Laurin Liu

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, not only is this Conservative government the laughingstock of the international community when it comes to science and technology, it has also drawn criticism from space.

Yesterday, we heard Commander Hadfield plead for a real science and technology policy. He said, "Science is absolutely essential in Quebec and in Canada....Science is essential and needs to be developed in the long term." That is not what this government is doing.

Will the Conservative government leave Commander Hadfield hanging?

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservative government's policy is undermining our international reputation. I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention. We also know that this government does not have a clear plan to provide the necessary framework for science and technology in Canada.

I would like to quote from an article written by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton concerning his version of a potential policy for science and technology. In the article, he suggests that instead of funding public science, that money should be offered to researchers as prizes, which I think is ridiculous. He boasted about a recommendation made to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, saying:

In Canada, the House of Commons transport committee unanimously made the cost-neutral recommendations to the government to “redirect a portion of its existing research and its innovation budget away from institutions and toward substantial prize money”.

I find that position completely ridiculous.

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's policy makes absolutely no sense. We know that the Experimental Lakes Area is part of a unique program that is useful for science, the protection of our waters and research on our environment and our health.

I would also like to come back to what the parliamentary secretary said earlier about the migration of brains, because we know that the brain drain is a reality, as I said in my speech. Dr. John Hepburn said that we are now starting to lose talented mid-career researchers to the EU. Furthermore, according to a survey on the concerns of Canadian manufacturers and exporters, Canadian businesses are thinking about moving their research and development activities to other countries that are more open to industrial innovation.

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives continue to cut funding for science, people will not choose to stay.

The numbers speak volumes, and I would like to share some with the House. We know that investment in research and development in Canada amounted to 1.92% of our gross domestic product in 2009. That is almost one whole percentage point lower than the United States' total investment in research and development. It is also lower than the OECD average, which is 2.33%.

It is therefore clear that the Conservative government has nothing to be proud of when it comes to its record on research and development. Clearly, if the Conservative government continues to cut funding for science and basic research, Canadian scientists will continue to leave.

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of speaking today on this NDP motion, which is aimed at protecting public science and the freedom of speech of scientists. This is a crucial issue because public science has direct implications for the air we breath, the water we drink and the environment around us.

Again this week, the Minister of State for Science and Technology boasted that the Canadian government had never invested so much in science. However, he forgot to mention that his government blindly made cuts to the industrial research tax credit program. By reducing the tax credit provided by the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, the Conservatives are trying to save $500 million at the expense of entrepreneurs and people working in innovative companies.

The Minister of State for Science and Technology also forgot to mention that it is his government that made cuts to basic research and a dozen or so research programs at Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Library and Archives Canada, National Research Council Canada, Statistics Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the National Council of Welfare and the First Nations Statistical Institute.

We should also remember that it was this government that eliminated the research tools and instruments grants program, put a moratorium on the major resources support program of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, cut funding for the PEARL research station in the high Arctic, cut the centres of excellence budget by 17% and made the irresponsible decision to abolish funding for the experimental lakes program, a world-renowned research program.

But the most telling statistic is gross domestic expenditures on research and development—an important indicator of research and development performed in Canada—which has fallen to its lowest level in 15 years under this government. In 2011, gross spending on research and development represented 1.74% of GDP, a significant reduction from 2.09% in 2001.

The reduction in research spending undermines our ability to innovate. Again this year, Canada fell two positions in the innovation rankings by the World Economic Forum.

This all goes to show that the Conservatives are not credible when they say they are the champions of research and innovation. By cutting government programs and support for industrial research, they are setting a bad example for businesses, which are delaying their investments, and causing an exodus of researchers.

According to Dr. Matthew Stanbrook, a respirologist and editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal:

The erosion of research funding in federal budgets raises concerns over a brain drain.

And he says that we are already seeing this brain drain. People are going to countries like the United States and Great Britain.

Dr. John Hepburn, vice-president, research and international, at the University of British Columbia, noted that we are now starting to lose talented mid-career researchers to the European Union. The EU framework program, France and Germany are all increasing their basic research envelope. He added that Germany is increasing funding for basic research by 5% and that European countries can do targeted recruitment and they are making spectacular offers. That is his main concern.

And on the business side, BlackBerry is threatening to move its research activities out of Canada. In 2011, this company invested $1.5 billion in research and development.

According to a Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters survey of Canadian businesses, 18% of businesses indicated that they will move their research activities and 69% said that they will reduce their research budget if the Conservatives go ahead with this bad policy.

In addition to having to work with increasingly tight budgets and having less access to cutting-edge research tools, Canadian scientists are having to deal with an increasingly poisoned atmosphere while the government tries to enforce a kind of law of silence.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have tightened the leash on scientists.

On the one hand, the focus of research is controlled more and more by the government. Basic research that satisfies scientific curiosity is no longer valued. However, what the Conservatives do not understand is that basic research often leads to our greatest discoveries.

