Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the former parliamentary budget officer repeatedly said that this budget lacked transparency and clarity. The documentation is not available. We often find that we cannot get information from committees. The reports are incomplete and subsequently kept secret. Everything is done in camera. This was understood in Quebec, and the Charbonneau commission was created.

Have we come to this? Honestly, this still feels like an empty shell and an omnibus bill. We want to have more and we can never get more.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Repentigny for his question. He is a new member and does a remarkable job in the House of Commons in terms of speaking about this transparency and clarity. I thank him for doing such a good job in the House.

Canadians are calling for transparency. When we talk about financial issues, we are not talking about money that belongs to the Conservatives. It is not money they earned. This is money earned by the taxpayers of Canada, who then gave it to the federal government.

The former Liberal government was not transparent. The Conservatives have proven to be even worse. That is why we want to have a parliamentary budget officer who can bring some transparency to the overall financial management of this country. It is a matter of respect for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a short question and response.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish it did not have to be a short question because it is a big topic. Does the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster have any idea why a government that claims to be interested in doing a national security review of foreign investments coming into Canada has refused, first in 2009 with the amendments to the Investment Canada Act and now with Bill C-60, to reject a clear definition of national security such as one would find when dealing with national security issues under CSIS?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is critical. We had just a few months ago over 70% of Canadians saying that they did not believe the government should rubber-stamp the takeover of Nexen, a company in Calgary, by CNOOC. I went to Calgary many times and Albertans were the strongest opposed to this. The Conservative government rubber-stamped it. It said that it would sell Nexen to CNOOC and would sell out any other company.

Then to compound the government's error, in this budget document it is actually trying to have fewer of these takeovers even looked at by the federal government. Conservatives rubber-stamped it. They are irresponsible and now they are trying to hide their crime by changing the whole fashion in which we look at these Investment Canada issues. It is a lack of respect for Canadians to say that Canadians should not have some way of looking at whether the takeover is in Canada's interest.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, if I could give this speech a title, it would be called, “And Now For Something A Little Different”.

What I would like to look at tonight is found under division 4, clause 127, of the bill which is, “Payments to Certain Entities or for Certain Purposes”, specifically Genome Canada. Many of my colleagues in the House know that I spent part of my career prior to politics in the world of academic research administration and I had the opportunity to work with some projects that were funded by Genome Canada.

I was really encouraged to see in the budget bill and, subsequently, the bill we are discussing tonight, an additional $165 million in multi-year support for genomic research through Genome Canada. This funding would enable Genome Canada to launch new large-scale research competitions over the next three years, support continued participation by Canadian genomics researchers in national and international partnership initiatives and maintain Genome Canada's operations and the operations of regional Genome centres and science and technology innovative centres until the end of 2016-17.

I do not think a lot of people are aware of the mandate of Genome Canada, as well as the field of genomics research itself. I certainly cannot profess to be an expert in the content of the research, but the impact of the research is so far reaching and affects so many different sectors of industry, such as environmental health and the health of our populations, that it is worth taking notice of during this debate. It is a substantive sum of money for this organization.

I apologize to my colleagues for borrowing heavily from Wikipedia and the Genome Canada website tonight in my speech, but, as a bit of background, the field of genomics is one that applies recombinant DNA, DNA sequencing methods and bioinformatics to sequence, assemble and analyze the function and structure of genomes. The field includes efforts to determine the entire DNA sequence of organisms and fine-scale genetic mapping.

Again, as I have seen the work that Genome Canada has done, even on the periphery as a research administrator, the impact that the projects it has funded have already had on different sectors of the economy has amazed me. It is also working with some of the key questions that some of our industries wrestle with, such as how we can increase productivity using this technology, how we can produce products in a more environmentally-sustainable way, how we can clean up the environment and how we can make our populations more healthy. All these questions are being addressed in the Genome Canada centres located across the country, which I will speak to in a little more detail. This is an amount of funding that impacts everyone in this place because every region of Canada I believe has a Genome Canada centre that is doing work within the regions.

Genome Canada is a not-for-profit corporation established to accelerate Canadian research capacity in genomics. Genome Canada is a catalyst for developing and applying genomic sciences that create economic wealth and social benefit for Canadians. It works in partnership to invest in and manage large-scale research and translate discoveries into commercial opportunities, new technologies, applications and solutions. It builds bridges between government, academia and industry to forge a genomics-based public-private innovation focused on key life science sectors.

