House of Commons Hansard #217 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was scientific.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, in relation to the main estimates 2015-16.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “The Growing Problem of Identity Theft and Its Economic and Social Impact”.
I also present the eighth report of the the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Main Estimates 2015-16: Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Vote 1 under Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Votes 1 and 5 under Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada and Vote 1 under Senate Ethics Officer”.
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present the NDP's supplementary report on the identity theft study. We agree that identity theft is a very serious issue and that the protection of Canadians' personal information is a key component of a strong digital economy. In general we agree with the recommendations and the report.
However, we believe that the recommendations fail to cover some issues, including the following: requiring government and Internet service providers to produce transparency reports whenever personal information is voluntarily shared; a targeted strategy for first nations; updating the Privacy Act; ways to verify IDs; the requirement for credit freezes to be offered to consumers; guidelines surrounding the use of social insurance numbers by private organizations; and order-making power for the Privacy Commissioner.
The NDP's supplementary recommendations would put an end to the growing problem of identity theft and would provide better protection for Canadians' personal information in the digital era.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-681, An Act to amend the Competition Act (Competition Prosecution Service).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my new bill on creating a competition prosecution service, which will allow the Competition Bureau to act more quickly when an offence requires criminal prosecution.
The bill gives the new director the authority to initiate and conduct, on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, prosecutions under any act for the enforcement of which the Commissioner of Competition is responsible. Former competition commissioner Melanie Aitken recommended implementing such a measure in order to expedite legal action against offenders.
Unfortunately, bid rigging and price fixing remain common crimes in Canada, and Canadians expect the offenders to be punished quickly. My bill will help accelerate the legal process, thereby increasing protection for consumers. I certainly hope to have the government's support on this matter.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly happy to present two petitions, as the petitioners are youth in my riding.
The first petition is for the removal of all flavours of all tobacco products.
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the other petition is to adopt international aid policies to support small family farms, especially women farmers, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty, and to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farms to protect the right of small family farms in the global south to preserve and use friendly exchanged seeds.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition calling on the Government of Canada to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, in order to recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty. The petition also calls on the government to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers.
Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Toronto waterfront, who are asking the federal government not to reopen the tripartite agreement that governs the island airport, in large part because of a proposal for jets on the waterfront, which many Torontonians find objectionable and at odds with the billions of dollars of investment that the federal, provincial, and city governments have made to beautify the waterfront.
The petitioners ask that the federal government reject the request from Porter Airlines to reopen the tripartite agreement to allow for jets, and for all members of this House to respect the residents of the waterfront and whenever possible refrain from flying Porter Airlines and making a situation, which is bad, much worse in terms of air pollution.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting petitions today from parents all across Ontario. The petitioners request that Parliament require Internet service providers to provide a mandatory opt-in Internet pornography filter as a tool parents can use to protect their children from Internet pornography.
As members know, there have been many human-trafficking cases around the Windsor area, and the majority of these petitions come from the Windsor area.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.
The first two are petitions signed by the residents of the Post 83 Co-operative Housing Association and the 115 Place Co-op, both of which are located in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. Over the past decade, housing prices in metro Vancouver have skyrocketed and too many families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to immediately renew funding for long-term operating agreements with social housing providers, and I strongly urge the government to consider this petition.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, my third petition is presented on behalf of my constituent George Sojka. In 2005, George's sister, Helen Sonja Francis, was killed by an impaired driver. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the RCMP officers were unable to forward a warrant to the justice of the peace for approval within the four-hour time limit as legislated. As a result, the samples of the impaired driver's blood were ruled inadmissible.
The petitioner calls on this House to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to change the current four-hour time limit for warrant approval to a six-hour time limit.
Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.
The first is signed by hundreds of people across Canada who are calling on the government to eliminate the tax on feminine hygiene products. An opposition motion has already been supported by all of the parties, and the petitioners really want the government to implement the motion it supported. The NDP and the petitioners believe that this tax is sexist and that it should be eliminated.
Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed by people in my riding who want the government to stop making cuts to postal services. The government is continuing to reduce our postal services and is cutting home delivery. Many seniors and single women are concerned about this. More and more cities are asking the government not to go forward with these cuts. All of these people would like the government to listen to them.
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to present a petition to eliminate the GST on feminine hygiene products. As I already said, I have three daughters and they have seven daughters. Let us just say that that costs parents a lot of money. It is fair and reasonable to eliminate the tax on these products because women have no choice but to use them.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to present a petition to eliminate the federal tax on feminine hygiene products. Back in the days when our grandmothers used rags, such products may have been considered a luxury, but they have been considered essential for women for quite some time now. That is why all parliamentarians supported the NDP's opposition motion to get rid of that tax. The petitioners want that tax to be eliminated because it is sexist and it does not reflect the reality in which we now live. It is high time that this tax was abolished.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first is signed by hundreds of people in my riding and pertains to a Canadian optimist day, which would be on the first Thursday in February. This day would be used to help young Canadians reach their potential. There are already more than 16,000 members of Optimist clubs in Canada. We could help provide encouragement to even more young Canadians.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition pertains to Internet access in rural areas and across Canada. The Internet is a fundamental tool for developing knowledge and attracting people to the regions. It helps keep public programs accessible, lets people stay in touch with their loved ones at a low cost, and helps entrepreneurs attract employees. The petitioners are calling for a regulatory framework for providing affordable high-speed Internet all across the country. This petition was signed by my constituents as well.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 11, 2015, by the member for Timmins—James Bay, related to the government’s response to written question Q-1129, which was tabled in the House on May 8, 2015. I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House Leader of the Official Opposition for their comments.
