Marc Garneau

[Taxation, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government has just imposed a tax on research by eliminating the tax exemption granted to post-doctoral students.

Let us call a spade a spade: the government just imposed a new tax that will negatively affect research in Canada.

After creating grants, supposedly to fund post-doctoral research, the government decided to tax all post-doctoral students, supposedly to pay for those grants.

Does the government understand what it has done?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government speaks about its investment in the three research granting councils. I believe the figure of $32 million was mentioned in the budget.

My question for the hon. member is very straightforward, and have I asked the same question of the deputy minister of Industry Canada, so I know the answer. What happened to the $148 million that was removed from the three research granting councils over three years in the 2009 budget?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, as we know, the Conservative government, beginning next year, will start to increase employment insurance premiums and will do so for the next four years. I believe, according to its documents, it expects to raise about $13 billion with what most experts agree is a tax on labour. As we know, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which I regard in some ways as the backbone of our country's economy, has said that this could cause up to 200,000 lost jobs.

What does my hon. colleague have to say to the report put out by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business with respect to all these job losses?

[Telecommunication, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Industry is recovering from whiplash after backtracking on the CAP earlier today, concerning his riding, I would like to quote the minister of state for science, who said yesterday:

--that the government put $200 million toward providing broadband to every community in this country.

I want to focus on the words “every community”. Did the minister say that his government will provide broadband to every community in Canada?

[Telecommunication, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the community access program is a visionary initiative that seeks to make the Internet accessible to all Canadians. In 2007, the Conservatives reduced that program's annual budget from $25 million down to $14 million. Today, they are eliminating it almost completely. The result will be that in Nova Scotia, for example, this service will be eliminated in 163 schools, hospitals and community centres.

This government claims that it wants all Canadians to be connected. How does it explain such hypocrisy?

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in this House to speak to the motion by my colleague from the Bloc and explain why I will be voting against it. My colleague from the Bloc has quite correctly noted that the Conservative government has not responded to the needs of Quebec. I will come back to this again in a few moments. But where my colleague from the Bloc is mistaken is in attributing the cause of this failure to federalism, when in reality the cause is this Conservative government.

Let us examine the issues in question, starting with the harmonized tax. The Conservative government ought to have known perfectly well last year, when it was negotiating an agreement on the harmonized tax with the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia—an agreement which included financial compensation for those two provinces to help them make the transition—that Quebec would demand a similar agreement, having itself made the transition to a harmonized tax many years before.

Yet, instead of including Quebec in this process, this Conservative government clearly treated Quebec as a special case which would not be treated the same way as the other provinces. Here is a first example of this Conservative government’s lack of respect for a province, in this case, Quebec.

I am sure that it is quite clear that the problem has nothing to do with federalism. After all, the Conservative government found a way to come to an arrangement with Ontario and British Columbia. The real problem is this Conservative government which is treating Quebec disrespectfully in this matter. That is the true cause of the problem.

Let us take another issue, the forestry industry. Last year, when the forestry industry was in the worst of the economic crisis and imploring the Conservative government to grant it loan guarantees and facilitate its access to credit, this Conservative government turned a deaf ear to those appeals. My party heard those appeals very clearly, and also supported the demands of the forestry industry. In fact, the Liberal government of Paul Martin clearly recognized the need to address problems in the forestry industry in 2005, and included in its budget $1.5 billion over five years to allow the achievement of a number of objectives linked to a true national strategy for that industry.

My party understood four years ago the need to make certain changes in the forestry industry to make it more competitive. Here we have more evidence that federalism can work very well if the government takes time to listen to the provinces and territories and acts accordingly.

Federalism is a partnership based on respect and the desire to make this country work well. Federalism does not work when it is based on confrontation, as is presently the case between this Conservative government and Quebec.

Let us take another example, the environment. Here the differences are profound. We all know very well that the Conservative government has been dragging its feet for four years on the environment. After four years and three environment ministers, this government’s record on the measures that need to be taken is far from brilliant. Criticized not only by Quebec but also by other provinces—not to mention the condemnation by the international community—the Conservative government continues to drag its feet. Not only is it doing very little, but it takes the opportunity to lecture Quebec when Quebec decides to embark upon an important environmental initiative.

Is this a problem with federalism? Of course not. The problem is with this Conservative government that does not listen and has no respect.

That brings me to the needs of our rural areas. We are all familiar with them. There is, of course, the forestry sector, to which I have referred, but there are other major industries such as agriculture and, in certain areas, fishing. Access to high speed Internet or to waves for cellphones is an issue just about everywhere. As well, a large number of communities are concerned about the need to diversify their region's economy, so as to avoid being dependent on a single industry.

