14135 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 217 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, May 26, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 26, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 217 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 217 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 217 (Version officielle) 147 217 26 05 2015 2015/05/26 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : 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.

Committees of the House International Trade Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : 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.

[ Translation ] Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : 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”. [ English ] 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”. [ Translation ] Ms.

Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : 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.

Competition Prosecution Service Act Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) Bill C-681. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-681,

An Act to amend the Competition Act (Competition Prosecution Service) . She said: 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)

(1005) [ English ] Petitions Tobacco Products Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : 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.

Agriculture Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : 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. [ Translation ] Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : 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.

[ English ] Air Transportation Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : 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.

Internet Service Providers Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : 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.

Housing Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : 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.

Impaired Driving Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : 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.

[ Translation ] Taxation Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : 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.

(1010) Canada Post Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : 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.

Taxation Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : 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. Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : 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.

Optimist Movement Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : 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.

Internet Access Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : 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.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Privilege Questions on the Order Paper—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : 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. [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] On February 8, 2005, Speaker Milliken, at page 3234 of House of Commons 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. (1015) [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Federal Science Research Business of Supply Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) Motion 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. He said: 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.

(1020) 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. (1025) [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : 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. Mr. Ted Hsu : 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. Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I too listened to the comments of my colleague opposite. It was not that long ago that this particular member came up to me and complimented our government in terms of our unprecedented funding for science and technology. In fact, we talked about the Thirty Meter Telescope. At the time, there had been considerable interest in supporting it.

The member opposite said that he was not going to pursue it at the time because of the other strong support we have given science in this country. It is interesting hearing his comments. How does the member opposite square the unprecedented and tremendous financial support that this government announced in economic action plans 2014 and 2015 with his comments about somehow muzzling scientists? Frankly, why would we put that kind of money toward supporting scientists when he claims that we are muzzling them? That makes no sense.

(1030) Mr. Ted Hsu : Mr. Speaker, I have a slightly different recollection of that conversation about the Thirty Meter Telescope, but I certainly did congratulate the government on funding it. However, the current government has put more money into collaborations with industry. It is a fine thing to get industry to use science and technology to innovate, but it has cut its own science capacity, which is the capacity that is used for the public good, for public health and safety, for protecting the environment, and for studying Canada's cultural and historical heritage.

For example, Statistics Canada has a table entitled “Federal expenditures – On science and technology, research and development and related scientific activities in current dollars and in constant 2007 dollars”. When we look at the constant 2007 dollars and where it was before the Conservatives took over in 2005-06, it is at $10 billion. However, when we look at the last year that the numbers are available, it is about $9.2 billion or $9.3 billion. Therefore, if we correct for inflation, the spending on science inside the federal government has decreased.

It is fine that the government has helped industry, but if we look at the inflation correction and, by the way, add on the fact that the scientific research and experimental development credit has been cut by several hundred million dollars a year, we will see that is a total fabrication. The Conservative government has actually cut funding on science. Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, science has always been and must remain a driving force for smart public policy, for example, by providing evidence how to best treat autism spectrum disorder and dementia, to ensure the safety and efficacy of our prescription drugs, to mitigate and adapt to climate change, to monitor our freshwater lakes and ozone, to protect species at risk, and the list goes on. Scientific evidence helps us understand how a rapidly changing world affects our environment and health.

Science should always be impartial in its application, and it is vitally important for administrators to affirm that they believe in the scientific process, transparency and accountability. Policies affect people. For example, when a family member has a prescription filled, he or she wants to be confident that if a federal scientist had any concern about the safety or efficacy of that drug, he or she was able to speak out, and that decisions were made based on the basis of research, not politics or profits.

Only in such a policy-making environment can we feel that a drug is safe, that our air, food and water are safe. We need to know that outcomes, both research results and policy decisions, are grounded in science, not in special interests that ignore the scientific process. We need to know that science that is uncomfortable for the government is not muzzled. Scientists must not only be allowed to speak up during the course of their research but also be allowed to speak freely to the media and the public, or as the motion states, “with limited and publicly stated exceptions”.

Scientists will always remain the best spokespeople for their own work, and barring rare instances where information is highly sensitive it is essential that they be able to communicate their expertise to the media and to the public. Members of the media must have timely access to federal scientists. This process is routine among federal scientists working for our closest ally, the United States. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, there has been a tightening of media protocols for federal scientists. Some scientists say an iron curtain has descended across the federal service.

Researchers who once would have responded freely and promptly to journalists are required to direct inquiries to a media relations office, which demands written questions in advance and still might not permit scientists to speak. Federal scientists are under growing surveillance and control. Many studies have shown a pattern of suppression, manipulation and distortion of federal science.

Canadian journalists have documented numerous cases in which prominent researchers have been prevented from discussing published, peer-reviewed articles or only discussing after a journalist's deadline has passed, on climate change, on an unprecedented loss of ozone over the Arctic, on viral infections in salmon. This is not just theory, these are discoveries, paid for by Canadians, that tell us that Canadian environments are changing. Why would the government want to work so hard to prevent Canadians from knowing this?

New policies that muzzle scientists and slow or prevent them from speaking to Canadians corrodes confidence in our democracy. In the past, journalists were generally able to contact scientists directly for interviews. Now scientists have to get pre-approval from their minister's office before speaking to the national or international media. Shockingly, in one case from 2014, a request from The Canadian Press to speak to federal government scientist Max Bothwell about his work on algae led to a 110-page email exchange to and from 16 different federal government communications officers.

