Debates of May 26th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Federal Science Research

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

Mr. Speaker, that question ignores the facts. We know that the government has made cuts to research and to development funding in Canada. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas quoted some of the figures in his speech earlier. As we know, many scientists have been laid off from federal departments such as Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans. We also know that investments in research and development, and even in industrial research, are declining.

My colleague said that the facts should take precedence over ideology. That is precisely the problem: the Conservative government is basing its decisions on ideology, muzzling scientists and impeding any scientific research that flies in the face of its own ideology and decisions. That is why the Information Commissioner is currently investigating this Conservative government's muzzling of scientists.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. As we just said, the Conservatives have slashed over $1 billion from science budgets, and over 4,000 research positions have been eliminated.

How does political interference in scientific communication undermine our researchers and democracy in general?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, it is Canadian citizens who are paying for this scientific research. We believe that the Canadian public absolutely must have access to this scientific data and the results of this research. It is important for democracy and for maintaining healthy public debate. It is equally important for Canadians to have access to the results of that research.

We know that this is affecting our ability to collaborate internationally. Nature, a very reputable magazine, has denounced this Conservative government's approach to scientific integrity and the fact that it is muzzling Canada's scientists. We have also heard testimony from international scientists who complained about not being able to communicate with their Canadian counterparts and how this jeopardized Canada's collaboration in other international research projects.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend the International Open Data Conference being held here in Ottawa. We keep hearing that the government is committed to open data. On paper it has a wonderful program, but in reality there is a culture of secrecy that goes with it. Data is not published, scientists are muzzled, and information does not reach the public. It is truly a major problem. That is what today's motion is all about.

I would like to know what my colleague opposite has to say about the government's plan for open data, which exists on paper, but not in reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is working very hard on this issue.

It is vital that we have open data in Canada, because that allows us to innovate in the areas of health, the environment and the protection of Canadians, and it also makes economic advancement and innovation possible. Small businesses can have more data to help them produce new applications and new products.

Therefore, it is an essential tool for Canada's business community. Unfortunately, this community has been very much neglected by the current government. First, the government abolished the mandatory long form census, which negatively impacts Canada's business climate. Furthermore, even with the government's unbalanced approach, industrial investment in research and development has declined. In fact, Canada has dropped from 16th to 22nd place among OECD countries for industrial investment.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the need to base public policy on reliable evidence and for the public to have access to that evidence and to understand it is an issue that I have advocated for passionately during my entire political career. I am proud to speak today in support of the Liberal motion before the House.

The thrust of the motion is simple: scientists should be able to discuss their research findings publicly, in a timely manner, and without political interference. Unfortunately, that is not the current reality for scientists working for, or sometimes even with, the federal public service in Canada.

As the motion states, the government has constrained the ability of federal scientists to share their research and to collaborate with their peers, and federal scientists have been muzzled and prevented from speaking to the media about their work.

François Giroux, head of the information and communication program at Université de Moncton, eloquently explained the danger of this approach when he spoke to the media today:

The danger of this practice is that by controlling the message, you kill it. The health of our democratic society requires transparency on the part of our governments. The very existence of governments is funded by taxpayers.

...Free access to government information requires a transparent government, freedom of the press, as well as freedom of speech in the case of a subsidized organization, a scientist or an elected representative.

According to the shocking findings of a 2013 Professional Institute of Public Service of Canada survey, hundreds of federal scientists have been asked to alter or exclude technical information from documents, and hundreds more have been prevented from responding to inquiries from media and/or the public.

The Conservative government has demonstrated a clear pattern of cutting off the flow of information when it does not support its rigidly ideological agenda. In fact, within months of coming to power, the Conservative government introduced new, strict procedures to constrain how government scientists are allowed to speak about their research to the media.

Unmuzzling science does not mean that federal scientists should be free to speak without any restrictions. They know very well that their work often deals with sensitive security issues or is protected by property rights.

However, scientists are now micromanaged by their minister's offices regarding how, or even if, they can discuss their work with the public. The tragic consequence of the government's disturbing pattern of constraining federal scientists' ability to share their research and to collaborate with their peers is that Canada's global leadership role in basic research and in environmental, health, and other public science is being put in jeopardy.

This is not just the opinion of the Liberal Party. It is also the opinion of hundreds of scientists and engineers from around the world, who signed an open letter last fall urging the Prime Minister to end “...burdensome restrictions and barriers to scientific communication and collaboration faced by Canadian government scientists.”

