That this House condemn the federal government for its regressive research and development policies in regard to Quebec, in particular its unilateral decision to cut the federal contribution of $7.2 million planned for the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.She said: Mr. Speaker, given the short time available, I will share my 20-minute period with the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
(1540)
The non-votable motion put forward by the official opposition for debate today is about research and development.
For a few years, the Bloc Quebecois has been deploring the fact that Quebec is being underfinanced by the federal government in the area of research and development. Year after year, the figures clearly show that Quebec does not receive its fair share of the money invested in research and development by the federal government. More recently, the latest round of federal cuts has widened the gap, especially the federal government's withdrawal from the only major scientific project in Quebec, the Varennes tokamak project.
My motion reads as follows:
That this House condemn the federal government for its regressive research and development policies in regard to Quebec, in particular its unilateral decision to cut the federal contribution of $7.2 million planned for the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.I would like to set the record straight on a completely erroneous piece of information often used by the Minister of Natural Resources in answering the official opposition's questions. In fact, my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies pointed this out to the House this afternoon during statements by members just before question period.
When the minister compares Quebec's share with that of the other provinces, she never includes the amounts allocated to the national capital region, almost all of which is located in Ontario.
Let us look a little more closely at this situation, in light of a study done by the Quebec Ministry of Industry, Trade, Science and Technology on federal spending in research and development.
Between 1979 and 1991, six out of ten provinces were overfinanced, Ontario, of course, coming out ahead with a $3 billion surplus.
During the same period, Quebec was seriously underfinanced by $2.5 billion, followed by Alberta with $1.5 billion, British Columbia with $369 million, and Saskatchewan with $124 million. In the last few years, however, the situation has been getting a little better in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta.
The most common indicator showing how intensive the research and development effort was is the ratio of net domestic R and D expenditures to gross domestic product.
On that score, if the federal government had been fair, this ratio would have been 1.82 per cent, instead of 1.71 per cent in 1991.
Research and development funding is usually divided between intra- and extra-mural expenditures.
On the subject of intra-mural expenditures, that is to say expenditures for federal laboratories, the study showed that, for one thing, only 13.8 per cent of intra-mural expenditures went to Quebec, compared to 57.7 per cent to Ontario.
The high concentration of federal laboratories in the Ottawa region only partly explains why Ontario received such a large share of the funding. In the areas of natural science and engineering, the federal government has been carrying out more intra-mural research outside of Ottawa, but still within Ontario, than in any of the four other major regions of Canada, namely Quebec, British Columbia, the prairies and Atlantic Canada.
It is also estimated that, between 1963 and 1991, Quebec lost, in intra-mural funding alone, more than $5.3 billion in 1991 dollars.
In addition, in 1991, the relative scarcity of federal research and development laboratories in Quebec translated into a shortage of more than 2,230 person-years, or eight times the combined staff level of the Biotechnology Research Institute and the Industrial Materials Institute, two of the main federal laboratories in the Montreal area.
Finally, as regards assistance to businesses, or extra-mural expenditures, the study concluded that, with its $32 million deficit, Quebec was the only province to have incurred in 1991 a significant deficit in terms of federal industrial research and development expenditures.
There is an unmistakable connection between the location of federal research facilities and the allocation of federal business. It is therefore little wonder that, over the 1979-1990 period, Ottawa businesses were awarded more contracts and that the annual amounts paid to each of them for federal research and development work were much higher than anywhere else.
(1545)
A June 1995 study commissioned by the INRS, Quebec's national institute for scientific research, came to similar conclusions. The authors of the study also pointed out that only 25 of the 156 federal laboratories in Canada are located in Quebec. This means 16 per cent of them, compared to 62 per cent for Ontario, or a 40 per cent difference. Laboratories in Quebec only employ 3,002 of the 22,360 scientists and technicians working in federal facilities, barely 13.4 per cent of the total, compared to 49 per cent for Ontario.
The authors of the study also pointed out that, since 1980, the Government of Canada has been favouring the advanced technology sector. The effect of this policy is that the four federal laboratories in Quebec simply do not compare with the new ones in Ontario and Manitoba. For example, a huge federal facility employing 2,227 researchers in the nuclear energy sector was set up in Ontario, while another one employs 925 people in Manitoba. There is simply no comparison with the situation in Quebec.
Quebec's largest laboratory was established in the airspace sector. It employs 268 people, while another facility located in Ottawa recruited 297 people. It would have been much simpler to centralize, for once, the aerospace industry in a single Quebec location.
A new communication and information techniques facility hired 180 people in Quebec, but three similar laboratories located in Ottawa employ 566 people. The authors of the study also indicated that the proportion of contracts awarded in Quebec under the federal contracting out policy went down from 21.6 per cent to 13 per cent over a period of about 20 years ending in 1994.
Since 1985, this proportion never exceeded 15.5 per cent. In fact, barely 4 per cent of Quebec companies active in research and development get federal contracts in the science and technology sector. In Canada, there does not seem to be money available for science, research and knowledge. Yet, these will be the keys to success in the 21st century. By contrast, the federal government can afford to spend over $7 million on flags and kites, as pointed out yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.
I ask the government to reread the letter written by the president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Mr. Vincett. Before concluding, I will read a few excerpts of his letter. In reference to the background, Mr. Vincett writes:
[English]
``Your government has consistently stressed the importance of science and technology to Canada's economic future. You have kept cuts to the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council to a level less than that suffered by many agencies. More recently, your government's report `Science and Technology for the New Century' has again emphasized the critical role of science and technology''.
[Translation]
In reference to the issue, the president says:
[English]
``Recent deficit reduction efforts have obliged Natural Resources Canada to concentrate on its core mandate which is not of course science and technology. Yet the budget which supports science of broad national importance has not been transferred to Industry Canada. As a result, major national science facilities will lose their funding. This together with the likely effects on the university research infrastructure of cuts to the transfer payments and the significant closures which are occurring as a result of cuts to the national science and engineering research council place your entire science and technology strategy at serious risk and endanger the future health of the economy as we move into a knowledge based world''.
[Translation]
In reference to the importance of basic science, Mr. Vincett writes:
[English]
``The threatened damage to Canada's basic effort will be a disaster for future economic growth since basic science is the foundation upon which most technological and economic advances depend. As the chairman of the Bank of Nova Scotia said in 1994: `Public support for science-is one of the very few categories of government spending that deserves to be increased-studies have shown conclusively that the overall return to society from investment in knowledge creation is extremely high'''.
(1550)
[Translation]
The solution proposed by the president is the following:
[English]
``This issue transcends individual government departments. Unlike most of the developed world, Canada does not have a co-ordinated policy for the establishment, operation and closure of national scientific facilities. As a result, actions in one department can have a devastating effect on programs in another. I strongly urge you to establish an expert committee to report to you quickly on what such a co-ordinated policy should contain''.
[Translation]
It would be in the interest of the ministers who received a copy of this letter, and the Prime Minister, to read it over again, to make sure Canada is not headed for an even worse economic future.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you may be sure that if the official opposition has decided to dedicate one of its opposition days to research and development, it is because we have very serious reasons for wanting to see corrective action taken. I hope that the Minister of Natural Resources, who we just heard is going to take part in the debate, will understand fully the gravity of the situation.
Before going into detail, I know that my colleague, the member for Verchères, will give a complete picture of the discrimination being suffered by the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion, since, as you know, the government is getting ready to close down unilaterally what is undoubtedly one, if not the, major natural sciences facility in Quebec.
I hope that the minister will take advantage of this debate to honour a commitment she made when she appeared before the natural resources sub-committee, and give a solemn undertaking to find alternative funding, because that is the solution.
We can understand that the government must put its fiscal house in order. But why is it that for decades now-in fact, it started with the creation of the National Research Council of Canada in the 1950s-Quebec has systematically and consistently lost out when it comes to research and development?
So that it is very clear what we are talking about during the debate, I would like to propose that we define research and development as work that is creative in nature and that is carried out in a systematic fashion in order to increase the stock of knowledge or devise new applications for this knowledge.
Why is research and development so important and why have all industrialized countries that have taken charge of their development been concerned with having a rigorous and consistent policy, which incidentally is not the case for Canada, which, as we speak, still has no systematic research and development policy? Unbelievably, its policy is completely ad hoc.
Research and development is important because it adds to knowledge, and it adds to value added, obviously enabling us to establish links with the important export sector.
It is nonetheless very obvious that Canada's research and development performance is very weak, and I am anxious to hear what the Minister of Natural Resources has to say about this, because all industrialized countries do R and D. On average,
industrialized countries devote 2.3 per cent of their GDP to research and development policies or investments.
(1555)
Imagine, for a few years already, Canada has been stagnating with investments amounting to 1.5 per cent. Simply put, of all industrialized countries, only Italy, Iceland and Ireland show a worse performance than Canada. Sweden, Japan, Switzerland, the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and Austria perform better than Canada with regard to R & D.
