Marc Garneau

[Questions on the Order paper, April 16th, 2010]

With regard to research and development (R&D): (a) what specific obligations, if any, did the government establish for General Motors and Chrysler to perform R&D activity in Canada when it agreed to provide each company with a financial rescue package in the spring of 2009; (b) what undertaking did each company provide to perform R&D in Canada; and (c) what percentage does their Canadian R&D activity represent with respect to their total R&D activity?

[Access to Information, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Information Commissioner is talking about systematic censorship. Entire pages are being censored, which demonstrates the Prime Minister's wilful blindness regarding the torture. He even shut down Parliament in order to duck the issue.

Rights & Democracy, the muzzling of scientists, cuts to climatologists' funding, the behaviour of ministers, and the list goes on. It is official: this government is in the dark ages. Why does the Prime Minister insist on maintaining this culture of secrecy?

[Access to Information, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it has become very clear that the Prime Minister wants to keep Canadians in the dark. He has decided to impose a culture of secrecy and to govern against the will of Canadians by covering up the truth.

Thirteen departments received below average marks or completely ignored the access to information deadlines set out in the legislation. The Conservatives want to hide what they are doing to our county in order to cling to power, which is anti-democratic.

Will they admit that their promise to be transparent was absolutely meaningless?

[Michel Chartrand, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec labour leader and political activist Michel Chartrand passed away yesterday.

Born in 1916, he experienced Quebec's development throughout the 20th century. He witnessed the Great Depression, Maurice Duplessis, Quebec's dark ages, and then the Quiet Revolution, Lesage, Bourassa, Lévesque and everything that has happened since then.

But he was not content to simply observe Quebec's political scene: he was a participant, a critic and, for some, a conscience.

In the late 1940s, Michel Chartrand began fighting for unions at a time when Maurice Duplessis was in collusion with big industry to block all attempts at unionization. He inspired generations of workers and never stopped fighting for their rights.

Even though some of his views were not in keeping with the beliefs of Quebeckers or those of the Liberal Party, it is important that we recognize Michel Chartrand's contribution to Quebec's political life and development.

Michel Chartrand, a great Quebecker.

[Tax Harmonization, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives refuse to negotiate openly and in good faith with Quebec for purely partisan reasons. Their excuses change from day to day, and their position is as twisted and unpredictable as their position on maternal health. The Conservatives' behaviour is not what we would expect from a federal government. No province should be faced with this kind of intimidation.

Why does the Prime Minister not understand that it is unacceptable to force his own interests on the taxpayers of Quebec?

[Tax Harmonization, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservative government has shown its lack of good faith and its contempt for Quebec. The principles of predictability and tax fairness among provinces are fundamental principles of any federation, but the Conservatives have decided to play politics at the expense of Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he has completely disregarded Quebec and that he has no intention of coming to an agreement with the Government of Quebec?

[Quebec Bridge, March 24th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I rise here today to speak to a motion that is of personal interest to me. I am of course referring to the motion put forward by my Bloc colleague regarding the Quebec Bridge. The motions reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should purchase the Pont de Québec for one dollar and commit to quickly finishing the repair work so as to respect its importance as a historical monument and vital transportation link for the Quebec City region.

I am from Quebec City and my paternal ancestors are from Quebec City and the surrounding area. When I was 15, I had the pleasure of being a guide at the Citadel, another historic site in a city whose heritage is internationally recognized. As we all know, Old Quebec has been designated a UNESCO world heritage site.

When I was giving tours to tourists visiting the Citadel along the cliffs overlooking the St. Lawrence, I would invite them to look to the west, towards the Quebec Bridge. I would proudly explain to them that that bridge was, in its day, one of the world's engineering marvels.

I would explain to them the great challenges that had to be overcome in order to complete the bridge. There was a great human tragedy that involved the loss of many lives.

I would also like to point out that I am myself an engineer. The association of professional engineers distinguishes itself by the fact that all engineers in Canada wear an iron ring—now it is stainless steel—after they graduate. In a ceremony that was written by Rudyard Kipling, we swear to be true to the values of integrity that must guide us in our profession.

I mention this because there is a connection to the Quebec Bridge. Rumour has it that the iron rings given to the first engineers were made from a beam that was part of the central section of the Quebec Bridge, the section that collapsed into the St. Lawrence during construction. I am sorry to say this myth still persists today, but it makes a nice story.