Perhaps the scrutiny was because of a possible link to climate change. There have also been reports of restrictions on scientists being able to travel to conferences to share their results. Some international scientists have even voiced concerns that working with Canadian scientists will affect their own ability to speak freely about research results. This has broader implications for Canada's prospects as an international partner, and I hear about a “broader chill”.

(1035) There is the case of a minister not being to able to define a simple scientific term that is part of the core work of his or her department but knowing what scientist's funding has been pulled, federal scientists being pressured to shut down non-governmental organizations' advocacy work, and even young researchers who are not in the federal service being pressured to stop what is termed “activist activities”. All are afraid to come forward for fear of losing their job or their funding. I can personally attest to scientists' increased fear around doing their jobs.

I used to consult for Environment Canada, and I have numerous friends who are scientists across Canada and the United States. Because of the 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 had one friend who was so concerned that he or she wrote to me from a spouse's email account to my old university email account and then explained that he or she would call on the spouse's cellphone from a busy mall so that 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 and by the war on science. Nature magazine, one of the world's leading journals, has reported that the government's policy directives confirm its little understanding 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.” Following the symposium “Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How To Re-Open the Discourse”, the Conservatives' media policies were centre stage in the international spotlight. According to Nature , “The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.” We used to be praised internationally for our openness, and now we are seen as a pariah.

Today, members of the Conservative government will repeatedly deny claims of political interference in public science. They will try to deflect from the issues at hand. They will claim that scientists are able to share their research with Canadians, but the evidence and the facts say otherwise. A study by Evidence For Democracy and Simon Fraser University gives media policies governing science-based departments a C- on average for how well they facilitate open communication between scientists and the media.

Moreover, a survey last year of 4,000 Canadian scientists found that 74% thought that the sharing of government science findings with the Canadian public had become too restrictive. Scientists, the media and Canadians themselves have taken note of the Conservative government's chilling war on science. Hundreds of scientists even staged a mock funeral procession in Ottawa to protest Conservative government policies that they claim are causing “the death of evidence”.

There have also been open letters written by science organizations, journalists and a group of international scientists calling for the unmuzzling of scientists. A letter signed by more than 800 scientists from 32 countries asked the Prime Minister to end “burdensome restrictions on scientific communication and collaboration faced by Canadian government scientists”. Every Canadian has a vested interest in public science. We cannot accept policies that undermine government transparency and accountability and stifle communication.

Canadians absolutely have the right to know about the research that is being funded by their own tax dollars and how this research might be used in other contexts. I am proud to support today's Liberal motion to unmuzzle science. Our party believes in the importance and value of evidence-based policy-making and the expertise of our public servants, federal scientists and researchers. We must ensure that policy-makers have the right facts so that they can best serve Canadians. Finally, the government must stand up for science and for scientists.

It must immediately begin to unmuzzle researchers and to restore and preserve scientific integrity so that Canadians can receive the best possible policy outcomes. They deserve nothing less.

(1040) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as my colleague previously said, I appreciate the Liberals bringing forward this motion. It is a critical matter facing our country. Regrettably, the previous member who spoke mentioned a good friend of mine, Dr. David Schindler, professor emeritus at the University of Alberta in the Killam Memorial Chair. Dr. Schindler at one time worked for the Government of Canada and he too left because of the repression of scientific information.

He stated in a letter to the Ottawa Citizen in March 2010 that, “Such muzzling occurred under Conservative and Liberal administrations...as far back as the Mulroney government.” I guess we remain hopeful that future Liberal regimes would reverse the policies they previously had where apparently they also limited science information being released by government scientists. I have a question for my colleague, and I admire her as a scientist.

One matter that neither she nor her colleague mentioned is an important issue for Canadian scientists, and that is the fact that now, in order to get a federal NSERC grant, or even a Western Economic Diversification grant, an individual has to partner with one of the industry sectors in favour with the government. I wonder if she could speak to that. Ms. Kirsty Duncan : Mr. Speaker, let me say I am very proud of our record when it comes to science.

It was a Liberal government that did have the science adviser, and many of these changes that we have seen, particularly around muzzling, have come under the present government. There is a war on science in this country. Science is under persistent attack in Canada, despite the fact that benefits of university research and development are $15 billion and 150,000 to 200,000 person-years of employment each year. I will give examples. Budget 2009 cut $148 million over three years from the federal research granting councils.

Moreover, the government attempted to direct research toward subjects it perceived as priorities. I think we have to pay attention that we have seen thousands of scientists across this country demonstrating, because evidence is being drained from decision making, and when the facts show that a policy cannot be defended, it might be better to revise the policy than suppress the facts.

(1045) Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have regard for the member for Etobicoke North . We have talked on a number of issues over time, and I generally appreciate the tenor by which she presents her commentary, I think a little overcharged, if I might say, on the words “war on science”, and I say that with deep respect because that is just not the case. We heard comments from our colleagues opposite in their debate about the reference to a science officer.

It was back in 2007 that our government created the Science, Technology and Innovation Council, 18 qualified experts to advise and provide the government with unbiased policy advice. My question for my colleague opposite: When she read the last two reports of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council, was she impressed with how unbiased their presentations were? Ms. Kirsty Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my colleague from across the way, and yes, we have had many good conversations.

Having said that, I am a scientist, and I hear from my former colleagues across Canada, across the United States and internationally. Many of my colleagues have gone to the United States because they feel that they can no longer do their work freely, that they can no longer talk to the Canadian public and to the media freely. When there has been a science issue that is breaking in Canada, it is my international colleagues who reach out to me. Let me be very clear: We have amazing scientists in the public service. They should be allowed to do their work freely.

