Debates of March 20th, 2013

Opposition Motion--Science

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister's commitment to science and technology, particularly in very practical ways so that it is going to contribute to the economy as well.

The minister mentioned the knowledge infrastructure program in Windsor as a stimulus project. For two years there were significant construction jobs during the great recession to build the Centre for Engineering Innovation at the University of Windsor. The centre brings together in the same environment students, engineers and businesses to not only provide a solid learning environment for students pursuing engineering degrees but also to solve real-world problems and make our businesses much more competitive.

First, could the minister comment on whether we are going in the right direction? Second, why is it that the opposition members oppose measures like this? Are they opposed to our economy succeeding because our science is strong?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, because this is a trend that we are pursuing here in Canada. We do not apologize for it. I have travelled around the world. I was just in Belgium a couple of weeks ago. We see them scrambling to get up to where Canada is.

Where is Canada? We have rebuilt our research capacity at our universities and colleges. There are new laboratories and state-of-the-art equipment going into those labs, and brilliant minds from around the world work that equipment in those laboratories.

However, we are pressing and focusing a bit harder on the other end, the commercialization end of all of that knowledge. We have to do both. We are very strong in this country in basic research and we intend to stay there. Where we could do a little better is on the commercialization end of that knowledge. We have an obligation to do that. If we are serious about saving the environment and if we are serious about improving quality of life and saving lives, we must move those discoveries out of the laboratories, build those products in our factories and sell them to the living rooms and hospitals of the world.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, science is non-partisan.

I know that the Conservative government has cut “non-partisan” from its vocabulary, but if we want to get things done in Ottawa, we need impact studies so that we can know whether something will have a positive or negative impact, or both. This does not apply only to basic science.

For example, the minister responsible for employment insurance herself admitted that she had not done any impact studies on her EI reform. Was that because she was afraid of what those studies would show? I have to wonder.

Why does the government not conduct studies when it does things here in the House?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we do. We use science to make our policy decisions. This is how we make foreign policy decisions and decisions here at home.

Indeed, I would ask NDP members opposite to respect science as they pretend to. The science is in on the safety of the Keystone XL pipeline. There is science that tells us that bitumen is no more of a corrosive product than normal heavy crude. However, the member's leader goes to the United States, ignores all of this science, refuses to listen to the scientists that New Democrats pretend to support, cuts down Canada and puts at risk our economic security and jobs. That is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology spoke about scientific knowledge being used to help the government form public policy. He also talked about cleaning up Lake Winnipeg. I know my colleague understands that in science it is important to do experiments to understand things. I am wondering if he would agree that it is better to do an experiment on a small lake than it is to do an experiment on Lake Winnipeg.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is in fact a scientist himself and would understand that there is the capability of not actually using the entire lake to do freshwater studies. I am sure my scientific colleague knows that equipment can be set in the lake so that research can be done in a contained area and the entire lake is not exposed to the experiment. I would encourage scientists to consider that.

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

Mr. Speaker, an assault on science is an assault on good government policy.

I am a biologist and an ecologist. I was a scientist before becoming an MP, and what I see in the House of Commons is disturbing. On this side of the aisle there are a lot of people who believe in facts, data, statistics and science as a basis for policy. On that side of the aisle, all too often I see government policy formulated based on belief, faith and ideology.

Many of the people on the other side of the aisle remind me of little Johnny. When Johnny was a little boy, he prayed repeatedly for a bicycle, but he did not get one. Then he took a new approach, maybe after watching the proceedings in the House of Commons: he stole a bicycle and prayed for forgiveness.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would think that all members of the House would be offended by that member's attack on religion and faith.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

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

Scientists work for a better tomorrow through exciting discoveries, from aerospace to astronomy and from biotechnology to nanotechnology. Science matters more than ever before because the challenges we face, climate change, shrinking biodiversity, are greater and the potential benefits are larger. Canada therefore needs robust science for the public good—for example, to identify risks to ecosystems and human health and to develop solutions to reduce dangers and protect the health and safety of Canadians and the communities in which we live.