What is worrisome and should bring Quebec ministers to spring into action is the systemic discrimination against Quebec regarding R & D. Some would say that, looking at the system as a whole, there might be some discrepancies in certain sectors, which is acceptable.
But who in the government, which minister is going to be frank and lucid enough to explain to us how it is that there is a four billion dollar a year difference between investments made by the federal government in a province like Ontario and its investments in Quebec? How can that be explained?
I know that the Minister of Natural Resources will be at a loss to explain this. How can she explain that, year in and year out, there are between 25 and 30 federal research laboratories in Quebec and close to 80 in Ontario? Are there factors we should know about which could explain this state of affairs?
I will give you more precise numbers to show that, if the official opposition has decided to talk about R & D, it is not on a whim, it is not because we think that this is only a bad stretch we have to go through.
The Minister of Natural Resources, who is the most incendiary of all ministers in this government, must be aware of the discrimination Quebec has been the victim of for the last three decades. The government's systematic interventions and policies in this respect started in the 1950s and have been going on now for three, almost four decades.
It found a way to concentrate most of its investments in what the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata rightly called intra muros projects; namely, the federal government spends around seven billion dollars on its R & D policies according to two principles. It does it in its laboratories, the number of which is estimated at about 177.
The natural resources minister will certainly share the indignation I feel when I see that the government did not see fit to establish a regional development policy in the area of research and development. Had it been serious, it would have ensured that Atlantic Canada, western Canada, Ontario and Quebec could benefit equally from investments in R and D.
I understand this is not a mathematical question. But when there is a difference such as the one that exists between Quebec and Ontario, a difference supported by the government, what are we to think? I challenge the minister. When we analysed the merits of the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion project, which involved Hydro-Quebec and the Institut national de la recherche scientifique, what scientist in Quebec would have thought that somebody would be foolhardy enough-and I think irresponsible would be the right word to use here-to cancel such a project?
Everybody agrees that the minister was a brilliant lawyer in the past and I challenge her to rise in this House and name one scientist in Quebec who supports her decision. The fact is that there are two major research and development projects in Quebec: the Canadian Space Agency, whose $300 million budget was reduced to about $200 million, and the Varennes project.
(1600)
It is quite simple: in the area of research and development, especially natural sciences, whenever we looked for examples of major projects, we had two of them before us: the Canadian Space Agency, which was cut, and the project under the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources.
The merits of this project were unanimously recognized, first of all, because $70 million was invested in infrastructure and second, because 100 researchers with Ph. D.'s in engineering, in physics and in other fields that are extremely important to economic development were involved.
Everyone was in favour. The whole scientific community had hopes of a promising future for this project. Then, without warning, the government had the nerve to unilaterally and shamelessly cut one of Quebec's most promising projects. That is what federalism means in the area of research and development: the inability to arbitrate, to strike a balance that could have helped Quebec in the past and that could still help it today.
What corrective measures is the government proposing? In fact, the whole history of research and development since the 1950s is a history of systemic discrimination against Quebec. Let me say, in closing, that only in one program did Quebec play a significant role: the Defence Industry Productivity Program or DIPP, which is understandable since the Canadian aerospace and aircraft manufacturing industries are concentrated in Montreal. Believe it or not, this government has the nerve and the chutzpah to dismantle this program, so that Quebec is now losing out in all areas of research and development.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to respond to the comments made by my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House.
First let me thank my colleague for his reference to me as a brilliant lawyer. I believe it is undue flattery as will be revealed in the coming minutes. Anyway, I thank him for that.
It is an honour for me to be able to respond to the motion by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. If I understand the motion, the hon. member wants to condemn the Government of Canada for ``its regressive research and development policies in regard to Quebec''. She then goes on to criticize a decision to cut the federal contribution to the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.
I submit that the hon. member does not want, will not look and does not want to look at the federal S and T strategy in the broader context of what it means for all Canadians. This is obviously the hon. member's prerogative.
Evidently she is not interested in science and technology policy beyond the borders of her home province. Nor does she want to put the Government of Canada's spending on science and technology in the context of the overall strategy to reduce the deficit. She ignores the federal deficit in the same week that her former leader, the premier of Quebec, has gone to the investment community of New York to tell American investors that his number one preoccupation is to cut Quebec's deficit.
Perhaps she will take the advice of her former leader, the now premier of Quebec, if she will not listen to what we have to say on this side of the House. I am certain that the premier of Quebec will tell her that deficit reduction requires tough choices. He will tell her that she has to assess her priorities. Not every program can continue to receive funding if we want to bring the deficit under control.
I will argue that the federal government cannot provide funding for fusion R and D at this time because fusion research does not meet our current criteria for funding. There is every indication that it will take at least another 30 years of research before energy supplies from fusion technology can be realized on a commercial basis.
(1605 )
We have had to make tough choices. We know we have had to cut funding for some programs that we would otherwise want to maintain. Above all, we have to make strategic decisions on how best to invest the $5.5 billion that the Government of Canada spends on science and technology.
Out of that S and T budget, the Government of Canada spent $3.1 billion on research and development initiatives in 1992-93. Did Quebec get a fair share of that investment? Did the federal government, as the hon. member accuses, implement a regressive R and D policy for Quebec? Members will find that Quebec received $692 million in federal R and D spending in that year. Another $13 million was spent on the Quebec side of the border in the national capital region.
Taking the national capital region out of the formula, as many industrialized countries do in calculating regional distribution of R and D spending, we find that the $692 million spent in Quebec represents 28 per cent of all spending outside the national capital region. I would suggest that is more than fair. More to the point, I do not see how the hon. member opposite can complain that the federal government has regressive R and D policies with regard to Quebec.
The amount of $692 million is a very sizeable investment in Quebec R and D. It comes from a tax base into which all Canadians pay. An independent Quebec would have to come up with a similar amount, in addition to its current provincial spending, if it wanted to maintain the current level of R and D in the province of Quebec.
In addition, members across and all Quebecers should carefully consider the investment that the Government of Canada has made into new research facilities over the past number of years.
Let me cite only a few examples. In 1987 Quebec got the Food Research and Development Centre and the Maurice Lamontagne Institute. In 1989, it got the space agency, a research agency, I believe it is fair to say, of which all Canadians are immensely proud. All Canadians were proud to see Canadian astronaut Marc Garneau on his second shuttle mission two weeks ago.
The true measure of federal investment in R and D is not measured even by such major investments as these. It is also measured by R and D grants and contracts to industry and universities. Quebec receives 30 per cent of that type of funding. In addition, Quebec gets a higher than average share of R and D tax credits because of the concentration of R and D in that province. According to a recent report from Simon Fraser Institute, Quebec based firms claimed 41 per cent of all R and D tax credits claimed in Canada in 1992.
Since 1981 the investment of the federal government in fusion research at the Tokamak de Varennes alone has amounted to $90 million. This investment has helped to develop scientific and industrial research in Quebec.
The federal government is continuing to fund research and development of energy technology in the province. It will be primarily, and I have said this in the House before, in areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy systems at Varennes
laboratories, which opened four years ago. This program has an annual budget of $6 million and employs approximately 50 people.
In nuclear energy, the mandate of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is to seek to maintain a viable, competitive business in supplying and servicing Candu reactors at a reduced cost to the federal government.
Electricity generation from Candu nuclear energy technology is an economic reality today. Candu is already a success and has a good chance of achieving even greater success internationally. High technology industries in Quebec will continue to benefit from the nuclear industry through contracts developed from Candu sales to Korea and through the good performance of the Gentilly-2 Candu reactor. Consultants' studies show that a typical Candu 6 sale overseas could bring over $100 million in contracts to Quebec and generate about 4,000 person years of employment.
(1610)
I would ask the hon. member opposite again; how in light of these numbers, in light of these benefits to Quebec, can she make the case that the federal government has regressive R and D policies for Quebec?
Let me broaden the scope of my argument for the benefit of all members of the House and put the decision regarding federal funding for fusion R and D in the context of overall federal priorities and the priorities for federal participation in science and technology activities.
As all members know, the Government of Canada faces the challenge of reducing the deficit in order to manage the debt and maintain a stable foundation for new jobs and growth across the nation. We are determined to meet our objectives, and as we all know, we are making progress toward our objectives.
In addition, at this time we are living up to our commitment to all Canadians to be fair and compassionate in our decision making by putting in place new building blocks for security and prosperity.
The criteria that my department is using to determine its priorities for research and development activities mirror the overall emphasis on jobs and growth in the near term that the federal government is focusing on as a whole. Specifically, the energy R and D priorities at Natural Resources Canada are sustainable development, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, the science of climate change and non-conventional hydrocarbon resources.
Every thoughtful Canadian who is concerned about the vast range of services provided by the federal government and the equally vast cost of providing these services knows that the government must set priorities and must make difficult decisions. That is why this government was elected, to make these decisions, to allocate our limited funding accordingly and to take action. The federal government must concentrate its resources on its highest priorities and strive for their success.