In raising this matter, the member for Timmins—James Bay explained that the response he received to his written question, Question No. 1129, regarding the procedure used by the government to verify that Senate appointees meet their constitutional residency requirements was that, “...the government does not comment on matters before the court”. He characterized this answer as both completely insufficient and completely incorrect since the matter does not fall within the purview of the courts at this time. Thus, he argued the misleading character of the answer provided constituted a prima facie breach of privilege.
In response, the government House leader claimed that the answer put forward was, in fact, a re-statement of the sub judice convention. He argued that this was entirely appropriate as the question pertained to a matter rightfully before the courts in criminal proceedings at the present time. In addition, he noted that it is not within the purview of the Speaker to review government responses to questions and that other avenues were available if the member was not satisfied with the response.
Members place great importance on obtaining full and accurate information through answers to their written questions, a procedure that exists in part to allow members to fulfill their obligations as parliamentarians. Thus, the frequency with which the Chair has been called upon to rule on questions of privilege of this kind is, in some respects, understandable.
Invariably, when members deem that the content or quality of responses to written questions falls short, the Chair is asked to adjudicate. In each instance, the Chair has sought to remind members of the clear and long-standing limitations of the role of the Speaker in this regard. House of Common Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 522, “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions”, nor does parliamentary convention allow for this.
On February 8, 2005, Speaker Milliken, at page 3234 of Debates, confirmed this, stating:
Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.
O’Brien and Bosc, at pages 522 to 523 states:
“…on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege.
That the answer that the member received to his question invokes the sub judice convention in no way alters or bolsters the authority of the Chair to review and pronounce itself on the accuracy or validity of that answer, even when it is interpreted to be a refusal to answer.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, at page 522:
There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.
Based on these precedents and on the information presented, I cannot conclude that the member has been impeded in the performance of his parliamentary duties. Therefore, I cannot find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.
I thank honourable Members for their attention.
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House: (a) the government has constrained the ability of federal scientists to share their research and to collaborate with their peers; (b) federal scientists have been muzzled and prevented from speaking to the media about their work; (c) research is paid for by taxpayers and must be done in the public interest in order to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians; and, therefore, (d) the government should immediately rescind all rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists, consolidate government-funded or -created science so that it is easily available to the public at large through a central portal, 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, and allow scientists to be able to speak freely on their work with limited and publicly stated exceptions.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North.
Today the Liberal Party affirms its commitment to making policy that is based on evidence. The Liberal Party is using its opposition day to move a motion calling on the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party to end their muzzling of scientists.
We also pledge to create the position of chief science officer, whose responsibilities will include not only providing advice to the Prime Minister and cabinet, but also ensuring that government science is publicly available and that scientists may speak freely about their research.
We have heard from scientists and people across Canada who have experienced the Conservative government's suppression of science and muzzling of scientists. They are deeply troubled by it.
We heard just last week about Steven Campana, former DFO scientist, a researcher of the population dynamics of sharks and other fishes. He was disciplined for, amongst other things, giving an interview for a fluff piece about a great white shark that was sighted off the coast of New England. This was after previously receiving a media spokesperson of the year award.
In 2010, NRCan scientist Scott Dallimore was not allowed to talk about a large flood in northern Canada which occurred 13,000 years ago without getting pre-approval from political staff.
In 2011, DFO scientist Kristina Miller could not speak to journalists about her research on salmon genetics which had implications for viral infections and salmon mortality.
A journalist, Tom Spears, looking into joint research between our NRC and NASA in the United States on snowfall patterns, sparked 50 emails between 11 government employees. Meanwhile, a phone call to NASA got the information in 15 minutes.
Another journalist seeking an interview with DFO scientist Max Bothwell about didymo, an algae known as rock snot, generated 110 pages of internal emails between 16 government communications staff, and there was no interview in the end.
Environment Canada scientists were shadowed by communications staff at the 2012 polar conference, which we hosted in Montreal.
Environment Canada scientists were given a script by communications officials, instead of being trusted to comment on a study led by Erin Kelly and David Schindler on contamination of water by oil sands operations, when they presented their results at a scientific conference in Boston.
Our federal scientists are experts in their fields. We should trust their ability to share valuable research findings in a professional and objective manner without commenting on government policy. We believe that they should share their research with the public and be free from political interference.
Conservative suppression of science goes beyond preventing government scientists from speaking freely about their research. It includes cuts to scientific research for the common good, cuts which jeopardize our safety, environment, competitiveness, and place on the world stage.
Government scientists want to do work that helps us govern ourselves wisely. It is no wonder that The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, PIPSC, is pushing for an unprecedented scientific integrity package in its collective bargaining agreement.
