Laurin Liu

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, the purpose of which is to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to establish the Canadian museum of history.

In order to express our strong opposition to this bill, I would like to begin by reminding the House that this initiative is part of the Conservatives' broader plan to promote certain symbols that they cherish: the monarchy, military values, excessive celebrations of long-ago wars, and so on.

It is also important to note that their version of Canadian history does not include the important history of women, first nations and other histories that are also part of our national history.

Indeed, what we are seeing is a deliberate attempt to rewrite the Canadian identity. In that regard, I fully agree with the Canadian Association of University Teachers, whose position is as follows:

...[this initiative] fits into a pattern of politically motivated heritage policy...[it] reflects a new use of history to support the government's political agenda—that is, the evocation of particular features of our past as worthy of official endorsement and promotion. This is a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda and should be run instead according to sound professional standards. Our past should not be a political plaything.

George MacDonald, the first director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has expressed strong opposition to changing the museum's name and mandate. He sees this as part of an attempt to impose the Conservative brand. According to him, no one in the museum community wanted a museum of history rather than a museum of civilization.

Similarly, another former director and CEO of the museum, Victor Rabinovitch, lamented the loss of the name Canadian Museum of Civilization. He described it as the most successful brand in the Canadian museums sector. He said it was a well-known brand that was respected by everyone. I would add that abandoning the name Canadian Museum of Civilization is as absurd as abandoning the brand Radio-Canada.

In addition to changing the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Bill C-49 contains a number of disturbing amendments to the organization’s mission. For example, the international mandate of the museum will be a thing of the past. Rather than focusing on Canada and the rest of the world as a whole, the museum will concentrate solely on Canadians, thereby stripping the museum of its mandate to share our history with the world.

In fact, this example truly captures the essence of the Conservative brand. Since the Conservatives came into power, Canada has been on a downward spiral in terms of its influence on the world stage: Canada is no longer seeking a seat on the UN Security Council, the international mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada has been gutted and Canada no longer has a shred of credibility when it comes to combating climate change. The list goes on.

Unfortunately, with the Conservative Party at the helm, Canada has become the laughing stock of the international community and is neglecting the important role that culture plays in Canadian diplomacy.

Moreover, Bill C-49 proposes to reorganize the tasks of establishing and maintaining a collection of artifacts for research and posterity. From now on, rather than being based on the work and priorities of museum professionals, research and collections will take a backseat to exhibition planning.

However, the most serious problem with C-49 is that it prescribes a minimalist approach to the museum based on events, experiences, people and objects. This is a decision that would normally be left in the hands of museum professionals and subject to a debate among historians and the academic community.

I find it worrisome and appalling that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is riding roughshod over the choices of museum professionals. To begin with, politics has no business in museums and, secondly, before thinking about lecturing Quebeckers on history, the Conservatives should start by familiarizing themselves with the history of Quebec.

I am thinking particularly of the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, when he appeared on Tout le monde en parle, was unable to identify Guy Laliberté, Félix Leclerc and Robert Lepage.

I think it is a shame that exhibitions on different cultures and civilizations will take a backseat in the future. The museum used to focus heavily on transmitting an understanding of various cultures and civilizations. The museum had exhibitions that varied from Haitian voodoo to ancient Egypt. Many exhibitions traveled and gave the Canadian Museum of Civilization its international reputation. Moreover, these exhibitions attracted a great many visitors.

By refocusing the museum's mandate on Canada, the number of visitors could drop and we are definitely losing a cultural asset.

As Dr. Lorn Holyoak, president of the Canadian Anthropology Society said:

You’re taking a Rolls-Royce, and you’re chopping off the roof and tearing out the backseats so you can turn it into a pick-up truck. Canadians deserve an excellent Canadian history museum, and the Canadian Anthropology Society supports the creation of a museum of Canadian history, but we do not support the gutting of, as has already been said, the crown jewel in our collection of museums. It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

I note with some concern that the government has announced that there will be activities to solicit support from the private sector. I have nothing against the private sector. However, I am simply concerned that it will dictate the content of exhibits.

In recent years, some things have gotten out of hand in federal museums. I am referring mainly to the Canadian Museum of Nature, where almost all the exhibit halls were sponsored by oil companies after a former executive with Talisman Energy was appointed to the museum's board of directors. It is rather ridiculous. Members will also recall that the Canada Science and Technology Museum changed an exhibit as a result of pressure from a mining company that sponsored it.