The focus of the federal government is on activities that will bring results in the near to medium term. As I noted earlier, commercial generation of electricity from fusion is uncertain. Assuming that an economically viable technology could be developed, it is at least 30 years away.
Last March, following extensive consultations with Canadians the Government of Canada introduced a science and technology strategy that lays the foundation for the decisions we must make in prioritizing S and T in Canada.
The strategy demonstrates concretely how the federal government is getting its house in order so that it will be a better partner to the other players in Canada's innovation system, the private sector, academic institutions and other orders of government. The strategy sets out the Government of Canada's priorities in four key areas.
First, it defines national goals for science and technology. These goals are sustainable job creation and economic growth, improved quality of life and advancement of knowledge.
Second, it describes the federal government's core S and T activities.
Third, it outlines a new system of governance within federal departments that bring science and technology to the centre of the decision making process in cabinet.
Finally, the S and T strategy provides operating principles to guide federal departments and agencies.
Keeping in mind these over-arching principles, let us return to the question of energy R and D. Canada is amply endowed with a variety of resources for the generation of electricity, including hydro, fossil, nuclear and renewable energy sources. We have assigned a high priority to research into efficiency gains in the current production and use of energy.
(1615 )
The national fusion program is a good program but it does not rank as a high priority in the federal government's overall science and technology objectives. Cuts are planned for federal funding for fusion research in both Ontario and Quebec. There will also be cuts to the basic science program of Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., mostly in Ontario.
For a number of years the federal government has co-funded research and development of fusion, the national fusion program, in partnership with Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro. Recently the annual cost has been $7.2 million for the Quebec part of the program and $4.4 million for the Ontario portion.
More than 70 Canadian high technology companies and 6 universities have benefited and will continue to benefit well into the future from the fusion research program. As I mentioned, in drawing up the 1996-97 budget the government decided not to provide funds for research and development of fusion beyond March 1997.
The agreements among the partners stipulate one year's notice for ending contributions to the program. We have exercised that right. This provides for an orderly transition. The other partners have a year in which to make adjustments.
Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro have the option of continuing with the program independent of federal funding. Most of the industrial and commercial benefits of such work would be in Ontario and Quebec. If these provincial utilities consider fusion to be a priority it is reasonable to expect that they devote more resources to this priority.
As I mentioned in committee last week, I have asked my officials to facilitate discussions to help the utilities and other interested parties during the transition to seek alternative sources of funding. I make it clear again this afternoon that there will be no more funding from the Government of Canada.
Taxpayers would like the government to participate in many of the outstanding projects which merit public support, but informed and concerned taxpayers also know as never before that government resources are limited. They elected this government to make tough decisions. Our decision to terminate funding for fusion R and D is one of those decisions.
I believe I have established a solid argument that justifies the Government of Canada's decision to terminate federal funding for fusion R and D. The government is doing all it can to meet its overall priorities of addressing the deficit and improving the climate for jobs and growth. Meeting these objectives will provide substantial benefits for present and future generations of all Canadians.
We are determined to meet our objectives and we are making progress toward our objectives. We have identified clear and consistent criteria on near term goals to priorize our spending and we are making the tough and necessary decisions keeping us on track to meet our deficit reduction targets and, as important, to meet our objectives in terms of encouraging jobs and growth.
The Government of Canada is making a substantial contribution to R and D in Quebec. I do not think anything could be clearer in light of the numbers I discussed earlier. Simply put, however, fusion does not meet our criteria but we are working on many other programs in the province of Quebec and all over the country that do meet our S and T criteria.
This is not a regressive policy for R and D in Quebec. This is a policy with a clear vision to encourage jobs and growth for present and future generations of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the minister had to say and my conclusion is that she would be well advised to find out more about Quebec. It is clear that she has been unable to identify accurately the difficulties facing Quebec, and in particular has failed to make the comparisons that must be made concerning investment in Ontario as opposed to Quebec.
(1620)
I have two questions for her. Is the minister prepared to admit that, when Quebec and Ontario are compared, there really is a difference between research contracts awarded to federal laboratories? Does she agree, and on what figures does she base her answer? And if she does not agree, can she tell us why and on the basis of what figures? The first department to identify this difference was the Quebec Federal Office of Regional Development. It funded a study that mentioned a $4 billion difference.
I think that the minister will have to agree with the official opposition's evaluation of R and D spending. Can the minister again tell us what she intends to do to find alternative funding, which can come from the National Research Council of Canada or the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council? These are, after all, organizations that give out grants and have budgets of close to $400 million.
I would like the minister, out of respect for Quebec, for its scientific community, and for the R and D deficit it is assuming, to rise today in her place and promise, as she did before the committee, but to now do so clearly here in the House so that it really means something, and so that among our fellow parliamentarians we can keep our promises. I would like the minister to rise and tell us what she intends to do to find alternative funding so that we can save the tokamak facility. This is why we are here as the official opposition and I think that we are fulfilling our responsibilities. That is the only real way to defend the interests of Quebec.
[English]
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows since he and I have talked about this on numerous occasions, I have undertaken to nominate someone from my department who will be available to work with other stakeholders, if requested, to find alternative funding for the Tokamak fusion project. I made that statement in committee last week. It is a policy which we pursue in relation to all areas where the federal government is withdrawing, changing or restructuring its role, and there is a transition period
involved. I will nominate that person. If that person is requested to participate in a multi-stakeholder project, so much the better.
I have to make it very clear, as I did in committee, there is no alternative funding within the federal government for this project.
I return to a point I have made before. Fusion research is not commercially viable at this point. However, fusion research is pursued for commercial applicability and there are some entities in this country that stand to gain much more than others if fusion research sometime in the future, in the next 30 or 40 years, does become commercially viable. Hydro Quebec is one of those entities. Ontario Hydro is another.
The Canadian taxpayer has incubated fusion research for some 20 years. The federal government and the Canadian taxpayer have spent $90 million incubating fusion research in the province of Quebec and some $42 million incubating fusion research in the province of Ontario. If fusion is a priority for these two provinces, for the two utilities or for other elements of the private sector, I suggest Canadian taxpayers have done their part. It is now time for others, for whom this research may provide direct economic gain in the future, to pick up the shortfall and make fusion research a priority.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a point I made in my address, which was in reference to the letter from Professor Vincett stating that, contrary to all of the evolved countries in the world, Canada has not established a co-ordination policy. The professor said:
[English]
``As a result, action in one department can have a devastating effect on programs in another. I strongly urge you to establish an expert committee to report to you quickly on what such a co-ordinated policy should contain.
(1625 )
``In the meantime, to avoid unintended damage which could take decades to repair I appeal to you to provide at a minimum bridge funding to the centres involved until an integrated policy is in place or alternate financing has been found. If clear action is not taken in the next month or two, the researchers involved will take jobs abroad and our investment in most of these programs will be irretrievably lost''.
[Translation]
Such is the advice of a Canadian expert, the president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, which groups together 1,500 of Canada's top brains.
What does the minister have to say in reply? She received a copy of the letter, as did the Minister of Finance, as did the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, as did the Prime Minister, as did the Minister of Industry. What reply can she give us on this?
[English]
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the opinions expressed in that letter. Let me reiterate a point I have made before in the House. No one is suggesting the science that was done at Tokamak was not good science. No one is suggesting the people who have done that research are not fine scientists. That is not the issue here.
The issue is one of the appropriate role of the federal government. We need to consider and define that role in the context of the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately it is not possible for the government to continue to do everything it has done in the past. It has become necessary, perhaps cruelly necessary, for the government to make very tough choices and to priorize the limited funds we have available.
Therefore I return to the priorization of our energy research that I outlined in the remarks I made a few minutes ago. We have determined our energy R and D priorities within the federal government: sustainable development, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, the science of climate change and non-conventional hydrocarbon resources.
We also have to think about the nation. We are an energy rich nation, unlike some others. For example, our friends, the Japanese, have very few energy sources. Therefore it would make perfect sense for them to pursue research into an area like fusion. They are net importers of energy and therefore that becomes an issue of national security for them. They want to have within their country the means to be secure relating to energy production.
Canada is a net exporter of energy, whether it is oil, natural gas, hydro. The province of Quebec has tremendous hydro resources. It probably has some of the world's best research and development as it relates to the production of hydro power. We have wind, solar power. We have a wide variety of indigenous energy sources.
We need to do more research in relation to those energy sources. We need to understand the impacts on the environment of the extraction of oil, natural gas. We need to understand the effects of the development of hydro dams on surrounding areas, communities and indigenous peoples. We need to understand more about how we can use energy more efficiently.
We are a large nation with a very small population base. We use energy intensely to travel, to transport goods and people, to heat our homes in the worst conditions of winter. We need to spend a lot of our research efforts in relation to energy efficiency.
That is what we have done. Those are the priorities we have established based on our strengths and on our challenges. They are not the same priorities for other countries that do not have the wealth of energy sources that we have.
