Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to return to a question I raised on February 1, when I asked the Minister of Industry to clarify his government’s plans for National Research Council Canada.
For a long time, the National Research Council has been showing the way for progress in science and research in Canada, but the underhanded changes made by the Conservatives threaten to eclipse this venerable institution.
In budget 2013, we see that National Research Council Canada will receive $121 million to continue its restructuring. Despite the insistence of the opposition and key figures in industry, however, and despite the innumerable questions the NDP has asked during committee meetings, it is impossible to determine the government’s overall plan for the NRC.
The minister cannot really tell us that he wants to reorient the organization to suit the needs of business. More detail is required before the funding is approved.
What lines will be dropped? We already know that magnetic resonance is no longer in this government’s plans.
What are the other areas that will be dropped? How many research institutions will be closed?
We still do not know what will become of the 1,000 scientists who work at NRC. How many scientists will be laid off? I am eager to see whether the minister can at least answer that question shortly.
A number of changes in philosophy imposed on the institution are already causing frustration. For example, the Minister of State for Science and Technology has stated publicly that he wanted the NRC to become a single toll-free window, a concierge service for industry.
Is that the goal of the minister responsible for the NRC: to transform it into industry’s sidekick?
NRCC also has to give up peer-reviewed articles as success indicators, as confirmed by its President, John McDougall, appearing before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology—another disturbing example of how the institution is moving away from its roots, whereas its mandate is supposedly being recentered.
Scientists have good reason not to trust this government, which on 20 March 2013 rejected an NDP motion calling upon the Conservative government, among other things, to recognize the importance of public science and fundamental research. Canadians were shocked to see the Prime Minister rising in this House to vote against science.
How can we reject the principle of public science, and disparage fundamental research? Yet this is what the Conservatives did by voting against our motion.
Last month, together with the official opposition’s science and technology critic, I attended a series of meetings with senior U.S. officials in Washington to discuss science policy.
We were able to note that unlike the Conservative government, the Americans, both in the public sector and in the private sector, are making huge investments in science.
While Canada devotes 1.8% of its gross domestic product to research and development, our neighbours to the south are now investing 3% of their GDP in research and development. That is almost double, taking into consideration the relative size of our economies.
I believe Canadians expect better of this Conservative government.