The Liberal Party understands that researchers are central to how policy is made, and that is why Liberals are standing firmly behind scientists and their research.

Decision-makers and Canadians generally count on the crucial expertise and research of federal scientists to protect the safety of their food, water, air and environment.

Freedom to communicate their findings will benefit the integrity of scientific research, will help the Canadian public and policy-makers to make informed decisions, and will help repair our nation's international reputation.

I remember being very angered and embarrassed in 2010 at Women Deliver, a large public health conference held in Washington, at what the government had done to our international reputation. At the conference, Susan Cohen, then director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, a U.S. non-profit organization that promotes reproductive health, referred to Canada as an “evidence-free zone”.

In the wake of the SARS crisis, the Naylor report made it clear that Canada needed a public health agency headed by a chief public health officer who could speak directly to Canadians. Buried in last year's omnibus bill is the demotion and muzzling of the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. He has been stripped of his abilities to set priorities, to determine appropriate resources, and to speak directly to Canadians without political interference. He has been reduced to being an adviser to the minister on the things that the minister chooses to be advised upon, instead of actually speaking up for the public health of all Canadians whenever he sees fit.

The Conservative government's obsession with political control and suppression of science is damaging our reputation around the world and is truly appalling. This decision, and those like it, must be reversed in the interest of all Canadians.

One need look no further than the government's misguided decision to replace the long form census with the national household survey for proof of its ongoing war on evidence. The government spent $22 million more on the 2011 national household survey than it would have on the long form census to collect data that was seriously compromised. As a result, it has essentially ended our ability to compare the data with earlier census statistics. We can no longer see trends over time.

This means we are flying blind when it comes to a whole host of policy decisions. Chief statistician Munir Sheikh resigned from his post over this misguided decision and explained that a critical issue was the fact that StatsCan was subject to significant interference from the Conservative government. He has gone on to say “...in my mind the most serious consequence of canceling the census is the loss of trust in Statistics Canada to be independent of government interference.”

The government's misguided approach to the long form census is unfortunately not the exception but the rule in terms of the government's ongoing approach to science and scientists. Ongoing cuts by the Conservatives to scientific research programs and continual muzzling of federal scientists represent clear attacks on evidence-based policy-making in an attempt to silence opposition to their ideologically based policies. I remember that very early on in this regime, the government side continued to refer to Liberal-funded social science research as though it was a swear word. We know that good social science research never proves what this government is intending to do, so it has to be silenced and de-funded.

The Conservative government understands that if problems are not measured, they are not noticed, and therefore the government does not have to act to fix them. The government is cynically and systematically undermining the public and not-for-profit sectors' ability to research areas it fears will prompt action on issues counter to its very narrow agenda.

Unfortunately, my allotted time does not permit me to provide an exhaustive review of all of the government's actions in support of this disturbing pattern, but here are a few highlights.

The world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area was de-funded by the federal government in budget 2012.

Since 2013, DFO scientists must now get departmental approval to submit research to scientific journals.

In 2013 the government shut down the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, formerly an arm's-length organization, and even prevented it from posting a final report.

In 2014, the government de-funded the Canadian Health Council. Also in 2014, the government closed seven out of nine Department of Fisheries and Oceans libraries. The library closures are nothing less than an erosion of Canada's collective memory.

As my Liberal colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, himself a scientist, so eloquently said of the library closures:

The Harper government may not like science...but it does not have the right to literally trash the products of decades worth of research just because it doesn’t suit the ideology of the Harper Conservatives.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

For I think the third time this morning, I remind all hon. members that they cannot use the names of other members, including the Prime Minister, even when they are doing so in a quote.

The hon. member for St. Paul's.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to continue, he stated:

Destroying data is not just an ideological problem, it's also blatant fiscal mismanagement.

Government decisions must be based on evidence and facts, and the health of our democracy depends on an informed public. Unfortunately, this is a government engaged in an ongoing and deliberate attack on science. The Conservatives cynically and systematically gut funding for programs that may produce results that are not in line with Conservative ideology.

However, this motion is more than a condemnation of the government's war on science and scientists. It sets out a road map for how to move us beyond an attitude toward science resembling the medieval Inquisition to a modern acceptance that scientific freedom is at the root of progress. As Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sydney Brenner said, science is the best tool available for man to solve human problems.

