to launch a new applied research competition in the area of human health and to sustain the science and technology centres until 2014-15. It is on page 54 if he wants to read it. There are $6.5 million over three years for a research project at McMaster University to evaluate team-based approaches to health care delivery, $17 million over two years to further advance the development of alternatives to existing isotope production technology and $10 million over two years to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research to link Canadians to global research networks.

I could continue to read through the budget document for the hon. member, but I would suggest that he take the time to read the document himself.

[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 this opportunity to address the House on the important issue of government science supporting our decision making and, in fact, our government's record of upholding this important function.

It is important for fisheries and oceans because it has a broad and powerful mandate, requiring the minister to regularly make decisions affecting Canadians. Many Canadians whose lives and businesses are directly influenced by this mandate include commercial, recreational and aboriginal fishermen, those in the marine transportation business, developers in proximity of water, aquaculturists, tourism operators and many more. Not least are the many everyday Canadians who rightfully want our aquatic resources to be protected and available for both current and future generations.

Therefore, science at fisheries and oceans is a critical element in ensuring that sound decision making is achieved. Today, in the few minutes I have, I want to focus on this science program, outlining its multifaceted nature and some notable recent achievements and investments in new and continuing science activities since 2006.

The numerous fisheries and aquaculture operations in our country generate a total of $5.3 billion in GDP, and that is 2008 values, and in so doing, support upwards of 71,000 Canadians, including their families and communities. In order to advise the minister on the potential outcomes of the many resource-use decisions that are needed, the fisheries science program at DFO maintains a broad suite of aquatic resource monitoring activities, including research vessel surveys and regular population assessments.

This vital fisheries science program has seen several important investments in recent years, including $8.4 million per year in permanent funding for ecosystem-based science and a total of $68.5 million since 2007 to maintain key collaborative activities with the fishing industry.

Let me begin with aquaculture, where fisheries and oceans aquaculture science is essential and has two main programs. For more than 10 years, the aquaculture collaborative research and development program has partnered with industry to invest $2 million per year in scientific research to improve environmental performance and fish health in aquaculture operations.

The second key aquaculture science program is the program for aquaculture regulatory research. This $7 million program was founded in 2008. It supports the environmental management of the Canadian aquaculture sector.

Both are very important.

I will move on to aquatic invasive species, one of the leading threats to aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem health. DFO's national program on aquatic invasive species was initiated in 2005 and renewed in 2010, at $4 million per year, to assist Fisheries and Oceans Canada to respond to the invasive species challenge. The research completed has yielded much valuable scientific advice.

In addition, on May 28, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a significant investment to protect the Great Lakes from the threat of Asian carp. This new funding, totalling $17.5 million over five years, is in addition to the $8.1 million per year that we invest in the sea lamprey control program which, in collaboration with our partners, keeps the invasive sea lamprey numbers down by more than 90%.

As shown, DFO is committed to the sustainability of the Canadian fisheries and aquaculture industries. However, it also aims to protect aquatic biodiversity upon which these fisheries depend. One key tool used by the department to achieve such protection is the Species at Risk Act of 2003. Species surveys conducted by DFO scientists are the main source of information to identify and protect aquatic species at risk. Budget 2012 made an investment of $75 million over three years to support SARA implementation, including scientific activities.

This government is also serious about supporting responsible energy development. To that end, budget 2012 provided $35.7 million over two years to introduce measures to support that key objective. Details are still being finalized, but the bulk of this funding will go to DFO to support the research activities needed to improve scientific knowledge and understanding of marine pollution risks and to manage the impacts in the event of a marine incident.

We are at the leading edge of science and several highly technical and emerging fields of science like genomics, which is the science that studies DNA in living organisms and how it affects their biological functions. The government has recently invested an additional $1 million in fishery science through the genomics research and development initiative. This DNA analysis is making it possible to better distinguish among fish species, enhance our understanding of their population structures and improve the regulation of fisheries.

For example, as members know, the Fraser River sockeye salmon species on the west coast has been under some stress recently. Although 2010 was a record year, it has been in decline.

The species is made up of a number of different populations. Some come down the west coast of British Columbia and take a left turn at the Fraser River, and some take a right turn at Cultus Lake, and of course we call those the Cultus Lake sockeye. They look like every other sockeye, but to know which are which, we need to do some DNA analysis to know when the exploitation rate has been reached so that we can protect the population. It is an important area of science.

Marine transportation is fundamental to the nation's economic prosperity as well. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, known as UNCLOS, article 76, Canada is invited to provide evidence for territorial delineation of our continental shelf. This could potentially add a significant economic opportunity for Canadians, if rights on the sea bottom and sub-bottom resources on the Atlantic coast and in the Arctic outside our 200-mile exclusive economic zone are accorded to Canada.

Since 2004, over $30 million has been provided to support the continental shelf work. This investment has not only yielded critical data for the Canadian submission to the UN but it has also enhanced our science capacity in hydrography, geology, ocean engineering and modelling of the sea bottom.