Together with its six Genome Centres and other partners, Genome Canada invests in and manages large-scale research projects in key selected areas. Genome Canada also supports research programs aimed at studying and analyzing the ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues related to genomics research. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, five science and technology innovation centres with cutting-edge technical capabilities have been put in place across Canada to support large-scale projects.

What is really neat about the funding model for Genome Canada is that while our funding agreement states that the Government of Canada provide 50% of the funding, Genome Canada actually leverages this funding on a 1:1 basis. Therefore, it has to find 50% of matching funds to push its programs forward. We have seen a leverage fund take the research forward even further.

The partnerships that Genome Canada has built, not just with the academic community but with industry, is a model that we should be looking at in how to bridge the technology gap, taking research from the bench and translating it out to the public, but also ensuring that, where possible, we are addressing the concerns of industry, communities, et cetera, in research and acknowledging the need for basic research. There is a lot of basic research funded through Genome Canada's applications as well.

I mentioned earlier that there were Genome Canada centres across the country. There is one in British Columbia, Alberta and the Prairies. There is an Ontario Genomics Institute. There is one in Quebec, as well as one in Atlantic Canada. This is a centre that has impacts across the country and funds projects in many of my colleagues' ridings, if they have a university in their riding. Many of their industrial partners in their high-tech sectors or life sciences sectors may have projects with this organization as well.

Given that I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I have been keenly interested in some of the projects they have been working on with regard to environmental technologies. I would like to read some of this for my colleagues, so they can have an understanding of some of the environmental background work that Genome Canada is doing in this area. Here is a quick excerpt:

Micro organisms such as cyanobacteria, which have minimal nutrient requirements, use electrons from water and the energy of sunlight when they convert atmospheric CO₂ into organic compounds. What's more, they do so without producing greenhouse gases. Genomics can tap the accumulated wisdom of hundred of millions of years of evolution. The opportunities for developing biotechnology solutions to the challenge of climate change will be greatly enhanced when we will understand the molecular biology of plants and micro organisms such as bacteria and algae.

There is a really neat piece on the Genome Canada website about some of the work that it does with regard to environmental technology. I invite my colleagues to take a look at this, because some really fascinating projects are going on across the country in this area.

I would like to mention a few tonight, just so my colleagues have an understanding of the impact this funding is going to have on research in this area. It is going take place across the country.

I would remiss if I did not mention Dr. Gerrit Voordouw at the University of Calgary, who has a phenomenal project that deals with hydrocarbon metagenomics. Basically this research is developing biotechnology that will reduce the environmental impact of oil sands operations and make hydrocarbon energy extraction more efficient.

The technology that is coming out of this lab is incredible. It is cutting edge, and to be honest, the field of genomics is a field in which Canadian researchers punch above their weight internationally. We have such a wealth of research capacity in this field and this funding will help continue that excellence into the future.

Also, because it is a leverage funding program, it is encouraging industry partnerships to take place so we grow the receptor capacity for these technologies as we go into the future.

I have a couple of other examples from across the country. Dr. Adrian Tsang at Concordia University in Montreal and his group of researchers are working a really neat technology, isolating enzymes that could replace the harsh chemicals currently used in pulping and bleaching. He is working with fungal enzymes, which digest the brown lignin in wood, leaving the white cellulose behind for use in making paper.

Going back again to the petroleum sector, we have the president of the Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada just recently said in a news article that genomics was one of the areas in which his industry was looking to develop breakthrough technologies. These are the game changers that help make industry both more productive and more environmentally sound. Some of the technologies that it is looking to develop might include engineering microbes to remove hydrogen sulphide from sour natural gas or to facilitate environmental cleanup.

Also in a couple of different areas, Genome Canada has funded the British Columbia Cancer Centre, which sequenced the SARS virus genome in 2003. It has also funded the Centre for Applied Genomics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, which in 2010 published genetic variants associated with autism.

To the point I made earlier about how Canada punches above its weight, Dr. Steven Scherer, director of the Toronto centre, talks about how Canada has leapfrogged ahead in its international standing since the field of genomics science has been developed.

What I want to leave my colleagues tonight is there are very good pieces of funding within the budget bill. We also have over $300 million dedicated to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which its president was very supportive of after the budget bill was tabled.

