Kennedy Stewart

[Science and Technology, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just cherry-picking stats, and what he really has to do is back off and stop muzzling our scientists. Let us be clear. The government is so obsessed with controlling the message it spent $20 million monitoring the media at the same time it was muzzling scientists. Thanks to the independent assessment, by E4D, of the government's own policies, we can see the government's failure on transparency in black and white.

Government scientists in the U.S. are more free to talk publicly about their work and are better protected from political interference. Why should Canadian scientists not be as free to talk about their work as American scientists?

[Protecting Burnaby Lakes and Rivers Act, October 7th, 2014]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-631, an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake and Brunette River).

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to introduce a private member's bill to restore key environmental protections to local lakes and rivers in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas.

The protecting Burnaby lakes and rivers act aims to re-add Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake, and the Brunette River to the official schedule of waterways protected in Canada. At the demand of oil and gas lobbyists, the Conservatives recently removed the protection of 98% of Canada's water bodies. As a result of these changes, proposed development projects would no longer need environmental assessments or public consultation before proceeding across our lakes and rivers.

We need to reverse this gutting of our environmental laws. That is why I am putting forward this legislation to re-protect Burnaby's waterways for my constituents.

I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, our excellent House leader, for his support on this issue and for stepping forward today to second this legislation.

In my riding, the stewardship of the Brunette River in particular has been a stellar example of our community coming together to preserve our cherished waterways. We need to make sure that our lakes and rivers are protected so that future generations can enjoy them as well.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from Jerry Chenkin, president and CEO of the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association of Canada, who said:

Free and open trade with priority markets in Asia, most notably Korea and Japan, is vital to Canada's national interest to be globally competitive, create jobs and increase prosperity...

We have consulted widely on the bill and support it because we feel it is a great deal for Canada and for all sectors of the economy.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the great work my colleague does in his riding and in the House. We have some concerns about the impact on the auto industry, but where we should start is the lack of effort on the other side of the House to support our automakers. The industry has essentially been abandoned by the Conservatives. On this side of the House, we have done our best to protect it, and that is where things have to start.

Again, there are clauses built into the agreement to protect our auto industry still and we will monitor those as they go along. I share my friend's concerns, but wish the government would actually do more to encourage and boost the auto industry in Canada.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the great work he does in and outside of the House. If we take post-war Korea, there is a dedication to rebuild the economy first and then a commitment from the late eighties onward to democratic reform and human rights. I think those are present in the labour force in Korea, the labour standards, and I would think they would be equally as strong in Korea as in Canada. Again, this is another reason why I support the agreement.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-41, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. Before I start, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

There are a few points I want to make on this bill. First, I would like to praise our critic in this area, the member for Vancouver Kingsway. This member is a lawyer with a very good reputation. He has spent a lot of time on this file making sure that he is using the utmost of his knowledge to understand and digest this deal and has explained it to the rest of us.

I feel very confident when the member says to us that we should be supporting this trade deal. The diligence he has put into this file gives me a lot of confidence that this is something we should do. I have been looking through the deal myself, and I concur with the critic's recommendation. I will be supporting this at second reading and look forward to this deal going ahead.

It is not just the local links with my neighbour from Vancouver that also gives me great confidence that this is a good idea. We also have a local MLA, Jane Shin, from Burnaby, who is the first Korean-Canadian MLA elected in British Columbia. I have spent many hours talking with her about how we could build closer links between our country and Korea.

Ms. Shin has been doing fantastic work in Burnaby. I look forward to hosting a round table with her and the member for Vancouver Kingsway on this issue in the near future.

My inclination on trade deals goes back to my Scottish roots, which make me hope for the best and plan for the worst. When I see trade deals, I like to think that perhaps we can support them. We start with the idea that we can support a trade deal, then we look at it in as much detail as we can to decide whether it is good for Canada. In fact, the NDP uses three important criteria to assess all trade agreements.

First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values in general? That is very important. I think most Canadians would agree that priority for trade agreements should be given to countries that share our values.

Second, are these deals of significant or strategic value to Canada? We do not want to sign frivolous deals. Is it just an announcement for the sake of an announcement, or is this really going to lead to economic growth in Canada?

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

Looking through this deal, and talking to the critic and local representatives, we think this free trade deal with the Republic of Korea passes all these tests.

I am happy to say that along with the deal we have signed with Jordan, this is another trade deal we can support, and I will be voting yes.

One of the reasons I am favour of this is that it is also different from some other deals, such as the FIPA with China. Where I think Canadians should draw a distinction is that the deal with Korea is reciprocal. That means that both countries will have more or less equal access to one another's markets. The terms of the China FIPA deal are not reciprocal, in my understanding.

It is important to go through the various clauses of these agreements to make sure that we are getting the absolute best deal we can.