Other ocean sciences, such as oceanography, are a key element of the department's science agenda. Canada recognizes the need for ocean sciences; it is the foundation of our understanding of Canada's oceans.

To equip our scientists with the necessary tools to undertake this research, we have made an important strategic investment to construct a new ocean science vessel. This world-class vessel, to be finished in 2015, would ensure that departmental scientists have access to a state-of-the-art vessel and science equipment for their job.

Climate change is also very important. Canadians want to know that government operations and mandates are adapted so that effects of a changing climate will not unduly impact Canadians in the future. For this purpose, the department is benefiting from an investment of $16.5 million over five years for science funding to assist the department adapt to climate change. These funds enable the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to identify the key risks of climate change and take action in response.

Our scientists are also well engaged with other scientists on the domestic front as well as the international area. Many DFO scientists have close links with universities, doing research in partnership and supervising graduate students. In recent years, we expanded this collaboration by teaming with NSERC and several Canadian universities to fund specific research networks that focus on research themes relevant to oceans and fisheries research.

In 2008, the NSERC Canadian Healthy Oceans Network, based at Memorial University, was created to develop scientific guidelines for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity resources in partnership with policy makers. DFO contributes more than $1 million in ship time to this network. We have also contributed financially into a number of other similar networks that focus research on the impact of hydroelectric facilities, invasive species and fisheries research issues important to the fisheries industry.

To wrap up, we are proud of the excellent work done by our scientists and will continue to build on existing knowledge about our oceans, waterways and fisheries resources. Our government understands that science is essential to the long-term sustainability of Canada's fisheries. However, the government must continually review its operations to make sure that taxpayer dollars are focused and spent in a way to achieve the best results for Canadians and our marine environment and to address the needs of a changing world.

Over and above the approximately $150 million the department spends on science programming each year in core funding, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, our government has invested an additional $100 million to support key research for Canadians, the details of which I have summarized in my remarks here today. These are the types of projects on which we believe the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should continue to focus.

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

Mr. Speaker, rattling off a list of projects that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans spends money on misses the point of the motion.

Let me address one of the points of the motion by asking the minister about muzzling scientists and not letting them talk to people.

If we go back to the announcement that Conservative Minister John Crosbie made in 1992 announcing the moratorium on the cod fishery and we try to understand how it is that we fished out all the cod without realizing it, we realize that fishery scientists thought there was a bunch of fish out there but the inshore fisherman, who actually went out and tried to catch fish, were saying that the number of fish was decreasing, as was their size.

The government scientists and the inshore fishermen were not talking. What they really should have done was sat down and said, “Boy, we disagree on the state of the cod population. We'd better sit down and resolve this”. If they had done that, we may not have fished out the Atlantic cod.

What I want to ask my hon. colleague is this. Does he not agree with me that, if the government scientists had been talking with the people in Canada and exchanging ideas and information, we would have been in a better state in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point. In fact, he knows that there are a number of reasons why the Atlantic cod experienced a serious decline, including overfishing, but that was only one of them. There were some environmental issues as well.

In fact, I was in a study on the Atlantic coast trying to determine why the cod had not rebounded. That was in 2005. In effect, some people did tell us that they had told DFO that the stocks were declining and that we should stop fishing. I remember distinctly asking one of them, “Did you stop fishing?” He said, “Of course we didn't stop fishing.” Therefore, there was a fair bit of blame to go around.

On the other point the member raised, the scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are talking to people regularly. They do more than 300 interviews a year with the media and certainly interact and relate, as I said in my comments, with other scientists, and they will continue to do that.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's participating in this debate. I wanted to go back to him with a question on the Experimental Lakes Area project and the decision of this government to cut funding for that organization. I mentioned earlier that this is a unique research facility that has been in existence for almost 50 years and has been instrumental in identifying environmental problems caused by acid rain, phosphorus in detergent and mercury from coal-fired power plants. It is one of the only facilities in the world where scientists can look at the impact of contaminants on the whole ecosystem.

I ask the parliamentary secretary if he would explain why the cut to this organization is in any way in the interests of the fishery.

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

Mr. Speaker, from a broader point of view, let me say that the nature of science is such that science programs, science research projects and so on need to keep evolving because we are faced with new challenges and new questions that need to be answered. They will not all be answered by government scientists by any means, but they keep changing. That means we will be adding programs and at times we will be discontinuing programs that may not be as important as they once were. I think that is the case with the Experimental Lakes. It has done some good work and we hope it continues under the management of either a non-governmental organization or perhaps a university.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We have run out of time again for questions and comments.

I just have a reminder for hon. members. I do see on a number of occasions that members are getting up to put questions to the member who has just spoken. We appreciate the co-operation of hon. members, when they do get recognized for a question, to keep that to around a minute or so. That way we can maybe get three questions in each round of five minutes.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Windsor West.