It is these sorts of innovative technologies, including increased funding for our tri-council Agencies, as well as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which will ensure we continue to have excellence in Canada's research fields. I certainly hope people will look at the field of genomics research and vote in support of the budget, specifically because of this clause.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is some excellent research being done in Canada that we should all support, but the government has a little trick. It pulls out anecdotal information about particular projects that are being funded, but it fails to account for the overall picture of science and technology in Canada.

I asked the Library of Parliament to do a bit of work. It is not Wikipedia, but it might be a bit better than that. It shows that overall S and T funding by the government has dropped by 8.6% since last year and 14.5% over the last two years, so while we hear members on that side bragging all the time about science and technology investment, they are actually cutting hard and deep.

I am wondering if my colleague on the other side could somehow justify these cuts to scientists in Canada.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the numbers that my colleague is referring to also include the funding related to the knowledge infrastructure program, which was part of the economic stimulus program that was related to the economic downturn in 2008. This was a one-time program to build out research infrastructure while promoting job growth during a time of downturn in the country. Programs such as this that are infrastructure-based do have a sunsetting clause. They are put out and they are spent out in a period of time, so it is going to affect the overall funding picture.

What is interesting to note is that if the member looks at any of our granting councils, be it SSHRC, CIHR, NSERC or the Canada Foundation for Innovation, he will see that we have increased the funding amount significantly since we came into office.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to follow up on that comment from the parliamentary secretary, because my understanding is that the granting councils have been cut by $148 million.

I would like to come back to some of the remarks she made about Genome Canada, a creation of a previous Liberal government. I think she was referring to the notion of some kind of approach to innovation in Canada, but it is important for her and for Canadians watching tonight to understand that there really is no innovation strategy left in Canada. There is no innovation strategy whatsoever.

Let me highlight what is going on in this region right here. In 2000, Ottawa-Gatineau, as a cluster area, was receiving 61% of the venture capital in Canada. It had just under 5,000 high-tech companies. We are now down below 2,000 high-tech companies. Venture capital is fleeing not only this region but all of Canada because the government is not investing in general science or in general research.

Recently I met with the head of a stem cell research institute in my riding that is affiliated with the Ottawa Hospital. The individual told me that not only is the funding being cut, but now the folks who are doing the advanced research are saying that the system of peer review that must be in place in order to have a fair and transparent bidding process for granting has been dismantled and that it is now based on political factors, on held ridings—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we need to keep some time for the hon. parliamentary secretary to respond.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to address part of my colleague's questions about the actual year-over-year funding amounts, especially for the tri-council agencies, I was able to find NSERC's budget right off the bat. The 2005-06 budget level was $859 million. In fiscal year 2011-12 it was $1.08 billion. That is the sort of trend that our government has shown in spite of the global economic downturn. Why? It is because we understand that investment in research and technology translates into a more diverse and successful economy.

With regard to some of my colleague's other questions, he also has to understand that in order to develop opportunities for commercializing our research, we have to develop receptor capacity within our country. How do we do this? We attract the best and brightest minds, we fund them through programs such as the Canada excellence research chair programs and we look at additional markets for our products through trade deals. There are a wide variety of programs that we have focused on, not just through funding but in addition to funding, in order to increase that receptor capacity, bring the researchers into this country and keep them here.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased this evening to be here to be debate Bill C-60, the government's omnibus budget bill. It is another omnibus bill, unfortunately, and it is too bad we do not have the committee time allocated to deal with so many hundreds of different measures that I think are deserving of greater scrutiny, but that is just the way it has been for the last several years with this particular regime.

Budgets are about making choices. They are about collecting hard-earned tax dollars, and they are about spending those tax dollars by informing that spending with the priorities of a particular government.

It is unfair for any party to say that it does not support at least some measures in a particular budget. Let me say from the beginning that there are measures in Bill C-60 that we do support, measures such as improving the war veterans allowance; expanding the adoption expense tax credit; combatting tax evasion; extending the accelerated CCA, the capital cost allowance, on manufacturing equipment; and many others. It is not a question of indicting the entire budget. However, taking the budget as a whole, this party, the Liberal Party of Canada, cannot possibly support this budget.

I want to take this narrative, if I could, to a little higher level so that Canadians can understand some of the basic principles behind what the government is doing.

The bottom line in this budget, and I will come back to it in a second, is that taxes on the middle class are going up, and they are going up quite dramatically. It is a bit of a sleight of hand, but I hope to illustrate in a few moments how this is being done and why it is being done.

