Christian Paradis

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), more than 75% of applicants apply only once to the program. This change streamlines the application and review process, making the competition more efficient over the eligibility period of two years.

In response to (b) and (c), NSERC is an agency of government and is responsible for its operational policies. A proposal was not presented to the minister. This change was approved within NSERC, based on recommendations by peer review volunteers.

In response to (d), the change was suggested by selection committee members, most of whom are from academia, and was discussed with the members of the Committee on Grants and Scholarships, COGS, NSERC’s main advisory committee for grants, scholarships and fellowships programs.

In response to (e), there are no financial cost savings for implementing this change. The benefits will be felt primarily by the volunteer researchers who donate their time to serve on NSERC’s PDF selection committees who will see their review burden decrease. They told us that having 100 awards for 1,300 applications is not an efficient use of their time. Limiting the number of applications an individual may submit to the program will not impact the current budget projections or the number of anticipated awards available.

[Foreign Investment, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I always accept thanks. I must repeat that these transactions, Petronas, Nexen and other transactions, we scrutinize these transactions closely to ensure they provide a net benefit to Canada. We always make the decision in the best interests of Canadians.

Since the member is now independent, will he stand with us against the $21 billion of carbon tax and, if so, I will thank him?

[Forestry Industry, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have always advocated open federalism. Since the Parti Québécois was elected on September 4, we have been saying that we are open to discussing economically promising initiatives. No doubt the hon. member is opposed to that because his one and only goal here is to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. He is just trying to stir up trouble.

When we compare the support given to the forestry industry with that given to the automobile industry, over $4 billion was invested in the forestry along with over $17 billion in loan guarantees. Seeking out divisive issues, as the hon. member has been doing here since 2004, is not constructive—

[Science and Technology, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government committed to conducting a strategic review in order to maximize resources. We have asked all organizations to optimize all of their research activities. At the same time, we have invested over $8 billion in research and development. That is a record amount in the history of this country, and we will continue in that direction. We will never apologize for doing a better job of managing the nation's business.

[Foreign Investment, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been very clear.

We are in favour of investment. It creates jobs and allows our businesses to move up the global value chain. That being said, there are criteria that must be followed. One of them is that such agreements must provide a net benefit to Canada. This criterion is used for every transaction that is evaluated, and every decision is made in the best interests of Canada.

What is clear is that the members on other side of the House are against trade, investment and the development of natural resources and support a $21 billion carbon tax that would kill the economy.

That is clear, and Canadians clearly do not want that.

[Foreign Investment, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, since being in office we have put in place guidelines for state-owned enterprises in 2007 and provisions for national security issues.

As I said, for this transaction, like the other ones, we have to determine if it provides a net benefit to Canada. Therefore, this transaction will scrutinized very closely.

What we will not do is to go with the kinds of policies advocated by the NDP, which would deter any form of investment in this country. Beyond that, the NDP would put $21 billion carbon tax on the shoulders of Canadians. We will not stand for that, never.

[Foreign Investment, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true. The hon. member is talking about the Nexen deal, which we have always said will be scrutinized very closely. Before making a decision, we must determine whether the transaction provides a net benefit to Canada. Every decision will be made in the best interests of Canadians.

What we will not advocate for are the kinds of policies advocated by the members of the NDP who are anti-trade, anti-investment, against the development of natural resources and for a job-killing carbon tax of $21 billion that would be put on the shoulders of Canadians. We will not stand for it.

[Foreign Investment, November 1st, 2012]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we believe in foreign investment that provides a net benefit for Canada. We have our businesses in the global supply chain and we have a solid environment for business here. We have low taxes. We are opening market opportunities.

It is the total opposite of what the NDP is proposing: a global and job-killing carbon tax of $21 billion on the shoulders of Canadians. That would kill the economy, every single region of this country, and we will not go down—

[Foreign Investment, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this transaction will be scrutinized very closely.

Let me quote Professor Ian Lee from Carleton University, who said that the NDP proposal “will politicize the process enormously.... They're trying to transform these [approval processes] into kangaroo courts”.

As I said, the role of this government is to review the transaction and to see if it will provide a net benefit to Canada. This is what we are doing, and we will do it in the best interests of Canadians.

[Census, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. We hope the opposition will agree that Canadians deserve to be treated like adults.

That is why we brought in this reform. We have always believed that, with a balanced approach, we can collect the information needed concerning the long form census. Statistics Canada agrees that this new approach will yield useful and usable data.

We hope to finally have the support of the opposition during this reform.