Hélène LeBlanc

[Air Canada, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that no new investor has come forward to purchase Aveos. If the Conservatives do nothing, Air Canada will go ahead and use foreign maintenance providers, which is against the law. Some 1,500 decent aerospace jobs will leave Canada for good because of the Conservatives' negligence.

Will the Conservatives continue to sit idly by or will they stand up, apply the law and protect our jobs in this industry?

[Situation in Syria, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, it is with some concern that I address the House this evening. I am concerned because this is an extremely complex international issue where human lives are at stake. That is why I commend the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. As part of our team, he was able to explain these challenges in a very humanistic way. I would also like to commend him on his initiative in asking for the emergency debate on Syria in the House.

I think that the tragic situation in this country and the UN's efforts to try to find peaceful solutions to this problem have already been clearly explained. Parliamentarians on both sides of the House, regardless of their party, described a tragic situation, exacerbated by the recent massacres of civilians. What is even more tragic is that children were massacred recently, which once again attracted global attention.

We cannot deny that this is a serious problem. Syria is in crisis. The violence and the murder of civilians must stop. An immediate cease fire must be implemented so that humanitarian aid can be given to Syrians in need in every region.

I believe that the member who spoke before me also pointed out the repercussions not just in Syria, but in all neighbouring countries, especially the arrival of refugees. For example, people are fleeing to Turkey, which has already accepted refugees. At least 150,000 people were displaced in 2011. Most people were displaced temporarily because they were fleeing their villages or cities before or during an attack, and then would return after the government forces left.

The largest displacements occurred between June and September, when almost 70,000 people left Maaret al-Noman, 45,000 fled Homs and 41,000 sought refuge further away.

I cannot help thinking that, in recent years, Canadians have never experienced the hardships suffered by the people of this country. That is why it is very difficult for me to imagine the extent of the human tragedy currently taking place in Syria. However, even though we may not understand what is happening, it does not prevent us from being duty bound to take action, or at the very least, to support UN actions.

Therefore, the NDP unreservedly supports the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States.

The NDP also condemns violence against civilians. We want to encourage support and co-operation, in order for humanitarian aid to reach Syrians.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for his comprehensive speech, which provided many concrete examples of the long-term repercussions on scientific research.

I would like him to talk a bit more about the steps that Canada should take to truly be an active participant in the knowledge economy.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, scientists inform us about the state of our planet and our environment. These are the people who collect and interpret data to give us a privileged view of both nature and the nature of our society.

This information and these voices are very important in helping us better understand what is going on in our society, in terms of the challenges we will face and how we can do so with sensible policies, based on objective scientific data.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, to properly understand innovation and the entire innovation chain, we must understand that the major innovations and achievements we benefit from today, in the comfort of our own homes, have come out of fundamental research. This involves making a commitment to the research process without exactly knowing what the results and applications will be. With a long-term vision, there will be long-term benefits for society.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in my proposals, I suggest that the voices of scientists be heard within the government and that we open the door to make sure that there is real dialogue between parliamentarians and scientists. That is the main objective of the motion.

I also hope that the government will bear in mind that the cuts within various departments, particularly to research and monitoring, will have a significant impact in the long term.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the decisions of legislators must be based on thorough and objective data.

Parliament Hill is a special place. Since I became an MP, and as the science and technology critic for the first year of my mandate, then as the industry critic, I have had the opportunity to meet with stakeholders in academia, government, industry and science. I have also attended conferences and participated in symposia and panels. In the past year, I have learned a great deal, and that has been very rewarding. As parliamentarians, we have access to a multitude of voices and points of view, as well as invaluable knowledge. It would be of no help to Canadians to close our eyes and ears.

It is my responsibility and my duty, as a parliamentarian, to take into account the point of view of researchers and scientists in order to make informed decisions. Canada and the Canadian government are full of these people who are passionate about research. For years, with patience, perseverance and know-how, they have helped us better understand the demographic evolution and the state of our environment and economy; they help us grasp what is going on. And then it is up to us, as parliamentarians, to propose evidence-based legislation and policy, with full knowledge of the facts.

I do not understand why a government would want to silence these voices. I do not understand why this government continues to censor scientists and undermine the work of Statistics Canada. Ottawa has to stop muzzling scientists, start basing its decisions on scientific evidence and get to work on repairing Canada's reputation as an open and enlightened society.