Let us step back. This is the biggest-borrowing, biggest-spending government in Canadian history. No government has borrowed more money and no government has spent more money, ever, in Canadian history.

It has gone from a $13 billion surplus to massive deficits. There has been an increase of $156 billion in the national debt, which as of today stands at $610,583,990,221.28. That is our national debt as of today. It is up by over $156 billion.

That is surprising, one would say, because it comes from a Conservative right-wing government, one would say, but let us hold on for a second, because this is actually quite a familiar pattern.

It started with Mr. Reagan in the United States. It continued through Mr. Bush. It continued through Premier Mike Harris and a small number of other right-wing Conservative governments in Canadian history, and it is now here.

Here is how it goes. First, the Conservatives get elected. They inherit a very healthy surplus.

That is number one.

The second thing they do, in order to curry favour and buy votes, is compromise their revenue-raising capabilities.

Then they go to the market and borrow heavily.

When they borrow heavily, they drive up their national debt quite significantly and then, of course, they create massive deficits.

Then, what do they do when they are faced with massive deficits and a very arbitrary timeline called the 2015 general election?

What they do is they begin to weaken our cherished Canadian public services. That is what they do, and they do it with a new twist. The new twist with the current government is that in order to pay for it, they stick it to the middle class. People in the middle class have to pay more taxes. Small and medium-sized businesses are paying more taxes, and they are also paying for it in cuts in services.

Let me illustrate what I mean when it comes to raising taxes.

Bill C-60 would raise taxes on Canadians this way. Small business owners, the backbone of the Canadian economy, would receive a $2.3 billion tax increase over the next five years. Who would that hurt? It would hurt 750,000 Canadians and it would risk Canadian jobs.

As well, the bill would raise taxes on credit unions by $75 million a year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and our rural economy.

It would also nickel-and-dime Canadians. It would add HST or GST to certain health care services, such as medical work that victims of crime need in order to establish their case in court. It would even raises taxes on safety deposit boxes. It would increase far more taxes than it would decrease. That is an objective fact.

Why is the government doing this? It is because the federal Minister of Finance learned at the feet of one of the masters. That master was a man named Mike Harris, in Ontario, whose principal adviser was Mike “Mud” Murphy from the state of New Jersey. That state went through the same kind of reckless experimentation that Ontario went through, and the minister has brought those lessons to bear here, except that it is more surreptitious, more underhanded, more stealth-like.

Here are examples of how the government is weakening our cherished Canadian public services.

We live in a federation of 10 provinces and three territories, and in the last six years there has not been a single meeting of first ministers on Canada's cherished national public health care system. That is unconscionable and indefensible.

What the government does is go into a back room and take a number. It might as well throw a dart at the wall. It takes a number to say it will increase health care funding by this much. That is it. There is no dialogue, no discussion, no priorities. Whatever happened to the government's wait time promises? We are still waiting. That has all evaporated.

There is no plan post-2014 for health care and no interest in a national approach to health. As a result, our cherished public health care system is weakening.

With respect to immigration, planned cuts would create longer waiting times. Family reunification would now be massively delayed. It is often characterized by members of the government as wasteful and expensive for the Canadian people when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that is the case.

With respect to public safety, the Auditor General told the government that the cuts to front-line border offices would seriously compromise Canadian security at the border when it comes to inspections, drug enforcement, weapons caches and beyond. Less enforcement means more problems.

With respect to crime, there would be mandatory minimum sentences. We have been told that this would solve our victim problem. Really? Every single study ever conducted on crime tells us that a dollar spent up front saves us a $40 fee at the back end and minimizes the risk to potential victims in Canada.

It goes on. With respect to the environment and science, which we spoke about earlier, the budget would cut 700 positions at Environment Canada and 600 positions in agricultural research stations this week alone.

Search and rescue centres have closed in St. John's and Kitsilano, compromising public safety.

Let us take Canada's role in the world for one minute. After 60 years of Canada's brand being so strong at helping Africa, we are abandoning Africa. No matter what the government says, we are abandoning Africa at a time when all the economists are telling us that Africa is growing at 6% to 10% a year. Just when the economic opportunities have arrived, Canada is pulling out.