Tragically, science is under persistent attack in Canada, despite the fact that the benefits of university research and development are $15 billion and 150,000 to 200,000 person years of employment per year.

In 2008, an editorial in the prestigious journal Nature criticized the Conservative government for closing the Office of the National Science Advisor, skepticism about the science of climate change, and silencing federal researchers. Budget 2009 cut $148 million over three years from the federal research granting councils. Moreover, the government attempted to direct research towards subjects it perceived as priorities. Scholarships were to be focused on business-related degrees. This was a flawed strategy, as no one can predict with any certainty what the most important inventions and technologies will be in the future.

As one of Canada's Nobel laureates, John Polanyi, wrote, “We have struggled for a long time to come to terms with the fact that our universities serve the public interest best when free of government interference in academic affairs.”

The reality is that countries that maintain and increase their investments in research and development during difficult economic times emerge stronger and more competitive when the recovery begins. In 2009, James Turk, the executive director of Canadian Association of University Teachers, warned that lack of funding and increasing government micromanagement means we could lose a lot of our top researchers.

James Drummond, the chief scientist at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, in Eureka, explained that he would be able to improve the lab through new infrastructure funding but would not be able to operate it. On April 30, 2012, PEARL was scheduled to cease full-time, year-round operation.

In addition to government cuts to research funding, cuts to federal science programs and scientists, there have been new media protocols for government scientists since the Conservatives came to power in 2006. For example, Canadian journalists have documented numerous cases, from an unexplained virus in salmon, to a two-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures being possibly unavoidable by 2100, to a 13,000-year-old flood in northern Canada, in which prominent researchers have been prevented from discussing peer-reviewed articles.

Researchers would once have responded quickly to journalists, but are now required to direct inquiries to a media relations office which requires written questions in advance and that still might not allow scientists to speak. Federal scientists are under growing surveillance and control. Numerous studies have shown a pattern of suppression, manipulation and a distortion of federal science. Officials have limited public access to scientific information.

Recently a symposium called "Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-Open the Discourse" was held at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in Vancouver. The government's media policies were once again under scrutiny. According to the journal, Nature, “The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free”.

I can attest not only to the muzzling but also to the fear on the part of scientists. I used to consult for Environment Canada, and I have numerous friends who are scientists across Canada and the United States. Because of fear of retribution if they speak out, Canadian scientists often ask me to speak to American colleagues, who can freely comment on what is happening in Canada. I have one friend who was so concerned that he or she wrote to me from the spouse's email account to my old university email account, and then explained that he or she would call on the spouse's cell phone from a busy mall so the call could not be traced.

Surely everyone in the House should be outraged by the climate in which our scientists are being forced to perform. Surely everyone should be outraged by the quashing of dissenting opinions, by the war on democracy, environment and science. The persistent attack on science for the public good reached a boiling point on July 10, 2012, when Canadian scientists rallied on Parliament Hill in order to protest the closure of federal science programs, the muzzling of scientists and the “untimely death of scientific evidence and evidence-based decision-making in Canada”.

At the end of the month, Canada's world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area, with 58 lakes and considered to be one of Canada's most important aquatic research facilities, will shut down. In fact, the government has already begun dismantling the station. In the space of a few weeks, 11,000 Canadians signed a public petition, sent hundreds of letters of support for the ELA to government officials and held rallies across the country. Leading scientists from around the world and across Canada support ELA's cause. Opposition members of Parliament have delivered petition after petition and undertaken press conferences, including one to push the Minister of the Environment to adopt the 58 lake facility. Liberal MPs held briefings for all members of Parliament and senators and put forth motions to study the value of the ELA and the potential effects of transferring the facility to a third party.

Following the presentation of two Liberal motions regarding the ELA, in both the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the issue was addressed in camera without public explanation, and the motions are now no longer before the committee.