They should be allowed to talk to the Canadian public. It is a matter of fairness. It is Canadian taxpayers who are paying for this research. Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to comments made earlier today by the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands and for Etobicoke North , and to present information regarding the communication of our federal science and technology policy.

I have never been more proud of the commitment that our government has in research and development, and also for our strong support of science in this country. [ Translation ] The government recognizes the importance of science and technology in creating a robust and prosperous society. We have never stopped honouring this commitment with concrete measures. [ English ] I begin by providing some context.

Back in 2007, we set forward our vision for science and technology in a strategy that we updated in 2014 when the Prime Minister launched “Seizing Canada's Moment: Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation 2014”. This new strategy will provide a road map for how Canada can build on its world-leading strengths and move on to new beginnings of scientific achievement, discovery, and economic success. Guided by our science and technology strategies, we have made record investments.

Since 2006, the government has invested more than $13 billion in new funding in all facets of the innovation ecosystem, including advanced research, research infrastructure, talent development, and business innovation. [ Translation ] Furthermore, the government supports the strategic relationships among research institutions, researchers and businesses that are required to take advantage of the many opportunities arising from this ever-growing knowledge base. [ English ] We all know the role that science and technology plays in driving long-term economic growth.

Prime Minister Harper said it best: “Science powers commerce.” In our view, the role of the government is to establish policies that strengthen the science, technology, and innovation enterprise from discovery research all the way through to commercialization. As such, we have bolstered federal research that informs public policy decision-making.

These investments help the government achieve key social goals, such as improving public health, ensuring safety of foods and products, building strong and vibrant economies all across the nation, and ensuring a clean and healthy environment for future generations. [ Translation ] In accordance with the government's new science and technology strategy , we announced in economic action plan 2015 additional steps to strengthen science, technology and innovation in Canada, in particular by providing more than $1.5 billion to advance the renewed science, technology and innovation strategy's objective. (1050) [ English ] I am proud to say that this government's investments have made Canada well known internationally for its research strengths, for its highly qualified personnel, and for advanced research infrastructure.

In fact, Canada leads the G7 in spending on R and D in higher education. Building on the government's historic infrastructure investments, including the new Building Canada plan, on November 24, 2014, Prime Minister Harper announced— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. This is the second time the member has used the name of a member. I did not comment the first time, but if he could be mindful of that, the Chair would appreciate it. Hon. Ed Holder : Mr. Speaker, I will be respectful and mindful. I apologize.

The Prime Minister announced $5.8 billion in investments that will continue to build and renew infrastructure and on-reserve schools across the country. This unprecedented and historic investment in public infrastructure will ensure Canada's future economic growth for years to come.

The ability to invest such a substantial amount of funding in infrastructure is a direct result of the government's responsible actions to return to fiscal balance. [ Translation ] In the Prime Minister 's announcement in November, $380 million was set aside for building or renovating federal laboratories in Canada, so that employees have access to state-of-the-art facilities to help create jobs and stimulate economic growth, all while improving their productivity. [ English ] In addition, economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide resources totalling $243.5 million over 10 years to enable Canadian access to and participation in the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope.

As announced by the Prime Minister on April 6, 2015, this funding is building on Canada's scientific leadership, securing a viewing share for Canadian researchers at the Thirty Meter Telescope in partnership with the United States, Japan, China, and India. This investment will help maintain Canadian scientific leadership in astronomy and will help Canadian companies create and maintain high-quality jobs in communities across Canada. Investments in science and technology must include investing in people.

We want Canada to be a place where curiosity is encouraged, a place where our youth are inspired by science, technology, and innovation, a place where the world's best and brightest minds come to push the frontiers of knowledge and make groundbreaking technology advancements to help Canada succeed in the global economy. Our government is very aware that it is important not only to perform world class research but also to communicate the results. That is why we are committed to ensuring that federally funded scientific research is shared widely with Canadians.

We regularly promote and encourage media and public access to our scientists. We remain committed to promoting the great work of our scientists and staff and to raising awareness of the importance of science and technology in the lives of Canadians. [ Translation ] Government of Canada experts regularly answer calls from journalists and participate in public activities in which they introduce themselves and talk about their jobs.

Furthermore, departments proactively work with Canadian and international media to write articles on these experts. [ English ] What is more, our government encourages scientists to share their findings by publishing articles and by conducting interviews with the media. Their findings are also shared at scientific conferences at home and abroad and are made widely available to other scientists, to Canadians, and to scientific communities around the world.

According to figures from the Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Canadian federal departments and agencies have averaged over 4,000 publications in the natural sciences and engineering fields annually. This number has been increasing, and in 2011 federal researchers published over 10% more publications in these fields than they did five years earlier. In 2014, for example, the National Research Council participated in approximately 370 media interviews, and its scientists published more than 729 scientific articles. In addition.

Environment Canada gave over 4,100 interviews with subject matter experts and scientists last year alone. [ Translation ] Furthermore, last year, Fisheries and Oceans Canada received 713 interview requests related to scientific questions and participated in 647 media interviews. That means that more than 91% of interview requests were granted.

Furthermore, Fisheries and Oceans Canada responded in writing to 1,406 media inquiries on the sciences. (1055) [ English ] I would also like to point to our busy colleagues over at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, who published more than 3,000 science articles, and to our friends at Natural Resources Canada, who gave 472 interviews to reporters to discuss research results and findings. I share this with the House, through all of these numbers, to make it very clear that this is about fact-based responsibility and fact-based reporting to this House.