We are abandoning multilateral traditions such as the UN Security Council. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has said he wants to compel the Russians to do something about Syria, but then announced a week later that we would not even try to get a UN Security Council seat. That makes no sense. Multilateralism is in our DNA, and we have pulled out of it. Mulroney understood it with anti-apartheid. Chrétien understood it with anti-land mines. Martin understood it with the G20. Multilateralism has helped Canada punch above its weight.

The Prime Minister will not even speak to the UN General Assembly, while President Obama does it every year.

I will close with this: perhaps the most disturbing aspect for Canadians is a new propaganda campaign. Maybe it is because the Prime Minister did not win his personal lawsuit against Canada when he wanted the National Citizens Coalition to force all restrictions on advertising during political campaigns to be removed. Maybe that is why he is spending $600 million on government advertising, something that no member of that caucus can possibly defend.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa South for his speech.

I get the impression that the Liberals will vote against Bill C-60. Although we are talking about the Liberals here, it can sometimes be surprising to see a change in direction.

My question is very simple. The Liberals have been strongly opposing Bill C-60 all evening, so I would like to know how many amendments they presented at report stage.

If my calculations are correct, I think you could count them on the fingers of an armless man. I do not understand how they can be so staunchly against Bill C-60, when they did not try to improve it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

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

We did present amendments.

We must be honest with the Canadians who are watching this evening. Here is the truth about amendments.

The majority Conservative government does not approve of amendments being proposed and also categorically refuses to adopt them.

We must be honest with Canadians. We work very hard to present another approach to Canada's future. I do not think it is constructive to bicker over technicalities about the rules of the House of Commons.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that he cannot support our budget and I would like to know why, especially in Ontario, he cannot support a budget that supports Canada's manufacturers. The tax relief for new manufacturing machinery and equipment, by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for two years, increases support for manufacturers by almost $1.4 billion. I do not understand why the member cannot support that.

I cannot understand why he would not support large-scale technology projects exhibiting strong commercial potential and promote cross-industry collaboration.

I cannot understand how he cannot support encouraging firms to invest in biogas production, or how he cannot support lowering business tax, or making Canada the first major economy tariff-free zone, or launching the venture capital action plan. I cannot understand why the member from Ontario cannot invest in what I am sure most people in Ontario would like to see the member invest in.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a familiar and, frankly, ruseful tactic by the government on a regular basis. I explained earlier in my remarks that there are measures in the budget we actually do support. The problem is that the overall direction that the government is taking us in is exactly the direction that previous republican, right-wing governments took us in and it led to massive failure.

Therefore, until we see a proper innovation strategy for the country, until we see diversification, until we see a real venture capital plan for the country, until we see the freeing up of good science in the country that is not linked to the government's five priorities for commercialization and all kinds of other measures, it makes it very difficult and very unpalatable for Ontarians, by the way, of all stripes to support the government on this budget.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because I know there are a lot of new Canadians living in his riding, I want to ask the member for Ottawa South what he thinks of the Conservative attacks around visitors visas, making it much more difficult for new Canadian families to have loved ones from abroad come and visit them here in Canada. I am talking about funerals, weddings and the birth of children. It is already increasingly difficult for those families to get approval, now we see in this budget document the Conservatives attacking new Canadians by forcing their loved ones to pay more, and repeatedly more, to have access to Canada.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most foolish things a government can do in the 21st century is compromise the transition with which new Canadians can come into Canada. We see their family as visitors who participate fully in Canadian society. Immigration is the lifeblood of our future.

I used to live in Italy and I lived in Britain. I worked in the Soviet Union after the wall fell. In so many countries where I have worked, I have seen governments struggling to attract immigrants, struggling to bring in the lifeblood to keep their economies going. We should be looking to facilitate, not make it more difficult, for new Canadians to join us.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight on behalf of my constituents as we wrap up debate on Bill C-60, our government's legislative implementation of Canada's economic action plan.

I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for his great work managing Canada's economy. Canada has held the strongest record of growth and job creation among the G7 countries during the recovery from the global economic recession. As I have done before, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for consulting with Canadians and giving us the opportunity to submit our constituents' recommendations directly to his office. This budget is for Canadians by Canadians. The Minister of Finance has built an extraordinary foundation for economic growth. He has done this by focusing on the needs and priorities of Canadians, including keeping taxes low, and by identifying and eliminating government waste.

Our economic action plan is focused on five pillars: The first is connecting Canadians with available jobs, the second is helping manufacturers and businesses succeed in the global economy, the third is creating a new public infrastructure plan, the fourth is investing in world-class research and innovation, and the fifth is supporting families and communities.