The Canadian public supports the ELA. An Environics Research poll showed that over 73% of Canadians oppose the decision to cancel federal funding for the ELA, including 60% of those identifying as Conservative voters. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans claims it cannot find the $2 million per year required to run the ELA, although it would require $50 million to remediate the lakes in the area upon the centre's closing.

Scientists suggest the Conservatives are trying to silence a source of inconvenient data. As a first example, PEARL, the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Lab, which gathered atmospheric information related to air quality, climate change and ozone required only $1.5 million to permit its year-round science program.

Also potentially on the chopping block is one of Canada's oldest and most celebrated scientific research stations, the 50-year-old Kluane Lake Research Station, located in the Yukon adjacent to the largest non-polar icefield in the world. The sensitive region is ideal to measure climate change.

ELA has been compared to the Hubble telescope for its service in aiding scientific research. The research conducted at the ELA must continue. The research must be made public and ELA must be owned by the public.

In closing, we must fight for a government that understands that scientific research is fundamental to meeting Canada's needs, will restore science to its rightful place, will back promises with action and money, and will protect scientific findings from being altered, distorted or suppressed. All Conservative cabinet ministers should stand up for science, for scientists, for unmuzzling researchers, and for ensuring a scientific integrity policy so Canadians can receive the best cutting-edge science to ensure evidence-based decision-making. The government must protect our water now and for our future generations, and not protect navigation as it did in Bill C-45. That means ELA must continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is budget day. The Experimental Lakes Area costs about $2 million a year to run. That is with full staff capacity. I have heard from scientists at the institute that the ELA would cost $600,000 to run operationally, and perhaps even as little as $200,000 to keep it open for a year.

I am wondering if the member agrees that the Conservatives are mean-hearted if they do not provide this small amount of money, $200,000, to keep the facility open until a new operator can be found. Would she agree with me on that?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. The ELA must continue. It is a pittance. We have seen three research stations being cut for $1.5 million to $2 million. Will the Conservative government cut internationally renowned research stations, such as ELA, PEARL and perhaps Kluane, for between $1.5 million and $2 million per year? It approved tens of millions of dollars in economic action plan advertising, even as it cited fiscal restraint.

For $1.5 million, taxpayers might have learned more about ozone depletion—the first large Arctic ozone hole, which was two million square kilometres, was discovered in 2011—and other indications of significant Arctic change. For $2 million, Canadians might have learned more about solutions to problems that affect lakes, fish populations and drinking water.

The question that begs to be asked is, what did Canadians receive in return for their investment in economic action plan ads?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the theme that my colleague was speaking about. Since the Conservative Party arrived in power, Canadians should know that it has spent $600 million on advertising. On present trends, by the 2015 election, that is if the Prime Minister abides by the fixed-term election date, it appears as if the government will be spending close to $1 billion on what most Canadians would likely describe as self-serving propaganda.

I would first like to posit that fact with my colleague to get her to react to that.

Second, last January, Sir John Gummer, the former head of the Conservative Party in the U.K. under one Margaret Thatcher, absolutely criticized the government saying with respect to its views on science and climate change, saying this is not a conservative party; it is something else.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who has worked most of his career in protecting the environment, protecting science.

He is absolutely right. We are coming under attack internationally. Nature magazine, one of the world's leading journals, recently reported that policy directives confirm little understanding by the government of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge. The journal reported that:

...rather than address the matter, the Canadian government seems inclined to stick with its restrictive course and ride out all objections.

The government's untenable position is coming under increasing pressure. I have repeatedly called upon the government to recognize that Environment Canada's ability to protect environmental and human health depends upon scientific excellence and integrity, and should therefore ensure that a scientific integrity policy is developed to foster the highest degree of accountability, integrity and transparency in conducting, utilizing and communicating science within and outside Environment Canada, and to protect the department's scientific findings from being altered, distorted or suppressed.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the motion from my hon. colleague for Burnaby—Douglas. I want to thank him for introducing such an important motion.