In Davos, the Prime Minister promised that innovation would be the cornerstone of Canada's future. How can he talk about innovation when he is not open to debating ideas? Ideas are the genesis of innovation.

Since coming to power, this government has been on a veritable crusade against any policy based on scientific evidence. The government tends to cast aspersions on any research or any agency that contradicts its ideological agenda.

We have here a government that has made censoring researchers central to its science policy. Everyone is now aware of the controversy surrounding internationally renowned scientists and researchers, such as David Tarasick, whom this government muzzled because he knew that its inaction on climate change would be disastrous to our environment. Mr. Tarasick had published the results of his research in the British journal Nature. The government also banned researcher Kristi Miller from talking to the media about her research on the diseases threatening Pacific salmon.

The prize definitely goes to the censorship of Scott Dallimore, a scientist at Natural Resources Canada. The research that Dr. Dallimore had published in Nature was on the impact of climate change on our country's north. These findings would have been quite disconcerting to the government, which was probably already planning to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto protocol. However, there was no need to be concerned, because Dr. Dallimore was talking about the climate change that occurred 13,000 years ago.

Censorship is at the heart of the science policy of the government. Last February I attended the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science with more than 6,000 scientists and specialists from 50 different countries. One of the conferences was titled “Unmuzzle Government Scientists” to denounce the muzzling of government researchers. I had the honour of representing the NDP at the conference. I met scientists, experts, engineers, mathematicians, physicists and science journalists.

Our scientific community is worried and it is fully aware of the climate change caused by human activities. It proposed innovative solutions to address the biggest challenge faced by humanity at this time.

Once the ribbon cutting to officially open the conference was done, none of the members of Parliament were present, not even the Minister of State for Science and Technology.

Nature magazine took note of the crusade the Conservatives have undertaken to undermine science-based information decision making. In an editorial, Nature magazine denounced the censorship by the government on the scientific community saying, “Canada's generally positive foreign reputation as a progressive, scientific nation masks some startlingly poor behaviour.”

The way forward is clear. It is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.

For this government, a policy in favour of innovation also means eliminating Statistics Canada's long form census and $8.3 billion in cuts. These cuts will total $33.9 billion by 2014-15.

The Conservative government's decisions have proven lethal to Statistics Canada and its activities. In other words, in the middle of a demographic crisis, without the long form, a census of the Canadian population will not paint an accurate picture of that population. How can we propose sound legislation if we do not know what Canadians need? How can we keep an eye on demographic trends and trends in health, the economy and services to the public?

These decisions—like many other government decisions—to slash government sources of information and research and to undermine the knowledge-based decision-making process have been universally criticized.

At the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, during a study on e-commerce in Canada, witnesses condemned the fact that Canada did not have any recent data to compare Canadians' online shopping habits with other countries or any studies on how small and medium-sized businesses use e-commerce. This is because the Survey of Electronic Commerce and Technology has been eliminated by the government's budget cuts.

Critical up-to-date information was missing, preventing the committee from doing a thorough and enlightened job. Our researchers and scientists know full well that, if we, as a country, do not use their knowledge and research, the whole nation will pay the price. These Government of Canada professionals are serving the public because they are committed to their mission of serving the country. They are an invaluable source of information for parliamentarians and all Canadians. They help us to better understand our world, and they can enlighten us on how to find solutions that will help us meet the challenges of today and of tomorrow.

In response to those challenges, the NDP is proposing practical solutions to encourage dialogue with our scientists and to ensure that we have the tools we need to make well-informed decisions in the true interest of Canadians.

I therefore call on the Prime Minister to adopt guidelines on scientific communications similar to those adopted in the United States. I also ask the government to reinstate Statistics Canada's long form census. A number of organizations, including the Canadian Science Writers' Association and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, have asked the government to adopt guidelines.

I call on the government to reinstate the long form census in Canada.

[Science and Technology, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the NRC plays an essential role in stimulating Canada's economy, but the NDP fears that the government is completely eliminating basic research from the NRC's mission statement. If there are no new ideas to fuel innovation, then there will not be any new computers or BlackBerrys to market, and Canada will lag behind countries like Germany, which is investing heavily in basic research.

At the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference I attended in February, Mike Lazaridis, the co-founder of Research in Motion and one of Canada's top entrepreneurs, made a passionate speech on the curiosity that fuels researchers and the need for every government to support basic research. He was clear: innovation is the fruit of allowing researchers to explore their curiosity.