The motion calls on the government to immediately rescind all rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists, consolidate government-funded or government-created science so that it is easily available to the public at large, and allow scientists to be able to speak freely on their work with limited and publicly stated exceptions.

The motion also calls on the government to create a chief science officer whose mandate would include ensuring that government science is freely available to those who are paying for it, namely, the public.

This motion offers me the opportunity to reflect on the way forward and on what a government committed to evidence-based policy and the importance of research and science could achieve. We must return to the practice of transparent and public advice to ministers. We have an ideal model for the way it could and should work in Canada in the form of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. COSEWIC was created in 1977 as a result of a decision made at the conference of federal-provincial-territorial wildlife directors held in 1976.

In 2003, the Species at Risk Act established COSEWIC as an advisory body to ensure that wildlife species would be assessed using the best available scientific and aboriginal traditional knowledge. Under SARA, the Species at Risk Act, the Government of Canada is mandated to take COSEWIC's designations into consideration when establishing the legal list of wildlife species at risk. More important, COSEWIC's evaluation process is independent and transparent, and the results are reported to CESCC and the public.

The final decision rests in the hands of the minister, but the scientific recommendations are available to the public, and it is therefore up to the minister to explain to the public the reasons behind any decision not to follow the recommendations of those scientists exactly. There is no question that government decisions must be based on the full picture of science, economics, and common sense, but all of the information and context that go into that decision should be available to the public in a transparent way.

The science advisory board at Health Canada should be re-established, mandated not only to advise the minister on emerging issues of the day but also to strike the appropriate advisory panels. These panels must be free of bias and conflict and their advice seen as truly independent. They must be able to provide the best possible evidence-based policies, policies that Canadians will be able to trust.

There is a very important virtuous cycle of research, policy, and practice. It is imperative that governments understand that moving from research to policy requires informed knowledge translation that includes the public. To move from policy to practice means that governments have to have the political will to move the good evidence-based policy into practice in a timely fashion. Then it is very important that an evidence-based government would take that practice and move it back into better research questions by funding applied research in communities, in practice, to would allow us to ask better research questions, moving again to better policy and to better practice.

This virtuous cycle only moves properly when citizens are involved in the research and evidence that exist. It is only then that citizens can hold their government to account. It is only then that citizens can ask why this research is not in public policy, why this policy is not actually in practice, and whether that practice is being properly evaluated to ensure that governments are funding what works and are able to stop funding what does not work in this virtuous cycle.

With a truly informed public, that virtuous cycle moves rapidly, and that is what we are calling for today. We want the government to understand that by muzzling scientists, by not allowing researchers to speak to the public directly and their colleagues outside of government and around the world, it is depriving Canadians of the ability to truly hold their government to account. It is depriving parliamentarians of the ability to hold Parliament to account and to insist on policy that is evidence-based, not rooted and anchored in ideology.

Canadians deserve complete and open access to the information that is produced by scientists who are paid by them, the public. I urge all members to support this motion, and I thank my colleagues for having put this forward.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a passionately delivered speech in the House. She so often passionately engages in our debates and discussions.

However, I think that in this case passion may have overwhelmed her memory somewhat. From 1994 to 1997, the Liberal government of the day drastically cut government funding of science and technology. In contrast, since 2006, our government has quite enthusiastically provided some $13 billion in funding to science across Canada.

I wonder if the Liberal member can explain why, since 2006, she has consistently voted against our government's funding requests for science and technology.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that the Liberal government had a terrific track record in the tough times, in 1994, 1995, and 1996, when Canadians were with the Liberal government on the decisions that had to be made to get Canada out of the economic basket case it had been left in by the previous Conservative government. They were tough decisions, but I think we did a good job of explaining to Canadians why they had to be made.

Today's issue is about the muzzling of scientists. Obviously we are upset by the funding cuts to these research entities, which we believe are absolutely necessary. However, the attitudinal problem of the government, not wanting the public to know what scientists are finding out and discovering so that Canadians can hold the government to account and insist on evidence-based policy, is why we are supporting this important motion today.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. This is certainly a very important motion. We are pleased that the Liberals intend to support the NDP's proposal to create the position of parliamentary chief science officer.