On this side of the House, we fully understand the importance of having proper research and science in place in order to produce the best public policies for the benefit of all Canadians. Unfortunately, we have a government that does not believe in science. In fact, it is worse than that. We have a government that has launched an attack on science in this country. It has closed or cut funding to some of the best scientific research centres in Canada and has muzzled our scientists. This is absolutely unacceptable. Canadians have the right to know the results of our scientific research that is funded by tax dollars. However, we have seen many federal department crack down on what their scientists are allowed to say in public.

We know DFO's new communication policy: Crack down hard on scientists. All interview requests are now forwarded to the minister's office, and they are routinely denied. This is truly hard to believe.

Within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, many research centres have been negatively affected by the Conservative government. This department is in constant need of more science dollars for the survival of our many economically important fisheries throughout the country and for the survival of our oceans, lakes and rivers.

However, rather than ensure proper science funding for DFO, the Conservative government has slashed funding for many of its important research stations. These stations include the Institute of Ocean Sciences, the Freshwater Institute, the Kluane Lake Research Station, the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, the Gulf Fisheries Centre, the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, the St. Andrews Biological Station and the Experimental Lakes Area, one of the most important research areas in the country. This is only for DFO. Many more harmful scientific cuts have been made in other federal departments and programs.

The closure I want to focus on, and the one that I believe is perhaps the best example of the government's shameful attack on science, is the Experimental Lakes Area, or the ELA.

The ELA is one of the world's most renowned facilities for freshwater research. It is one of a kind and has produced a lot of critical information and policy over the last 40 years. Last spring, the government announced that it would be ending the operation of the ELA. Later the government stated that it would try to find a new operator by March 31, 2013.

This facility is located in northwestern Ontario. It includes 58 small lakes and is managed through a joint agreement between the Canadian and Ontario governments. It is truly a living natural laboratory for freshwater research, and it is the only place in Canada where whole-lake ecosystem research can take place. In fact, it is the only place in the world where this type of research can take place.

The ELA has been critical in developing evidence-based environmental policy, regulations and legislation, including regulations to control phosphorus in the Great Lakes. ELA research led to Canada becoming the first country to ban phosphorus from laundry detergents. Other research led to legislation to curb acid rain production and demonstrated that reducing mercury emissions from burning fossil fuels will rapidly lower mercury levels in fish. Ongoing research evaluates nitrogen removal from municipal waste water and the effects many household products could have on our freshwater.

Information produced at the ELA is also used by researchers across the country and around the world to investigate how climate change will affect Canada's aquatic resources. Research at the ELA also provides the scientific evidence required to manage commercial and recreational fisheries.

The fact that we can now conduct responsible monitoring in the oil sands is a direct result of invaluable research done at the ELA.

First nations chiefs in Ontario and Manitoba have called upon the Conservative government to reverse its decision to terminate the ELA. Four former regional director generals of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have spoken out against this closure. Liberal members of Parliament have been actively fighting the closure and are working with the Coalition to Save ELA.

Last October I introduced a motion for the fisheries committee to study the ELA, the research done at the facility, its impacts on public policy and the potential consequences of closing, remediating or transferring the ELA to a third party. I know that my colleague from Etobicoke North did the same in the environment committee.

The ELA costs the federal government $2 million or less to operate per year. In fact, we are hearing that the ELA could keep going for as little as $600,000. However, closing the facility entirely could cost up to $50 million. The government is now saying that the cost of closing the facility could be as low as $8 million, but we well know that it is going to be a lot of millions. Either way, it seems that the priorities of the government are severely misguided. For the cost of shutting down the ELA, the government could keep it open, and Canadians, in fact the entire world, could benefit from its research for years to come, perhaps even decades to come. However, the government would rather close up shop than keep this scientific research alive.

In fact, even though March 31 of this year was the date given for the government to find a new operator, we now know that the destruction of the buildings on the site has already begun. It was also reported that scientists have been told to remove their belongings in preparation for the demolition of the site. There were rumours that the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the IISD, the Winnipeg-based United Nations think tank, was the only group known to be discussing the possible takeover of the facility. The IISD was not aware of the destruction that was taking place at the ELA. This brings into serious doubt that the government is sincere that it will actually transfer the facility to a new operator.