Our departments are also active online and in social media, promoting our science and our scientists through science.gc.ca and through Twitter accounts such as @CANADAquakes and @SpaceWeatherCA. I would note that all departments and agencies must ensure that all communications activities conform to the requirements of the communications policy of the Government of Canada. The policy states that institutions must facilitate information or interview requests from the media and ensure processes are in place in responding to media calls.

It also directs departments and agencies to cultivate proactive relations with the media and to promptly address their inquiries. Since the policy came into effect in 2002, ministers have been designated as the principal spokespersons of the Government of Canada. The communications policy of the Government of Canada also states that institutions must consult their minister's office when preparing a response to a media inquiry that could have implications for the minister,

whereas media requests for technical information on specialized subjects are often directed to knowledgeable managers or staff designated to speak as representatives of their institution. [ Translation ] The government is extremely proud of the world-class work our scientists and researchers are doing. Their work plays an integral role in shaping the government's policies and decisions.

These researchers' work is helping Canada achieve its primary social objectives, such as improving public health, ensuring food safety and product safety, creating a strong and vibrant economy, and protecting our environment for future generations. [ English ] Beyond supporting the dissemination of research findings through the media and scholarly channels, the government has launched initiatives to make federally funded scientific research and data more widely available to Canadians.

A good example is the Open Data portal, which provides free access to thousands of government data sets and to various websites, such as science.gc.ca, that highlight the work of federal scientists. What is more, we will advance open science policies and practices for publicly funded research by increasing public access to the results of government-funded research. This is part of a government-wide initiative to broaden the breadth and depth of information available through the action plan on open government.

The reach of science across the federal public service and the opportunities to create new value through big data and other trends around the future of science demonstrate a strong need for a collective approach to define, develop, and integrate open science. [ Translation ] As a result of greater collaboration among the scientific community and private and public sectors, as well as increased engagement, we expect open science policies to make it easier for people to access publications and scientific and technical data. [ English ] In particular, our government has already implemented a tri-agency open access policy, formally launched in February of 2015, requiring that the results of federally funded research through the granting councils be made available within 12 months of publication.

Furthermore, we are committed to making available an online consolidated list of recently published research authored by federal scientists and will develop and implement policies to promote open access to federal science. As well, we have invested $3 million over three years in the Canadian Digital Media Network to create the open data institute. The institute will play a pivotal role in aggregating large data sets, informing the development of interoperability standards, and stimulating the commercialization of new data-driven apps.

In September 2014, science-based departments and agencies and the granting agencies agreed to a common federal open science commitment to be part of the Treasury Board's open government action plan 2.0 announced in November 2014. Led by my colleague, the hon. President of the Treasury Board , the action plan on open government will further open access to federal research and support openness and transparency.

The initiative will provide Canadians with greater opportunity to learn about and participate in government, drive innovation and economic opportunities for all Canadians, and at the same time create a more cost-effective, efficient, and responsive government.

(1100) The government is committed to taking measures based on open data initiatives focused on stimulating our digital economy and the free flow of useful and usable data. Seizing open science opportunities and addressing challenges require a consistent, coordinated, long-term culture change with a whole-of-government approach.

In addition, in order to mobilize knowledge from the lab to the marketplace, to address business challenges, and to seize new societal opportunities, we have built bridges between businesses of all sizes—universities, colleges, polytechnics, federal researchers—and we will encourage closer connections between the public and private sectors.

This will empower firms to leverage their investments in R and D by seeking solutions with universities, colleges, polytechnics, and government laboratories. [ Translation ] I can assure all hon. members that the government will continue to work with its partners to implement these measures in a timely manner so that research institutions and businesses can take advantage of the opportunities and to maximize the benefits for Canadians. [ English ] By fostering innovation, our government is building greater partnerships among business and the research community to help companies compete and win in the global marketplace.

Science, technology, and innovation comprise the foundation of Canada's high standard of living and create growth, jobs, and long-term prosperity. Federal scientists and researchers contribute to these endeavours every day, and our government truly values the role they play. We are committed to communicating the results of their ingenuity, dedication, and hard work to Canadians. [ Translation ] Canada enjoys an enviable reputation when it comes to our scientific and technological contributions and recent major investments to promote R and D.

We can take pride in the fact that we have some of the brightest researchers in the world, particularly in our federal laboratories. [ English ] Canadian researchers are very active, producing more top-cited scientific articles than most industrialized countries. We clearly punch above our weight: with less than 0.5% of the world's population, Canada produces over 4% of the world's research papers and nearly 5% of the world's most frequently cited papers.

Canada leads the G7 in research and development performed by a higher education sector as a share of gross domestic product and is the only G7 country that increased its share of the world's published papers in the last decade. [ Translation ] That is wonderful. [ English ] Over the past few years, reports show that Canadian science and technology is healthy, growing, and recognized around the world for its excellence, behind just the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, and we are fast approaching them. [ Translation ] The government is committed to capitalizing on these successes and further strengthening the Canadian scientific community in an open and transparent manner. [ English ] We have made record investments and bolstered federal research that inform sound decisions on public policy, we have supported people and we have encouraged openness.

The world-class research of federal scientists and researchers help us to achieve our key goals. We have taken action because we are committed to supporting science and technology, through the conduct of high-quality research and open sharing, to improve the quality of life for Canadians. I have had the opportunity to cross the country in the last 14 months in my role as Minister of State for Science and Technology . I praise our scientists and researchers for the great quality of work they do, for the things that matter in the country. They make Canada so proud.