Wherever I go in Quebec, the message is clear: people want us to help them stay in their regions. They do not want to be forced to leave to live elsewhere. Did the Conservative government get the message? Based on the importance that it is giving to Canada Economic Development, we must conclude that it did not. Instead, this government is relying on a laissez-faire attitude, which consists in helping people a bit every now and then but, other than that, let them fend for themselves. The government has no strategy, no vision and no long-term plan. It is using a piecemeal approach when the time comes to make nice political announcements. They love these announcements.

Let us talk about poverty. What does this government do to deal with social housing needs? What does it do about homelessness, which is a serious issue in my riding? We must put a lot of pressure on the Conservative government simply to get it to renew existing programs for which funds have already been earmarked. Is this leadership? Of course not. Are we to blame federalism, as our Bloc Quebecois colleagues always do? Of course not. The issue has nothing to do with federalism, but it has everything to do with this Conservative government, which does not understand Quebec and which wants to impose its will on the province, rather than work constructively with it.

Let us talk about culture. During the 2008 campaign, the Conservative government showed very clearly that it failed to understand the importance of culture for Quebec, and that cost them dearly. This total lack of understanding is typical of the ruling Conservative Party. It is not typical of my party, the Liberal Party, which recognizes very clearly the importance of culture for the Quebec identity. My party has committed to doubling the funding for the Canada Council for the Arts when it will be back in power. My party has committed to securing the future of CBC/Radio-Canada through stable and predictable funding. My party recognizes the importance of culture for Quebec and all of our country. My party recognizes the importance of promoting our culture abroad.

The Conservative government refuses to support loan guarantees for Quebec's forest industry. The government has no intention of taking any action on climate change, after four years in power. I have to admit I sat incredulous as the Minister of the Environment announced that the decision not to fund the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences was final because enough science had been done.

It is not federalism that is failing Quebec. It is the Conservative government that is failing Quebec. Liberals know how to make the federation work. A federal Liberal government would work closely with the Government of Quebec to address the challenges facing the province.

The reason why Quebec does not click with the Conservative government is because Quebeckers do not share the Conservatives' values. That is the problem. No matter how often the Bloc Québécois repeats it, after hearing the same tune for nearly 20 years, many Quebeckers are getting tired of it. The reality is that the Bloc Québécois's message concerning federalism is really getting old, especially coming from a party that does nothing but criticize and can do nothing more.

I would like to say to my colleague from Joliette, for whom I have great respect, that he is right when he says that Quebec is not well served. However, he is mistaken as to the cause. The cause is straight in front of us, him and me, and it is called the Conservative government.

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House of Commons today to congratulate Marika Teakle, a distinguished Canadian citizen from my riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie.

Ms. Teakle showed exemplary dedication for 47 years, both as a volunteer in her community, and as a public servant responsible for immigrants.

In a tribute to this amazing woman on February 26, 2010, Albert Deschamps, the Quebec regional director general of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, announced that a room used for citizenship ceremonies would be named the Marika Teakle room, in her honour, and a plaque was officially unveiled.

As her member of Parliament, I am delighted to have this opportunity to congratulate Marika. New citizens preparing to take their oath of citizenship will be reminded, as they enter the Marika Teakle room, of her long-standing service to immigrants to Canada and of her commitment to their well-being.

Congratulations.

[Scientific Research, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is abandoning research on climate change in the Arctic. Does the government understand the nature of research? Does it understand that research takes time and cannot be turned on and off like a tap without any impact? When a program is cancelled, the team that is in place is dissolved. Years of effort are lost, and sometimes the scientists themselves are lost to other countries.

Does the government understand what is at stake?

[Scientific Research, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has confirmed that funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences will not be renewed.

Two weeks ago, I met with researchers at the Université du Québec à Montréal who depend on this funding. They are concerned and dismayed. We all know how important climate change research is.

What does the government say to these researchers and other researchers across the country who are going to have to abandon years of research in a field that is so important for Canada?

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga—Erindale for his comments.

He talked a great deal about innovation and the importance of research. As the Liberal Party critic for science and technology, I often consult universities. Furthermore, I am privileged to have three universities in my riding.

The message I am hearing from researchers at our universities is this: the two main priorities in terms of research funding are increasing the budgets of Canada's three research councils and increasing funding for the indirect costs of research at our universities.

Can my colleague from Mississauga—Erindale explain to me why the government allocated only $8 million for indirect research costs in this year's budget? He said they have increased funding for research councils by $32 million, while last year, they cut $148 million over three years. How does he reconcile those two actions?