There is one thing I would like to know. During every election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to make science a priority, but then every time it tabled a budget, it made heavy-handed cuts to funding for science and research.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

It is actually in the DNA of Liberals to want evidence-based policy.

We think it is essential to have evidence-based policies and for the Prime Minister's Office to demonstrate leadership. This is a very important issue right now, and I thank the member for her support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the muzzling of scientists under the current administration has been unprecedented. I worked in the minister of the environment's office during the Mulroney administration, and Environment Canada scientists spoke freely. Sometimes the minister was disturbed by the forthright comments of scientists, but we knew we could not ask them not to talk to the media because it was an essential part of democracy that Environment Canada scientists be free to do that.

I want to point out to my colleague that the Conservatives may well have spent billions of dollars on science, as we heard from the member for Thornhill, but it is important to remember that money alone does not tell the story. The 2012 budget quite specifically said that research funds must be “business-led” and “industry-relevant”.

We have slashed the number of scientists who look after fisheries and the environment.

I would ask my colleague if she agrees.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her participation at the wonderful debate we had at the University of Toronto, with Chris Turner, and one of her colleagues with Scientists for the Right to Know.

It is hugely important that money on its own, with an attitudinally incorrect government, is not going to move the progress of this country forward.

I think all of us in the House very much enjoyed the presentation two weeks ago from the scientists at McGill about the importance of basic research, curiousity-driven research, going forward. Curtailing the funding of research is generally misguided and wrong.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology)]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to ask a question to my hon. colleague.

It is interesting. There was unprecedented funding last year, including $1.5 billion for world-leading discovery research by institutions right across the country. Can the member tell me where the bias is? It does not exist.

This year the government provided $1.33 billion of infrastructure funding. We were told by the community that is what they needed to continue with the scientific agenda, for Canada to continue to be world-leading.

Canadians love consistency. Interestingly enough, the current communications policy with respect to scientists conducting media interviews is the same as it was in 2002 when the Liberals presented it.

Is the hon. member now going against the policy that her party put in place, which is basically the policy that our government has continued with?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me the opportunity to explain that it depends under whose hands any policy is executed.

What is happening is that there are scientists with minders assigned to them from political offices to make sure they do not speak to the media, as opposed to people trying to make sure there are opportunities for them to speak. It is a very different approach.

I would tell the member opposite that I have never seen the morale amongst the scientific community as low as it is right now. People are telling their children not to become a government scientist. This is dire situation. From the issue of health research, and all of the upsetting realities of what the government has done to the reputation of Canada around the world because they will not let scientists speak to the public and their colleagues, the member responsible for this should be ashamed.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member's response did not quite answer the question. However, I would like to move on from there.

In the spirit of consistency, it was her leader who spoke about the policy for innovation. He said, “A large part of it is transitioning away from manufacturing-based employment as a driver in the economy...”.

What the Liberal leader was really saying to 1.7 million Canadians is that they should find another job because they are not part of the Liberal vision of a knowledge economy.

Would the member opposite agree with her leader that we need to transition away from manufacturing-based employment?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not even dignify that with a response. That was completely out of context from when the leader was at our caucus in London, in southwestern Ontario.

That member knows the devastation that has taken place in southwestern Ontario and how important the manufacturing sector has been, and how little support the government has given to manufacturing in this country.

It is a hugely important time now to get away from this partisan nonsense and actually support science. Let us get the research on productivity. Let us get the kinds of research that these companies need to go forward and compete in the world.

It is hugely ridiculous that we have to listen to that kind of stuff instead of solving the problem for all Canadians, particularly in southwestern Ontario.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in this important discussion. I will be splitting my time with the member for Oshawa.

This motion seems to claim that there is a grand conspiracy to constrain scientific researchers within the government from ever speaking publicly or to the media. It gives an impression that the important work of our government scientists is not shared in the public domain. You, Mr. Speaker, certainly members on this side of the House, and I believe on the other side as well, know that this is completely untrue. There are countless examples of publicly disclosed scientific publications and media interviews given by federal scientists every week, every month, every year.

First let me review the context of the Government of Canada's communications policy. The communications policy of the Government of Canada is readily available from the Treasury Board Secretariat. All scientists working for the Government of Canada are public servants who are subject to that policy. All federal public servants are expected to work within the parameters of the communications policy of the Government of Canada.

