Marc Garneau

[Automotive Industry, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked whether the government required collateral from GM Canada in the event of a loan.

Incredibly, the minister answered that no loans had been made to date, as if that were enough.

Yet several months ago his government agreed to lend the automotive sector $2.7 billion.

I repeat my question: do the Conservatives require that GM Canada put up any assets as collateral for loans, and if so, what is that collateral?

[Automotive Industry, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will try another question.

Can the Minister of Industry tell us if the Conservatives are establishing the same loan conditions for our auto industry as our American neighbours? More specifically, has Canada established the same interest rate and loan repayment schedule as the United States?

[Automotive Industry, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let us try this again. My question for the Minister of Industry is very simple and I trust crystal clear. Could he tell us whether any loans that may be made to GM Canada by the federal government will be backed by any GM assets? In other words, will the Conservatives require GM Canada to put up any collateral for any loans made to it? If so, what is that collateral?

[Science and Technology, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has decided to invest $10 billion in medical research, but the Conservatives are going ahead with budget cuts to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Many Canadian researchers agree that spending on university infrastructure is all well and good, but similar investments in research are essential, too.

Why has this government cut funding to the three research councils?

[Science and Technology, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology falsely claims that the Conservatives have invested $5.1 billion in science, technology and innovation in budget 2009. We know that $2 billion of that funding is actually for bricks and mortar infrastructure projects that do nothing to directly support scientists.

Why do the Conservatives insist on misleading Canadians about science and research?

[Science and Technology, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, talent is mobile and gravitates towards the universities where it will be recognized, be it in Canada or abroad.

“We are going headfirst into a cement wall,” said Doug Crawford, a neuroscientist at York University. “The very best scientists will leave,” added Heather Monro-Bloom, the President of McGill University. “They want to make use of their talents at all costs”.

Those are not my words. That is what our scientists are saying. Is the minister telling them they are wrong?

[Science and Technology, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of state continues to mislead Canadians about science funding, claiming he has increased spending on research. Statistics Canada numbers are clear as day. OECD numbers point to the same thing. As a per cent of GDP, in real terms Canada is spending hundreds of millions of dollars less now than in 2005.

Claiming that the $2 billion in university infrastructure is also a direct investment in research is not only double-counting, it is blatantly false. When will the Conservatives introduce themselves to the truth?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the matter the Bloc member just raised. There is no doubt that the softwood lumber agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party contained serious flaws. There are international mechanisms regulating the market and international trade. It is clear that Canada will have to move forward boldly to protect its interests.

The issue the Bloc member just raised is one of many serious issues. Canada must continue to negotiate in its own best interest.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if I should ever forget the importance of the forestry industry for even a moment, I am absolutely certain that my Bloc colleague would jog my memory. I will add that the Bloc member knows that I sit on the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that is looking at industrial sectors. When I talk with my Bloc colleague, we agree on the importance of the forestry industry.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for his question. I will repeat what I said during my presentation. In 2005, the Liberal Party announced a major strategy for the forestry industry, worth roughly $1.5 billion over five years. A number of the components of that strategy that I mentioned are covered by the Bloc motion. In that sense, we are on the same wavelength. In addition, the Liberal Party continues to support that approach to the forestry industry.