(1630 )
We have prioritized our energy research. We have thought long and hard about it. It was not capricious nor frivolous. We have to maximize the benefit of our limited resources for all Canadians. I believe we have done that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the catastrophic decision by the Minister of Natural Resources, namely the closure of one of the most outstanding of scientific projects, I would like to know whether the minister visited the Varennes installations before making her decision.
If not, would the minister agree, by asking the MP concerned to organize a meeting, to make an on site visit to the tokamak installations? Perhaps the minister is one of those people who learns best by seeing things, and she needs to actually go there. If she goes to the Varennes region and meets the people there, perhaps she will change her mind.
[English]
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, based on our previous discussions which are always most enjoyable and vigorous, that I have not visited the facility, nor do I think it is necessary to visit the facility to establish the federal government's priorities in relation to energy research.
I have outlined why we have established the priorities. Those priorities are not based on this facility or that facility. They are based upon the energy strengths of the nation and our short to medium term energy research needs.
I thank the hon. member for his invitation and hope that sometime in the future-
Mr. Bergeron: If it is not closed.
Ms. McLellan: Let me just say that the decision rests in the hands of those who stand to benefit the most: the province of Quebec, Hydro Quebec and private sector companies.
To return to the point I made before, we cannot do all things. In the present fiscal situation we have had to make difficult choices.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow her to continue?
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion presented in the House today, rightfully draws attention to the fact that the government is guilty of yet again of acting against Quebec's interests. This time we are talking about inadequate funding for research and development in Quebec. The current imbalance between Quebec's demographic load and the amount of money invested in the province is really indecent. Quebec, representing nearly 25 per cent of Canada's population, receives a mere pittance from federal department coffers.
By way of example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada invests only 11 or 12 per cent of its research and development budget in Quebec. It is the same story with Transport Canada, which invests only 17.6 per cent of its research and development money there. We could name a host of federal departments, but I think it would be appropriate to describe the injustice we currently face in the riding of Verchères. I am of course talking about the forward looking tokamak project in Varennes.
Managed by the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes, Quebec, this project is vital not only for the people in the riding of Verchères, not only for Quebecers, not only for Canadians, but for everyone in the world, in the long run.
I will explain. You know that the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes has been trying for a number of years to develop a new form of energy that would not negatively impact the environment: nuclear fusion.
(1635)
Within the context of international co-operation the likes of which probably have never been seen with countries like Japan, Australia, China, the member countries of the European Union, Russia, and so on, Canada is a partner, albeit it a very modest one, in the development of this form of energy. Since all the work is co-ordinated to avoid unnecessary duplication, each research centre around the world works on one aspect of the research and shares its knowledge with the others.
Canada therefore clearly benefits from international expertise in this area and from the resultant transfer of technology. Withdrawing from nuclear fusion research at this point may mean missing the boat when this form of energy starts to be used. This form of energy would come from nuclear fusion, not from the traditional nuclear fission which produces radioactive waste material.
For your information, let me tell you that the word ``tokamak'' is a contraction of the Russian words for toroidal chamber, which refers to the shape of the reactor bearing that name. But, now this large scale and forward-looking project, full of promise of a pollution-free future, may now disappear, at least in Canada, because of a lack of funding and, in fact, of a lack of vision.
Indeed, following the last federal budget, the Department of Natural Resources, which finances Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which in turn finances the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion, announced that after March 1997, it would no longer finance this large scale program, cofinanced equally by Hydro--
Québec, the Institut national de la recherche scientifique and, of course, Natural Resources Canada.
This unilateral decision, without any consultation with the interested parties in this project, sends the message that this kind of joint project cannot work in Canada. Indeed, how can there be partnership or concertation, when one of the parties may withdraw at anytime, without warning, without explaining the reasons for its withdrawal, without any consultation?
The figures involved should be kept in mind. If this decision to put an end to the $7.2 million funding is maintained, it will not be without consequences. New material for $11 million will never be used. Twenty years of development and $70 million infrastructures will be wasted. The minister was speaking earlier of an amount of $90 million and she was crediting herself with it, but it must be understood that the federal government provides 50 per cent of the funding for the tokamak project. About 100 direct jobs will be lost, over half of them being highly qualified scientific or engineering positions, no to mention the indirect jobs generated by the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion.
This research centre does not operate in isolation. A study done in October 1995 by INRS Urbanisation showed that businesses and laboratories had developed new expertise after having been awarded contracts with the centre. It seems that 18 small businesses in Quebec have developed new high technology expertise that they did not have before. They all gained greater credibility as corporations following their co-operation with the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion.
Let us take one of the numerous examples of the spinoffs that co-operation with the centre can generate. One of the small corporations which worked with it, Technologies MPB, was awarded a $62 million foreign contract thanks to the expertise acquired while working on the tokamak project. This is why I find it absurd and unreasonable to cut off the funding for such a structural project, despite the minister's explanations that these cuts come at a time of budgetary constraints.
I remind the House that we are discussing a project that costs the federal government only $7.2 million, because there are other partners. And, speaking of budget cuts, last year, the federal government increased its funding to the TRIUMF project in British Columbia from $19.3 million to 34.3 million, all federal money.
In Ontario this time, the federal government is maintaining the same level of funding for the ambitious neutrino research program in Sudbury.
(1640)
While cutting $7.2 million, in the name of fiscal restraint, from a structuring project which is sure to create jobs and generate new technologies, the federal government is sinking $10 million worth
of taxpayers' money in a flag waving campaign. It is going to distribute flags and kites while cutting hundreds of jobs in Quebec. This is an outrage.
I see the minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec. I hope he is taking note of the debate going on here today.
It is again in Ontario that the development of the CANDU reactor is taking place; the economic spinoffs of this project, which would be definitely less in Quebec than in Ontario, have not yet been established.
Fielding questions from the Bloc Quebecois, the minister first said, in this House, that Quebec receives over 25 per cent of the regional R and D budget. The key word in this is ``regional''. The minister is referring to regional expenditures and, believe me, it is extremely difficult to understand what is included in this new accounting method the minister seems to have invented.
Having asked for explanations on numerous occasions, we finally learned that expenditures in the national capital region appeared nowhere. In fact, it is as if some kind of 11th zone had been created, an 11th region, 11th province for which all expenditures would be erased. We believe the minister is playing with figures dangerously because her method for recording her department's expenses shows some intellectual dishonesty and, thereby, a total lack of respect for Canadians and Quebecers.
What is certain is that the sums allocated to R & D in Ontario are considerably higher than those invested in R & D in Quebec. For example, again, a 1993-1994 list of all federal research centres in natural sciences and engineering shows that, in the National Capital Region, there are 40 centres and 6,138 jobs in Ottawa and its suburbs on the Ontario side. Compared to that, only two centres, and 111 jobs, are located in Hull.
If the Department of Natural Resources reflects the rest of the federal government, and we know it does, Quebec is definitely a loser in the area of amounts invested on its territory.
Fortunately, we have figures that depict a reality quite different from that of the minister. The Syndicat des professionnels scientifiques of the Institut de recherche en énergie has shown that only 17 per cent of the R & D budgets of Natural Resources Canada are spent in Quebec.
If the department maintains its decision to reduce its share of financing and finally brings the Tokamak project to a close, that percentage will drop to 12 per cent only. If we include in these numbers the budgets of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Quebec's share goes down to 8 per cent and, without the Tokamak project, it is reduced to 6 per cent, for a population that represents 25 per cent of the total population of Canada.
After looking at these numbers, it is easy to understand why such a wave of protest came from Quebec. All the people closely or remotely involved in the project have shown or have tried to show the federal government how illogical its decision was and have expressed their frustration and their inability to understand such an unacceptable decision from the government.
The Bloc Quebecois was the first to ask the minister, in the House and in committee, about the reasons of her decision, which seems unjustified to us. The Quebec government even passed a motion unanimously on this federal decision on April 17.
We have seen the Quebec government join the Bloc Quebecois to defend this important issue of the Tokamak project in Varennes, and even the federal Liberal Association of Verchères riding added its voice to ask the federal government to review this nonsensical decision. The Quebec and Canadian scientific community, which is generally very low-key, also protested against this absurd decision. Besides political interventions, we have seen all kinds of groups getting involved so the minister would reverse her decision-
(1645)
The Deputy Speaker: Your time is up. We must now move to questions and comments.
Mr. Bergeron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, but I hope it is not a request to speak longer.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would merely need a minute to conclude. May I ask for consent to allow me to finish my speech?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend the hon. member's speaking time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for allowing me to finish my speech.
Several associations, coalitions and municipalities in the riding of Verchères also believe that the minister's decision in this case defies logic. The scope of protests is striking. All 15 municipalities in the Société de développment économique de la Rive-Sud unanimously passed a resolution supporting the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion.