Close to my riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie sits the Victoria Bridge. Opened as a federal rail bridge in 1859, the Victoria Bridge was the first bridge to span the St. Lawrence River. At the time, it was a sign of progress and a symbol of the power of industrial change that drove the century.

In a similar manner, the Quebec Bridge was built to permit travel between the south shore of the St. Lawrence River and the north shore at Quebec City.

In 1987, the Quebec Bridge was declared an international historic monument, as my colleague from Louis-Hébert mentioned, by the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering and the American Society of Civil Engineers. On January 24, 1996, the bridge was designated a national historic site of Canada. When it was completed, the Quebec Bridge became the longest cantilever bridge in the world.

Both bridges, the Victoria Bridge and the Quebec Bridge, which both accommodate rail and road traffic, are important transportation routes in their respective cities and both are undeniably jewels of railway architecture.

The Canadian National Railway inherited the Victoria Bridge from the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada in 1918. In 1962, Canadian National reached an agreement with Transport Canada which set out, among other things, a cost-sharing formula for bridge maintenance. This agreement delegated the responsibility for costs relating to maintenance and repair of the road surface and other operating expenses to Transport Canada.

Transport Canada also began compensating Canadian National for lost toll revenues, in the amount of $664,000 per year. According to a 1997 departmental press release, $150 million had been transferred to CN between 1962 and 1997 under this agreement. The maintenance costs for this bridge are shared by the government and Canadian National. Between 1997 and 2008, Transport Canada transferred approximately $54 million to Canadian National under this agreement.

The Quebec Bridge has a different story. Ownership of the Quebec Bridge was transferred from the federal government to the crown corporation CN for $1 in 1993. In 1995, CN, as we know, was privatized, making the bridge privately owned.

Unlike the Victoria Bridge, there is no ongoing agreement between the federal government and CN regarding federal contributions to the cost of maintaining the automobile portion of this bridge. In 1997 the federal government agreed to participate in a $60 million restoration of the bridge with the province of Quebec and CN. Under this project, the federal government, as my colleague from the government stated, contributed $6 million of the $60 million, at roughly $600,000 per annum over 10 years.

Due to a disagreement over painting the bridge, CN and the federal government are currently in court. The federal government alleges that the project was to include painting the bridge, but CN decided not to paint the bridge due to the additional necessary environmental mitigation costs.

My Bloc colleague's motion proposes that the federal government assume responsibility for the Quebec Bridge and that it ensure that the necessary maintenance and repair work is completed.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie suggested a very sensible amendment to the Bloc motion. Essentially, my colleague is proposing that maintenance and repair costs be shared, under an agreement naturally, by the interested parties, namely Canadian National and the government. In other words, it is not acceptable for the government to be solely responsible for the costs.

I was born in Quebec City and my paternal ancestors were from Quebec City. I would like the Quebec Bridge to be preserved by ensuring that it is maintained. In my opinion, the amendment proposed by my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie—suggesting that we share the costs with Canadian National, one user of the bridge—is a pragmatic solution.

I hope that my Bloc colleagues will adopt this change. A solution was found for the Victoria Bridge. It seems to me that there is a solution for the Quebec Bridge that will ensure the preservation of this important part of our heritage.

[Taxation, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is 140 people out of 6,000.

The minister can say what he wants, but the fact remains that he is imposing a new tax on 6,000 post-doctoral fellows. These post-docs do not earn salaries of $70,000, as the minister twice stated yesterday. Post-docs are a very valuable resource. They help foster innovation and research.

Is the minister aware of this?

[Taxation, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance misled Canadians by implying that post-doctoral students were making $70,000 per year. He got that one wrong. The average salary of the 6,000 post-docs in Canada is barely half that amount. Post-docs are often young, have families and still carry student debt.

The minister promised he would not raise taxes. Why is the minister penalizing our post-doctoral students?

[Taxation, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, most researchers recognize that the most productive phase in research begins at the post-doctoral level when a person has acquired the necessary research skills and knows where he or she wants to focus. This is where a researcher has the greatest potential to make important contributions. This is not the time to clobber post-doctoral students with taxes that will reduce their already-meagre incomes.

Does the government recognize that it is suffocating research and innovation in this country?