In my previous remarks on Canada's economic action plan, I talked about the issues that matter to the people I represent: job creation, business taxes, infrastructure, and how the federal government is assisting families and communities. It is the remaining pillar of our economic action plan that I would like to touch on today: our government's commitment to invest in world-class research and innovation.

The global economy is changing. In order for Canadian businesses to remain competitive and create jobs, we believe the government has an important role to play when it comes to research and innovation to ensure that Canada is on the leading edge of science and technology. Since 2006, we have provided more than $9 billion in new resources to support science, technology and the growth of innovative firms. Beginning this fiscal year, we will build on this foundation with new investments to support advanced research and pursue a new approach to supporting business innovation and enhancing Canada's venture capital system. In supporting advanced research, the Government of Canada partners with industry and academia to fund research projects that are critical to maintaining our competitive edge in a global economy.

Let us take a look at what is on the line. According to the OECD science and technology indicators, Canada ranks first among the G7 countries in higher education and development spending as a percentage of GDP. We are world leaders in this area. In its September 2012 report, “The State of Science and Technology in Canada”, the Council of Canadian Academies noted that Canada is internationally renowned for excellence in a wide range of disciplines including clinical medicine, information and communication technologies, physics and astronomy, and psychology and cognitive sciences. We owe it to Canadian researchers to continue to invest in their work and institutions.

I will talk specifically about our post-secondary institutions and how we are looking to assist them in their research goals. I am a member of the Conservative post-secondary education caucus, which is shared by the member for Winnipeg South. Our focus is on consulting with Canadian colleges and universities to ensure they have a line of communication with their government and to ensure that our young generation of post-secondary students are able to thrive in academic environments and become Canada's leaders of tomorrow. We are very pleased with this budget's commitments to post-secondary research, which would strengthen research partnerships between post-secondary institutions and industry, reinforce Canadian research capacity in genomics and support leading-edge research infrastructure.

In terms of strengthening research partnerships between post-secondary institutions and industry, our economic action plan has budgeted $37 million annually to support research partnerships with industry through the granting councils. To break this down, $15 million would fund the Canadian Institutes of Health Research strategy for patient-oriented research, which would not only contribute to Canadian innovation, but would ultimately benefit health care delivery and, most importantly, patients.

Seven million dollars per year would be allocated to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. This funding would, in part, support research related to the labour market participation of persons with disabilities.

The remaining $15 million per year is budgeted for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, including $12 million to enhance the college and community innovation program. This program helps firms to become more innovative and productive by supporting collaboration between colleges and industry. It has been an incredibly successful program, and has resulted in cutting-edge products that overcome barriers and solve everyday problems.

In my riding, Red Deer College continue to produce world-class graduates in a variety of disciplines and contributes applied research in our community. The office of applied research and innovation links the expertise of Red Deer College with partners in central Alberta from both the public and private sectors. Red Deer College operates the centre for innovation and manufacturing and facilitates the execution of a number of research and demonstration projects. The college is active in several areas of research, including several projects in community health innovation in collaboration with the local health authority and health care providers.

It is no coincidence that the government's plans line up with what is really happening in academia. We are committed to helping Canadian post-secondary institutions with their priorities. They are the experts and the researchers who see the light and know what research is needed, and which projects are cutting edge. We have consulted with them and we are committed to investing in their work.

When I see the research and innovation areas that our economic action plan will contribute to, I am confident the Red Deer College will benefit from our investments.

Our government also recognizes that federally sponsored research undertaken at post-secondary institutions entails indirect costs, and so we provide support for these through the indirect cost program. In the coming year, the government will examine the indirect cost program, in consultation with the post-secondary sector, including the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, to ensure that the program is meeting its objectives of reinforcing excellence in post-secondary research. We are looking forward to these discussions with the post-secondary sector.

We recognize that in order to yield the world's best research, Canadian researchers need leading-edge infrastructure. They need a place to carry out their research, experiments and inventions. To assist post-secondary institutions with their infrastructure needs, economic action plan 2013 prioritizes funding for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. The CFI is a not-for-profit corporation that supports modernization of research infrastructure at Canadian universities, colleges, research hospitals and other not-for-profit research institutions.

