Hélène LeBlanc

[Aerospace Industry, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that urgent action is needed. The Emerson report shows that the government fell asleep at the wheel. We do not expect planes or aircraft, but we see that the government has been asleep at the wheel for a few years and that it has some catching up to do. Now is not the time to wait. Now is the time to act. The measures proposed in the budget will take effect in 2014-15.

What is more, we are wondering about the aerospace technology demonstration program. Will this program be enough? Will the government really take action? Once again, I would like to remind my colleague that neither the Minister of Industry nor the Prime Minister has sent a clear message saying that the aerospace industry is a strategic sector that must be included on the science and technology program list.

[Aerospace Industry, March 27th, 2013]

Last spring and summer, I had some very interesting meetings with various stakeholders in the aerospace industry. They told me that the Canadian aerospace industry is a successful sector that provides 66,000 very good jobs in Canada.

Furthermore, this sector generates revenues of more than $22 billion. These people also told me that the aerospace industry is at a crossroads. The competition is getting fiercer and, unfortunately, Canada is losing ground as the Conservative government stands idly by. They also told me that they could not understand why the government purchases planes and helicopters from other countries.

When the Deloitte & Touche report gave federal aerospace programs a D, the Minister of Industry ordered Mr. Emerson to review the aerospace industry. His report provided 17 recommendations for the aeronautics industry and eight recommendations for the space program. The Jenkins report on military procurement was released after that.

The Minister of Industry said that these reports would not collect dust and that the government would take action. We have been waiting for the government to take meaningful action since December. The Conservatives will of course tell us that this is covered in the 2013 budget, but everyone knows that the budget is an empty shell and there is no long-term vision. What the aerospace industry needs is a long-term commitment from the government as well as long-term predictable programs.

The industry does not look at the future in blocks of four-year terms between elections. The industry plans over the course of 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. That is planning for the future. What it would like to see is a clear commitment from the government about the 17 recommendations in this report that were made very carefully in response to consultations with players in the aerospace industry. We are still waiting.

Why is it that the government has not yet recognized that the aerospace industry is a strategic sector for our economy and that it creates very high-quality jobs, which add significant value to the manufacturing sector, export products and so on? How is it that this government is not giving a clear indication to the aerospace industry that it is truly committed to supporting the sector, not just until 2015, but beyond 2015, with a long-term vision?

There is also the issue of space, but I will stick to the aerospace industry. We are still waiting for a clear signal proving that the government recognizes this strategic and important sector of our economy.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was born 55 years ago today.

I was born in a Canadian society that had made choices such as the choice to have an accessible universal health care system and a pension plan so that our seniors could live in dignity. It was a society that had chosen to have an employment insurance program to help workers who lost their jobs. It was a society in which people could still live in safety and prosperity, knowing there were social programs in place to meet their needs.

Canada chose to have these programs for the past 55 years and even before that so that we could have a society where no one would be abandoned.

It is now 2013. What is the government doing to this Canadian society where no one was abandoned?

Last Thursday, the Conservative government tabled its 2013 budget, whose title, “Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity”, is misleading. In fact, this budget contains very few new measures. Instead, it is merely a government public relations exercise.

The Conservatives chose to go with an austerity budget rather than invest to truly address Canada's current economic challenges. This insipid budget speaks of a tired government that has run out of ideas. This budget is all talk and no action.

When I talk to people in my riding, they share their concerns. They are concerned about pension reforms, not only for themselves, but for future generations. They are concerned about the employment insurance reforms. They are seeing the social safety net that they could rely on in tough times unravel more and more. They are concerned about the cuts to health care and about this government's constant attacks against environmental protection.

I am just as concerned about the Conservative government's decision to keep making devastating cuts to health care programs, pensions and employment insurance.

I would like to move on to co-operatives, a subject that is very important to me. Last year we celebrated the International Year of Co-operatives. The Conservatives took the opportunity to cut the co-operative development initiative and dismantle the Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat.

Hidden in budget 2013 is a measure that will harm caisses populaires and credit unions, and that is the elimination of the tax credit for those institutions, which are in fact the economic driver of a number of regions in Canada, even Canada as a whole.

Again, this measure illustrates the not-so-hidden intentions of this government to undermine the co-operative movement in Canada. The shift of responsibility for co-operatives to Industry Canada, in response to the report by the Special Committee on Co-operatives, still has not produced any meaningful results.

When will this government stop attacking the co-operative movement and when will the Minister of Industry do his job?

I would now like to move on to the aerospace industry. Last spring and fall, in my role as the industry critic, I met a number of players in the aerospace industry and I visited a number of businesses. Their message was clear: the aerospace industry is at a crossroads and needs a clear sign from the government, namely a predictable, long-term vision of federal programs to allow Canada's aerospace industry to be competitive.

Budget 2013 responded in only a limited way to the recommendations of the Emerson report and did not give that clear sign that this government is serious and committed to recognizing the aerospace industry's strategic importance to Canada.

When Chris Hadfield took command of the international space station, the government, after dragging its feet for more than a year and almost jeopardizing Canadian satellite expertise, finally released funding for the RADARSAT Constellation program.

However, there are serious questions being asked about the future of the Canadian space program because the government continues to deprive the space agency of the funds it needs and the direction that would allow Canada to excel in this sector.