I wish the opposition would come join us to just talk about how proud we are of the great things these scientists and researchers have accomplished. In my hometown of London, Ontario, which is the 10th largest city in Canada, is the home of Sir Frederick Banting. One night, in the middle of the night, he woke up and declared 25 words that would change the world. Those words were the formula for insulin. How appropriate that today is Diabetes Day on the Hill.

Grant Maltman from the Banting House Museum will have the opportunity not only to showcase Sir Frederick Banting, but the great work Canadian researchers and scientists do. What Dr. Banting did with Dr. Best was so incredible and it has saved millions of lives. This is what we do in Canada. I have had the honour to visit facilities like TRIUMF, Communitech and SNOLAB. If members visit these facilities, they will see science at its very best. These people are not shy to share their views. In fact, more important, is that they are proud to talk about what they do on behalf of the Government of Canada.

What the federal researchers do is unprecedented in the calibre of their work. I have shared some of the statistics about how we punch so much above our weight in the number of publications that are cited, and that can only make one very proud.

I am pleased that members opposite brought this topic forward, not because of the description of the topic but because it gives us the chance to highlight not only the great work our scientists do, but also the work of the Prime Minister and this government in supporting, in unprecedented fashion through policy and financial support, the great work they do across the country. I could not be more proud as Minister of State for Science and Technology to thank our great scientists for their work. I know the House will join me when I say, “God bless you. Thank you for the great work you do. You change lives”.

(1105) Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology says “Thank you” to all Canadian scientists and maybe I will start by saying “You're welcome”, on behalf of the four research scientists in the Liberal Party caucus. However, as research scientists, we get approached by other scientists who tell us the stories of how their work is impeded by the communications policy of the government, or how some guy comes up to me on the street in Kingston and tells me how the conclusions of his research paper were reworded before it was submitted for publication.

The real evidence came out last week by the Professional Institute of the Public Service Canada. This union represents scientists who work for the federal government. It decided to forgo an emphasis on any other ask that a union might make for its members in collective bargaining and instead asked for a scientific integrity package. Why are scientists so upset about the government's communications policy, about muzzling of federal government scientists? Hon. Ed Holder : Mr.

Speaker, for all the scientists both within the Liberal Party and throughout the House, on behalf of our government I thank them for the quality of work they have done in past. Now that they are in politics, they get to bring another sense of wisdom, I suppose, to the House, and it makes us stronger. It is rather interesting. The member made reference to the communications policy of the Government of Canada. I might remind the member that the policy actually was established in 2002 when the Liberal Party was in power.

I share that with the member, not because it was a bad policy but it was the right thing to do at the time, and it is the right thing to do now. While ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments, government scientists and experts are readily available to share their research with the media and the public. It is from that standpoint that I would agree the policy made sense in 2002, and it makes sense today. Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I believe the Minister of State for Science and Technology would agree with me that the buck stops with him when it comes to science in our country and that it is important for him to have a firm grasp on his file or he is not doing his job. I would like to ask him a question about science and technology employment in the federal government. In 2011, Treasury Board and Statistics Canada reported that 39,189 researchers were employed by the Government of Canada. Last year, there were 35,189. That number has been cut by 4,000. We have lost 4,000 scientists and researchers, or 10% of our entire workforce.

Could the minister confirm these numbers and perhaps explain why they have happened?

(1110) Hon. Ed Holder : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and me have certainly had discussions in the past with respect to my file. It is rather interesting. There are scientists who work for the federal government and scientists who work for post-secondary institutions and research institutes across the country. There is certainly mobility in those areas. Let me respond in this way. When I spoke about the commitment that we had made to science in our country, I mentioned the $13 billion towards research, development, innovation, infrastructure and Canadian talent. In economic action plan 2014, the Hon.

Jim Flaherty announced $1.5 billion of legacy funding to develop, within our post-secondary institutions, world-leading research. This year the ask we had was to provide strong research support in terms of infrastructure. We added to that $1.3 billion for infrastructure. Those are the kinds of commitments we make to support the scientists who are there. Frankly, with that kind of a commitment in place, I look forward to science being alive and strong for decades to come. Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as someone who has a university in my riding and whose first degree was a science degree, I very much appreciate what the minister has done. The minister, in his previous response and also in his speech, talked about some of the investments the government had made. Could the minister break down what specifically was done in the 2015 budget as far as investments in new research? He had organized it in a variety of fashions in his speech. Could he specifically zero in on what has been done in the 2015 budget? Hon. Ed Holder : Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2015 was a significant year for science.

We have done so many things with respect to supporting science in our country. I have already made reference in broad terms to the $13 billion that we have committed since 2006, but specific to this year let me talk about the Canada Foundation for Innovation. We received that request to support advanced research infrastructure across the country. Therefore, $1.33 billion has been committed, which includes $100 million for the digital research innovation program and $105 million for Canary.

The 30-metre telescope that members would have heard me comment on, from our standpoint, plays to Canada's world-leading strength in astronomy and astrophysics. We have committed some $243.5 million to support this project, which will bring the best of our astronomers and the science this brings to them as well. There is our support of Mitacs, of TRIUMF, of the Council of Canadian Academies, and it goes on. If I get the opportunity, I will continue to talk about those numbers. It is an impressive list.

I am very proud of our government, our Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister for ensuring that science remains strong in our country. It is unprecedented. Mr. Ted Hsu : Mr. Speaker, I placed on the order paper a question about the government's claim of $13 billion in new funding. Actually I did that a little while ago. The amount of $11.8 billion was quoted many times in the House last year. What I found was that many of the items in this list that added up to $11 billion were actually compensated by cuts somewhere else.

