Laurin Liu

[Science and technology, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to reach their figure of $9 billion, they have shown a great deal of creativity.

It is nonsense, and the government is taking Canadians for fools. The Conservative government may well brag about having invested more money in science than any other government, but the facts say otherwise.

The most recent report from Statistics Canada confirms that last year, the Conservative government applied a 6% cut to funding for science and technology, and laid off 1,500 employees involved in scientific and technological activity.

Returning to the question of fundamental research, I will remind the Conservatives that the Jenkins report recommended that NRCC institutes doing fundamental research become affiliated with one or more universities.

However, with persistent cuts in fundamental research capacity everywhere in Canada, it is difficult to find concrete evidence that the government is making provision for fundamental research.

Our government should be investing for the long term, but unfortunately it lacks vision.

[Science and technology, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to return to a question I raised on February 1, when I asked the Minister of Industry to clarify his government’s plans for National Research Council Canada.

For a long time, the National Research Council has been showing the way for progress in science and research in Canada, but the underhanded changes made by the Conservatives threaten to eclipse this venerable institution.

In budget 2013, we see that National Research Council Canada will receive $121 million to continue its restructuring. Despite the insistence of the opposition and key figures in industry, however, and despite the innumerable questions the NDP has asked during committee meetings, it is impossible to determine the government’s overall plan for the NRC.

The minister cannot really tell us that he wants to reorient the organization to suit the needs of business. More detail is required before the funding is approved.

What lines will be dropped? We already know that magnetic resonance is no longer in this government’s plans.

What are the other areas that will be dropped? How many research institutions will be closed?

We still do not know what will become of the 1,000 scientists who work at NRC. How many scientists will be laid off? I am eager to see whether the minister can at least answer that question shortly.

A number of changes in philosophy imposed on the institution are already causing frustration. For example, the Minister of State for Science and Technology has stated publicly that he wanted the NRC to become a single toll-free window, a concierge service for industry.

Is that the goal of the minister responsible for the NRC: to transform it into industry’s sidekick?

NRCC also has to give up peer-reviewed articles as success indicators, as confirmed by its President, John McDougall, appearing before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology—another disturbing example of how the institution is moving away from its roots, whereas its mandate is supposedly being recentered.

Scientists have good reason not to trust this government, which on 20 March 2013 rejected an NDP motion calling upon the Conservative government, among other things, to recognize the importance of public science and fundamental research. Canadians were shocked to see the Prime Minister rising in this House to vote against science.

How can we reject the principle of public science, and disparage fundamental research? Yet this is what the Conservatives did by voting against our motion.

Last month, together with the official opposition’s science and technology critic, I attended a series of meetings with senior U.S. officials in Washington to discuss science policy.

We were able to note that unlike the Conservative government, the Americans, both in the public sector and in the private sector, are making huge investments in science.

While Canada devotes 1.8% of its gross domestic product to research and development, our neighbours to the south are now investing 3% of their GDP in research and development. That is almost double, taking into consideration the relative size of our economies.

I believe Canadians expect better of this Conservative government.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when the government talks about science and technology, it clearly has no credibility.

In fact, last year, the Conservatives cut science and technology funding by 6%. The funding for science and technology in Canada is nothing like the funding provided by other countries and jurisdictions in the world.

Why does the Conservative government insist on closing down research centres that focus on the environment, Canada's north, our waters and rivers? Why does it insist on governing without looking at scientific data?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise in this House of Commons, because the government is imposing yet another gag order to prevent members from asking the government questions and from holding it to account on a bill that it has introduced in the House.

Let me repeat that this bill is amending dozens of Canadian laws. I must also mention that it is ridiculous that the member opposite is talking about science when the Conservatives have made cuts to science and technology. It is also ridiculous that he is talking about infrastructure, because the Conservatives announced in this budget that they would spend less in that area.

The bill deserves to be debated in the House of Commons, because this budget will slow down the economy at a time when more and more Canadians are looking for jobs.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to be a little confused this morning, but I will let it slide, since it is Monday morning.

In committee, they had the opportunity to oppose the bill. When they had the chance to move amendments, they did nothing. They also opposed all the amendments proposed by the NDP.

Could the Liberal member name one amendment proposed by the NDP and explain why he is opposed to it?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-476 introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. This bill would make the Parliamentary Budget Officer an officer of Parliament separate from and independent of the government, just like the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

The first Parliamentary Budget Officer took office in 2008. His mandate is to provide Parliament with independent analysis of the state of the nation's finances, the government estimates and trends in the national economy and, at the request of any parliamentary committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

In fact, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is replete with economists, tax experts, accountants and other experts in public accounting and economic forecasting. Their mandate is to provide neutral and professional advice to parliamentarians who can thus properly analyze the government's expenditures. The Globe and Mail hit the nail on the head when it described the usefulness of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the following terms:

With better information to scrutinize the financial decisions of the government the PBO enhances the ability of Parliamentarians to hold the government to account. Moreover, the PBO provides a source of credible cost estimates for new initiatives proposed by Parliamentarians, allowing them to contribute more to policy debates. The government has the vast and deep resources of the Ministry of Finance for these tasks; the PBO helps Parliament keep pace.

Since this position was created, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done extraordinary work and has called into question the Conservatives' budget projections, in spite of the fact that he was not given all the tools he needed to do his job properly.

Let us not forget that during the 2008 election campaign, at the height of the war in Afghanistan, the government refused to provide the real cost of the military mission and the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the cost of this war was much higher than we had thought. Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, determined that the war in Afghanistan was going to cost Canadians $18 billion. This clearly shows how important the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to the strength of our democracy. Without the information provided by Kevin Page on the cost of the war in Afghanistan, voters would have had to vote for a government without knowing all the facts about a fundamental public policy.

