Thanks to all the volunteers who staffed my table, helping all the kids who came to try out our experiments, and inviting people to try out our quizzes and enter our contest

Science Rendezvous

On Saturday, May 11th Kingston joined thirty other Canadian cities by holding a Science Rendezvous event at the K-Rock Centre. Science Rendezvous is an event to connect the public with science in the laboratory and everywhere else. The showcase is aimed at all ages and includes exciting experiments, demonstrations and hands-on-activities.

The Contest

I hosted a table at the event with experiments and other activities including a contest where people were asked to guess the number of statements in the House of Commons from 1994-2012 used the word “science”. The answer is 13967 and the winner was Ella - with the help of her dad Jared  – who came closest with a guess of 14,221. Congratulations Ella!

Ella and her dad win a lunch for two on Parliament Hill along with seats at Question Period and a tour of the Parliament buildings.

Openparliament.ca

How did we know the answer? Well we used the Openparliament.ca website. Openparliament.ca offers a complete search-able history of everything that has been said in the House of Commons and records of past votes. Try it out!

You might be interested to know that we had a wide range of guesses:

15 people guessed between 1-99

20 people guessed between 100 -999

25 people guessed between 1000-9 999

9 people guessed between 10 000- 99 999

12 people guessed between 100 000 – 999 999

9 people guessed 1 million+

Science Rendezvous was a great event to meet some curious young minds and, hopefully, some future scientists!

To comment, please go to my MP facebook posting on this topic:  https://www.facebook.com/TedHsuMP/posts/10151490711979652

I had the opporunitity to speak to Urban Planning students at Queen’s University and interested community stakeholders, responding to student presentations on how to improve Via Rail. Students talked about high speed rail, improving the local Via station, and marketing Via Rail to students amongst other topics.

The Society of Canadian Limnologists (scientists who study bodies of fresh water) last week published a letter which refuted critical arguments made by Minister Gary Goodyear as he defended the government’s position on closing the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA). These arguments were made in response to my questioning during debate in the House of Commons.

As a result, it is clear that there were no good reasons for ending federal funding for the ELA and — given that the governments of Ontario and Manitoba have pledged to help the ELA stay open — there is no good reason for the Conservative government to continue preventing scientists from being on site to conduct their research and maintain their experiments.

This is a great example of how useful the debate in the House of Commons can be if MPs understand the issues and know the right questions to ask, they are asking and answering questions without using pre-written notes, and experts amongst the public follow the debate and inject their expertise. (It should be said that Mr. Goodyear is a relatively strong Conservative Minister who can and does answer questions in debate and doesn’t simply read from pre-written talking points).

The debate in the House:

MP Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology spoke about scientific knowledge being used to help the government form public policy. He also talked about cleaning up Lake Winnipeg. I know my colleague understands that in science it is important to do experiments to understand things. I am wondering if he would agree that it is better to do an experiment on a small lake than it is to do an experiment on Lake Winnipeg.

Minister Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is in fact a scientist himself and would understand that there is the capability of not actually using the entire lake to do freshwater studies. I am sure my scientific colleague knows that equipment can be set in the lake so that research can be done in a contained area and the entire lake is not exposed to the experiment. I would encourage scientists to consider that.

Letter from the Society of Canadian Limnologists (click on image for full letter)

Background

The Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) is an important and unique research facility. Since 1968, scientists from around the world have been coming to northwestern Ontario to study freshwater lakes. The ELA allows scientists to use the whole lake ecosystem to do “extreme science”: scientists can see the effects of any number of long-term investigations on the whole ecosystem, rather than working in a controlled, man-made laboratory. Some of the most important results on acid rain, climate change, and safe drinking water have emerged from research at the ELA.

Bill C-38, the first 2012 Budget implementation (omnibus) bill, shockingly included the defunding of the ELA, a move that was criticized in Canada and internationally. Nature, a leading scientific journal, said that it “is hard to believe that finance is the true reason” for shutting down the ELA. For negligible savings to the federal budget, the Conservative government was willing to risk eliminating a laboratory that provided crucial information to help safeguard freshwater resources in Canada and around the world.

Personal Note

Over the past year I have joined the fight to save the ELA. Last July, I spoke at the “Death of Evidence” rally in Ottawa, which was organized by ELA and other scientists protesting the government’s reduction of the role of scientific evidence in policy-making.

I’ve also used an Order Paper question to gather further information on the ELA closing, specifically seeking to highlight the value of the ELA and the high cost of the closure, which you can read here.

Our office has met several times with ELA scientists, and we have worked hard to challenge the closure. In the end, however, I was disappointed to see the Conservative government ignore — and even obscure — the facts. However, the impressive efforts of the grassroots Save the ELA organization gave us much to hope for.

Update

As of early May, scientists continued to be denied access to the ELA facility.