In the case of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the historical and archival documentation plays an important role in determining economic rights, particularly of first nations, and it must not be subject to pressure based on commercial interests.

To sum up, private funding can help museum development, but I have difficulty understanding how we can ensure that private sponsors will not influence the content.

While the Conservatives are busy remodelling the Canadian Museum of Civilization so they can spread their propaganda, I lament the fact that they are attacking other important institutions that are guardians of our collective memory. I am thinking in particular of the cuts to Library and Archives Canada, where more than 50% of digitization staff have been laid off. I am also thinking of reductions to document preservation and conservation staff and cuts to inter-library loans, which enabled all Canadians to access their national library's collections.

We could also talk about the $29 million that was cut from Parks Canada in 2012. Parks Canada is an important vehicle for our historical consciousness. That organization manages 167 national historic sites in Canada. More than 80% of Parks Canada's archaeologists and curators have lost their jobs as a result of cuts in recent years.

My colleague from Québec eloquently demonstrated the impact of those cuts on Quebec and its regions when we learned that most of the activities of the Quebec City service centre would be consolidated in Ottawa. Laurence Ferland, former president of Université Laval's archaeology students' association, said that, in addition to harming university research in Quebec City, the cuts would undermine the preservation of monuments and the transmission of history.

When I see these cuts hitting institutions responsible for showcasing our heritage, I find it hard to believe the minister when he says he is changing the Canadian Museum of Civilization to improve the dissemination of Canadian history.

To summarize, we are strongly opposed to this bill, which seeks to completely alter the Canadian Museum of Civilization for partisan purposes. We demand that the museum's current mandate be maintained. Canadian history must have a showcase and be promoted, but that is what the Canadian Museum of Civilization already does. We do not need to change the act or the museum's purpose to do it.

We also believe that the task of determining the content of the Canadian Museum of Civilization must be left to museology professionals, not politicians.

Lastly, the government must stop making cuts to the source of our historical knowledge, particularly archival research and the protection of historic sites.

Instead of spending large amounts of money to reshape the museum's mandate, the government would have done better to invest in a Canada-wide project to preserve Canadian history, archives and historic sites and support small museum institutions, particularly with a view to Canada's 150th anniversary.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week I was quite fortunate to take part in the debate on Bill C-49.

We can criticize how much money was spent on changing the name of the museum, a change that no one asked for except the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We can also talk about the changes to the museum's mandate, but I think this is also part of the Conservative trend. I am quite concerned about this trend because it seeks to promote a history of the military that is based on military events, and of the Queen and the monarchy, without any real regard for other aspects of Canada's history.

Last week, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain asked why we would not promote the history of women in Canada. The parliamentary secretary said, “I have never heard such nonsense”.

You can read it in Hansard. He said it was garbage. I was quite shocked.

Does the Conservative member opposite believe it is important to promote the history of women?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my Conservative colleague can tell me whether there is actually any popular support for changing the museum's mandate?

Personally, nobody in my riding has asked the government to change the mandate of the museum, which truly is a Canadian treasure. We also know that it will be very expensive. The administrative cost alone is estimated at $500,000. And that is on top of the $400,000 that has already been spent on consultations and promotional material for the new museum.

What is more, the Conservative government is cutting the budget of Library and Archives Canada, thus depriving Canadian historians of the tools they need to do their jobs.

Can my colleague comment on this?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives tell us, this bill does not just change the museum's name. Several amendments have been made to section 8 of the Museums Act. The purpose of those amendments is to change the museum's areas of interest. Thus, instead of covering all of Canada and other countries, it will focus solely on Canadians.

In many instances, culture is also a way of engaging in diplomacy. Under the Conservatives, unfortunately, Canada has become the laughingstock of the international community in negotiations on climate change and in its lack of support for Canadian culture.

As my colleague said, Canadians and Canadian history deserve better than the Conservatives. Does he have any comments to make on that subject?

[Financial Administration Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-473 to help achieve gender parity on the boards of directors of crown corporations.

I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her efforts on this file. I know that this issue is important to her and she works very hard to promote gender equality.

Despite the progress women have made over the past few decades to take their place in the workforce, in certain settings they are still grappling with a glass ceiling that prevents them from reaching the highest levels in some organizations. In spite of their progress, women continue to be under-represented in the executive ranks and earn 70% less for every dollar men earn.