On the other hand, the government has tried to restrict scientists' freedom of speech in a number of ways: they cannot attend scientific conferences; they are not allowed to speak directly to specialized journalists; and certain studies that could contradict the policies and ideology of the Conservative government are not published.

I have come up with some particularly absurd examples of government censorship. Scientist Scott Dallimore was told that the minister's office had to approve his message before he spoke to the media. His research was about flooding that occurred in northern Canada 13,000 years ago.

I have another example of this government's paranoia. An Ottawa Citizen journalist called the National Research Council to obtain information about a Canada-U.S. study on the geometry of snowflakes. It only took him 15 minutes to contact a NASA scientist, but the NRC response was late and provided only after 11 officials exchanged 50 emails.

The Conservative government's attitude towards its scientists is problematic in many ways. Taxpayers have paid for these studies and therefore it seems only right that they be published and promoted.

Censorship affects democracy. Public policies must be based on science, not ideological prejudices. With its reign of terror, the Conservative government is trying to silence scientists who could contradict it. That is unacceptable.

Furthermore, Canada's ability to innovate relies on the rapid and open dissemination of the results of scientific and technical research. Knowledge is acquired from the experiments conducted. It can be compared to the construction of a house: it is built brick by brick, fact by fact. If the government holds back information, science does not advance as quickly.

In closing, I would like to say a few words about one of these programs—the Experimental Lakes Area program—which is mentioned in the third part of today's motion.

In the previous budget, the Conservative government announced that it would stop funding the Experimental Lakes Area program at the end of the month. The cancellation of this program by the Conservatives marks the end of 44 years of continuous research to improve fisheries and water quality.

New buyers have expressed an interest in the site, but the Conservatives are already dismantling the Experimental Lakes Area research facility, which will make transferring the site to a new operator much more difficult.

Our hopes that the open-air laboratory would remain under federal management were dashed, but will the Conservative government at the very least not sabotage the program so that the site can retain its scientific value in the long term?

I hope that the Conservative government will use the 2013 budget it is introducing tomorrow to fix its mistakes.

The government must invest more in Canada's research capacity. It must stop firing and harassing federal scientists, and it must provide better support for companies that want to invest in research and development in Canada. Thousands of good jobs depend on that investment.

In closing, I believe that we must leave future generations a legacy instead of the huge environmental debt that the Conservatives are running up.

I therefore ask all members of the House to support the NDP motion.

[The Environment, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives have decided to attack science and take away funding, they should at least maintain the facilities in good condition, in order to facilitate the transition for the new operator. Logic would dictate that they should not dismantle the facilities until the new operator is installed. However, that would only happen if they really cared about science.

Why is the Conservative government destroying the science facilities in the Experimental Lakes Area?

[The Environment, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Experimental Lakes Area cost $2 million, and the Conservatives spent $21 million in media monitoring and $16 million in budget advertising. Given the choice between science and propaganda, the Conservatives chose propaganda.

With cuts to infrastructure, the Conservatives are seriously compromising the future of the Experimental Lakes Area because the new owners will have to rebuild the research facilities.

Why are they attacking research and environmental protection?

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to wish everyone a happy International Women's Day. I would like to encourage all parliamentarians in the House to continue fighting for women's rights. We unfortunately have a Conservative government that views the struggle for women's rights as an advertising campaign, but we must nevertheless work together to take real action.

I am very pleased this afternoon to speak to the bill of my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes, which amends the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act to correct the injustice done to parents in the case of multiple births and adoptions. I want to thank her for her excellent work with families.

We have heard Conservative members say at length that parental leave can be improved in Canada. Before going any further, I would like to compare the parental leave offered in Canada with that offered in other jurisdictions elsewhere in the world.

In Canada, parents are entitled to 35 weeks at 65% of their salary, to a maximum of $501 a week. In Sweden, parents are entitled to 47 weeks at full salary or 69 weeks of leave at 80% of their salary. In Norway, parents are entitled to 44 weeks at full salary and those in Germany are entitled to 47 weeks at full salary. It is therefore entirely possible to improve this program, as my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes is trying to do.

The Canada Labour Code currently draws no distinction between cases involving single or multiple births or adoptions. Parental leave in both cases is 35 weeks. That leave may be taken entirely by a single parent or by both parents, simultaneously or consecutively. Parents of twins and triplets are doubly in need of a break.

The bill amends the Canada Labour Code to increase the amount of leave to a maximum of 72 weeks in cases of multiple births or adoptions. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum number of weeks during which parental benefits may be paid in the case of multiple births or adoptions to 70.

While the birth of a child is a joyful occasion, it is important to recognize that parents of multiple births face increased physical, financial and psychosocial stresses. Having a child—especially in today's world, where both partners usually have to work and grandparents often live in another city—requires a lot of time and effort from parents. Of course, when it is a multiple birth or multiple adoption, parents' responsibilities increase exponentially.

