Laurin Liu

[Science and Technology, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to a question that I raised on March 21, when my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and I condemned the Conservatives' war against science. The previous day, the entire Conservative caucus had voted against an NDP motion to defend publicly funded, basic scientific research.

I think it is worthwhile for me to read the motion in order to show that the Conservatives acted in bad faith when they voted against science. The motion stated:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making; (b) federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings with their colleagues and the public; and (c) the federal government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding, until a new operator is found, to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility to pursue its unique research program.

As you can see, it was not a bad motion, yet the Conservatives voted against it.

Several things have changed since we debated this motion two months ago. For example, I am pleased to note that the Experimental Lakes Area research station has resumed its activities following an eleventh-hour intervention by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Also, in May, the Conservative government confirmed that it wanted the NRC to orient its priorities toward the needs of private companies. No more basic research at the NRC. No more magnetic resonance research.

I should note that the Conservative government's decision to change tack and direct its investments toward commercial applications is contrary to the strategy adopted by champions of innovation.

I went to Washington last April to meet with senior American science policy officials. I found that they want to achieve a balanced approach. They believe that basic research and the social sciences are no less important than applied sciences. I read an interesting speech by President Obama on the subject. I would like to quote from that speech.

One of the things I have tried to do over the past four years and will continue to do over the next four years is to make sure that we are promoting the integrity of our scientific process, that not just in the physical and life sciences, but also in fields like psychology and anthropology and economics and political science—all of which are sciences because scholars develop and test hypotheses and subject them to peer review—but in all the sciences, we have got to make sure that we are supporting the idea that they are not subject to politics, that they're not skewed by an agenda, that, as I said before, we make sure that we go where evidence leads us. That's why we've got to keep investing in these sciences.

Since science exists in a world without borders, and since the Americans are our primary partners in science and innovation, I hope that the Conservative government will heed this call for wisdom and adopt a more balanced approach. The Science, Technology and Innovation Council released a report stating that, even though Canada ranked 16th in investment and research in 2005, it had fallen to 23rd place by 2011. That is the Conservatives' record on science and technology.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

These targets are essential for several reasons. Canada has become an international laughingstock because the government refuses to meet its targets under international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol. In addition, the Minister of the Environment withdrew Canada from the protocol in 2011, without consulting Canadians or even the other countries.

The international community was not even aware that Canada was pulling out until the very last minute. The government refuses to take positive action on the environment and is waiting for a Senate bill to do so—because we know that Bill S-15 originated in the Senate. I urge the Conservatives to listen to Canadian scientists and environmentalists.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to answer the parliamentary secretary's questions about changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but we know that these changes were included in the omnibus bill passed last year by the Conservative government.

We really did not have the time to debate these changes in the House of Commons. That is another sign that the Conservative government refuses to be accountable to the Canadian people. Canadians across the country expressed their opposition to the changes made by the Conservative government. Moreover, the government sabotaged the consultation process for these environmental assessments. That is what I am hearing from my constituents and that is disturbing.

A number of Conservative members have risen in the House of Commons to talk about conservation. However, I would really like to hear from the members who represent the following areas: Riding Mountain in Manitoba; Point Pelee in Ontario; Banff and Jasper in Alberta; and Prince Albert in Saskatchewan.

Canadians have had to volunteer to maintain national parks because of the Conservative government's cuts.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who spoke before me, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. She gave a wonderful overview of Bill S-15. I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this Senate bill.

We know that in 2011 the federal government and the provincial NDP government negotiated an agreement to make Sable Island a national park. Bill S-15 was drafted as a result of that agreement.

Basically, Bill S-15 proposes that Sable Island become a national park reserve. It should be noted that unlike a national park, which does not allow for aboriginal land claims within the park area, a national park reserve designation allows the government to continue land claim negotiations.

That detail is very important here because the Mi'kmaq people of Nova Scotia are currently asserting ancestral rights to the island.

We must acknowledge the presence of first nations on the territory now known as Canada. As my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned, we need to ensure that there are proper consultations with first nations.

I hope that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will invite first nations to appear before the committee so they can share their views. We know that the bill's preamble is not binding. We must ensure that this bill reflects the rights of first nations when it is implemented.