What benefits do government scientists provide? Government scientists work in fields such as public health, environmental protection, resource stewardship, Canadian cultural and historical studies, or basic science which industry has little incentive to fund.
Government scientists can have the expertise to inform regulatory and legislative work in a more objective way than scientists employed by industry or interest groups. The perception of neutrality is also important when policy debates reach the public square. Scientists in government work closely with policy-makers, which helps to align their research priorities with public needs.
Why is freedom of speech important for government scientists? Restrictions on communication alter scientific work. Science relies on free and vigorous debate between scientists who have reached opposing conclusions. Scientists should not be pressured directly, or even indirectly, to self-censor or to weaken their conclusions so as to avoid upsetting the government of the day.
Mike Rennie described the work environment at the Experimental Lakes Area when it was under the control of the federal government as “toxic”, in part because of the communications policy.
The more controversial a public issue is, the more we need independent, objective, professional, well-reasoned facts to anchor government decision-making and the public's democratic participation in that decision-making.
When it comes to decisions that affect health and safety, fairness, the environment, or the economy, we need the best information when we decide on policy or how policy is to be implemented.
Restricting communication will make it hard to recruit good scientists. In an unprecedented move, PIPSC, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the union which represents government scientific staff, is asking for a scientific integrity package in its collective bargaining. They are not asking for salary increases, but in effect the freedom to do their work and allow it to contribute as much as possible to the public good, to make their work meaningful.
By contrast, Dr. Campana, the former DFO scientist, said last week: “the vast majority of our senior scientists are in the process of leaving now disgusted...”.
Finally, regarding communications, it is important for scientists to talk about their research, about nature, while following simple precautions. That is really free speech: something of value in and of itself in our society.
What are the precautions? What are the reasonable restrictions on what scientists can freely talk about? First of all, the public should never think that scientists are speaking for the government of the day, for the elected officials to whom the people have given the responsibility to make decisions. Scientists should talk about their research and not about government policy.
Government communications people can review a scientist's communications with the public in order to prepare a response because scientific findings do affect people's thinking. However, they should not restrict that communication.
Government scientists may collect personal data that should be kept confidential or proprietary information that is protected by an intellectual property agreement. That should be kept from the public.
Government scientists may have knowledge where public release would have negative consequences for public safety. That would be a limitation.
Government scientists will be known by their affiliation with federal institutions, whose reputations would be affected if there are significant errors in their research that is communicated publicly. Of course, there is a requirement for some sort of scientific peer review for quality control before public communication is permitted. That is appropriate. This is review by people whose expertise is science, not communications.
These are all examples of the limited restrictions that are mentioned in the motion, and these restrictions will be made public.
Making the changes that we are calling for will, of course, require monitoring, since different parts of government have different communications needs. That is why we call for the establishment of the position of chief science officer, to ensure that these changes are implemented and maintained for the benefit of Canada.
Canadians expect their government to embrace policy that is based on evidence. That process must be transparent. Government science which informs policy-making and is paid for by taxpayers must be open and accessible to the public. The public must be confident that information comes directly from scientists and is free from partisan political influence.
One of the things the Conservatives will say is that scientists can publish their results in journals. Even scientists do not just read journals to understand what another scientist has done. One can only do that if they work in the same specialized field as the other scientist. Scientists will sit down with another scientist, make a phone call, or sit in the hallway at a conference, and discuss the details of research in order to understand what the other scientists have done.
It is even more important for scientists to have two-way communication, usually through a science journalist, to communicate with the public, to make sure that the journalist understands what the scientist has done and to make sure that the communication is complete. It is not a rebuttal to say that scientists can publish in scientific journals.
To summarize, a Liberal government will unmuzzle science for the public good and work to re-establish a respectful relationship with government scientists. We will create the position of chief science officer, whose responsibilities will include not only providing advice to the Prime Minister, but also ensuring that government science is publicly available and that scientists may speak freely about their research. The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to including these measures in its election platform.
A Liberal government will unmuzzle science for the public good and work to re-establish a respectful relationship with government scientists. The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to including these measures in its election platform.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend's speech, and I first of all would like to congratulate him on a good motion. I will be supporting it in a vote here, as I think will the rest of us on this side of the House.
The first part of the member's speech is about the problems that the government has created for science and the second half of the speech is about solutions to the problems. I find them slightly mismatched. I find that the solutions that are proposed are good, but they do not go far enough.
I am wondering if he would perhaps have additional measures that he would like to add to protect science in Canada.
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, we would be creating a position of chief science officer. The chief science officer is related to the science advisor that the last Liberal government had, which was removed by the current Conservative government.
The position of chief science officer would not only have the responsibility of advising the government on science, but would also ensure that scientists are free to communicate so that government science is accessible to the public. The public has to have that information so that it can participate in democracy.
If we look at the economy and the innovative companies, leaders in social enterprise, leaders in doing government better, we can see in the last couple of decades the leaders who have been able to take knowledge and use it in a better way in terms of making government more efficient and effective.
The chief science officer would also have the responsibility of making sure that we use our knowledge to govern ourselves more wisely and efficiently so that Canada is a stronger country.