Adjournment Proceedings

An adjournment debate on federal support for science. Elizabeth May said the government is cutting science jobs and not listening to scientific advice, including the Prime Minister not meeting the chief science adviser, and cited funding cuts to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which reduced its meetings from two a year to one. Parliamentary secretary Karim Bardeesy said the government works with the chief science officer and has invested in research agencies, researcher positions, and environmental protection. He said he could not speak to that committee’s circumstances but reiterated the government’s support for science and Canadian scientists.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

4 statements

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“The government is cutting science jobs and ignoring scientific advice. The Prime Minister does not even meet with his chief science adviser. I want the government to stop these cuts and listen to scientists before making decisions that harm nature and human health.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pursuing a question I first asked on April 14. I have been concerned for some time that the new Liberal government has less respect for science than previous governments had. We recently mourned the death of our colleague Dr. Kirsty Duncan. In all the eulogies, people remembered her as the first minister of science in Canada. We may note, and I hate to say this, that she will be the last minister of science in Canada, because there is not one now. The gravitas, the importance, of scientific briefings and scientific advice from core government departments that are science-based is sorely lacking. This is reflected in the cuts to Environment and Climate Change and to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to basic scientific research. Whole branches of science are being shut down in this country. A scientific expert, an anthropologist and taxonomist, contacted me because the whole national collection of insects in the Diptera order has been shut down. There are no scientists to pick up this work. They have all been laid off. An international petition was launched; 495 scientists from 47 different countries are raising the alarm about Canada’s dropping the ball. It may seem to people that it is obscure to keep track of what species of insect we have in our collection, but it can cause enormous economic damage when we lose the brainpower to know which insect is which. If it is an exotic species that does not belong in a particular forest, we need to know about it soon, and we need to take action. There are cuts across the board. An open letter was sent just today to the Prime Minister’s office, from 425 scientists from many jurisdictions, including internationally, concerned that the cuts to the ocean protection plan mean that we simply will not be able to understand and protect our marine environment. These are serious matters, and I asked the Prime Minister, in April, if he had ever consulted his chief science adviser about these cuts. The hon. parliamentary secretary made a good go of it, saying that, in general, people appreciated the advice of Dr. Mona Nemer, the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser. However, since I asked the question, I have had it verified that the Prime Minister has not once sat down to meet with his chief science adviser. This is deeply worrying. Changes are being proposed, such as in the massive discussion documents issued May 8, that would have profound impacts, endangering endangered species. Also, we are losing the precautionary principle. If we look, buried in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, we find the single biggest assault on bringing evidence and science to bear on the dangers of pesticides to human health and the environment. However, buried in an omnibus bill, it will be studied only by the finance committee, which had no time to hear from witnesses really concerned about this issue. With that, I ask the government again, will it please rethink, stop and be concerned? The precautionary principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as fundamental to our legal jurisprudence. In this country, we do not want to find ourselves once again with decision-based evidence-making. We need to look at the science and do our research first, before we decide we have to build whatever fast and not be concerned with what the scientists are warning us will occur if we fail to think first, plan well and then build.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“Our government works closely with the chief science officer and relies on scientific evidence to make policy. We have invested billions of dollars into research agencies, new researcher positions, and environmental protection. Canada is a great place for scientists to do their work.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands’ concern about this and her long-standing advocacy for evidence-based approaches to public policy. With respect to the chief science officer, she is somebody I engage with and the Minister of Industry and her department engage with regularly. That is where the chief science officer is based. Also, she has significant engagement with parliamentarians, including through the Standing Committee on Science and Research. I want to join my colleague in paying tribute, which I think we have each done in different forms in the last few months, to the late Kirsty Duncan, who had a significant responsibility in helping with the existence of the Standing Committee on Science and Research. When we think about the ways to honour her, it is by continuing the ideals and principles for which she stood, and I see those quite well reflected in the recent actions of this government. In the 2024 budget, we made historic investments in the tri-council agencies, which are the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, as well as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. They are the federal government’s main mechanisms for driving scientific discovery all the way from the discovery phase to the application phase. We made historic investments, making up after a significant period of relative underinvestment, with billions of dollars of investment going to those agencies. We followed up on that in 2025 with another new major set of investments toward the impact+ research chairs program. We just announced almost 700 new doctoral and post-doctoral fellows coming from outside of Canada to help support the next generation of scientific research. These funds, as well as our forthcoming impact+ research chairs program, are not only crowding in other private and philanthropic funds, but generating excitement around the prospect of doing leading-edge research in science that has the translational piece, results in policy advice and helps inform government in very significant ways. Those investments in the 2024 budget and the 2025 budget are informing Canada, Canadians, the public policy community and parliamentarians with new information to help tackle some recent challenges. I will also note a number of our new major strategies, whether it is the national food strategy, which was launched today; the AI strategy, which was launched last week; our critical minerals strategy; our national electricity strategy; or a number of other strategies. They place at the centre evidence, research and the innovation that derives from that research. Sprinkled across a number of different recent actions of this government, we see investments in science. The hon. member is a champion of a particular set of institutions that are very important. We are very proud on this side to be hosting the Our Ocean Conference in 2027. I know the health of the oceans is of particular concern to the member, and we have committed, through our nature plan, to protecting 30% of Canada’s lands and waters by 2030. That, too, is evidence-informed, evidence-based and scientifically informed. We believe in the investments we have made. Yes, there is some attention to be paid to government-direct research, but if the member looks at the full set of research in which we are investing and the full set of science in which we are investing, we are the place to do this scientific research. I think the results with respect to the interest of those outside of Canada wanting to come to Canada to do this work speak for themselves.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“The committee that protects endangered wildlife does not have enough money to do its work. Because of budget cuts, it had to cut its required meetings from two a year down to one. It cannot keep up with helping animals that need protection, like the southern resident killer whales.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, and he is a friend, the parliamentary secretary. Let me give him an example right now that is not hypothetical. None of the wonderful press releases he has mentioned has done a single thing to allow the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada to have a budget sufficient enough to hold the meetings it is required to hold by law. It is supposed to assess and monitor species at risk along a continuum from threatened to critically endangered, but these top-notch scientists have to meet to do that. The committee did not have a budget to meet, so it has gone from two meetings required a year down to one, and it is not going to have enough time to plow through the backlog of species that need attention, need recovery plans and need habitat attention. At the same time that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada cannot meet, we see a discussion paper that says maybe it is okay to lose the southern resident killer whales. It is not acceptable.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal

Linked statement

“Our government strongly supports science. We show this through our funding, our support for Canadian scientists, and our work on projects like the Artemis space mission.”
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Relevance 44 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Signal 21 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention. Although I cannot speak to the circumstances of that specific committee, I know that as a government we try to resource all the activities we say we are doing as effectively and efficiently as possible. I want to reiterate that the status of science for this government is the status of science as represented by the investments we are making, the status of science as represented by the image we are projecting to the world of the kinds of investments we are seeking, and the status of science in the public spirit that we are trying to share, whether it is with the Artemis mission or with some of the leading work being done by some of our leading scientists, whom we try to elevate on this side of the House. That speaks very strongly to the status of science overall for this government.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 134

  1. Government Orders Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26 11 statements
  2. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Northern Affairs 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Telecommunications 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Sport 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Access to Information 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions The Economy 3 statements
  21. Oral Questions Marine Transportation 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions National Defence 3 statements
  23. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  24. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  25. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 2 statements
  26. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 5 statements
  27. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 34 statements
  28. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  29. Government Orders Business of the House 2 statements
  30. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 2 statements
  31. Oral Questions Firearms 2 statements
  32. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  33. Oral Questions Government Appointments 2 statements
  34. Private Members' Business National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act 8 statements
  35. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 29 statements
  36. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 7 statements
  37. Government Orders Government Orders 11 statements
  38. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  39. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  40. Government Orders Government Orders 19 statements