All the members of the House have said that Sable Island is a place Canadians should be proud of. Canadians all across the country know of this long, narrow, crescent-shaped island in the north Atlantic, southeast of Nova Scotia, because of the wild horses that inhabit the island.

Over 190 plant species have been identified on Sable Island, and it is home to the world's largest grey seal colony in the world as well as 350 species of birds. That is why it is so important that we protect this Canadian ecological gem.

By the way, I would like to thank everyone who works at the Centre d'interprétation de la nature de Boisbriand, in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. This interpretive nature centre is a natural, wooded conservation area that covers approximately 42,500 m² and borders the Mille-Îles river. Thanks to their efforts, our children and our children's children will be able to enjoy our flora and fauna as past generations were able to do.

I would like to commend them for their hard work in the area of conservation, since that is what we are talking about this afternoon. These people are making sure that future generations will be able to enjoy our natural resources. In my opinion, we need to consider the issue of intergenerational equality.

It is also important to mention that this Conservative government is leaving an ecological debt for future generations. We know that the federal government sabotaged parks by making cuts to national parks last year. For example, the government made $29 million in cuts to the parks' budget last year, and over 600 biologist and park interpreter jobs were lost.

These people will no longer be available in our national parks to share their ecological and scientific knowledge with Canadians across the country. We know that, in some cases, park interpreters are being replaced with interpretive signs.

We also know that the Prime Minister's Conservatives committed to meeting the conservation targets set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. However, they are not doing so.

Unfortunately, Canada is protecting only 10% of its land area and 1% of its waters. The Conservatives do not have a very good track record in this regard. I think that future generations will inherit this debt from this backward-thinking Conservative government.

What is more, the Conservative government has eliminated major environmental protection measures in Canada. Take for example the elimination of 98% of federal environmental assessments, the elimination of 98% of the measures to protect Canada's navigable waters and the elimination of measures to protect most fish habitats.

I was very sad to learn that the environment museum located in the Montreal Biosphere would open its doors for the last time this summer. In July 2012, the Conservative government made significant cuts to the Biosphere. Now, most of the staff is being cut.

We recently learned that Environment Canada has unilaterally decided to review the mandate of the environment museum, which will not survive if it no longer has any staff. The people who are being targeted are museum professionals, educators, guides, designers and technicians.

If the Conservative government really cared about sharing scientific and technical knowledge with the public, it would not have made these drastic cuts to our parks and museums, which are our country's true treasures.

That being said, I support the bill at second reading because it seeks to protect the history and beauty of Sept-Îles. I applaud the work done by the environmental groups who have joined forces to protect Sept-Îles.

As I said, I will be supporting this bill at second reading. However, I must say that the wording of this bill does raise some concerns. As my colleagues have already mentioned, the bill prohibits drilling within one nautical mile of the island, as well as drilling on the island's surface. However, in exceptional circumstances, exploration activities will be allowed on the island, which is a first in any national park. These exploration activities will be limited to those with a low impact on the environment. However, the bill fails to clearly define those exploration activities. I believe that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment needs to have a closer look at this issue in order to clearly define the term “low impact” and clearly define the exploration activities that will be allowed under this provision.

As it stands, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board will have to consult with Parks Canada before issuing licences for petroleum-related activities. The board would have the discretionary power to include in the terms and conditions any mitigation or remedial measures that the company must take.

I hope the Standing Committee on Environment will invite many experts in order to properly examine the bill. Having been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment, I have witnessed first-hand this government's unbalanced approach to conservation. The government muzzles Canadian scientists and refuses to listen to experts or scientists who work on conservation.

Throughout this parliamentary session, Conservative members who sit on the various committees have refused to adopt the amendments proposed by opposition members, even though those amendments were based on testimony from experts and reliable information gathered in committee. The goal of such amendments is always to improve bills and make them better, including through public consultation. For once I hope the government members will accept the amendments proposed in committee by opposition members, who work very hard on the committee.

I now look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is clear that she is well versed in the subject through her background in environmental law.

I have a question for her about the cuts the Conservative government made last year to the national parks. A number of national parks employees were laid off and will be replaced with signs. I was sad to hear this, because future generations could benefit from this wealth.

Has the hon. member gotten any reaction from her constituents on this?

