Guy Caron

[Homophobia in School, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want my colleagues to know how extremely proud I am of the young people in my riding who are involved in the fight against bullying and prejudice. Students and staff at École Saint-Jean in the Des Phares school board received an honorary mention for their participation in the competition put on by the Simple Plan Foundation in collaboration with GRIS-Québec, which works on demystifying homosexuality and bisexuality in school.

The theme of this third annual competition was “What is your plan to fight homophobia in school?” Students from École Saint-Jean made and signed a banner, promising not to make homophobic comments in their school. A number of them also joined their school counsellor, Cindy Leblanc, in the GRIS-Québec march against homophobia.

Congratulations to all the students—especially to Alexandre Arsenault for launching the project—and to all the staff, who work every day to fight not only homophobia, but also any prejudice against difference. This type of initiative is refreshing news that gives renewed hope to people who, like me, truly believe in making the world a better place. Together, we can do it.

[February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I enjoy working alongside him on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

His answer was somewhat disappointing because I am talking about Statistics Canada and he is talking about science and technology. Statistics Canada conducts studies that are important for science and technology, but the issue I raised in question period on Friday had to do specifically with Statistics Canada and the moratorium on studies and analyses that are not merely useful, but actually crucial to understanding the world in which we live. Government decisions should be informed by these studies. By shutting down crucial studies, the government is foregoing extremely useful data.

Since I have a minute left, I would like to conclude with a quote from the ACFAS president, Mr. Noreau, whom I mentioned in my remarks. He had this to say about the cuts:

There may indeed be financial reasons, but there is also an ideology in play dictating that the cuts be made here and not elsewhere. The government regularly airs its general skepticism about the usefulness and relevance of this data. We are dealing with political thinking that is based on an ideological view of the world rather than a scientific one. This government is more interested in where we are going than in where we are.

[February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked the Minister of Industry a question on Statistics Canada. Since 2006, Statistics Canada has done away with about 40 publications regarding important analyses. This decision was imposed through measures adopted by the then president of the Treasury Board, Stockwell Day. Some of the studies that have been dropped since then are extremely important. They include studies on the number of pregnancies and abortions, the number of marriages and divorces, public transit, movements by individuals, culture, exports by country, broadcasting and telecommunications, and industrial chemicals.

Statistics Canada no longer deals with these issues, precisely because of the Treasury Board decision with which Statistics Canada had to comply. One particularly interesting and useful study is also going to be dropped. I am talking about the national longitudinal survey of children and youth, which has been following the same cohort since 1994. This survey helps us understand social habits and behaviours, which is essential to conducting a good social analysis.

The Minister of Industry's answer to the question I asked on Friday is extremely disappointing. He said it was a question of efficiency and that most of these surveys were redundant. That is false. These are unique surveys, and dropping them will deprive the government and researchers of data that are useful in understanding the world in which we live. They are solid pillars on which governments base their decisions.

This situation has been decried by a number of organizations, including the Association francophone pour le savoir, ACFAS. Pierre Noreau, president of ACFAS, talked about the government's wilful blindness in making this decision and its inability to make decisions based on hard facts. We have seen it so many times: this government does not take the data into account when it comes to a number of important issues, including the elimination of the long gun registry and a number of other issues we have been addressing.

Mr. Noreau spoke about the government's inability to make decisions based on hard facts and its tendency to give free rein to its ideological leanings. This is really important. The Conservative government is entitled to its opinions—it has expressed many opinions since coming to power—but if there is one thing that it is not entitled to, it is its own version of the facts. Organizations that produce statistical data, such as Statistics Canada, are recognized around the world for the quality of their data and the information they are able to compile and make available to researchers or the government.

The government seems to have an aversion to data collected by Statistics Canada. I gave the example of the long gun registry, but there is also the long form census, which enabled us to gain a better understanding of Canadians and Quebeckers in various regards. We will no longer have access to those data in the future. Most researchers have decried the fact that these surveys will become less and less effective and useful in the future. Mr. Noreau spoke out against the decision, as did Céline Le Bourdais, Canada Research Chair in Social Statistics and Family Change.

I would like to take this time to give the government the opportunity to retract the response of the minister, who said that these surveys were redundant, and to set the record straight on this decision, which will deprive researchers and the government of useful data.

[Science and Technology, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives immediately reject any statistical data that do not correspond to their ideology: the science of climate change, statistics on lower crime rates and on the use of the long gun registry. On top of that, the Conservatives have done away with about 40 Statistics Canada publications regarding important, reputable analyses in area like health care, culture, the economy and food distribution. All social indicators will be flushed down the drain.

Will they ever stop seeing the world based on their ideology instead of on science? Will this wilful blindness never end?

[National Defence, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering for his response. I listened to what he had to say. There are two things that I would like to point out in the minute I have remaining.

