Marilyn Gladu

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2021]

Madam Chair, I am very concerned about the amount of debt the government has racked up, $460 billion before budget 2021, which brought in another $101 billion. If we look at the debt of $30,000 that this has added to every Canadian, and I did the math, that is $250 a month, every month for the next 10 years, assuming no interest. That is for everyone: men, their wives, their children, every Canadian.

I do not see a plan to eliminate the debt. Could the minister comment on what that plan is?

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2021]

Madam Chair, that was a great answer for the child care question, not.

Let us move along, then. One of the files that I have has to do with the election. I noticed there was a section 91 change. This was something that came before the courts. Members will remember that in the previous session the government brought forward legislation to make it an offence to say false things about a candidate or public member, and the courts ruled that a violation of freedom of speech. Instead of respecting the courts' decision, now it has been put into a budget bill.

I did not see a line item that specifically had to do with that. Was it just that it was put into an omnibus bill with a phrase that says it applies to an election in the next six months, which I assume means the government intends to call an election in the next six months, or is there money in the estimates that I missed?

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2021]

Madam Chair, I would just point out to the minister that electric batteries are not the agriculture sector of Canada, which was my question.

Let us turn, then, to something that interests me as the chair of status of women, where we have been studying unpaid work and obviously looking at the child care issue. I see there is a pledge of $30 billion over five years, but it is contingent on the provinces matching that funding. What happens if the provinces cannot pay their half? Does that just become another broken election-year promise? What is the plan?

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2021]

Madam Chair, I did not hear any funding for any growth in the natural resources sector, which is 17% of our GDP.

Let us turn, then, to agriculture, which is 8% of our GDP. Can the minister talk about the funding and growth supports for agriculture?

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2021]

Madam Chair, I will expand it to the natural resources sector, because I did not see a lot in this budget for that, and it is 17% of our GDP. What are the measures and funding to spur growth in that sector?

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2021]

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton West, and I will be spending my time questioning the minister.

The minister has described budget 2021 as a growth budget, and I want to begin with the oil and gas sector, which is quite important for my riding. This is a sector across the country that has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of foreign investment. What is the funding end for measures of growth for this sector in these estimates?

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “A Study on the Implementation of the Pay Equity Act”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

As well, the committee is calling on the government to really accelerate the pace at which we are implementing these fixes on pay equity. Since 2015, when I was first elected, we have studied it and we are still waiting, so we urge the government to hasten the implementation.

[Standing Orders of the House, May 25th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Etobicoke North for bringing forward this motion.

The member for Etobicoke North and I have a history of trying to help science in Canada, which began when I was elected in 2015 and was named the critic for science. At the time, she was the Minister of Science. We got together and said we needed to make a plan that is good for science in Canada, because then whatever party is the government of the day will be doing the right thing in an area that is so important for Canadians.

Science creates jobs and opportunities. Canada is a leader. There are many areas of science where we are leading the world, and there are many areas of science where we need to participate, along with the rest of the people in the world. Then there are industries that we have where we need to maintain our scientific effort as we go along. All of these things are worth doing.

How does the government learn about all these things and study these things? This motion is calling on the House to put in place a standing committee that has science as its mandate. I think this is a very good thing.

In addition to the plan that I mentioned, I would say that as the first female engineer in the House of Commons, I have a great interest in science. In my career, I was involved in research. One of the first things I was involved in doing was developing artificial kidneys for dialysis. Later in my career, I developed plastics for the electronics industry and for personal care products. I worked in many industries, including medical and pharmaceutical, developing products there as well. I see the good effects that science can have for Canada.

The Naylor report, as members may recall, is a report that looked at science in Canada and made recommendations to the government on things that we should do. Happily, some of those things have been followed up on. The recommendation that is in the motion is something that would really advance the cause.

The way it works today in the House of Commons, we have science as sort of a sub-subject under the industry committee: innovation, economic development, whatever name of the day members want to talk about. The problem is that things are changing quickly in the world, and there are lots of things to focus on. When we look at that committee, it is looking at things from broadband Internet, which we know is a huge issue, to things that are affecting trade, areas of emerging economy, and all kinds of different studies are involved there. Many of them overlap with science, but if we start putting them in priority, science falls lower on the list.