I recently went to Windsor, Ontario, the heart of the auto industry. Workers are worried about the future. A number of plants have closed their doors, which has led to many job losses. Over the years, this sector has been neglected by successive governments, and it is only when confronted by a crisis that the government reacts.

Since 2007, the NDP has been proposing a national strategy for the automotive industry in order to maintain and increase the number of well-paid jobs.

In closing, I would like to point out once again that this budget is an empty shell that has no vision for the future of Canada. This is not a bold and innovative budget. In fact, this budget resembles the government: it is a dull, tired budget mired in an ideology that will lead Canada to a dead end.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, listening to this speech is a little like reading a Sears catalogue; this item costs this much and that item costs that much. However, I do not see a coherent plan for infrastructure. It seems to me that a lot of opportunities are being missed here. There are no priorities. The government is doing a little of this and a little of that.

There are no priorities in this so-called plan. Moreover, this plan should include a discussion with the provinces to see how we can better invest our money in infrastructure of the future all across Canada.

Does my colleague think there is a plan behind all these infrastructure projects? Were priorities and objectives set?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech on corporate taxes.

I would like to quote a passage from the recent OECD report drafted at the request of the G20 leaders, which is entitled:

“Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” and said, “Global solutions are needed to ensure that tax systems do not unduly favour multinational enterprises, leaving citizens and small businesses with bigger tax bills”.

Does he think the current budget really addresses this serious problem denounced by the OECD?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the importance of the co-operative movement in our lives and the fact that this government seems to want to attack such a significant economic force in Canada.

Can the member who just spoke explain the consequences of the elimination of the tax credit that allowed caisses populaires and credit unions to capitalize? What impact will this have specifically on caisses populaires, which are an economic powerhouse primarily in Quebec?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last year was the International Year of Co-operatives. The Conservative government used the occasion to eliminate the co-operative development initiative and wipe out the Co-operatives Secretariat. This year, it is removing the tax credit for credit unions and caisses populaires.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell us why is the Conservative government is attacking the co-operative movement?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing recognition that austerity budgets such as this one do not lead to economic growth, but rather to negative growth or stagnation, especially in a fragile economic situation like this.

I would like to ask the Conservative member what there is in this budget that is new. I am having a lot of difficulty finding anything new.

How does he think this budget will encourage economic growth in Canada in the short term and prosperity in the long term?

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you my experience as it pertains to this matter.

In 2004, I went back to school to complete a BA in the pure sciences. It was a wonderful experience to submit to the rigour of scientific inquiry. My studies in agricultural and environmental sciences were a wonderful experience because of the team work and the quest for answers to our questions. It is interesting to note that when we asked a question or formulated a hypothesis, other questions surfaced. That is what science is all about.

Knowledge is rooted in science. When we engage in scientific inquiry or conduct experiments, we are searching for science. These studies allowed me to look at the world in a different way and to take another look at the universe, whether it was an infinitely small universe or an infinitely immense universe, in microbiology or in physics. These studies provide the opportunity to see the world in a different light.

The 2011 election gave me the opportunity to become an MP and sit in Parliament. In my opinion, Parliament is a place for debate where we ask ourselves questions and look for the best solutions to the important issues brought before us. Parliament Hill and the public service employees who serve Canadians exist to help parliamentarians find the answers they need so that the laws introduced in the House of Commons are based on facts, evidence and probative data from Statistics Canada or scientific research.

Public research is interesting. As my colleague said earlier, research and development is carried out by universities and industries, and also by the government. That is called public research. In Canada, for a number of decades, we have been interested in various subjects. We are a Nordic country, with a particular climate. Thus, we are interested in meteorological data. In fact, Canada began establishing meteorological stations in the mid-1800s and even earlier.

These data have been collected over the years and allow us to see daily weather trends. Meteorological data allow us to see if it is time for farmers to plant or, later in the year, to harvest, or if we should be wearing a winter coat or a raincoat. When these meteorological data are collected over a number of years, they also reveal climate trends.

It is the same for environmental data. Environmental monitoring must take place over a number of years.

The beauty of public scientific research is that it provides the data needed to track trends. That is what the Experimental Lakes Area did. Since 1968, when this program was established, the region has served as a living laboratory to answer our questions about, say, lakes that were dead. What was the cause? What would fix the problem? The ELA allowed us—and will allow us, if the government wakes up and realizes the need to continue—to collect essential data. It is very important for us as parliamentarians and Canadians.

I would also like to point out that while I was in Vancouver, I was one of the only parliamentarians who attended the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. I had the opportunity to meet with science professionals who denounced the muzzling of scientists, which we have already talked about. I spoke about my studies and the importance of being able to debate issues and how to address them.

Then, last spring, I participated in a protest against muzzling scientists. It was very exciting to see a number of scientists rise up during the protest to denounce this.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on the gridlock problem and how it costs the Canadian economy.

We must work with the different levels of government to develop a long-term plan that will help Canada move forward. We must target the competitiveness issues caused by the deficit we have with our aging infrastructure. We must also come up with a plan to make commuting easier. Our country is very large and we seem to forget to put our transportation capabilities and expertise to good use.

We must work together to overcome these challenges. We must also look at the issues of climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.