For example, increases to funding for NRC IRAP was funded by cutting the scientific research and experimental development credit; increases in funding to the granting council, we know that funding has not increased after inflation. This $13 billion does not take into account inflation. It does not take into account cuts to other programs, cuts to scientific research and experimental development tax credits. That $13 billion number is a bogus number, but I want to give my hon. colleague a chance to respond to that. Hon. Ed Holder : Mr.

Speaker, because the hon. member gives me the chance to do so, I will carry on with some of the other strong supports we have done because that $13 billion is very real money. The member made reference to IRAP. When the Jenkins panel was we convened to totally transform the National Research Council in a very transformative way to ensure that it was research-driven and research-focussed, we doubled our support for IRAP. When I go around the country and attend round tables and interviews, the comments I get about IRAP and our doubling of support for it s unprecedented.

It is well received because it matters to people on the ground. With those funds, we take entrepreneurs who have ideas and combine them with the great staff at the NRC. Through all of that we are able to get the best out of our local area businesses. I am greatly impressed with the work of the National Research Council. Since the member brought up the issue of our support, we have added another $45 million for TRIUMF to support its world-leading physics research and international partnerships, I have been there and I have seen the work it does.

Regarding the college and community innovation program, we have provided an additional $5 million annually to support its collaboration between colleges and industries on research and development projects. We have put new investments into international science and technology partnerships with other countries around the world. That is the commitment we make for science in our country. I could not be more proud of the work that is done.

(1115) Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles . It is my pleasure to rise today and speak on this Liberal motion on science brought forward by the distinguished member for Kingston and the Islands . Of course, we will be supporting the motion. Before I continue, I would like to say how sorry I am that the member will not be standing in the upcoming election. His is an experienced and welcome voice for science, which is especially welcome in this Parliament where science seems to be constantly under attack. Turning to the motion itself, it has two parts. The first

part is about principles, and the second

part is about propositions. In terms of principles, the motion calls for the House to recognize that the Conservative government is wrongly muzzling government scientists and researchers and keeping valuable information from the public. We agree with the Liberals that this is the case and that it is happening here. It is also the case that this is the wrong thing to do. The Conservative government has essentially waged a war on the scientific community and holds great distain for data and evidence that do not support its ideologically driven policies.

The Conservatives deny this, as we have heard here from the minister of state, but the public knows this to be true, and scientists know this to be true, which explains their protest on Parliament Hill and constant protests across the country. In addition to muzzling, the Conservative government has slashed more than $1.1 billion from federal science budgets since 2011, and as I mentioned earlier, fired 4,000 federal researchers over this same time period. If this is not a war on science, I cannot imagine what one would look like.

In 2011, the government employed 39,189 researchers across all departments and agencies. This is not in universities or the private sector, but in government departments and agencies. This number has been slashed to 35,189, which is a drop of 4,000 researchers. Therefore, in an age where science is king, the government in its wisdom has chopped 10% of our total government research capacity. I submit that this is madness. While we support the motion and its principles, I have to note that the NDP itself has had opposition day motions on this same topic, twice.

I suspect, unfortunately, that we will get the same result today with the Conservatives voting against any kind of motion that would bolster science in Canada. Turning to the propositions, the meat of this motion is that the government should immediately create a chief science officer. In my reading of the motion, and as the comments earlier today suggested, this position would be very similar to that of the national science advisor to the prime minister, which was put in place by the Martin government in 2004 and then abolished by the Conservative government in 2008. This position was held only by Dr.

Arthur Carty, who served well in this position. However, the position only provided private information to the cabinet on scientific issues. It was not really a champion for science in Canada. It was a stream of additional advice for decision-making within the executive. In my mind, such a position is much preferable to what we have now, but it does not really take us where we need to go. I have made my thoughts on this matter clear in two proposals currently in front of the House.

The first proposal is Motion No. 453 on scientific integrity, which is based on the need to develop new government communication policies that encourage scientists to speak freely to the media; allow scientists to present viewpoints beyond their scientific research and incorporate their expert opinions, as long as they indicate they are not speaking on behalf of or representing a department or agency; ensure communications officers do not restrict, limit, or prevent scientists from responding to media requests; prohibit public affairs or communications officers from directing federal scientists to suppress or alter their findings, and we have heard examples today of this happening under the Conservative government; and affirm the right of federal scientists to approve the final version of any proposed publication that represents their scientific opinion.

This motion on scientific integrity comes directly from the Office of Science and Technology Policy that President Obama has in place. One of his first actions as president was to help science grow in the United States. The second proposal, the bill I have in front of Parliament, Bill C-558 , is the parliamentary science officer act, which is a much stronger version of what is proposed here today. It is modelled on our Parliamentary Budget Officer, the U.K.'s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, and the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy.

(1120) This bill would establish an independent agent of Parliament with a mandate to assess scientific evidence relevant to any proposal or bill before Parliament; answer requests from committees and individual members for unbiased scientific information; conduct independent analysis of federal science and technology; raise awareness of scientific issues across government; and encourage coordination between departments and agencies conducting scientific research. I would say it is almost an auditor general for science that we, the official opposition, are proposing,

whereas the Liberals are again returning to a position we once had that was easily abolished in 2008. We do not think it is strong enough and secure enough, so we need to move to a more 21st century solution to the problems we are facing. I think my friend will agree—his motion speaks to this—that as science goes in this country so does our economy. The Conservatives' only plan for economic growth is to really triple the production of export of raw bitumen by ramming pipelines through communities at whatever the cost.

This plan is now falling to bits due to low oil prices and the realization that many communities will not be bullied into accepting pipelines. At the same time, our national investment in research and development is plummeting.