For this situation to improve, we must act by using tangible measures such as those proposed in the bill. This bill provides a logically sound and effective mechanism to help increase the number of women in the executive ranks of Canada's crown corporations. This proposal should be relatively simple to implement and has the potential to help improve the situation of women across the country.

I would like to give a few examples that really illustrate the scope of the problem related to the under-representation of women in decision-making roles. At this time, over 2,000 Canadians occupy executive positions in more than 200 crown corporations, organizations, boards of directors and commissions across the country; yet women occupy only 27% of senior management positions. In addition, only 16 of the 84 presidents of crown corporations are women. That is only 19%.

Canadian women are also under-represented on the boards of directors of private corporations. According to the Catalyst 2010 study, women occupied only 16.9% of senior management positions in Fortune 500 companies. Worse still, over 30% of those companies counted no women among their senior officers.

In December 2010, Anne Golden, chair of the Conference Board of Canada, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and noted that, “At that rate, it will take approximately 151 years before the proportion of men and women at the management level is equal”.

In light of these troubling statistics, clearly, we need to take action to promote fair gender representation in the business world. Bill C-473 aims to achieve gender equality on the board of directors of crown corporations within six years by establishing criteria to ensure that women occupy 30% of positions within two years of the bill's coming into force, 40% within four years, and 50% within six years of its coming into force. Implementing these requirements will guarantee gender parity.

In addition, this legislative measure will indirectly force crown corporations to expand their search for qualified, effective candidates and to target non-traditional recruitment pools.

It is important to note that, compared to other countries, Canada is falling behind. According to the World Economic Forum report on the global gender gap, Canada has fallen seven places since the first report was published in 2006, currently ranking 21st. Catalyst Canada noted that the proportion of women on the boards of companies listed on the stock exchange had increased by only 0.1% between 2007 and 2011, rising from 10.2% to 10.3%.

Unlike the Conservative government and previous Liberal and Conservative governments, numerous countries have introduced legislative measures to address the fact that women are under-represented in the boardrooms of various types of organizations. For example, Norway, Spain, France, Iceland and the Netherlands introduced legislated quotas to increase the number of women on various boards of directors, while Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Finland have implemented mandatory disclosure and transparency initiatives.

In some countries such as Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom, corporations have been urged to close the gender gaps on their boards under the threat that quotas could be introduced if voluntary measures are seen to be ineffective.

In that same vein, I would like to dispel a perverse myth that exists within the Conservative government. The government is proposing a voluntary approach to ensure increased representation of women on boards. I am thinking, in particular, about the member for Mississauga South who, on April 23, stated in the House that legislating a quota system to increase the proportion of women on crown corporation boards “is not acceptable”. She said that legislated quotas are rigid and arbitrary thresholds that would adversely affect the appointment process for board members. The member for Winnipeg South Centre said that efforts to promote qualified candidates in the business community and to recognize and encourage business leaders are more effective than legislative measures.

Basically, the Conservatives believe that we can attain parity by using a laissez-faire approach. However, Norway provides us with a case study that puts an end to the far-fetched myth of voluntary parity. Norway was the first country to legislate gender balance on the boards of public limited companies.

The legislation applying to state-owned companies came into force in January 2004. The government had originally tried to negotiate voluntary quotas with the private sector to reach 40% representation of women on boards, with an ultimatum that restrictive legislative measures would be introduced should the desired gender representation not be attained by July 2005. This voluntary measure did not achieve the desired effect.

A survey by Statistics Norway showed that by the July 2005 date, only 13% of companies complied with the voluntary quotas, with women representing only 16% of board members. As a result, legislation was applied to public limited companies. The legislation came into force in January 2006, giving the companies in question two years to comply with the targets. To illustrate how effective a legislative measure can be, in Norway, the representation of women on the boards in question has been more than 40% since 2008.

For progress on similar gender equality measures, we can look at our own successes here in Canada. In 2006, the Government of Quebec introduced Bill 53 in order to set criteria for state-owned enterprises so:

(1) that the boards of directors of the enterprises as a group [would] be composed of members whose cultural identity reflects the various segments of Québec society; and

(2) that the boards of directors of the enterprises as a group [would] include an equal number of women and men as of 14 December 2011.