Fist, because we are talking about economic spinoffs, I would like the hon. member to perhaps tell the Associate Minister of National Defence, who regularly mentions potential economic spinoffs of $12 billion, that even the Pentagon suggests that Canada will likely receive $3 billion in spinoffs at the very most. So, these figures are quite different from the ones given by the United States.

I mentioned that this situation has been a fiasco and this also includes the fact that no tendering process was held. While it is important to get the best aircraft, the process must also be cost effective. The construction costs are increasing, the purchase cost of the aircraft is increasing, and the picture does not look anything like the one the government is painting.

In closing, I would like to cite an excellent article about the decision-making process that was published in the January edition of L'actualité.

Canada's decision-making process is seriously flawed....The director of the research group on the military industry and security said, “the government obviously had a bias toward the F-35 because Canada had been part of the program since 1997. But that’s no reason to let the soldiers pick their favourite piece of equipment.”

Despite all the respect I have for our soldiers, it is up to the government to make the decision, not the military hierarchy. Why is the government letting the people at National Defence force this decision upon it?

[National Defence, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I asked a question about the purchase of the F-35s, I mentioned that several countries no longer want F-35s. Great Britain, Turkey, the Netherlands and Denmark are backing away or seriously reconsidering their decision. Australia wanted about 100 F-35s initially, but now it plans to order just 14. When I asked the question, I mentioned that U.S. senators had publicly expressed concern about the cost of the planes. I also pointed out that, as designed, produced and, most importantly, tested, the F-35s are not suitable for use in Canada, particularly in the far north and the Arctic.

I also noted that the Associate Minister of National Defence, of whom I asked the question, had alluded to a plan B. I told him that we wanted to know more about that plan. The minister's answer was, once again, disappointing but not surprising: he asked me what ridiculous sources I had consulted. I think that most of this information is public. Anyone can look it up on Google or in the Library of Parliament. It would not be hard to find out where the information comes form. But I will use this time to sum up why the F-35 deal has turned into such a fiasco.

First, there was no tendering process, despite the government's repeated claims to the contrary. There were plans for a tendering process. Internal memos from 2001 to 2006 were obtained under the Access to Information Act. The intent was to launch a tendering process for aircraft to replace our outdated jets. Beginning in 2006, there was no further mention of tenders. Coincidentally, this government came to power in 2006.

Another important aspect of this fiasco is the price. The government continues to claim that the purchase price for 65 jets will be approximately $4,875,000,000, which amounts to $75 million per jet. However, when we look at other sources of information, which are even more credible than the Canadian government, the U.S. Government Accountability Office or GAO estimates that the cost of the jets is between $115 million and $156 million, doubling the total cost to almost $10 billion.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has also done a study that corroborates the GAO figures. If we add proposed maintenance costs, the government estimate is about $5.7 billion over 20 years. However, the GAO, an impartial, neutral and independent body, is estimating triple the cost, or about $18.7 billion in maintenance costs over 20 years. Therefore, instead of $10 billion over 20 years, as estimated by the government, the cost of the jets could be $30 billion over 20 years.

We continue to pose the question to the Associate Minister of National Defence because we have not been given an answer. The answers provided by the government are not credible and are not corroborated by facts or external studies by independent bodies responsible for providing information on the budget process, whether American or Canadian.

That is why I would like the person who answers this evening to provide more information, the information we have been after for months in this House.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question. The motion is to amend the Investment Canada Act in order to provide a clearer definition of the “net benefit to Canada” of transactions or acquisitions. How do the hon. member for Guelph and his party define the concept of net benefit to Canada in such acquisitions?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her presentation. The Investment Canada Act needs to be reviewed. As we all know, in November 2011, Parliament adopted a unanimous motion to review the Investment Canada Act. Several flaws were identified, such as the fact that since the act was created, only two decisions have been overturned, both of them much more for political than economic reasons.

Does my colleague think that such a motion would be unanimously adopted under this government? Does she still believe that Parliament should have the support of all parties to review the Investment Canada Act?

[Service Canada, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Service Canada Centre in Rimouski currently has a 25% vacancy rate. The Conservatives now want to move the employment insurance processing centre to the Minister of Industry's riding. With that move, the vacancy rate will increase to 75% and this government will waste $1.27 million until the lease expires in 2018.

Given that there is a backlog of more than 80,000 employment insurance claims in Quebec, would it not be smarter to keep the office in Rimouski open to address the clear lack of resources?

[Research and Development, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, Montreal lost more quality jobs this week with the closing of the AstraZeneca research and development centre.

We are talking about the loss of 132 jobs in a cutting-edge industry in addition to 1,000 other jobs that have disappeared in the pharmaceutical sector in Montreal alone since 2010. This is further proof that this government is unable to stimulate Canada's research and development sector.

Will the government finally acknowledge that its policies in this area are a failure and decide to take action?