It plays a vital role in attracting and retaining the world's top researchers and training the next generation of researchers and highly skilled workers. To date, the government has provided close to $5.5 billion to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to sustain its core investment activities. Building on this commitment, economic action plan 2013 is announcing that a further $225 million would be allocated to enrich the leading-edge new innovations fund competition, sustain the CFI's operations, support cyberinfrastructure and respond to evolving priorities approved by the Minister of Industry. It is important to note that this funding will be sourced from accrued interest income from funding that CFI had previously received from the government. This is further proof of our commitment to efficient use of taxpayers dollars. It is a win-win for Canadian taxpayers and researchers.

As a former teacher, I have been involved in academia as a student as well as a mentor for ambitious young Canadians who have gone into research fields in a variety of disciplines. I am very aware of the importance of public investment in our colleges and universities. To maintain a successful economy, one that creates jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, a focus on post-secondary education and its infrastructure is vital. This is where our leaders of tomorrow are learning today.

The investments that this budget makes in post-secondary research and innovation will benefit our economy for generations to come. The spinoff effects of research and innovation on our economy are incalculable.

I make a last-minute plea to the opposition to appreciate the benefits that these investments will result in, and support this budget. Whether encouraging job creation, promoting economic growth or ensuring Canada's long-term prosperity, our focus is on what matters to Canadians. My constituents have told me that the priorities of this budget are the priorities that matter to them as taxpayers: creating jobs, keeping taxes low, investing in public infrastructure and world-class research and innovation, and supporting Canadian families. That is what this budget would do and I am proud to stand in support of it on behalf of the hard-working taxpayers of Red Deer.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to talk about a topic that he did not address himself. Perhaps he had a good reason, since this was not good news for Canadians, and more particularly for Quebeckers.

I am talking about the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, including the FTQ and CSN funds in Quebec. Eliminating this tax credit will save the government $350 million, including $312 million in Quebec.

Clearly this is a direct attack on the Quebec economy. These labour funds enabled people to get an additional tax credit while investing in local businesses that sustained the economy of most regions in Quebec.

Could he talk about the government's decision to eliminate this tax credit and explain why he has attacked the economy of Quebec's regions?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the specifics of the question the member asked, so I am certainly not the person to be able to answer his specific question.

The types of investments this government has been making in communities and in business opportunities, for those who are willing to get involved and to put all of their efforts into it, have really been phenomenal. I know that the people in my part of the country in Alberta, when we are talking about the opportunities of the Canada job grant, say these are the types of things they want to get at to try to find ways of getting our young people working and helping the disabled. These are the types of things that are happening in our communities, done by people within the community who are trying extremely hard to make sure the best things are happening for individuals.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to my colleague for his work as a teacher and for his speech. Being at the forefront of knowledge and technology innovation is crucial for economic growth. Countries that aspire to stay at the forefront must ensure knowledge expands steadily.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, our country ranks 13th out of 16 on innovation among its peers, under the current government, and performs poorly on most of 21 indicators, scoring 13 Ds. In 2012, Canada slipped by two to 14th place on the World Economic Forum's ranking of global economic competitiveness, a drop of five places since 2009.

Should the government develop a national innovation strategy, increase spending on science and technology and help emerging sectors achieve their potential?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done. I believe we were all in the House when British Prime Minister David Cameron said if one looked at the best English speaking education system in the world, that would be in Alberta. As a teacher from Alberta, I thought that was certainly something to be proud of. However, the same type of thing is happening in our universities and our colleges. We are finding we have some fantastic people coming in to the different chairs that have been developed, and we can be extremely proud of those individuals. Giving them this opportunity to take the knowledge and drive they have and to put it with innovation and the help of the research dollars we are presenting is a critical part that we should all be proud of.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit there is money going to science. However, the fundamental problem is that ever since the budget in 2012, in which federal contributions to science were described as having to be "business-led" and "industry-relevant", we are hobbling the best brains.

We are going to have nothing but better studies of widgets. We do not get good science by insisting that something be commercially directed. Alexander Graham Bell was not trying to invent the telephone; he was trying to figure out how the human ear works so that he could help the deaf.

We will never be a leader in science in Canada if we are only focused on immediate commercial benefit.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I take a look at the types of intellect we have here in this country, I know that if we simply talk about the dollars being invested into industry-led initiatives, we would be frustrated. However, that is not what is happening. To make the suggestion that it is the only channel that is being followed is inaccurate. Certainly I put my faith and trust in the researchers we have in this country.