It is certainly my fear, and the fear of all members on this side of the House, that it is not its intention at all. It is my fear that the research produced by the ELA does not go along with the government's agenda, and it has decided to shut it down, no matter what it costs. Canadians will be the ones who bear the cost of the closure of this facility, not only for the millions of dollars it would take to shut the facility down and clean up the site but also for the loss of all the possible research and policy the ELA could have produced for decades into the future.

For a country like ours, where nature is such an iconic symbol, to lose one of our most important natural research facilities is beyond belief. It is a black eye on the country, along with many other policies of the government. It has severely damaged our reputation on the international stage. The government repeatedly says that it is closing the ELA because it no longer fits the core mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I find this excuse completely unacceptable.

I hope that government members will look at what is, in fact, taking place: the destruction of the scientific community across Canada, the muzzling of scientists, and their making sure that we do not have the best possible scientific advice to put policy in place for this country. Again, I urge government members across the way to take a look at this, support this very important motion and save the scientific work that is so important for fisheries and other aspects across this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; and the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. It points out the need to continue what we started to do on climate change, and under this government, have systematically abandoned. The Conservative government appears to want to ignore scientists who would tell us that the continued use of fossil fuels will forever change the climate and cause floods, famine, water shortages, drought, wildfires, tornados, rising seas, et cetera, which may result in millions of refugees.

The Conservatives have also killed Kyoto. They have decided that Kyoto is not something worth pursuing. They have removed environmental assessments from the Canadian landscape. Even where environmental assessments remain, they do not study human health as part of their assessment process.

In the words of a senior scientist at the University of Victoria: “I suspect the federal government would prefer that its scientists don't discuss research that points out just how serious the climate change challenge is”. That is in regard to the muzzling of scientists, as the member referred to earlier.

Under the previous government, we did not do a lot of work on climate change. Under the Conservative government, the members talk the big talk, but they are not going to do anything, and they have killed Kyoto. What is it that we have to do in the future to actually deal with this looming spectre?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question as well as his great appreciation for Kyoto. He understands how important that was if we are going to live on this planet. The fact is that we have to live somewhere. If we do not address climate change, we will create, as my hon. colleague indicated, a lot of people who have no place to live. A lot of people will be under water.

There are so many other areas in which the Experimental Lakes Area did so much research. I know that my hon. colleague is fully aware of these, and I appreciate the motion he brought forward. It is impossible in just a few seconds to indicate all that they have done.

Scientists who are free to do their research, discuss issues with scientists around the world and let the public know what they have found and what effect it will have on our climate are so important to the people of this country and to the people of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments from my colleague from Cardigan. From what I heard, it was not clear to me that he was aware that DFO has been spending $200 million or so every year on science, and it continues to do so. I just wondered if he was aware of that.

Could I also ask him if he would not agree that the nature of science requires us to look at what we are doing from time to time and ensure that it is focused on the things we need to know and the priorities we have set for ourselves as a department and as a country?

That is what we have been doing. As my colleague, the Minister of State, has said, we have been adding money every year as we have identified those priorities and have become more focused than the previous government.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague, but I certainly do not respect his thoughts on science and what the government has cut.

The fact is that in the last budget, the government cut $1.3 million from the National Research Council of Canada, and by 2014-15, it is projected to be cut by $16.3 million. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada has lost $15 million, and by the end of 2014-2015 it will be $30 million.

Fisheries and Oceans needs more money. It is an important industry across the country on both coasts and in our lakes and rivers. It was cut last year by $3.8 million and is projected to be cut by about $80 million. Is that what the government calls taking care of an industry? In my opinion, that is destroying an industry.

The government is just concerned that it will receive information from the scientists that it does not want to receive.

My hon. colleague is not a scientist, and neither am I, but I would rely on the scientists, not on my hon. colleague.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

Today's debate is vital. The current ecological and economic crisis is a reminder that Canada needs to invest in public science and basic research and freely distribute scientific data. Climate change is real, and we are already suffering from its effects. We are at a crossroads, and we need science now more than ever.