In Varennes, both the Corporation de développement économique and city officials passed resolutions supporting the tokamak project. Thinking that this sizeable support for the continuation of the project had woken up the minister, we were delighted to hear her undertake before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on May 30, to consider various options to find new sources of funding.
But yesterday, during question period, the minister seemed to indicate that she had not made any commitments. We could not believe that the minister would shamelessly go back on her word. She must be reminded of how important project tokamak is for future generations. That is why we feel the minister must do all she can now to correct this decision, this mistake, that her department should never have made in the first place.
Varennes' tokamak project is one of the few major energy development projects in Quebec to which Ottawa contributes. That is why the federal government must reconsider, to show that it is not totally lacking in vision as far as long term energy development is concerned.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke very passionately and with solid reasoning about the tokamak project. True, we did question the minister at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to try to change her mind and make her understand that this project was very important for both Varennes and Quebec as a whole.
When the minister talks about 25 per cent of the research and development budget going to Quebec, she always excludes the national capital region yet, as you know full well, most of the research work is done in this region.
There are other very important issues relating to research and development. I, however, realize more and more that this centralizing government has no respect whatsoever for provincial jurisdiction. When it can take something away from Quebec, I would go so far as to say it takes great pleasure in doing so.
For many years, this government did not hesitate to use its so-called power to spend, which is more like its power to get us into a $600 billion debt. There are some alarming expenditures. Spending $2 million to celebrate Canada Day is all fine and good but, when jobs are being cut in regions with research and development facilities, especially in Varennes, it is unacceptable.
The government is ignoring the Constitution and getting involved, often despite the opposition of Quebec and the other provinces, in areas in which it has no business. There are areas it should never have stepped in. When the time comes to invest money, it gets cold feet. But at other times, it is only too happy to butt in.
Again, when the minister tells us that 25 per cent of the budget goes to Quebec, we very often ask her to give us some figures supporting her statement. The committee asked her to submit these figures in writing. We never received them. I am the Bloc critic on natural resources, and a Liberal member told me that Bloc members' comments are imbued with poetry. I am sorry, but I now want to produce some numbers.
(1650)
In 1979, Quebec received 14.9 per cent of the federal funds allocated for research and development. Do you know what was Ontario's proportion? It was 53.4 per cent. I can give you the figures for 1980, 1981 and 1982. In 1980, Quebec received 15 per cent, compared to 53.9 per cent for Ontario. I will skip a few years, so as not to bore you.
In 1984, 17.6 per cent was awarded to Quebec and 47.9 per cent to Ontario. In 1988, it was 19.6 per cent for Quebec and 50.5 per cent for Ontario. In 1990, Quebec got 18.8 per cent and Ontario 50.8 per cent. In 1991, Quebec received 20.6 per cent and Ontario 49 per cent. On average, Quebec got 18 per cent during these years, while Ontario received 50 per cent. These are Statistics Canada figures, catalogue No. 88,001.
We are speaking on behalf of Varennes, and I am personally speaking on behalf of the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute, located in my riding, in Sainte-Flavie. The institute is a very modern facility where researchers from all over the world come to show fellow researchers what can be done in the fishery sector. They come to the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute to meet our researchers and to seek their advice, and the government wants to reduce its funding. Again, this is taking place in Quebec. Again, this is taking place in a rural community. We have the unique opportunity of having researchers in a rural community and the government is making drastic cuts.
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this is not acceptable. Quebecers cannot understand such a measure. The government seems to take pleasure in cutting its support to institutions which are the pride of Quebecers, namely the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion, and the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute. If at least they were cutting assistance rationally and spreading the cuts over four or five years in order to help people recover, take stock of the situation and carry on. But no. Almost overnight, they say sorry and cut assistance everywhere. Perhaps it is true that they are cutting everywhere, but one would be mistaken in thinking that the amount cut is fair. It is not fair for Quebec. I just proved that, according to the figures for the 1979-1991 period, not one year only but over a full 13 year period, Quebec got 18.6 per cent compared to 50 per cent for Ontario.
However, we, in Quebec, have been spoiled in some areas. We have been spoiled with unemployment insurance that, since the new reform, I call poverty insurance. There are no jobs yet, as everyone knows, the contributions to this plan come from employers and employees.
I just came from a committee meeting, where the president of the Canadian forest producers was five minutes ago. He told me the way the eastern plan subsidies in Quebec had been cut-and this is the president talking-is completely unacceptable because the forest industry in particular, an industry I know very well, is very profitable for the government. It is profitable in two specific ways: through taxes and income taxes collected and through the unemployment benefits that do not have to be paid out. The government does not have to pay for it, but we know the government seems to get upset when someone gets unemployment benefits, which is why it set such very harsh standards. Assistance for the forest industry has been cut.
(1655)
Back home, in the community of Causapscal in my riding, a forestry school opened recently and is doing very well. I was just told that research is still carried out at that school. In Rimouski, we had a centre on the Eastern Plan, where new technologies were developed. Everyone came to see what was going on there and was delighted, the owner could see how many species he had on his property, what was going on, if the trees were mature or not, what forestry activities he could undertake and what he could expect over a five or six year period.
We also wanted to get involved in genetic research. As you well know, there is a lot of genetic research needed in the forestry area. Sometimes, more than one generation is needed before a tree can be harvested. A lot could be accomplished through genetic research. We started, but $6.5 million were cut overnight and we were told that the Eastern Plan was a thing of the past.
As we know, research and development play a key role in the economy of modern societies. Everybody knows that. Since Confederation, Quebec has never received its fair share, never. This year, with all the programs being cut, what little Quebec has will again be reduced. I talked earlier about the Lamontagne Institute. That institute stands to lose 30 per cent of its subsidies and that is totally unacceptable. This is the only federal centre with such a mission in the province of Quebec.
I could quote numerous studies on this issue that prove beyond any doubt that Quebec has unfortunately been taken in, year after year. Some people tend to believe or want the rest of Canada to believe that Quebec is the spoiled child of Confederation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If Quebecers are not given the opportunity to carry out research and development, they will come to understand that they need their own country to do what needs to be done. Then, they will be able to get involved in research and development and to hold their heads up high.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: As colleagues may have noticed, the Reform Party missed its turn in the speaking order. I wonder if there would be a disposition to give consent to have the Reform member speak now before the two Liberal members speak.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing that change. I am sure their patience is conditioned by the fact that I have not yet given my speech. I am sure at the end of it they will have altered their opinion.
The motion before the House today reads:
That this House condemn the federal government for its regressive research and development policies in regard to Quebec, in particular its unilateral decision to cut the federal contribution of $7.2 million planned for the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.I am honoured to speak to this motion on behalf of my party. This is not my usual area of specialization. I will not speak long, but I have been asked by my colleagues from Okanagan Centre and Fraser Valley East, who know much more about this, to speak on their behalf.
What is the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes? Varennes is a very nice place on the south shore of Quebec, northeast of Montreal. I had the pleasure of being there last summer. It is a very nice community.
The Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion is a joint venture, funded by Hydro Quebec, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the National Institute of Scientific Research. It carries out research in the field of fusion, which hopes to provide a source of energy using fusion of elements such as heavy hydrogen. This energy source is readily available and would provide pollution free energy. The problem is this technology is not commercially viable.
The project at Varennes has yet to produce energy because so far creating the reaction uses more energy than it gives off.
Financing has been provided thus far by the federal government and by the Quebec government. The annual provincial government budget is about $14.4 million, where the federal portion is half of that, $7.2 million per annum.
(1700)
The most recent promised federal funding for the project was given in 1992 for five years. Therefore this funding has been all along set to expire in 1997. This has been understood from the beginning and there should be no surprise with these developments. There was a small reduction in federal support for this project to the tune of $2 million per annum beginning in 1994.
On a worldwide scale the amount of federal spending on the project at Varennes amounts to about three-eights of one per cent of worldwide spending in this area. This is an important fact to mention because these are projects where economy of scale is very important. There is a worldwide trend to cut much of this research. Funding for fusion in the United States has dropped by about $100 million per annum. The European Union project is about to undergo a review and will likely see some spending cuts.
The federal government in Canada, along with its partners, has put in over 20 years of money into this project, about $70 million of infrastructure money, although frankly I and my party would doubt this equipment has held its value. I am quite sure the present value of this is significantly lower.
The Minister of Natural Resources has slashed Varennes funding but it is important to note this has been done along with similar cuts in other areas, also slashing the fusion program in Mississauga. We have seen other such cuts in western Canada. The KAON particle accelerator has been cut. A similar project, the ITER project in Ontario near Pickering, has not been funded, although in our view there is a possibility of considerable international investment at no cost to Canadians if that goes ahead.
There is in spite of this cut to funding an $11 million upgrade now underway which can be viewed as either a complete waste of money or a giveaway to Hydro Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois has raised the issue of cutting funding to Varennes is a very isolated issue. It has raised it in neither the broad context of science and technology policy in Canada nor in the broad context of regional fairness and regional allocation of development and other funds in Canada.