However, on May 9, 2013, the federal government announced that an agreement had been reached with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a not-for-profit NGO, to take over operations of the ELA. The IISD will be supported by the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, with some resources for managing the transition from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The agreement included provisions for scientists to access and maintain their experiments.

To comment on this post, please go to the post on my MP Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/TedHsuMP/posts/10151489256459652

Background

Funding cuts for the operation of the Rideau Canal were announced by Parks Canada in 2012. But the Rideau canal is a crucial piece of infrastructure for the Eastern Ontario tourism economy. Following an outcry, the cutbacks were scaled back and only the operating hours were cut, not the length of the season. Later in the year, Parks Canada proposed stiff hikes in user fees. These too provoked a sharp outcry and were withdrawn.

What’s the latest?

In the federal government’s Budget 2013, chapter 3.3, there is a vague mention of spending on “investments in other federal infrastructure assets”. Let’s hope all the noise we have been making results in a permanent commitment to supporting the Rideau Canal and the local economy that depends on it.

Finally, I have to give credit to Leeds-Grenville MP Gord Brown, who has been working on this issue.

Update: May 14, 2013

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/Conservatives+freeze+canal+fees+another+three+years+back/8383651/story.html

The government has decided to freeze fees on the Rideau Canal at 2008 levels for three years.

To comment, please go to my MP Facebook page and post a comment:

https://www.facebook.com/TedHsuMP/posts/10151485442874652

Well, it turns out that there is actually a time, 30 minutes each day, when MPs can quiz the government for a longer period as a followup to an Oral Question asked in Question Period.

This 30 minute time period occurs at the end of each day, following a motion to adjourn, and before everybody leaves and lights are turned off. It is called, appropriately, “The Late Show”.

The MP gets to speak for 4 minutes, followed by a 4 minute response (usually by a parliamentary secretary who has been assigned to The Late Show), a 1 minute followup and a final 1 minute reponse.

Here is an example of an Oral Question that triggered a Late Show session:

And here is the Late Show:

Of course, if we’re still not getting answers after all of that, well, the people have to talk about how they are going to vote next time and demand answers!

To post comments please go to my MP facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/TedHsuMP/posts/10151483469444652

Thanks to the Frontenac-Kingston Council on Aging for inviting me to their Open House. the Council on Aging office is located at 230 Brock Street. One important issue for the Council, which has come up in the House of Commons, is the prevention of elder abuse.

I will repeat and add to a previous statement I made on this issue.

First let me say that I have a personal stake in this issue. I grew up in central Kingston and my family lives there now. I attended LCVI. My daughter attends a small elementary school nearby.

I understand that fiscal sustainability is important and that, with changing demographics and aging infrastructure, there are pressures that the Limestone District School Board faces. These pressures force painful decisions that Board members were elected to make.

School closings are never easy. Nor are they a new phenomenon, as anyone who is familiar with the repurposed old school buildings scattered throughout central Kingston will understand.

It is not surprising that students can form a great attachment to their schools. School life is a substantial part of the lives of young people and is integrated into the lives of families and communities. I believe in the importance of densification and mixed neighbourhoods as a path to a more sustainable city. The presence of schools is a key element to fostering more diverse neighbourhoods. Many stakeholders benefit from them.

The future prosperity of Kingston and the Islands, and indeed of Canada, requires excellence in the education and training of our youth. It also requires that quality post-secondary education be broadly available.

Both are important if our community is to compete and succeed in the global economy. We know, for example, that the lack of certain skilled trades is currently a bottleneck for the Canadian economy. To relieve such bottlenecks over the next decade, we must begin by having as many Canadians as possible successfully complete their secondary education.

All young Canadians must have the education and training opportunities to participate fully in the creation and sharing of Canada’s wealth. All levels of government have the ability to respond to national challenges, such as growing income inequality, by ensuring equality of opportunity from an early age and continuing until adulthood. We need to meet these challenges without compromising the value of excellence that is demanded by the modern economy.

I congratulate those who have organized community meetings, advocated for various stakeholders, and sought creative solutions to the problems faced by the School Board. Thank you for your service.

As I wrote earlier, my first duty is to serve the people of Kingston and the Islands and to be present in Ottawa when required. I am sorry I could not be present at the community meetings, but I have the responsibility to be present for meetings, debates and votes on Parliament Hill, and to keep track of what the federal government is doing and how that affects the people of Kingston and the Islands.

I believe that I should refrain from taking sides publicly on issues to be decided by elected School Board officials if these issues are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. They will be accountable for decisions, not I. Therefore I believe that I should not publicly apply pressure on them. I believe the best way I can make a constructive contribution is to give a national perspective and state my values in those areas that are relevant to the School Board’s decision.

On that note, I wish to thank those who serve as elected officials on the School Board. You have a difficult job. I will respect your decision.