Although this legislation still has not fully achieved its objective, the numbers are impressive. In December 2011, which marked the end of the five-year period by which crown corporations were to have achieved gender equality, 141 women and 128 men held positions on the boards of directors of 22 Quebec crown corporations. All that remains is to ensure balanced representation in the number of women and men appointed to the board of each crown corporation subject to the act.

The Conservatives' unwillingness to achieve gender parity in the public service is symptomatic of their general attitude toward promoting gender equality. Let us not forget that in addition to deleting the words “gender equality” from Status of Women Canada's mandate, the Conservatives closed 12 of the 16 offices of the only federal agency devoted to promoting gender equality.

Hon. members will also recall that the Conservative government cut funding for the court challenges program, which was created to defend equality rights cases guaranteed under the Constitution of Canada.

The Conservative government's dismal record on gender equality is attested to by the fact that Canada ranks 21st in the World Economic Forum's gender gap index, after countries such as the Philippines, Latvia, Cuba and even Nicaragua.

It is obvious that, in reality, Canadian women cannot count on the Conservative government to promote gender equality.

Therefore, I want to reiterate my support for Bill C-473, and I urge my colleagues in all parties to vote for it.

Finally, this bill clearly shows that the NDP has real measures to achieve balanced gender representation when it comes to the management of public finances and thus to better reflect the Canadian population.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are trying to put together a positive approach to their relations with first nations, but they will not change course and refuse to engage in nation-to-nation dialogue.

Earlier in the House, during the debate on Bill S-2, we saw that this Senate bill could have been a real opportunity for this government to do something positive for aboriginal women.

Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the concerns of these groups of women and the bill does not have the support of the people it is trying to help. It is absolutely ridiculous that this government is attempting to appeal to women.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. We know that the Conservatives do not always address the real governance problems by choosing to ignore the flaws of the Indian Act.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to listen to the legitimate concerns of first nations groups?

[Old Age Security Act, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today to the bill introduced by the member for Laval—Les Îles.

Members are no doubt aware that the bill's sponsor represents the riding next to Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. We often participate in activities together, so I can attest to her community involvement and the fact that she is often featured in community media as well. I would like to thank her for her dedication and her contribution to righting the wrongs committed against guaranteed income supplement recipients.

Basically, the bill introduced by my colleague aims to amend the Old Age Security Act so that seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement have the option of taking $2,500 out of their RRSP to pay for funeral arrangements without it affecting their GIS benefits.

When a loved one dies, the family must pay for the funeral. This represents a significant financial burden for low-income households. This bill is important for the dignity of our seniors. It gives them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they will not be leaving their family with the burden of paying for their funeral.

My colleague's bill provides our seniors with an incentive to prearrange their funerals and protect themselves from the increase in the cost of living.

The Conservative government has indicated that it will not give a royal recommendation to the bill because of the cost. Quite frankly, that is ridiculous.

According to the Library of Parliament's estimates, this bill will cost the federal government only $132,000 a year. This is very little given that it would help more than 300,000 Canadian seniors. Come to think of it, $132,000 is about what Senator Mike Duffy makes, and this would be a much better use of that money.

I believe that it is better to spend public funds on a program that makes it possible to prepay for funeral arrangements without a penalty than on an archaic and undemocratic Senate that abuses public funds. However, those are not the Conservative government's priorities. The Conservative Party's gravy train is chugging along, but the Conservatives are asking seniors who live in poverty to tighten their belts.

Although poverty is a problem in many Canadian households, single people who are 65 and over are particularly susceptible to poverty. The universal pension program accounts for 77% of these seniors' income.

Among seniors, poverty strikes more women than men. This is due to the fact that, in the past, many women stayed in the home to take care of their families. Although many went back to work afterwards, their careers were much shorter and they therefore did not have enough time to accumulate sufficient assets to provide themselves with adequate incomes when they retired.

In Quebec, seniors are getting poorer and poorer and accumulating more and more debt. The percentage of seniors' households carrying debt has more than doubled in 17 years. A study by the Institut de recherche et d'informations socio-économiques published in 2011 found that, in Quebec, the number of seniors living below the low income cut-off tripled between 1996 and 2008. This segment of the population increased from 4.6% to 12.3%.

In the Laurentides region, the Agence de la santé estimates that 7% of seniors aged 65 and older are living below the low income cutoff. This represents about 4,000 people. The Conservative government is only adding to the problem.

According to the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, by raising the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67, the Conservative government will drive up the number of people living under the low income cutoff from 6% to 17%.