Instead, as is repeatedly the case, the Bloc Quebecois has raised this issue simply as a Quebec issue, pointing out that Quebec has been cut something and therefore we are making this an issue. This is repeatedly the role of the Bloc Quebecois in Parliament. Not that I dismiss all these concerns but I wish they were presented in a broader context. I think it would be much more helpful if they were analysed in a broader context.
I think sometimes there are reaches. Earlier today Bloc members suggest Quebec only gets its share of money if we count the Quebec portion of the national capital region. It escapes me why we would not count the Quebec portion of the national capital region, but that assertion was made.
Some of these general concerns, though, about federal priorities and how they impact the regions I think are value. Before I become more critical let me comment on that a little. There has been a view in the country historically, which my party has spoken about, that the central core of the country is its industrial engine and to treat the other regions of the country as simply markets and simply a source of cheap resources. This has been a longstanding pattern. It goes back to the foundation of the country and it continues at times to be reflected in federal policy, I think with some frustration.
In the Mulroney era that attitude was demonstrated in spades when the current regional development agencies were set up. At the time the Mulroney government had established the two major regional agencies in Atlantic Canada and western Canada.
We took some amusement at the original alignment of those agencies. The government announced the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency-the carefully selected word opportuntiy-coupled at the time with the minister of public works, a very traditional view of Atlantic Canada.
(1705 )
The western diversification initiative-keying in on the western word diversification-was put under the minister of grains and oilseeds at the time and funding for regional development in Ontario and Quebec remained with Industry Canada under science and technology. The symbolism of that spoke spades about the government's view of the country and its economic development.
There have been a lot of problems in these kinds of projects and these kinds of allocations. I have not seen recent analyses, but it was stated some years ago that companies that received western diversification initiatives were making contributions to the Conservative Party at the rate of 85 per cent. I suppose it is coincidental that all of the qualified companies were Conservative. I suspect that has changed since 1993.
If we want to take a broader view of resource allocation there are other examples where the grievances being aired by the Bloc today do not hold up.
In recent days the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia has pointed out that CIDA gives a huge percentage of its contracts and resources to companies based in Quebec. Seventy per cent of the top 20 CIDA contracts went to Quebec based firms. It also turns out that most of these firms were making donations to the Liberal Party. This is another trend. As I said, the government changes office and suddenly all the competence in the country seems to change partisan stripe as well. In 1995, 57 per cent of CIDA contracts were undertaken by Quebec firms.
I point this out not to say these Quebec members are not making reasonable grievances here, but I am not clear that this can be analysed in an isolated case by case context. We all know the airline and aerospace industry has been concentrated in Quebec with not insignificant federal government help in that outcome over the years.
I am not sure what the Bloc Quebecois is really suggesting with this motion other than to point out Quebec is not getting this project and that therefore this is injustice. I do not know what it is suggesting the solution is. We have never heard any suggestions from the Bloc Quebecois about a systemic solution. We have never heard any suggestion that we would have, as was suggested by our party, published analysis by the federal government of its regional allocation to spending and taxation measures across various government departments. It is simply suggesting Quebec is not getting its fair share in this area. This is based on very specific numbers of dollars spent in Quebec specifically by Atomic Energy Ltd. of Canada.
Are Bloc members suggesting every province should have a nuclear reactor or fusion facilities? I do not think this is necessarily a realistic suggestion.
Let me make some concerns about how the Bloc is approaching these problems which it believes to be serious. I think with proper analysis we could reach a solution to these things. However, let us not forget whenever we hear one of these grievances about a Quebec project this is coming from a sovereignist party. What exactly is it about sovereignty that would help this situation?
Let me make three concerns that I think would be raised instantly. First, sovereignty would reduce the economies of scale of Canada and Quebec. In economies such as these economies of scale in major advances of scientific and commercial research are very important. I cannot see how either Canada or Quebec would be better off with smaller economies of scale, which would result in these areas after separation.
Second, and I have pointed this out repeatedly, if Quebec were not part of Canada it would have no money whatsoever in these project areas from the federal government. It would be receiving nothing, zero. I think that needs to be repeated.
Sovereignists are using these projects as lamp posts rather than street lights; in other words, for support rather than enlightenment. I suggest that if the Variance project were to be funded that would not in any way change the inclination of the sovereignty movement to pursue its objective. Once again, I think this is a justification rather than a real motivation.
Finally, and I do have to ask this on behalf of my own constituents who ask this constantly, if the Bloc Quebecois raises concerns like this, and if it really wants to leave Canada and asserts that it will leave and furthermore will leave without any commitment to leave legally or without any commitment to pay its full 25 per cent share of the national debt when it does leave, why in the world would the federal government or other Canadian taxpayers want to make a long term capital investment in Quebec in any case? These are serious questions being asked in the rest of the country.
(1710)
I conclude without dismissing the broader concerns entirely. I do not think they are addressed by the motion and obviously the Reform Party will not associate itself with the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the hon. member for Calgary West, a young man who seems quite reasonable and moderate in his remarks. Listening to him has helped me understand how true it is that we have two solitudes in this country, the French speaking community in Quebec and the English speaking community in the rest of Canada, two communities that do not understand each other.
I do not know if the hon. member is well versed in history, but if he knew the history of his country and of mine, he would know that Quebec and the other provinces which first founded this country invested a lot of money in the development of Western Canada. My colleague is from Calgary, Alberta, a province which is quite rich today, but was poor for a long period of time. Quebec, Ontario and other provinces invested a lot of money in the development of western provinces. Today, Alberta is rich.
My colleague should understand that Quebecers do not in any way resent the fact that western provinces are rich. We simply want our share. I have here figures on research and development that demonstrate conclusively that Quebec does not get its fair share.
Let me remind my colleague that Quebec taxpayers pay $30 billion in taxes in Ottawa annually. We should also receive some money from Ottawa, and we do. Unfortunately, the money we receive is for welfare, because our province is now poor. Why? Due to the policies of the central government.
Canada is built in such a way that Ontario always gets the biggest piece of the pie, that is, 50 per cent of the research and development funds. Quebec has everything it needs to be as rich as Ontario, except an English-speaking majority. I will tell my hon. colleague that a minority that does not control its economy has to rely on the majority.
I heard him say: ``Why, if they do not really want to separate, are they still making claims?'' This is part of our mandate. As long as the Bloc Quebecois is in Ottawa, we will protect Quebec's rights. We, the 53 Bloc members, were sent here mainly to protect Quebec's interests. And, under the British system, we formed the official opposition.
I want to say to the hon. member that the claims we make are for ourselves, are not directed against Western Canada at all. I think Western Canada must also get its fair share and this is important but when we look at the figures, we see that Quebec received only 18.6 per cent of research and development monies from 1979 to 1991.
With this, which is more a comment than a question, I am trying to explain Quebec's history to the hon. member who may not know it. Perhaps he knows his own province's history.
(1715)
We, in Quebec, took part in the development of Canada. What we want now is to get back the 24 per cent we contributed and not only social assistance and unemployment insurance. Cuts are made there also. We want what is rightfully ours. We are here to fight for Quebecers.
I do not have a question for my colleague but I would appreciate his telling us what he thinks about all that.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member has expressed an opinion. I forgot that this is an instance, an incident, a cut that the Bloc Quebecois is taking, without any proof, as the representation of federalism in Canada and of the history of this country. I believe we need more than a single incident to prove a point.
The hon. member said there are two solitudes. I take note of his words. There are two solitudes: Quebec and the rest of Canada. The Bloc Quebecois feels it must defend Quebec's interests against the rest of Canada. It is a regrettable perspective, in my opinion, because I believe there are more than two solitudes in Canada. There are very different regions and perspectives in Canada, and that is why the Reform Party exists in the west. I believe it is difficult to represent the rest of Canada as only one bloc ready to attack Quebec. I believe this sovereignist perspective is a rather simplistic and incorrect.
We recognize that the country started in the east. I admit that the east took part in the west's development. I do not quote the Prime Minister often, but the Prime Minister himself said that the rest of Canada and Quebec profit from the development of Alberta's tar sands. It is important to recognize it.
If we talk about the development of Quebec, we must make an analysis of the sovereignist movement's impact in this development. If we consider the economic slow-down that occurred, especially in the last generation, we must ask ourselves if the sovereignist movement helped or impeded economic growth in Quebec. I think it is obvious.
Mr. Bouchard went to the United States this week and, in order to attract investments in Quebec, he himself felt the need to assure Americans that he would not hold another referendum in the next few years. If the Bloc Quebecois is truly concerned about development problems in Quebec, the sovereignist movement is not helping to solve this problem.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Calgary West. I would like him to put himself in my place this afternoon and imagine that he is the hon. member for Saint-Jean, if only for one minute. I have a concrete example for him and it is not a sovereignist example but an economic example.
Last year, the federal government decided to invest $2 billion in armoured vehicles. It gave that money to a GM factory in London, Ontario, saying: ``You are the Canadian centre of excellence for armoured vehicles''.