Need I remind hon. members that, just 40 years ago, our industries were polluting the St. Lawrence River, we were burning toxic waste and miners were dying of cancer because they did not have the information and protection they needed?

We have come a long way since then. We set up research institutes, cleaned up our lakes and rivers and decontaminated thousands of sites across the country, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Today, we are paying for the mistakes of the past.

Right now, the situation in Canada is of grave concern. This Conservative government is undoing all the progress that we have made over the past decades. By making cuts to scientific research, censoring scientists, abolishing our environmental laws and destroying world-renowned research institutes, such as the NRTEE, the government is setting us back 50 years.

The experimental lakes program is a very good example. For 40 years now, the research conducted on 58 lakes has allowed us to make extraordinary advances in the field of biology that are recognized throughout the world. For example, this research has helped us to better understand the blue-green algae phenomenon and the role of phosphates in the development of cyanobacteria. This research has helped to improve water quality in many of our lakes. And that is not all. The research on these lakes in their natural state has helped to advance scientific studies at the international level. This is the only laboratory of its kind in the world.

Yet the Conservatives do not really seem to understand the importance of this institution. Their decision to do away with the experimental lakes program is a monumental mistake. The government is saying that it will save $2 million by closing this site, yet it costs only $6,000 to operate and replacing it or getting a private institution to run it would cost several million dollars.

What is more, the Conservatives are not considering the cost of depriving our country of data that are essential to preserving the quality of our water. The Conservatives seem to think that this is no big deal, that we will stick future generations with the bill and that they will deal with the problem.

In addition, this week we learned that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had locked up the Experimental Lakes Area cabins and was preventing scientists from accessing the site. Yet Ottawa had announced that it would continue managing the site until next September, but that it would not be paying for any research after March 31.

For months the government has been saying that it is looking for a private sector organization to take over the program, but nothing has happened yet. Britt Hall, a biochemist at the University of Regina and the director of the Coalition to Save ELA, is worried that 44 years' worth of data will be lost and that experiments will be cancelled.

Researchers at Trent University in Peterborough had to stop their work. They were working on the use of microscopic amounts of silver to prevent bacteria. It will be impossible for them to finish their research.

Cuts at the PEARL atmospheric research station in Nunavut also demonstrate this government's lack of a long-term vision. This winter, researchers were not able to gather data. It is important to continue funding research in areas as vital as climate change.

The list of this government's strategic errors is long: cuts to experimental farms and Mont-Joli's Maurice Lamontagne Institute, abolishing Statistics Canada's long form census, cuts to fishery research, cuts at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada's major resources support program, and so on.

Thanks to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, we recently learned that there is concern amongst Environment Canada scientists who are responsible for monitoring air quality. Many of them work in offices in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver, ensuring that we are complying with laws limiting land and atmospheric pollution. Employees are saying that the government will eliminate positions and that monitoring will be compromised. There is cause for concern.

When the Minister of the Environment goes to Copenhagen, Rio or Durban and says that his government is protecting the environment, but we here in Canada see that cuts are being made to essential, basic scientific research, there is every reason to doubt the sincerity of his remarks.

Yet public research is essential for a developed economy such as ours. The three key players in scientific research—universities, the private sector and the government—all play a fundamental role. The government funds research through programs, institutions and tax credits. Therefore, why eliminate these incentives in science and continue to offer tax breaks to oil companies? That is a double standard.

Public research cannot always be replaced by the private sector. Take Statistics Canada's consumer price index, for instance. Only the government can measure it, and companies really need that information.

Yves Gingras, a professor who is the Canada Research Chair in history and sociology of science at UQAM, said:

People often say the Conservatives are opposed to science. I think instead that they are in favour of strategic ignorance, so they can justify their inaction in certain areas that could hurt industries. When fishers observe that there are fewer fish, the government will be able to tell them that it does not know why and that the government is not to blame if it could not predict the shortage.

