Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Etobicoke North for bringing forward this motion.

The member for Etobicoke North and I have a history of trying to help science in Canada, which began when I was elected in 2015 and was named the critic for science. At the time, she was the Minister of Science. We got together and said we needed to make a plan that is good for science in Canada, because then whatever party is the government of the day will be doing the right thing in an area that is so important for Canadians.

Science creates jobs and opportunities. Canada is a leader. There are many areas of science where we are leading the world, and there are many areas of science where we need to participate, along with the rest of the people in the world. Then there are industries that we have where we need to maintain our scientific effort as we go along. All of these things are worth doing.

How does the government learn about all these things and study these things? This motion is calling on the House to put in place a standing committee that has science as its mandate. I think this is a very good thing.

In addition to the plan that I mentioned, I would say that as the first female engineer in the House of Commons, I have a great interest in science. In my career, I was involved in research. One of the first things I was involved in doing was developing artificial kidneys for dialysis. Later in my career, I developed plastics for the electronics industry and for personal care products. I worked in many industries, including medical and pharmaceutical, developing products there as well. I see the good effects that science can have for Canada.

The Naylor report, as members may recall, is a report that looked at science in Canada and made recommendations to the government on things that we should do. Happily, some of those things have been followed up on. The recommendation that is in the motion is something that would really advance the cause.

The way it works today in the House of Commons, we have science as sort of a sub-subject under the industry committee: innovation, economic development, whatever name of the day members want to talk about. The problem is that things are changing quickly in the world, and there are lots of things to focus on. When we look at that committee, it is looking at things from broadband Internet, which we know is a huge issue, to things that are affecting trade, areas of emerging economy, and all kinds of different studies are involved there. Many of them overlap with science, but if we start putting them in priority, science falls lower on the list.

I was also on the health committee when I was the shadow minister of health. This is another area where there are huge amounts of research being done in Canada. We are such a leader in brain research and vaccine research, and all kinds of hugely advanced things in the bioindustry. Again, when it is the health committee and we are in the middle of a pandemic, that has to be number one. The health committee has studied a huge number of things: pharmacare and a bunch of very important topics. Again, science ends up falling to the bottom of the pile, not because it is not important but in a relative sense. That makes it difficult. Some of the things we need to look at need to be looked at in detail. They are not simple to solve.

This is where a standing committee that looks into these things in detail and can provide the government with recommendations that it can then act on would be very helpful. Obviously, we have a chief science officer now. I am sure the work that is being done by her is excellent, but I am not privy to what that is. However, I expect that as she is being consulted in different ministries for different legislation that is coming forward or on issues of the day, there would be things they are not too sure about that need to be studied. That is an area where recommendations might be put forward to the committee to look into, things of that nature.

Again, we have the huge climate change task before us, how we are going to meet our targets, and the technology that is coming out of the green tech, clean tech, new energy, all these very exciting areas that might fall under another standing committee's portfolio, but likely would not have the priority to really get the attention they need. If we get this right, we would be able to take the leap.

There was a time when Canada was much more of a leader. As the competitive nature of science goes on, and considering that we are a smaller country, the amount of money that has been put into science has not always kept us at the front of the pack. There was a period of time when we slid from our position in the top 10 and went back a bit. We are starting to regain that. We have identified areas where Canada is leading. It is sitting at the table with other nations and is able to leverage what they are doing back into our plans.

When we look at the climate change issue, our own carbon footprint is less than 1.6% of the world's total. We could eliminate the whole thing and it would not have a huge, significant impact. What we can do, as Canadians, is leverage our technology. There are all kinds of carbon sequestration methods. There are all kinds of emissions reduction technologies out there, and there are the nuclear technologies that we have. All of these sectors will need things to drive them to success.

Over the full spectrum, some people want to focus on applied science while others want to focus on fundamental science. The reality is that both of those approaches are wrong. If we do not have fundamental science, we are not discovering the things that become the aha moments that give rise to some of the space-age technology that has been hugely profitable and created a lot of jobs. If we do not work on the applied science part of it, we do not get the collaboration among industry, universities and all the different areas that come together with concrete solutions that help in the shorter term. That is important.

Considerations such as the way companies are launched in the science industry, and how to make Canada competitive there, would get lost at some of the other committees. They simply would not be talked about.

As a woman in engineering, I would say that getting more women into science, technology, engineering and math is a big priority. Although we have come a long way in that respect, there is a long way to go. I can remember when I first started in engineering, I had to build a women's washroom everywhere I worked because there were none, and there were girlie pictures on the walls. I would say we have made lots of progress since then.

However, that is not to say we are at the percentages we need. I am disappointed to see that we are falling back, in some cases. We get women to enter these areas, but they do not stay. Why do they not stay? How do we motivate them to stay? Who will be looking at that? That is another area for a committee on science, which is dedicated to looking at this area and specifically the culture in it that may be very different from other workplaces, to work out.

When we think of crises of the day, a committee of this nature would provide extra flexibility for the government. In this pandemic, there was a lot to think about. There was testing to think about. There were vaccinations to think about. There were different protocols and looking at all the therapeutics that were coming forward. It is a lot for the government to take on. This is another instance in which having a committee dedicated to science to look at some of these specific mandates would be very helpful.

The government invests a lot of money in science. In the latest budget, $3 billion was brought forward. That was in line with what the Naylor report was calling for, and that is good. When we think about the amount of money it takes for a standing committee to operate, we are not talking about a lot of money in comparison to $3 billion. A lot of members of Parliament would have great interest in participating in such a committee.

I thank the member for Etobicoke North, and fully support having a committee dedicated to science to take Canada into the future and make us a leader there. It would be good for Canadians, it would create jobs and it would create prosperity. I urge everyone in the House to support this motion.

Marilyn Gladu

$533,532.00