Now, there will be a turret on the armoured vehicles and the Canadian centre of excellence for turrets is Oerlikon, in my riding.
(1720)
I ask my colleague from Calgary what his reaction would be if he were the member for a riding which happens to be the centre of excellence for turrets and saw the contract given to a company outside his riding. That is negating the existence of an international centre of excellence. In Quebec, we foot 24 per cent of the bill but we get only 17 per cent back.
I am talking about research and development funds. Ontario received $2 billion because it has a centre of excellence but our own centre of excellence, which could do its part of the contract, was told that it will get nothing. This is a typical example. How would the member react if he were representing a riding that was the victim of such an injustice?
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. It is important that we focus on exactly what this is all about.
This is not about a fair share for one part of the country or a fair share for another part of the country. This is about governing. It is about the Minister of Natural Resources standing up to her obligations. It is about the Minister of Natural Resources doing her job. It is about the Minister of Natural Resources understanding that government is about setting priorities and acting on those priorities. That is what this decision is about.
It has nothing to do with one part of Canada getting this and another part of Canada getting that. This is an understanding. The Minister of Natural Resources, in conjunction with members of Parliament and with members of her department, have decided what is and is not a priority in terms of R and D in Canada. They have made hard and tough choices.
We are in a climate of fiscal restraint. We are in a time when government has to make choices. The minister has made sound choices. She has made good choices. She has made choices that are in the best interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live from coast to coast to coast. That is what this debate is about. That is what this decision is about. It has nothing to do with fair shares in different parts of the country. When members opposite try to suggest that it is, I would suggest they are wrong.
Let us look at R and D in Canada and in particular that which comes out of NRCan. A great deal of it takes place all across Canada, including in the province of Quebec.
For example, there is a new research and development impact network that is going to be helping research organizations in Quebec measure the results of R and D. The network will refine and adapt tools for measuring the social and economic impacts of research and promote the exchange of best practices. This will enhance the ability of Quebec scientists and others to strengthen their contacts across Canada and around the world.
Another example is the national topographic data base. This is a mapping service developed by Geomatics Canada and based in Sherbrooke, Quebec. It provides sophisticated information on such geographical features as rivers, lakes, mountain ranges, vegetation, cities, railroads and roads.
Another example is Canada's network of model forests. It makes Quebec industry, non-governmental organizations and aboriginal groups partners in the sustainable management of forests. News about successful new techniques is shared quickly among all partners, including those in Quebec through an extensive information network.
There are many more examples. The government established the Canadian Space Agency in 1989 to promote the peaceful use and development of space for the social and economic benefit of Canadians. In June 1993 the space agency moved to St. Hubert, Quebec, bringing 350 high technology jobs to that province.
All of us in this House and across Canada take great pride in the visible accomplishments of our space program and the scientists who are in this Quebec based organization who support it.
(1725 )
This past week, we had the example of astronaut Marc Garneau returning from outer space, a Quebecer who demonstrates clearly that participation in this important program is from across Canada.
There are other examples. Let us turn to the mining sector. Mining is a big and important part of northern Ontario. The natural resource department undertakes its research across Canada, including in Quebec.
In mining, the department administers the mine environmental neutral drainage program, as an example. It was established in 1988. The program brings together a consortium to co-ordinate research into ways of reducing the impact on the environment of drainage from mining sites.
This is an important environmental concern. New methods have been developed to neutralize the effects of acids from tailings and waste rock. This research, which is carried out in co-operation with 20 mining companies across Canada, helps ensure that neighbour-
ing properties, lakes and rivers in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada, can be protected.
Since 1989, a total of $1.5 million has been spent or committed on the mine environmental neutral drainage program in Quebec by NRCan and a further $650,000 is going to be spent in that province in the next few years.
Another important example is research in the area of energy, which is taking place at the energy diversification and research laboratory in Varennes, Quebec, a joint enterprise in association with the Institut de recherche d'Hydro Québec, Institut national de recherche scientifique, ABB, the international engineering firm and 20 other partners.
This facility has staff of almost 50 scientists, engineers and technicians and has an annual budget of almost $6 million. The mission of the laboratory is to conduct applied research into energy efficiency, renewable energy and to do so in close co-operation with industry.
This facility, which operates in the province of Quebec, has a long list of achievements: the development of a high efficiency absorption heat pump designed for small commercial buildings, new catalytic gas combustion system with greatly enhanced efficiency and a new study on converting the conventional diesel system used in remote locations to a new hybrid photovoltaic wind diesel system.
What this demonstrates to the members of this House, to people from across Canada whether they live in Ontario, in British Columbia or the province of Quebec, is that the minister and the government do not make their decisions based on geography. They do not make their decisions based on trying to make an absolutely equation so much in, so much out. That is not how Canada operates.
This demonstrates that the government undertakes its job, in this case research, across Canada. It does not make its decisions based on whether it makes sense geographically. It makes its decision based on what it should do. Does it make sense scientifically? Is it a Canadian priority? Is it a governmental priority given what the science and technology of the day is? Is it a priority that we can deal with in terms of the fiscal environment, the fiscal context within which we are operating?
That is what the government does. That is what the minister has done. To suggest somehow that this is a plot or some devious way of withholding funding from a province just is not so. It is not that at all.
I have clearly demonstrated that when we look at where we undertake this activity. It takes place in Ontario. It takes place in the west. It takes place in the maritimes and it takes place in Quebec as well. That is important for the people who live everywhere in Canada, including the people in Quebec, to understand. The suggestion that this withdrawal of funding is some sort of plot is simply wrong.
There are priorities today in research. Fusion research is something that could have great returns, but that is not going to happen for quite some time, 20 or 30 years in the future. The minister has had to make a decision based on what our priorities are today and based on our ability to have a return on that investment in the short term. That was an appropriate decision for the minister to make. It was an appropriate decision for the government to make.
(1730)
I believe all Canadians should applaud what is being done here. We are making those tough choices that have to be made and we are allocating those resources in the best interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live, from coast to coast.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I feel that the question I asked was an excellent one, but unfortunately there was no time to answer it. I am therefore leaping at the opportunity I now have to ask it again, but I shall adapt it in light of what the hon. member from Ontario has just said.
I do indeed have the statistics here. He claims geography is not important, that what is important is how the money is invested and what return there is on it. I would, however, just draw his attention to the fact that his province receives 50 per cent of all of these research projects, and Quebec only 18.6 per cent. That is just a coincidence. It is probably why he believes that geography is not important.
But I will take another tack, picking up on my example from before. There are several centres of excellence in Canada. Often the government states that it will give contracts to these centres of excellence. There is one such centre for armoured vehicles in Ontario, GM in London. As I said, these vehicles need to be fitted with a specific turret and turret gun. The other centre of excellence in Canada is Oerlikon Aerospace, which is in Saint-Jean.
I would ask whether he considers it fair that $2 billion are being given to the centre in London, Ontario, which decides to have its turrets manufactured by its affiliates, which are in the U.S. moreover, with Delco getting some $600 million, whereas the department ought to insist the turrets be manufactured at Saint-Jean. From the geographical point of view, then, I have trouble understanding how such an uneven distribution can be made.
As for expertise-and this is my question-why has the government not awarded the turret part of the armoured vehicle contract to Oerlikon? If the hon. member from Ontario were in my shoes, I think he too would be offended that things were being done this way. This is, therefore, one example related specifically to his address, in which he states that expertise and return on investment
are what count. Let him explain to us, then, why this was not the case with Oerlikon and GM in London, and the turrets.
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I will give a broad response to that question.
Let us think about the model the hon. member is suggesting. We heard about this not too long ago in the House with respect to another matter. The hon. member is suggesting that if it makes sense to invest money in a particular part of Canada what we would have to do is say let us put that money there because it makes sense. Then, because we have to worry about geographic concerns and a claim saying it should have been somewhere else, we would have to invest similar amounts in Quebec, in the maritimes, in British Columbia and in the prairies simply to keep an equal balance because there would be a concern that one part of the country was receiving more than another part of the country. As an ex-banker I can say it would not take long with that kind of scenario for the country to become bankrupt.
If there is a $2 billion project in Ontario that makes sense, the member is suggesting we would have to invest $2 billion in Quebec, $2 billion in the maritimes and $2 billion in the west to keep everybody happy. We would have to spend $8 billion to have a $2 billion project.
That is not the way things will work. That is not the way they should work. It certainly is not the way the minister is to work. It certainly is not the way the government is to work.
I relate this to something I debated with a Bloc member in a previous debate. Think about a family. I know the Bloc may have difficulty with this, but Quebec is a part of the Canadian family. It is a proud part of the Canadian family. So is Ontario and so are all the other parts of the country. We are a family. We have been a family for 129 years and it has worked well. It has not been without problems, but it worked well. I am a parent and I have a number of children. We provide resources, not necessarily equally divided, but resources which are in the best interests of the family. We provide resources that move us forward. We provide resources based on the overall good of the family.