I am especially excited about building better links with Korea, because in my capacity as the critic for science and technology, I have had the pleasure of meeting with a number of advisers to the President of Korea regarding their investment in science and technology.

The President of South Korea, Park Geun-hye, is an engineer by profession and has decided to continue her country's investment in science and technology in order to build their economy. I applaud this.

In my conversations with the advisers to the President of South Korea on investment in science and technology, a number of very interesting things came to light.

First, the President of Korea has made a commitment to ensure that 5% of their entire economy is reinvested in research and development.This is a massive amount of money, both from the private and public sector. It actually leads the world in the proportion of money invested in research and development.

It was explained to me that the reason Korea was so gung ho on science investment was that after the war Korea was essentially bombed flat with very few energy resources, so Koreans decided to invest as much as they could into innovation to grow their economy. We can see through the companies Korea is famous for, like Samsung, that this investment has paid off.

In conversations with presidential science advisers, they have said their goal is to make Korea the leader in the world in science and technology, not only in investing in applied sciences but also basic sciences. In addition to committing to investing 5% of the GDP into research and development, the President of Korea recently said that there would also be extra investment in basic sciences. That is in stark contrast to what happens here. Where Korea is aiming at 5% of GDP to be invested in research and development, Canada is only at about 1.7%, and that is a decline over the past few decades from about 2% when the Liberals were in power.

These trade deals will provide windows. We are often boastful in Canada, thinking we are the best in the world and there is not much we can learn from other countries. Closer ties are important to us because maybe here we will see the importance of investing in science and technology.

What is also extremely interesting with the Koreans is that they recognize the link between basic sciences and applied sciences. We cannot have companies building new types of widgets if we do not invest in the basic infrastructure of science and technology. That is exactly what the Koreans do and I hope we will learn from them.

The other thing the President of Korea has also said is that Korea will invest in stable funding for its science community. It is critical not to lurch from year to year with unstable investments, wondering if a lab is going to continue on. Rather, the President of Korea has said that Korea will invest in stable funding, not just increases but longer term.

The value of such agreements is that we get to see what other countries are doing, and Korea is leading us at this point in investment in science and technology.

The New Democrats have a number of proposals going forward that we would like to put in place which would complement this kind of Korean approach to science and technology. At a recent policy convention, we developed a national science strategy just like Korea has. More important, we passed a unanimous resolution that we move to match the percentage of GDP invested by public and private sectors in research and development as found in other global leading countries, such as the United States.

It is not just Canada that is trying to catch up to Korea in its investment in R and D. Korea invests 5% of its GDP into research and development and the United States is at 3%. We are at 1.7%. However, if the NDP became government, this resolution would build on these types of deals in order to increase Canada's investment in R and D.

[Use of Time Allocation, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is moving to shut down debate for the 76th and 77th times. These Conservatives have shattered by a mile the previous records for shutting down debate. Debate was shut down 45 times by the government of Brian Mulroney, 35 times by the Liberals under Jean Chrétien, and now 77 times by the current Conservatives.

I am deeply gratified that most members, including most Conservatives, supported the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' reform act last night. However, empowering MPs also means allowing every member an equal opportunity to speak. Government members should be embarrassed to turn around today and vote in favour of time allocation, in favour of shutting down debate and in favour of denying members the opportunity to speak. Closure is an attempt by the government and the PMO to undermine the rights of all members in the House.

This is a special place that needs to be defended. Canadians deserve better.

[Public Safety, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last month RCMP officers from the national security division showed up at the door of 71-year-old Lesslie Askin to question her. Why? The concerned citizen had taken photos of some aging fuel tanks near a Kinder Morgan facility in Burnaby. We know the Conservatives are going after charities that disagree with them—but now grandmothers?

The people who oppose Kinder Morgan are not foreign radicals. Rather, they are law-abiding citizens. What does the government have to say to this grandmother? Will it apologize to her and make sure she has no permanent record on her file of these activities?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, planning is essential and that is what we have been proposing since we were elected as the official opposition in 2011, and beforehand. My colleague from St. John's East could probably tell us how long we have been arguing for the need for a national energy strategy when we do forward planning, not only inclusive but comprehensive. That is greatly lacking on the other side. Those members are content to have foreign companies come in and do whatever they want in Canada. We think that is not the right way to go and more Canadians are agreeing with us.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to deal with in the member's question.

Those of us who live on the west coast are very conscious of nuclear accidents. We were concerned about possible radiation coming on the shores of British Columbia as a result of the Fukushima plant accident. Government monitoring has been cut, so it is hard for us to determine the exact extent of this radiation.

However, I am quite excited about a new technology called fusion. A very active company in my riding called General Fusion is trying to move toward a much safer use of nuclear energy. I try to visit it every year and see its progress and it is going quite well. I am proud of its work and hopefully that technology will develop.