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the former deputy environment critic and current deputy science and technology critic, I had the honour of serving on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The intrinsic value of our marine ecosystems is huge, and so is their economic value. Many jobs and the economies of coastal communities depend on these ecosystems.

Illegal fishing undermines Canada's efforts to conserve and manage resources to ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of the fisheries and protect marine ecosystems. This government's track record on conservation is poor. For one thing, it is refusing to acknowledge that climate change is undermining our conservation work.

What is the government doing to stop illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing?

[Government Expenditures, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need any lessons from the Conservatives about fiscal responsibility.

Instead of spewing such nonsense, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board could try to find the $3.1 billion he lost track of, or perhaps he could explain to us why he is so determined to ram through the budget implementation bill without any debate.

Are the Conservatives afraid to let Parliament do its work? Are they afraid of being held accountable to Canadians?

[Agriculture, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, her answer is in no way relevant to my question, but I will let it pass, since I am sure she was not really listening to what I was saying anyway.

She talked about this government's so-called support for basic research. I can only surmise that she was not aware of her government's recent revamping of the National Research Council. Perhaps she should do her homework before speaking on the subject in the House. As usual, this government's decisions are not based either on science or on facts.

Did the government carry out an impact study before sending 700 workforce adjustment notices to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada employees? What impact will these cuts have on economic activity in the agri-food industry? Can he assure us that the food Canadians eat will be safe? The answer to all of these questions is no, because no studies were done.

This is how the government typically does its job. There were no studies, and the cuts will have a tremendous impact on everybody, but the government does not care.

[Agriculture, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to follow up on a question I raised on May 10 regarding the dismissal of 100 or so workers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including many lab employees. According to the most recent union data, 700 employees at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada received work force adjustment notices, meaning that they were told that their services may no longer be required.

Most of the job cuts are at the science and technology branch and the market and industry services branch. Notice was given to 79 scientists, 29 engineers and 14 biologists. Clearly, these cuts will have a significant impact on the department's scientific work. As the union president said, these cuts threaten our international competitiveness and directly impact one of Canada's key economic activities: food production.

In 2012, 150 members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada received a work force adjustment notice. Last year, nine experimental farms in Canada had to shut down because of the Conservatives' irrational budget cuts.

One particular example comes to mind, and that is the disastrous closure of the experimental farm in Frelighsburg, Quebec. That institution had been in existence for more than 40 years. It worked on important research on plant diseases, insects and genetic improvement of apple trees.

This example shows that, contrary to what the Conservatives claim, cutting funding for science does have repercussions. In the case of the Frelighsburg farm, permanent jobs and a number of student jobs were eliminated, but most importantly, we lost 40 years of scientific data and we are compromising the future of an important agricultural sector. The Conservatives do not understand this.

These massive cuts began in 2012, and it is now obvious that scientists are being targeted. A simple calculation is proof enough. The government announced that it would eliminate a total of 19,200 positions, or 7% of public service jobs. When the cuts were announced, the Professional Institute of the Public Service represented 17,000 scientists. Of these, 11% received layoff notices. As we can see, scientific positions are overrepresented in the layoffs. It is obvious that the Conservative government is using the cuts as an excuse to get rid of researchers.

We know that these ideological cuts to science stem from the Conservatives' sheer ignorance of and contempt for research. I would just like to share an anecdote that perfectly illustrates this contempt.

Last week, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was visiting the Quebec Metallurgy Centre and said: “Instead of funding researchers who discover nothing, I prefer to fund discoverers.” That is ridiculous.

According to the minister's logic, were Agriculture and Agri-food Canada scientists let go because they discover nothing? Do NRC researchers doing basic research not deserve funding because their research does not have immediate industrial applications? The minister's logic is ridiculous.

I am waiting for this government's response. When will this government admit that its short-term vision is compromising our future?

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

This bill is far from perfect. We need only look at the work of the Senate committee and the debate that was held in the Senate to see that this bill has some serious flaws. That is why we want to study it further in committee and hear from experts to find out what can be changed.

One of the flaws in this bill is that many of the terms are rather vague, including the word “accessibility”. What is meant by accessibility? When the bill says that information is accessible, does it mean that the information is public, or does it mean that the information will be accessible to people who have special needs, for example?

Can my colleague comment on the senators' work and the flaws in this bill?