House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 54% of the vote.
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.
Business of Supply March 10th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, first of all l would like to thank the hon. member for Halifax West for his insightful comments.
I thank my Bloc colleague for his motion and want him to know right off that I share his opinion on the need to establish a plan to help the forest industry. My party therefore supports the spirit of this motion. However, my colleague will not be surprised to hear me say that the plan should apply to the industry as a whole and not just to the portion of it in la belle province of Quebec.
The forest industry in Quebec, the Maritimes, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia is facing major challenges these days. If we think back, we will remember that the Liberal government itself put forward a forestry strategy in 2005.
On November 24, 2005, the Liberal government announced, in partnership with forest industry stakeholders, a true plan for the forestry sector, a forest industry competitiveness strategy committing $1.5 billion over five years. This strategy included: $215 million for the development of new technologies in areas such as the pulp and paper industry to enhance its competitiveness; $50 million to support the forest industry to develop bioenergy and cogeneration power technology; $90 million to support innovation in value-added wood products; $66 million in wood product market development; $10 million to enhance workplace skills in the forest sector; $150 million to help forest dependent communities diversify economically; $800 million in loan support to help Canada's forest companies invest to improve competitiveness; and $100 million in loan support for small forest sector businesses.
We can see that the Liberal government had anticipated quite a bit of what is happening today. Upon forming government in 2006, the Conservatives, however, cancelled the plan. Today Canadian forestry workers are paying the price for that action. Instead of investing then in improving technology, skills and competitiveness to strengthen the industry and to save jobs, Canada now faces tens of thousands of job losses. Since the Conservatives took over government, Canada has lost 18,000 forest sector jobs. Not only that, they negotiated a poor settlement on the softwood lumber dispute and we are paying the price today.
As regards the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, the Liberal Party of Canada has always supported a two-step approach to resolving the dispute over softwood lumber—arbitration by the courts and negotiation.
On September 19, 2006, the Liberal Party voted against the agreement on softwood lumber, and, on December 6, 2006, against Bill C-24 on the softwood lumber export fees. The Liberal Party wanted to be sure the Conservative government would respect the North American Free Trade Agreement and keep its election promise to recover all the customs duties collected illegally by the United States.
We believe the softwood lumber agreement is full of holes for the following reasons.
It is a reversal of the position adopted by successive federal governments and supported by NAFTA and World Trade Organization trade panels that our softwood lumber sector is not subsidized.
It compromises Canada's chances of helping a sector already in difficulty, by handing part of our sovereignty over our natural resources to our American competitors. The fallout of such capitulation will be felt in future disputes, which will no doubt arise not only in the softwood lumber industry, but also in other sectors facing the same accusations by our American competitors.
It creates an export tax, which, at the current rate, is in fact higher than the illegal American customs duties of the past.
It strips NAFTA of any credibility as arbitrator of trade disputes and voids the principles governing such discussions.
It drops $500 million into the hands of the American forestry sector, which uses it to fund legal and political attacks against the Canadian industry and another $500 million into the hands of the American government.
And, finally, it contains anti fluctuation provisions that will deny the Canadian industry the flexibility it needs to deal with the unexpected, such as the infestation of the pine beetle.
The Conservatives claim that their softwood lumber agreement put an end to the dispute, but the United States began consultations questioning the forestry policies of Ontario and Quebec within seven months of signing the agreement.
Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta face the same attacks. It is the $500 million the Conservatives handed over to the Americans that is being used to finance these attacks. On April 4, 2007, the Liberal Party announced that a Liberal government would organize a national summit on the forestry sector bringing together the stakeholders—public officials, the localities involved and the forestry sector—to work out responsible measures for the environment and protect jobs in the Canadian localities.
Instead of being proactive in investing to strengthen the industry, the Conservatives are now being reactive, announcing band-aid programs. The Conservatives' lack of vision has led to this crisis in the forest sector and caused many Canadians their jobs.
For our softwood industry, the Conservatives' softwood lumber deal has also been a failure. The Conservatives rushed into a flawed agreement that left $1 billion in the pockets of the United States. The Conservative government said that the softwood lumber agreement would put an end to litigation, yet Canada is back in court.
Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party believes that there is a role for government to play in helping these sectors and the workers who depend on them.
My party has long recognized that action is essential. Accordingly, it is prepared to support a real plan to help the forest industry, a plan that would include a series of specific measures to ensure sustainable development.