The policy section on accountability begins by stating that “ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister and to Parliament for presenting and explaining government policies, priorities and decisions.... Ministers, both individually and collectively as members of Cabinet, are the principal spokespersons for the Government of Canada and its institutions”.

The policy elaborates on spokespersons. Ministers are the principal spokespersons; ministers present and explain government policies, priorities and decisions. Therefore, when it comes to policy and policy-making, ministers are the leads. They are the decision-makers for their departments and also the primary communicators of those decisions.

I would like to cite a paragraph from a very thoughtful contribution published in The Globe and Mail just last Friday, May 22. It was written by Michael Rennie, Canada Research Chair in Freshwater Ecology and Fisheries, who is also an assistant biology professor at Lakehead University, and a research fellow with the International Institute of Sustainable Development-Experimental Lakes Area. The co-author was Andrew Leach, associate professor at the Alberta School of Business at the University of Alberta. Both of these gentlemen have worked within the Government of Canada as well as in their various academic dimensions. They wrote:

Most, if not all, policy decisions of governments require weighing costs and benefits. Research from various sources, often including government scientists, is used to inform policy-makers of the likely consequences of proposed actions, but at the end of the day, research can’t tell you what decision should be taken. Making these decisions is reserved for our elected representatives.

Public servant scientists, then, are to focus on their job of research to inform decisions that are then made at the political level by elected representatives. In turn, communication of that work must also occur in ways that are not advocating policy positions but informing the public about what considerations may be going into them. Therefore, employees of the public service are to focus their communications activities on issues and matters pertaining to the policies, programs, services, and initiatives that they administer on behalf of elected ministers.

Mr. Speaker, you also know full well that media is essential in helping to promote public awareness, an understanding of government policies, programs, and initiatives. Media inquiries, whether by phone or email, must be addressed promptly to accommodate public deadlines. Departments work hard to meet those demands. While doing so, departments also inform the primary spokesmen of the department, the minister and his or her office, when preparing these responses, as they may have broader policy implications.

The motion we are debating refers to elements of the public interest, like protection of the environment and the health of Canadians, so let us focus for a moment on Environment Canada.

It is a science-based organization with one of the largest science programs in government. Every day, staff at Environment Canada conduct a wide range of environmental monitoring, research and other scientific activities in fields like atmospheric sciences, meteorology, physics, biology, chemistry, hydrology, ecology, engineering and informatics. In fact, over half of the employees at Environment Canada work in science and technology occupations.

Science accounts for the majority of Environment Canada's budget and it provides critical information that contributes to the departmental mandate of ensuring a clean, safe and sustainable environment for Canada. Science, I think it is fair to say, is the foundation for Environment Canada's policies and actions. There are a great many examples of how this science benefits Canadians. Their reports and hundreds of others on a wide range of subjects are available on the publications web pages of Environment Canada's website and the publication pages of other federal departments as well.

As an example, the chemicals management plan, a joint initiative run by Environment Canada and Health Canada, uses the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999, launched in 2006, the year of the election of our government. It is aimed at reducing the risks posed by chemicals to Canadians and their environment. There is a focus on a great number of substances, some 4,300 substances to be studied between now and 2020. Budget 2015, members will recall, set aside almost half a billion dollars to continue to assess and manage the risk to human health and the environment in the third five-year phase of that plan.

Another good example of information sharing is the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands monitoring. It is scientifically rigorous. It is a comprehensive, integrated and transparent environmental monitoring of the oil sands region. The program is world class. It has been recognized as a world-class system internationally, and designed to be one of the most comprehensive water monitoring systems in the world. The governments of Alberta and Canada committed to ensuring that the data from the monitoring activities and the scientific methods used are transparent, supported by necessary quality assurance and made publicly available.

I would recommend that any in this House, on both the government and the opposition side, as well as any viewers of today's debate, drop in to visit the website, the portal established by Environment Canada, www.jointoilsandsmonitoring.ca and see some of the science that is being shared quite openly and transparently therein.

Now let us examine Environment Canada's media interaction. Last year, Environment Canada received 5,800 requests for information for media. For those 5,800 or so media requests, Environment Canada provided about 4,200 interviews with subject matter experts and/or scientists. In these interviews they discussed weather requests and offered experts, including scientists, climatologists and ice forecasters. This, I think, very clearly demonstrates that Environmental Canada is responsive to media requests, including for interviews in the modern 24/7 media cycle environment, which is required from every government department.