(1735)
As a government that is what we are doing. We are providing resources in the best interests of all Canadians, making sound economic decision, sound investment decisions, decisions which make sense in the economic environment in which we find ourselves and that are good for Canadians, regardless of where they live in this great and united country.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate.
I feel it is most important to put into context the decision of the government to discontinue the funding of the national fusion program. In program review, the most necessary examination of priorities of all programs, the government of Canada made some extremely difficult decisions.
As the minister mentioned, at Natural Resources Canada it was decided to give priority to research and development in energy which improve the efficiency of oil, gas and electricity and the development of renewable energy technologies such as biotechnology, solar and wind energy. Fusion does not come under any of these priorities.
To expedite the advancement of the strategic directions decided by NRCan the department is fostering the sharing of scientific knowledge throughout the country and working with parties in specific priority areas. I will provide some examples.
It uses the information highway to transfer high quality science and technology quickly to users. NRCan is making a major contribution to the highway by facilitating the supply and exchange of digital data organized and retrieved by geographical location. Such geo reference data are produced by a variety of government and industry sources. All are based on the fundamental systems created and maintained by the department.
NRCan works with the Government of Quebec and other provinces to define and develop the national spatial data infrastructure, this part of the information highway dealing with the management and exchange of geo referenced data. Called the geography lane, it covers all applications with significant geographic content. The department's geo route project also provides access to the network at the entry level for students, researchers and businesses for anyone in Quebec or elsewhere looking for geographical information.
The national atlas information service offers electronic samples of national atlas products and allows users to select a theme such as minerals, transportation or population density to create a customized map. The atlas is available on the Internet as a worldwide web site. The site won a gold medal at the 1995 technology in government week.
The department takes full advantage of the Internet to disseminate information. For example, anyone may obtain immediate access to national information regarding forest fires. A daily fire and weather index provides data crucial to controlling and managing forest fires in Quebec and across the country.
Partners and clients now have regular access to geo scientific data bases throughout the Internet and dedicated information centres set up in provincial facilities. Residents of Quebec may conduct searches, obtain reports and read public files. People are now buying maps via the Internet.
Internationally the department is strengthening its overseas links to create and expand markets for companies in Quebec and other provinces to improve access to foreign technologies and collaborate on global projects.
Canada works with other countries to develop international standards, scientific criteria and indicators and certification systems for global sustainable forestry. Without such certification fostered by NRCan Quebec forest products could encounter future trade barriers because of environmental requirements. As the leader of Canadian geomatics teams, NRCan is playing a strategic role in winning business abroad.
(1740)
Most of these international projects involve Quebec firms. Under a $22 million contract Quebec based companies are modernizing Mexico's national mapping system. The leader of this project is SNC Lavalin. Subcontractors are Photosur-Geomat of Montreal and Le Centre canadien de geomatique of Sherbrooke. Another two-year contract is underway in Saudi Arabia. With funding from the Canadian International Development Agency, the department is working with a consortium of Canadian companies on a digital mapping project in Russia.
Companies involved with projects in Russia include DMR Group of Montreal, Tecsult of Montreal and Roche of Quebec. Working in Romania are Tecsult, and Pro-Sig and Sima of Montreal. Other overseas projects where Quebec companies are providing leading technology are in Lebanon, Burkina Faso and Argentina. As part of the efforts to pursue the marketing of energy and technology abroad, the department is leading a hydro technology mission to Poland.
NRCan keeps Canada at the forefront of geoscientific research through active participation in the international ocean drilling program. Canadian proposals for deployment of a drilling ship have resulted in more than $20 million of scientific drilling immediately offshore of Canada.
The department also provides administration for the International Union of Surveying and Mapping, an organization which provides a forum for exchanging science and technology information in geomatics.
Another example is an agreement with European community for the exchange of information on technologies in key areas of mining, mineral processing, metals recycling, waste reduction and related environmental issues.
Natural Resources Canada communicates the importance of science and technology to students all across this great country of ours. The geomatics professional development program matches recent university graduates with potential leaders in Geomatics Canada in a two-year program. NRCan personnel receive an infusion of fresh ideas and innovations. The graduates gain valuable work experience. The industry obtains graduates who have been trained to apply the latest academic and scientific skills.
A new link of growing importance is SchoolNet, which connects more than 15,000 schools across the country via the Internet. NRCan provides maps, geography databases and community profiles. Through this network a school in Jonquiere could obtain detailed geographic information about Montreal or anywhere else in Canada. For one project, an atlas of Canadian communities, created in partnership with the Canadian Association of School Principals, youngsters collected maps, photographs and stories about their communities. These were compiled in an atlas, packaged on a compact disc and provided through SchoolNet.
Another program, the youth science awareness program for schools, is designed to develop interest and capabilities of youth in science and encourage the pursuit of careers in scientific fields. A junior energy program was aimed at children in grades four, five and six. ``Conserving Energy in Canada'' explains this important priority to grades seven to ten. Scientists from NRCan also serve as part time professors at universities, providing strong links between the department's research laboratories and students.
This is a short description of the many and varied ways Natural Resources Canada is meeting the scientific needs of a whole range of Canadians from each province, including Quebec society. This includes students from primary school through university, teachers and professors, researchers, scientists, technicians, public administrators, business people, those engaging in mining, forestry, energy and geo-science, public interest groups and environmentalists.
(1745)
Natural Resources Canada is investing its limited resources to meet the most pressing, present and future needs in science and technology. As a science department of the federal government, Natural Resources Canada is amply fulfilling its mandate to serve the needs of all Canadians, ensuring the place of all Canadians in the future and prosperity of Canada.
In view of these many ongoing programs, directly and indirectly benefiting all Canadians, the difficult decision to end funding for the national fusion program was appropriate, wise and entirely in keeping with the best interests of all the people of Canada and Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my Liberal colleague. He recited a list of many things the government has done, a sort of litany that tells us very little about percentages.
In August 1995, the Quebec department of industry, commerce, science and technology produced a study on federal R and D spending. The main conclusions of the study, which analysed specific federal spending in this sector using a grid with a number of criteria, are that between 1979 and 1991, six provinces out of ten were overfunded in R and D.
Ontario, of course, was at the top of the list. For the last 10 years, it has received 50 per cent of the funding. According to the study, during the same period Quebec came last, with underfunding of $2.5 billion, the amount it would have received if it had been treated equitably.
This study concluded that if federal funding had been equitable in 1991, the relationship between gross domestic spending on R and D and GDP, the indicator most often used to show the intensity of R and D effort, would have been higher in Quebec than in any other Canadian province.
The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: Can Quebec reach its full potential? In other words, by remaining in Canada, can Quebec hope to receive its fair share? We think it cannot. Recent history says it cannot. Quebec is not receiving its fair share.
As I was saying earlier, what we get from the federal government is social transfer payments. The central government has no policy for developing a specific region, as I see it, except that if you are part of the majority and you live in Ontario, you could care less. They say you should go where the getting is good, and the getting is almost always good in Ontario.
Does the member think that Quebec can hope to develop by staying within Confederation? I think not, and I would like the member to prove otherwise. If he cannot, this discourse that we have been listening to for 30 years and that is slowly but surely destroying us has got to stop.
[English]
Mr. Kirkby: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question which is very specific and pointed.
Today we are talking specifically about funding to a particular project within Quebec, the magnetic fusion project. There has been some discussion about the amount of resources going to the province for science and technology.
(1750)
I can assure the hon. member, coming from a province like Saskatchewan, that we are not overly financed in the area of research and development, probably less so than the province of Quebec. I believe this to be more than likely an accurate statement. It strikes me as being a bit like the hon. member complaining because he has no shoes. I am complaining because I have no feet.
The hon. member should keep all these things in perspective. Each of these different programs goes on in different regions across the country. Sometimes one area or another, for very legitimate reasons, will be a larger beneficiary of specific resources. However, after taking into account all the things the federal government does in all parts of the country, we are all well served.
When the maritime provinces have a need, the government is there to assist in meeting the need. As well, the people of other provinces share in meeting that need. It is the same with the province of Quebec. When there is a need in that province, people from the rest of Canada are there to assist in meeting that need. However, the people in Saskatchewan receive next to nothing in research and development dollars.
When taking into account all of the benefits we have in being Canadian, I am very proud to be a Canadian citizen. I am proud to be part of a country that cares about every region, where we share our wealth one with other so we all can benefit.
At different times in our history different provinces have had needs. Before oil was discovered in Alberta, it needed help from the rest of country and received that help. Now Alberta is helping other areas of the country.
When we look back over our history all regions of the country have needed assistance from time to time and all regions of the country have received it. When we consider our history and all of the difficulties and challenges that the different regions have had, we have all been well served by Confederation. As a result of this kind of caring, sharing and working together, I can say that I am very proud to be a Canadian.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.53 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.