I have a simple question: how does the government expect to stimulate the economy by eliminating basic research from the NRC's mandate? Does the government truly understand what fuels innovation?

[Science and Technology, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Charles Townes, in describing the discovery of the laser, showed how much that discovery depended on a massive amount of research on atomic spectroscopy and the study of atomic beams, work seemingly of little commercial use.

This observation, reported in the journal Physics in Canada last summer, is at the heart of the debate on innovation in Canada.

The best-known Canadian scientific institution is undoubtedly the National Research Council of Canada. The NRC is behind one of the greatest symbols of Canadian scientific achievement, the Canadarm.

In March, the Minister of State for Science and Technology announced the dramatic restructuring of the NRC. In a speech to the members of the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa on March 6, he stated that the National Research Council of Canada “will be hopefully a one-stop, 1-800, ‘ 'I have a solution for your business problem’.”

The Minister of State for Science and Technology must realize that the NRC is more than just a one-stop Staples store. The National Research Council of Canada plays a crucial role in Canada's science culture. It is a symbol of our commitment to the advancement of science.

Between 2007 and 2012, the government gradually reduced core funding for the three granting councils: SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR. Social science research has been reduced by 10%, or $40 million, and health research has been cut by 4%, or $41 million, according to the memorandum submitted by the Canadian Association of University Teachers as part of pre-budget consultations.

Cuts to basic scientific research are leaving Canadian researchers with less and less money to pursue research that could contribute to advances in physics, chemistry and biology. Essentially, innovation is not getting any easier; rather it is becoming more difficult.

Eventually, underfunding for basic research will jeopardize the overall size of our scientific community. In other words, it will shrink, and this will reduce our chances for innovation.

The second outcome of this government's policy is that it will threaten technology transfers themselves between universities and the private sector. The marketing pipeline has two ends, and if the source dries up, nothing can come out the other end. In other words, good ideas are needed before they can be marketed.

The third outcome of the government's science policy is that it will create a new brain drain in Canada. The vice-president of research at the University of British Columbia agrees. In Research Money he states, and I quote:

“We're now starting to lose talented mid-career researchers to the EU. The EU Framework program, France and Germany are all increasing their basic research envelope. Germany is increasing funding for basic research by 5%....These are huge increases in funding. They (European countries) can do targeted recruitment and the are making spectacular offers. That's my main concern. Canada has built a very strong university research community, and I don't want to see it taken apart by foreign competition”.

My question is the following: will the $67 million announced in budget 2012 for restructuring the National Research Council be used to give severance packages to Canada's top researchers?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion by the member from Hamilton Mountain, which condemns the changes to employment insurance.

Since the May 2, 2011, election, I have held a privileged position because I am an observer of the government's actions from inside this Parliament. The current government has not necessarily demonstrated leadership and vision. It is more of a bean-counting government, although I have absolutely nothing against accountants, far from it. This government will take stock, take the budget and mark all the places where it will make cuts. I find that there is a lack of vision and leadership.

Over the years, Canada has put in place a social safety net so that no one in this beautiful and great country is abandoned. During the election campaign, and afterwards, I had the opportunity to meet the people in my riding of LaSalle—Émard.

Let me paint a picture. Over the years, the industrial park has gradually cleared out. Walking along Saint-Patrick Street, one would see many buildings for lease, buildings that used to house businesses. These businesses have shut down and gone away. That is the reality: industrial parks in Quebec and the rest of Canada have changed considerably.

Large corporations that used to hire hundreds of workers have been transformed and have moved everything out, making room for smaller businesses. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that fewer workers are needed. As a result, some workers who used to work for those large corporations and earned good salaries are now unemployed. These are unfortunate circumstances, which everyone hopes are temporary. That is why employment insurance was created. We wanted to have measures to deal with such changes whenever big economic or industrial fluctuations occur in order to ensure that families could continue to live decently when they are hit by layoffs or job losses. I think any good, responsible government has such a duty.

We can see how things have changed over the years, particularly in my riding. Manufacturing jobs, which in general were well paid, stable and long term, have been mainly replaced by far less stable, minimum wage jobs, often putting people at the mercy of the service industry's needs. This industry is cyclical by nature and experiences ups and downs.

That is why I support the motion that was put forward. This government is more of an accountant than a visionary. It does not want to govern for all Canadians, and so the changes it wants to make to employment insurance will fail more and more Canadians and, once again, increase the gap between the rich and the poor.

That is why I am rising to support the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.