In concluding, I think that these facts show that all of this is a far cry from the pessimistic scenario described in the motion we are debating. Let us instead continue to recognize, champion and celebrate the world-class work performed by so many Government of Canada scientists every day, and let us celebrate as more and more of that work is adapted to or transferred on to our open data portal.

I will be voting against the motion that is before the House today, and I would urge all of my fellow members to do the same.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question about the motion that is before us today. Certain things have come to light recently. A former federal scientist said that he felt muzzled when he worked for the Government of Canada. He said that he did not feel as though he had the right to share the results of his studies and investigations with the public. It was only after he retired that he felt free to talk about those results and to bring to light the alarming situation within the federal government.

What does my colleague have to say about the concerns raised by these scientists who worked for the Government of Canada? A survey showed that 90% of government scientists did not feel free to discuss the results of their research.

What does the member have to say about these concerns and these well-documented facts? What does he have to say to the former scientists who are making these claims?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specific case, but I think the content of the question revealed reasons that the public servant to whom he refers anonymously felt constrained from expressing his views of an alarming communication situation within the department. Well, that quite clearly has nothing to do with the work that he was employed to do as a public servant under the public service communications guidelines that I just mentioned in my speech. He obviously wished to speak, as the NDP motion, another motion before this House, would have government scientists or any public service employees speaking whenever they wish to on public policy issues, which quite clearly is not acceptable under the public service communications act.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments today with respect to how much research is important to environmental policy making. I was glad to hear his comments on how well respected our scientists are in the research community.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I made an announcement on R and D infrastructure at a fish hatchery. The minister of state and I made an announcement at the University of New Brunswick on biofuels. In both those cases, both of the scientists were very open to speak to the media with respect to their research. This is research that will be internationally used because of biofuels and the inner and outer bay Atlantic salmon.

I would ask the member to inform the House and talk to us a little more about how the government has helped our scientists to achieve this international status.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the good news that he and the minister shared that and other policy announcements.

It is important for members across the House to realize that Canada is ranked number one among G7 countries for our government's support of scientific research and development in public institutions, in colleges and universities, and associated scientific study.

To my colleague's point there is, in the flawed supposition of the motion before this House today, a grand conspiracy to keep scientific information from Canadians, which in fact is simply not the truth. The statistics, reality and record simply do not support that supposition.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the world-class science produced by Environment Canada. Research produced by Environment Canada scientists informs our policy decisions, supports the delivery of environmental services, and helps enforce the laws and regulations that protect Canada's environment.

Environment Canada employs leading experts across a range of environmental science fields, such as water, wildlife and climate science. We deliver science that is of high impact, collaborative and, of course, transparent.

In support of keeping Canada clean, safe and sustainable, Canadians currently have access to a wide range of Environment Canada monitoring data through the open data portal established by this government. This includes scientific data, such as air quality indicators, greenhouse gas inventories, weather and climate data, as well as the national pollutant release inventory and the data gathered through the Canadian environment sustainability indicators program.

Environment Canada scientists are also actively encouraged to publish the results of their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The department produces around 700 peer-reviewed publications per year, making it one of the most productive environmental research institutions in the entire world. The scientific impact of Environment Canada publications is well above world average. Its papers are cited 50% more than the world average. They are also published in journals that are more impactful than the world average.

Furthermore, I am proud that the work of three Environment Canada scientists was recognized by the Thomson Reuters 2014 report on The World's Most Influential Scientific Minds as being among the most highly cited scientific works in the world over the past decade. Environment Canada's science is highly visible, recognized and influential in the scientific community.

Environment Canada science is making a difference. Scientists play a key role in understanding our environment and the actions needed for it to remain clean, safe and sustainable for all Canadians. Publicly funded science is being put to use to serve Canadians, and I will highlight a few excellent examples. We continue to take action to keep Canadians and their environment safe from the risks of chemical substances. Canada is a world leader in this area. This government is taking a science-based approach and, as we announced in budget 2015, is investing $491.8 million over five years, starting in 2016-17, to renew the chemicals management plan.