By changing the eligibility age for old age security, the federal government will download responsibility for more seniors onto Quebec and the other provinces, which will be forced to spend more on social assistance.

In fact, once the change is made, the Canadian government could save $6.9 billion a year while the provinces will lose more than $450 million a year and will have to increase spending on social assistance by $164 million in 2030.

As economics professor and co-author of the study, Jean-Yves Duclos, said:

The main problem with the reform is that it disproportionately attacks the poorest people and will have less of an impact on those with means, who do not often receive old age security benefits or the guaranteed income supplement.

The fight against poverty, particularly among seniors, is is central to our political action. In February 2011, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard moved a motion in the House of Commons that called on the Prime Minister to lift seniors out of poverty in the next budget. The motion read as follows:

That this House reject calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada’s seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and call on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors’ poverty a cornerstone of the next budget.

Unfortunately, and this does not surprise me, the motion was rejected by the Conservative government. It is clear that guaranteeing a suitable retirement for our seniors is not the government's priority.

Unlike the Conservatives, who increased the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67, the NDP is proposing real measures for improving financial security for seniors. We understand how exasperated and frustrated seniors are about the cost of living and the lack of support during the aging process. We are fighting relentlessly to protect pension plans so that people with disabilities, seniors and all Canadians can live with dignity and security in their retirement.

To that end, we have come up with a plan for fighting poverty and helping seniors. We are proposing that the federal government improve the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan by gradually doubling the amount of benefits over seven years from 25% to 50% of pensionable earnings.

What is more, we are calling on the federal government to gradually improve the guaranteed income supplement. We are calling for investment in home care and services, through the public health care system. Measures for making prescription drugs safer and more affordable should also be adopted.

Finally, we call for investments in social housing and, of course, in public transit. In fact, my colleague's bill is part of a larger NDP program to help Canada's seniors.

Poverty is a big concern for me, especially poverty among seniors. I was particularly shocked to learn that because of the dithering of the Liberal and Conservative governments in contacting those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, 160,000 seniors eligible for the supplement were not receiving any payments. The government had known about this problem since 2011, but it insisted on maintaining its red tape. It is estimated that, for the whole of Canada, this helped the government generate savings of $300 million on the backs of its poorest seniors.

In March 2012, I proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act to provide for automatic enrolment for the GIS. My bill forced the federal government to take the necessary steps to reach recipients. A few weeks after I introduced my bill, the government finally picked it up and proposed a proactive mechanism to contact eligible seniors.

In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to support the exceptional bill introduced by my colleague from Laval—Les Îles to ensure that all seniors can age with dignity.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, although the Conservative government promised not to raise taxes, its 2013 budget contains several hidden tax hikes that will cost taxpayers dearly. The increased cost of parking at the Saint-Eustache hospital, which will rise to $7 per day, is a concrete example of this new policy. The Conservatives are putting a tax on illness by targeting the families who use the hospital. While the Conservatives' patronage gravy train is going full speed, they are penalizing Canadian families.

Would my Liberal colleague comment on that?

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this government's actions are absolutely shameful. I am outraged that it would dare impose a 41st gag order on this Parliament, this time concerning Bill S-8, especially given that this bill contains significant flaws. In particular, these legislative measures will make first nations responsible for water supply systems, which have already proven to be inadequate, without giving them the funding and the means to construct systems that are better adapted to their needs.

Last year, the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay told the government about the heartbreaking situation in the community of Attawapiskat. It is clear that first nations are not a priority for the government. Why are the Conservatives not taking action?

[Science and Technology, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised by this government's arrogance when it brags about supporting science. On the contrary, no government since Confederation has been so hard on scientists. The government is notorious for showing distrust of and disdain for science and fact-based policies. I can provide some examples.

This government sent layoff notices to 11% of its 17,000 scientists. This government also muzzled scientists, librarians and even government archivists. This Conservative government cut funding allocated to fundamental research and prioritized private-sector research over public scientific research. This government also cut funding to research that could embarrass them politically, particularly in the area of climate change. It stacked boards of directors and it made changes to the priorities of granting councils. Finally, this government redirected funding to benefit star researchers at the expense of young researchers.

I could go on and on, but I do not have the time. I will conclude with a hope that in 2015, Canadians will vote for a government that believes in the freedom of science and that will govern on the basis of facts instead of ideological biases.