It is troubling to see that these cuts to science are accompanied by drastic changes in environmental legislation. With Bill C-38, the Conservative government drastically modified the environmental assessment process for hydrocarbons. Consultations were reduced to a minimum, almost to nothing, in fact. With Bill C-45, it took away all protection for our lakes and rivers.

All of this is accompanied by a culture of secrecy and censorship that has been imposed by the Conservative government since 2006. The prestigious Royal Society of Canada, an institution that has been around for more than 100 years and whose members are scientists in all fields, wrote an open letter to condemn the Conservatives' attitude. The Royal Society of Canada made a very simple request, namely, that the government stop preventing scientists from announcing their discoveries to the Canadian public. It is a fairly basic request. In a democratic society, it is important to discuss what action to take based on fact rather than simply being guided by ideology.

For instance, the census is one of the tools that enabled Canada to become one of the most developed countries in the world. It is one way for the government to develop targeted, effective public policies. For instance, it tells us what the average age is in a given area, which helps public health authorities target their actions. It guides entrepreneurs who are looking for opportunities, by mapping out the average income in a given region. It also helps community organizations that want to reach out to a specific clientele.

Let us talk about the status of French, since today is the International Day of La Francophonie. The status of French in Canada is another example that proves how useful the census can be. The data collected made it possible to accurately follow major linguistic trends, thereby allowing governments to adapt their policies in order to ensure the vitality of the French language. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister could not care less. He has decided to put his own ideological interests ahead of the country's interests.

For a government that claims to care about important issues like economic development, public health, the environment and the status of French, its attitude—tossing aside all scientific data and muzzling scientists—is not very responsible.

In my opinion, good public policies should be based on proven, credible facts. We will continue to advocate for complete freedom for all Canadian researchers and an end to this censorship.

I hope the Conservatives will put their shoulders to the wheel and support this important motion, so that our scientists can restore their image, regain their zeal and continue to participate in the essential research that Canada so desperately needs. Above all, I hope that we can give new hope to young Canadians who are thinking about a future in innovation, research, science and technology.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. Since 2006, our Conservative government has invested at unprecedented levels in science and technology and innovation, all of which the NDP did in fact vote against.

We have made changes to ensure that our programs meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. My question is simple. Does the member believe that this money has been well spent by our Canadian scientists?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member on the other side, but what he just said is disgraceful.

Statistics Canada's website shows that federal funding for science and technology has been cut by 6% over last year. For example, the government just got rid of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which cost about $5.2 million, and it cut the budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by nearly $80 million.

Many academics, business leaders and government experts signed a joint letter calling on the government to cancel cuts to several departments.

I think we have a long way to go to give our scientists the recognition they are calling for.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I want to repeat the question I just asked. Canadians should know that since the Conservative Party arrived in power, it has spent $600 million on advertising. Most Canadians have already determined that it is Conservative propaganda.

Could the member talk about how the actual costs of continuing science and technology work in Canada compare to the $600 million already spent?

People are saying that by the 2015 election, the government will have spent $1 billion on advertising.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for the question.

Indeed, since the Conservatives took power, their approach has been very partisan and ideological. They have spent $600 million on propaganda. That money could have been used to restore hope and fund work in the Experimental Lakes Area, an area the government said was much too expensive at $2 million. Furthermore, the government has no scruples about spending $600 million on nothing more than propaganda.

The government is making cuts to many departments that do research on health and the environment. It is eliminating very high-quality jobs.

We are wondering what the Conservative government's priorities are. We completely disagree with them. That is why today's motion was moved in the House. We hope it will be adopted.

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

Mr. Speaker, not only is this Conservative government the laughingstock of the international community when it comes to science and technology, it has also drawn criticism from space.

Yesterday, we heard Commander Hadfield plead for a real science and technology policy. He said, "Science is absolutely essential in Quebec and in Canada....Science is essential and needs to be developed in the long term." That is not what this government is doing.

Will the Conservative government leave Commander Hadfield hanging?