I was also on the health committee when I was the shadow minister of health. This is another area where there are huge amounts of research being done in Canada. We are such a leader in brain research and vaccine research, and all kinds of hugely advanced things in the bioindustry. Again, when it is the health committee and we are in the middle of a pandemic, that has to be number one. The health committee has studied a huge number of things: pharmacare and a bunch of very important topics. Again, science ends up falling to the bottom of the pile, not because it is not important but in a relative sense. That makes it difficult. Some of the things we need to look at need to be looked at in detail. They are not simple to solve.

This is where a standing committee that looks into these things in detail and can provide the government with recommendations that it can then act on would be very helpful. Obviously, we have a chief science officer now. I am sure the work that is being done by her is excellent, but I am not privy to what that is. However, I expect that as she is being consulted in different ministries for different legislation that is coming forward or on issues of the day, there would be things they are not too sure about that need to be studied. That is an area where recommendations might be put forward to the committee to look into, things of that nature.

Again, we have the huge climate change task before us, how we are going to meet our targets, and the technology that is coming out of the green tech, clean tech, new energy, all these very exciting areas that might fall under another standing committee's portfolio, but likely would not have the priority to really get the attention they need. If we get this right, we would be able to take the leap.

There was a time when Canada was much more of a leader. As the competitive nature of science goes on, and considering that we are a smaller country, the amount of money that has been put into science has not always kept us at the front of the pack. There was a period of time when we slid from our position in the top 10 and went back a bit. We are starting to regain that. We have identified areas where Canada is leading. It is sitting at the table with other nations and is able to leverage what they are doing back into our plans.

When we look at the climate change issue, our own carbon footprint is less than 1.6% of the world's total. We could eliminate the whole thing and it would not have a huge, significant impact. What we can do, as Canadians, is leverage our technology. There are all kinds of carbon sequestration methods. There are all kinds of emissions reduction technologies out there, and there are the nuclear technologies that we have. All of these sectors will need things to drive them to success.

Over the full spectrum, some people want to focus on applied science while others want to focus on fundamental science. The reality is that both of those approaches are wrong. If we do not have fundamental science, we are not discovering the things that become the aha moments that give rise to some of the space-age technology that has been hugely profitable and created a lot of jobs. If we do not work on the applied science part of it, we do not get the collaboration among industry, universities and all the different areas that come together with concrete solutions that help in the shorter term. That is important.

Considerations such as the way companies are launched in the science industry, and how to make Canada competitive there, would get lost at some of the other committees. They simply would not be talked about.

As a woman in engineering, I would say that getting more women into science, technology, engineering and math is a big priority. Although we have come a long way in that respect, there is a long way to go. I can remember when I first started in engineering, I had to build a women's washroom everywhere I worked because there were none, and there were girlie pictures on the walls. I would say we have made lots of progress since then.

However, that is not to say we are at the percentages we need. I am disappointed to see that we are falling back, in some cases. We get women to enter these areas, but they do not stay. Why do they not stay? How do we motivate them to stay? Who will be looking at that? That is another area for a committee on science, which is dedicated to looking at this area and specifically the culture in it that may be very different from other workplaces, to work out.

When we think of crises of the day, a committee of this nature would provide extra flexibility for the government. In this pandemic, there was a lot to think about. There was testing to think about. There were vaccinations to think about. There were different protocols and looking at all the therapeutics that were coming forward. It is a lot for the government to take on. This is another instance in which having a committee dedicated to science to look at some of these specific mandates would be very helpful.

The government invests a lot of money in science. In the latest budget, $3 billion was brought forward. That was in line with what the Naylor report was calling for, and that is good. When we think about the amount of money it takes for a standing committee to operate, we are not talking about a lot of money in comparison to $3 billion. A lot of members of Parliament would have great interest in participating in such a committee.

I thank the member for Etobicoke North, and fully support having a committee dedicated to science to take Canada into the future and make us a leader there. It would be good for Canadians, it would create jobs and it would create prosperity. I urge everyone in the House to support this motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, May 25th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all his hard work. I share his concern with this budget. There are a lot of things that have been promised time and again that have not shown up, and we are losing our ability to do things in the country. One of the things that was really absent in this budget was something to inspire the natural resources sector. There was zip-a-dee-doo-dah in the budget. Considering the contribution to our GDP and the fact that the industry has been decimated, I would have expected the government to identify some package. What does the member think about that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, May 25th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of her hard work on the status of women committee.

I wonder what the member thinks about this budget in light of what it would and would not do for women in Canada and what is needed.