Whereas natural resources are an important part of our economy, of course our future growth will be in the knowledge economy, rewarding and helping it grow. However, things are going in the opposite direction under the current government. Where investment in research and development was never stellar under the Liberals, overall R and D investment has fallen to just 1.62% of our overall GDP. Compare that to competitor countries like South Korea, where 5¢ out of every dollar in that economy is plugged back into research. In Europe and the U.S., it is 3¢ on every dollar.

In Canada we are spending less than a third of what they spend in South Korea, and compared to most of our other competitor countries, we are spending less than half. We are falling behind under the current government because it is destroying our culture of discovery. That is what is happening here. Muzzling scientists is part of it, but chopping all of these researchers and money is really killing our culture of discovery in Canada. It is cutting and firing its way to the bottom of the international tables, which is a real shame. Future generations will really pay for this.

In a 2004 position paper, the Royal Society of Canada stated: ...we are in danger of slipping behind our competitors in our support of research and thereby losing our competitive edge.... We recommend that research funding in Canada should increase at least to the average level in the OECD and G8 countries. We advise the government to develop a ten-year plan for research, innovation and skill development.... I would like to bring to the attention of the House a unanimous motion that was passed at our 2013 national NDP convention, to show why the NDP is leading on this issue.

The motion that was unanimously passed by 2,000 delegates states:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP consult widely...developing a Made in Canada National Science Strategy; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP move to match the percentage of GDP invested by the public and private sectors in research and development (GERD) as found in other global leading countries such as the United States. While I agree with the principles that my colleague has put forward, I think the solutions need to be more robust.

With what I have outlined in my speech, the scientific integrity motion, the parliamentary science officer bill, and the motion we passed on the national science strategy at our national convention, we have met these challenges and we will put them in place while we are in government. Let us be ambitious. Let us think big. Let us be a world leader and not a world laggard.

(1125) Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for his speech. He is always worth listening to. I guess he has the advantage that he is running again. I disagree with very little of what my colleague said in his speech. However, I differ a bit, and he may not even disagree with what I will say now. I think it is important to realize that the parliamentary science officer he is proposing is somebody who is accountable to Parliament, who works with Parliament. He mentioned that it was more like the auditor general position, so it is more of an after-the-fact investigation,

whereas if the Prime Minister and cabinet are making decisions in real time, I think it is very important to have private and timely advice perhaps on a day-to-day basis, where the ministers, the cabinet, and the Prime Minister can confer with a scientific advisor in confidence so that everybody can speak freely and so that all of the information can get out. In my opinion, both are important.

The member's proposal for a parliamentary science advisor is a valuable one, and the work of this body would be much better if it were properly informed in that way, but I also think that cabinet decisions would be better if they were informed by a science advisor. Mr. Kennedy Stewart : Mr. Speaker, I think we both agree that it would be much better if the cabinet listened to scientists, instead of muzzling them. Again, that is the strength of this motion today and our ability to open up the debate.

The reason I compare the parliamentary science officer to the Auditor General is that the office would be afforded the same protections as the Auditor General in the sense that the person in this position could not be arbitrarily fired by the government. The person would work for parliamentarians. The position would provide proactive research by replying to requests from committees and individual parliamentarians. For example, the other side of the House denies that climate change is happening, and on this side of the House we know that it is happening and that we have to address it.

A parliamentary science officer could bring the science forward, by request, to show the other side that climate change is happening and that we have to do something about it. Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was a little shocked by the member's remarks. If I heard him correctly, he said not only that scientists should be able to speak about anything they might be working on within government but that they should be able to opine on any policy that might strike their fancy, as long as they say they are not speaking for the department. Let us carry that a little bit further.

Supposing any officers of departments, any bureaucrats, or any public officials decide they have something to say on a public issue, and they stand up and join the debate on public policy, which is usually confined to the House of Commons. We have a convention in this country of a neutral, objective public service that provides neutral advice to the government. Now, people would be standing in this place, so to speak, giving their opinions on this, that, and the other thing. Does the member really think that this would be an enhancement of our democratic process? What about the neutrality of our public service?

Mr. Kennedy Stewart : Mr. Speaker, again, the question underlines the attitude on that side of the House. The scientific integrity directive that I put before the House comes from other G8 countries where, as I just pointed out, investment in research and development is double or almost triple the investment here. They are fostering the culture of innovation and discovery in these countries by allowing their scientists to speak freely, while we stifle ours, and our economy is suffering for it. (1130) [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to comment on the Liberal Party's opposition motion on science in Canada. The motion calls on the government to 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.

I am delighted to support this motion because it covers most of the scientific community's key demands of the government. Let us remember that the NDP already presented two opposition motions: the first, on June 5, 2012, condemned cuts to science and the muzzling of scientists; the second, on March 20, 2013, urged the government to support the NDP plan for scientific integrity. This subject is particularly timely today considering that the ACFAS conference will be held this week in Rimouski. This is the Francophonie's most important scientific event.

Those in attendance all agree that the scientific community is stunned at the federal government's attitude toward research. The president of ACFAS, Louise Dandurand, condemned the budget cuts and job losses in the sciences, and had very harsh words for the fact that federal government scientists cannot communicate with their peers. She said: Science is built on the exchanges among researchers. The fact that government scientists cannot communicate with their peers, either in Canada or abroad, impoverishes the very essence of science.

She also said: The federal government's unenlightened approach is unfortunate and dangerous, and the consequences for the advancement of science will be felt in the long term in Canada. Another message coming out of the ACFAS conference is the importance of advancing science done in French. In an interview with the Devoir this week, that was the message of the honorary chair of the 83rd ACFAS conference, who is none other than Rémy Quirion, the chief scientist for Quebec. However, the Conservative government is refusing to listen.