We work hard to protect Canadians from severe weather 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Science is central to providing accurate and timely severe weather forecasts and warnings. Environment Canada scientists and meteorologists develop and run complex weather models on one of Canada's fastest supercomputers. This helps protect Canadians across the country, allowing weather-sensitive businesses and operations, as well as Canadian families and communities, to prepare for and respond to emergencies. We are investing $34 million over five years, starting in 2015-16, to renew meteorological and navigational warning services in the Arctic.

We rely upon the valuable and world-class science produced by federal scientists and their collaborators to protect Canada's diverse wildlife. Caribou are an iconic symbol of Canada's boreal forests. The Government of Canada issued a recovery strategy for the woodland caribou boreal population in 2012. The recovery strategy is based on science and of course traditional aboriginal knowledge. This government and our partners in provincial governments, aboriginal communities, industry stakeholders, academics and environmental non-governmental organizations all play a vital role in protecting this important species.

These are only a few examples that demonstrate the department's commitment to a clean, safe and sustainable Canada. Indeed, the department has invested record amounts of money, over $5.3 billion for example, in science and technology since 2006.

Environment Canada scientists do not work alone on these issues. We join forces with key partners to address common environmental issues to make the most of the significant investment. Collaboration is a cornerstone of Environment Canada's science and is key to the high regard our science receives, both in Canada and abroad.

In 2013, for example, nearly 90% of Environment Canada's publications involved at least one author from outside the department.

Nationally, Environment Canada scientists collaborate with colleagues from academia and other federal departments and levels of government.

Internationally, we publish with scientists from more than 70 countries, including leading global institutions, such as the World Meteorological Organization and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

This high rate of collaboration significantly increases Environment Canada's internal science capacity and keeps the department at the leading edge of scientific inquiry.

Environment Canada demonstrates the principles of collaboration and transparency through its action on the open government initiatives

In 2013, our Prime Minister and the other G8 leaders adopted the G8 Open Data Charter, which established open data principles for all member countries and called for specific commitments to release core public sector data.

Our government has since released Canada's action plan on open government 2014-2016, including a new open science commitment. This particular commitment aims to enhance open access to publications and related data resulting from federally funded research, in order to accelerate research, drive innovation, and most important, benefit our economy.

Transparency and accountability are core values that this government has brought to bear on all of its activities, including publicly funded science.

Through the new open data portal, Environment Canada shares its scientific data and research with Canadians. For example, we recently posted a full list of the department's peer-reviewed scientific and technical publications produced in 2012. We monitor and share data on national greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, wildlife population health, and more.

Environment Canada scientists play an important role in informing and assisting ministers in their responsibilities to promote a clean, safe, and sustainable environment for all Canadians.

In keeping with public service values, Environment Canada scientists do not comment publicly on government policy as this is the responsibility of ministers and their designated spokespersons.

Science has always been, and continues to be, the foundation of Environment Canada's work. Scientific and technical professionals represent over half the department's workforce. This workforce possesses the expertise necessary to continually produce cutting-edge science that underlies the department's policies, programs, and services.

I am proud that Environment Canada employs some of the best and brightest minds in the field of environmental science, who are actively producing and communicating research in support of Canada's environmental priorities.

Let us examine, now, Environment Canada's media interactions.

Last year, Environment Canada received close to 5,800 requests for information, from the media. For those 5,800 or so media requests, overall, Environment Canada gave about 4,200 interviews, with subject matter experts and scientists. The bulk of these were operational weather requests.

However, 369 Environment Canada interviews were given to the media in 2014 by other subject matter experts, including scientists, climatologists, and ice forecasters.

This demonstrates that Environment Canada is very responsive to media requests, including for interviews, in the modern 24-7 media cycle environment, which is required from every government department. This is a far cry from the pessimistic scenario described in the motion we are debating here today.

Let us, instead, continue to recognize, champion, and of course celebrate the world-class work performed by so many Government of Canada scientists each and every single day.

Of course, I will be voting against the motion, and I urge my fellow members to do the same.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to hear that the member is recommending voting against the motion.

The current government is bound by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, in which it commits that we will not undermine environmental protections for economic advantage, which it regularly does and regularly violates that side agreement to NAFTA. What it also is not abiding by is the clean energy dialogue with the United States, whereby it undertakes that it will move forward in tandem with the United States in measures related to the clean energy environment. I am a little stunned that the member is saying they are not interested in following suit with the United States, which actually has an exact same position for science.

I wonder if the member would speak to why they are moving away from their co-operative relationship with our neighbour, the United States.