Let us also remember that Kevin Page released a very important report in March 2011, in which he concluded that the Conservative government was deliberately underestimating the cost of the F-35 fighter jets. While the Minister of National Defence claimed that the 65 F-35s would cost only $14.7 billion, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the bill would come to over $29 billion. That important report forced the Conservative government to go back to the drawing board.

We could also mention the report that Kevin Page released in February 2012 on old age security. While the Conservatives claimed that they had to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 to deal with the retirement of the baby boomers, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the federal government had exaggerated the expected financial crisis and that the old age security program was actually completely sustainable.

The Conservatives were very upset about these three reports on Afghanistan, the F-35s and the sustainability of the old age security program. They even went after the former Parliamentary Budget Officer because he repeatedly pointed out their poor fiscal management.

I hope that I have shown just how important it is to have an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer who can force the government to be accountable to MPs and the Canadians it represents.

[Government Programs, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that the Conservatives gave $20 million to a number of universities and schools, many of which have policies that are inconsistent with the Canadian charter, particularly with respect to homosexuality. The Canadian Association of University Teachers put a fine point on it: taxpayers' money should not be used to fund schools with discriminatory practices.

What criteria are the Conservatives using to decide which institutions to fund?

[Petitions, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House of Commons a petition that opposes the provisions contained in the Act to implement certain provisions of the budget that deal with the power to define “suitable employment” and “reasonable and customary efforts to obtain employment”, as well as the creation of the social security tribunal, because these provisions will impoverish entire economic sectors of our country and will not improve access to employment insurance or the matching of workers' skills with job vacancies.

[CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since I have only six minutes to speak to Bill C-461, I would simply like to say that I am strongly opposed to it.

In my opinion, it is another ridiculous, ideology-driven bill, which the Conservatives are using to muzzle institutions that are not to their liking. Under the guise of increasing transparency at the CBC, the Conservatives are using this bill to weaken the public broadcaster.

The bill's sponsor, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, already shared his true feelings during the last election when he said the following to a local chamber of commerce:

I don’t know that we need a national broadcaster in 2011. … We have to wean them off … of the taxpayer’s dollar....

In December 2011, he told The Globe and Mail that he and other Conservative members were urging cabinet ministers to make more aggressive cuts to the CBC. What the Conservatives are really trying to do with this bill is dismantle the crown corporation.

We need to understand that this underhanded attack on the public broadcaster is widely supported in Conservative circles and by this government. In June 2003, when the Broadcasting Act was undergoing a thorough review at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Alliance—the precursor to the Conservative Party—clearly stated its policy on the public broadcaster in a dissenting report that said: “We would significantly reduce CBC operating subsidy by commercialization of CBC television.”

The Prime Minister himself has said on several occasions that he wanted the CBC to get to the point where it no longer needed parliamentary subsidies. In May 2004, for example, he made the following statement:

I’ve suggested that government subsidies in support of CBC’s services should be to those things that…do not have commercial alternatives.

As we can see, the Conservatives' aversion to the public broadcaster is in their DNA. The Conservatives think that the ideal public broadcaster is a dying, insignificant and insipid broadcaster. It is also important to note that the Conservatives started undermining the public broadcaster as soon as they had a majority government. In 2012, they announced $200 million in ideological cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada. These cuts had an impact on the quality and quantity of services, on both the information and the entertainment sides of things. Let me give you a few examples.

The mandate of RDI and Espace Musique was reduced in the regions. Regional programming was affected, especially in French-language minority communities. Regional stations' music libraries will be eliminated. Broadcasting by all general television stations will be centralized, and half the air time reserved for the regions on Espace Musique will be cut.

Of course, programming will get hit. On French television, dramatic series will have fewer episodes, there will be fewer major productions and management intends to reduce RDI's production costs. I should also mention that proposals for specialized sports stations and children's programming will be scrapped. There has also been a lot of disruption to CBC radio.

Canada's international influence also melted like snow in the hot sun when the government axed Radio Canada International. In all, 650 people will lose their jobs by 2015, including 243 employees of the French service. When the Conservatives brought down their budget last week, they took the opportunity to further reduce the CBC's budget by cutting an additional $42 million.

The NDP believes in a strong, independent public broadcaster funded in part through ad revenues and in part by parliamentary votes in recognition of the service it provides to Canadians in terms of sharing local information and promoting our cultural wealth.

The Conservatives' budget cuts are forcing the CBC to rely more and more on ad revenues and to operate like a commercial broadcaster. The government is asking the public broadcaster to compete with major conglomerates such as Bell Media, CTV and Quebecor, without ensuring that there is a level playing field.

I would like the sponsor of the bill to answer the following question: if his real objective is transparency, why should the CBC be the only one to have to disclose its production costs? Why not ask the same of private broadcasters, who also receive public funds?

I oppose this bill, which is a backdoor attack against the CBC, because Bill C-461 targets the capacity of the crown corporation to remain competitive and independent. What is more, this bill is unnecessary since the crown corporation has significantly improved its access to information practices since the 2006 bill on government accountability. Members will recall that it was through the collaboration of the NDP and the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that the CBC was brought under the Access to Information Act. I want to reiterate my opposition to this bill and my support for the CBC and the work that it does.

[Science and Technology, March 21st, 2013]

When the Conservatives talk about science, they have no credibility. Our scientists must be able to carry out their research without fear of any political repercussions. Despite the public outcry provoked by the closure of the Experimental Lakes Area, the Conservatives continue to deny the inestimable value of that research. That closure will be devastating to the scientific community.

Will the Conservatives cancel that budget cut and stop waging war against our scientists?