It closed a dozen scientific libraries, including the only French library at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The government has also imposed restrictions and even prohibitions on communications about scientific work, even after the research has been published. Last week, the testimony of Steve Campana, a former scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, confirmed what we have known for years: the government forces scientists to go through a complicated process to be able to talk to the media, and requests for interviews are often denied. The Conservatives have also prevented federal scientists from taking

part in scientific conferences to share the results of their research, thereby obstructing our international collaboration. In 2013, the NDP moved a motion to end the muzzling of scientists once and for all. Motion M-453 would allow scientists to speak publicly about their work and would prohibit ministerial staff from unduly limiting media access or suppressing scientific results. I also want to talk about the research imbalance the Conservative government has created.

Since 2012, the government has overhauled its innovation assistance programs, which translates into eliminating support for basic research in order to focus only on business-led research. Research currently being done in Quebec is essentially non-directed research. It represents 86% of all scientific research done in Quebec. It is especially important to support this type of research because in science, we never know where the next discovery will come from.

The Conservatives' approach will not only eliminate the first component of the mission of the National Research Council, established in 1916 to support research and the development of commercial innovation, but it will also have a disastrous impact on our scientific heritage and on science that is done for the public good.

(1135) That is why the NDP has been proposing that the government create the position of chief science officer since 2013. Prominent members of the scientific community support the NDP's proposal to create an independent scientific watchdog organization in order to ensure that federal scientists are no longer muzzled and to give Parliament impartial scientific information. Let us remember that, in 2012, the Government of Quebec decided to appoint a chief science officer. Some countries, such as England, have had this type of watchdog for about 50 years.

About a dozen countries have chief science officers, but Canada does not have such a watchdog at the federal level. What is more, this week, the Institut de la statistique du Québec, or ISQ, is expected to table a damning report on the damage caused by the elimination of the mandatory long form census. If research suffers, so does the quality of government decisions. Here are a few questions that we need reliable statistics to answer. Where should we build new day care centres? Has the state of rental apartments improved? Are the economic aid programs for the regions working?

These questions will remain unanswered without proper statistics. The ISQ's study also shows that the national household survey, which replaced the census in 2011, is unreliable and more expensive to use. At the time, the government justified this change by saying that it was protecting people's privacy. That is rather ironic given that this same Conservative government introduced Bill C-51 . Five years later, former chief statistician Munir Sheikh, who resigned in protest against the government's decision, is saying that it is impossible to rely on the new survey.

A joke that is going around the scientific community sums up the situation best. “Guess what? Canada managed to eliminate poverty. How did it do that? By simply eliminating the mandatory census.” Alain Bélanger an expert in population studies, language and immigration at the INRS said: For the past five years, I have been wondering whether I should continue to conduct social science research or I should stop. The data for all of the subjects that interest me are skewed. We cannot allow science in Canada to continue its free fall.

At a conference in Halifax in 2014, Peter Nicholson, the deputy chief of staff for policy in the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada from 2003 to 2006 and the former special advisor to the Secretary-General of the OECD, said: This is a portrait of unmanaged decline that began with the previous Liberal administration. It really does signal a vacuum of leadership and it's a very serious problem because we definitely need a healthy and well-motivated scientific capacity to support the mandates of government departments and agencies.

I would remind members that the 1995 budget announced some significant cuts to science and technology spending, even though Paul Martin, the finance minister at the time, had promised to spare the councils and agencies that provide grants for university research in science, engineering, medicine and social sciences. Under the Liberals, the industry portfolio was very hard hit, losing 42% of its program spending over two years. The abolition of the highly acclaimed defence industry productivity program had a huge impact on the aerospace industry.

University scientific research suffered a 25% drop in funding in constant dollars. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, which subsidizes university research, had its budget cut by 14%. The Canadian Space Agency lost 15% of its budget. We need a government that will invest in science and technology in Canada. This is not just about discovery and the pursuit of excellence. This is also about social justice, democracy, our heritage and our scientific future. Instead of mortgaging that future, the NDP will stand up for science and scientific integrity.

I would just like to add a comment on the Conservative government's budget for this year. The government had an opportunity to repair the damage it did to science in Canada.

(1140) Unfortunately, it did not change its approach, and it is continuing to invest solely in business-led research. The government's approach is not working when it comes to protecting Canadians' health and environment, and it is not working for Canada's economy or for industry either. We are in dire need of a change, and that is why I support this motion. Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's speech. I have a few questions for her.

Is the NDP ready to vote in favour of the major investments laid out in budget 2015, or will it put its politics first? I would also like to ask the member why the NDP always votes against every budget that makes major investments in science, technology and the environment. Will it continue to vote against these important investments? Ms. Laurin Liu : 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. Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : 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? Ms. Laurin Liu : 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. Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : 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. Ms. Laurin Liu : 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. (1145) [ English ] Hon.

Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : 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. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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. (1150) [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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.

(1155) The Acting Speaker (Mr. 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. Hon. Carolyn Bennett : 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.

(1200) 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. Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : 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. Hon. Carolyn Bennett : 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. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : 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?

(1205) Hon. Carolyn Bennett : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. [ English ] It is actually in the DNA of Liberals to want evidence-based policy. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : 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. Hon. Carolyn Bennett : 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. Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : 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? Hon. Carolyn Bennett : 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.

(1210) Hon. Ed Holder : 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? Hon. Carolyn Bennett : 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. Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : 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