Ms. Leslie (Halifax) — That this House: (a) agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures; (b) condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and (c) call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

We voted against the motion and were joined by Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

Here are my two reasons for voting against:

1) The motion misses the point about a 2 degree rise in temperature. In fact we would be happy to limit the global average temperature rise to 2 degrees. The big problem is that we are in danger of overshooting 2 degrees by a lot. That is the really scary thing, and the motion  is worded in a way that does not reflect the true significance of the 2 degree limit.

2) It is unfortunate that the debate on this motion became more partisan than necessary. MP Leslie’s  opening speech contained this sentence:

 ”It is only the NDP that can be trusted to tackle climate change because it is at the core of who we are as social democrats.”

which unnesssarily tries to exclude other parties from working together to tackle climate change. The motion itself ignores the fact when the Kyoto Protocol came into force in February 2005, then Environment Minister Stephane Dion’s Project Green, an broad initiative that included action on climate change, was ready and announced in April 2005. Project Green was killed when the Liberal government was defeated and replaced by the current Stephen Harper government.

One good thing that came out of the debate on this motion is that Conservatives have been “smoked out” to use a phrase of CPAC’s Peter Van Dusen. Conservative MP James Lunney said this when questioned (and therefore had to move beyond his written speech in order to answer) about the dangers of the world heating more than 2 degrees:

“In terms of the 2° warming, we have to look carefully at the data and there is reason for some debate. We thought spring had arrived a couple of months ago and it has not. We are seeing climate variability for sure. We are seeing instability and that is typical when climate is changing, as it has changed in the past. We go through periods of instability. We are seeing later springs and winters are not quite as cold. We have a very cold spring, for example. As we experience climate change, we are seeing all kinds of variabilities.

When we deal with complex models, multiple variables and incomplete data, our understanding of these processes will be advanced as more data becomes available.”

This is the language of the climate change deniers – confuse the issue, sow doubt, avoid admitting that the science is clear, that the earth is clearly experiencing rapid warming caused by burning fossil fuels, and that scientists strongly recommend we try to limit global heating to not more than 2 degrees Celcius.

To comment, please go to my MP facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TedHsuMP?ref=tn_tnmn#!/TedHsuMP/posts/10151470461454652

Here are some videos of that session:

Minister Joe Oliver

Ministry Officials

“That, in the opinion of this House, the government should inform the Government of the People’s Republic of China, that it will not ratify the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement.”

This motion is, unfortunately, an outright rejection of the Canada-China FIPA and as such is opposed by the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Liberal Party does acknowledge concerns with the Canada-China FIPA. Among these concerns are the long length of the agreement with limited opportunities for termination if it turns out to have an unforeseen deficiency, transparency during the dispute arbitration process, and how to deal with federal responsibility for provincial decisions.

But we also see benefits. For example, Canadian companies will be able to resolve disputes outside of the Chinese courts, in independent arbitration tribunals, and beyond that, China commits to treating fairly any Canadian companies investing in China. These company level benefits reduce business uncertainty and encourage the economy level benefits that can come from mutual foreign investment.

The only way for the Canadian people to properly weigh the pros and cons is to have public scrutiny and debate, and the right place to have that is in a House of Commons committee.

This is the reasoning behind the Liberal Party position on Canada-China FIPA, and that is why we do not support the outright rejection of FIPA embodied in the NDP Opposition motion.

While the Liberal Party has concerns with FIPA, its long-standing position is that the agreement should be studied and debated by Parliament before ratification is considered. The Liberal Party has already acted on this belief in the past, obtaining a one-hour hearing in the International Trade Committee on Canada-China FIPA, but this is nowhere near sufficient.

Foreign investment  is expected to be crucial to the future of Canada’s economy. Not only is it a source of capital, but it is also a source of expertise, and access to overseas markets. Canadian investment abroad is also important to our economy. Many people share ownership of these Canadian investments in China through mutual funds or pension funds.

In Kingston and the Islands, the commercialization of technology developed here means job creation and a strong local economy. For some technologies, the knowledgeable and interested investors are to be found in China and not so much in Canada. One example of a company with potential investors in China is Performance Plants, a local bio-technology company that develops plant characteristics such as resistance to drought and heat.

So the importance of foreign investment to our economy should not be taken lightly. A company looking to develop a new technology or resource, if it does not receive financing at the right time and in the right amount, can lose out to better financed rivals, even if it has everything else going for it.

The Canada-China FIPA is the result of talks that began nearly a decade ago. It is the norm for trade and investment agreements to take many years to finalize, and this FIPA is no exception. It is also necessary for these state-to-state negotiations to be conducted with discretion and therefore away from the public square. But it is essential that, before FIPA is ratified, there be public scrutiny and comment about the agreement.

The NDP motion removes the possibility of doing that.