It is unfortunate that the Canada Labour Code and the employment insurance system do not take this simple reality into account. I am sure everyone would agree that it takes more hands and more energy to care for two children than just one. There are two mouths to feed and twice as many diapers to change. There is twice as much care to give and, often, half as much sleep for parents.

It is important to also recognize that multiple births often lead to medical complications. In particular, twins are often born prematurely, and mothers who give birth to twins often have to stay longer in hospital in order to avoid fatigue and other health problems.

Like my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes, I believe it is important to provide the parents of multiple births with more support. They need to be given enough time to deal with the challenges associated with a multiple birth.

As we all know, it was a couple from Ottawa who ignited the spark that led to this bill. They have been fighting in the courts since 2009. Christian Martin and his wife, Paula Critchley, both applied for 35 weeks of parental leave, or 70 weeks in total, when their twin daughters, Lucie and Athena, were born in April 2009.

The couple argued that since parents of children born a year apart are entitled to two 35-week periods of parental leave, parents of twins should receive the same privileges.

In September 2009, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission agreed with them. Christian Martin was given 35 weeks of parental leave and his partner was also given 35 weeks—one parental leave per child. However, an umpire and a Federal Court judge overturned the decision because the Employment Insurance Act allows for 35 weeks of parental leave for care given to one or more children resulting from the same pregnancy.

Now Christian and Paula want to take their case to the Supreme Court. They feel that the Employment Insurance Act violates the right to equality set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will see what will happen with this case, which is so important for families, but I think we could solve the problem right now by passing Bill C-464, which is before the House this afternoon.

It is even more important that we pass this bill because the number of multiple pregnancies is constantly climbing. In Canada, the explosion in the number of multiple births in the last 30 years is consistent with that found in the rest of the developed world. Between 1974 and 1990, birth of twins has risen 35% per 100,000 successful pregnancies. Over the same period, the incidence of triplets and higher order multiple births has increased over 250%. In Quebec in 1980, there was one twin birth for every 54 births. In 2010, that number has risen to one twin birth for every 33 births. The number of births from multiple pregnancies is going to rise even more because more people are using assisted reproductive technology.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that the cost of this bill is reasonable. The parliamentary officer recently reviewed his first estimate and determined that extending the parental benefits period under the employment insurance system would benefit 6,700 families a year, for an initial annual cost of approximately $40 million.

I was quite shocked to learn that the Conservatives are opposed to this bill when they claim to want to help families. The Conservatives like to boast about their measures that are supposed to help families, but in reality, they are abandoning many parents. For example, in 2007, they implemented a children's fitness tax credit. It certainly made for nice photo ops during the election campaign. However, what they did not say was that the tax credit mainly helped wealthy families who had enough money to register their children in organized activities. People had to spend $1,000 to get a $150 credit. Of course, I am not against encouraging young people to play sports. However, I would simply like to point out that the government is doing little bits here and there just to try to win votes and, if it would get its priorities straight, it would not have any difficulty finding the $40 million needed for this bill.

I would also like to remind hon. members that the Conservatives opposed another NDP bill that would have helped Canadian families by improving pregnant women's access to healthy and safe working environments. On May 9, 2012, they opposed Bill C-307, which was introduced by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. This bill proposed amending the Canada Labour Code in order to allow female workers to avail themselves of the provisions of provincial legislation regarding preventive withdrawal when those provisions are more beneficial. This is another example of the Conservatives betraying families.

In my opinion, Bill C-464 is a good investment because it allows parents to get back on their feet after a multiple pregnancy and ensures that the newborns get a good start in life by giving parents more time to look after them.

In closing, I would like to point out that my colleague's bill is supported by Multiple Births Canada, an organization that advocates for the equality of parents of multiples, and by many other organizations. I hope that the Conservatives will not miss this new opportunity to prove that they have not completely abandoned Quebec families and that, in the end, they will support this bill. This bill must be sent to committee so that we can hear from Canadian parents and the organizations that represent them.

[Employment Insurance, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for butchering employment insurance wants to fix something that is not broken.

The provinces get $2 billion for training programs to help unemployed workers develop the skills they need to find work.

Even though nobody objects to that, the Conservatives are once again eliminating a program that works.

Why not just renew the training transfer?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is not fair to Canadians.

On the one hand, the Conservative government is telling Canadians and families in my riding to tighten their belts. On the other hand, a number of senators are abusing public funds. Canadians obviously do not accept the Conservative Party's message.

I would also like to address another point that my colleague raised: the fact that this chamber, which is made up of people elected by Canadians, is supposed to carefully study legislation and pass well thought-out bills.

We already have the tools to do this—parliamentary committees. We are supposed to invite experts and members of civil society to appear before committees to talk about laws. However, the Conservatives have abused their power in committee and forced meetings to be held in camera.

We have also seen the Conservative members reject all the amendments proposed by members of civil society and the opposition parties during studies of bills in the House.