Debates of June 4th, 1996

Research And Development

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Varennes tokamak research project has had an extremely positive impact to date on the Quebec economy.

Announcement that the federal funding of $7.2 million yearly will be pulled seriously compromises the very nature of this project and is liable to have negative consequences for Quebec, which is already at a clear disadvantage when it comes to federal R and D investment.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week, the minister promised to look into finding alternative sources of funding for this project within the federal administration. Can she tell us what steps she has taken to find the 7.2 million in funding for the Varennes project, so that its survival will not be threatened?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon. Leader of the Opposition what I said last week in committee.

As the hon. leader probably knows, I indicated that the contribution agreement under which the federal government was funding research at Tokamak, there is the opportunity to terminate the agreement with one year's notice. We undertook to exercise that right. The one year's notice is in part to provide for an orderly transition.

I indicate in response to a question from a member from the official opposition that during that one-year period I would do whatever I could to ensure that orderly transition took place. Make no mistake, the transition is to ensure that the federal government does not continue to fund the Tokamak project as it has in the past.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to a transition period, but we are very much aware of how an announcement like this one by the minister about the future of the project can undermine not only the motivation of those working on the research project, but also all of the tokamak project's longstanding relationships, particularly with Quebec businesses.

Can the minister commit today in this House to the federal government's not withdrawing from the tokamak project before finding the $7.2 million required for its survival somewhere else in the government's coffers?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will not so commit myself. I have made it plain and the position of the federal government is consistent and clear.

The government has exercised its right to terminate funding under the contribution agreement. That federal funding will be terminated.

I promised that I would appoint someone from my department to work with other interested stakeholders to attempt to find alternative funding during the year of transition. I stand by that.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, may I come to the assistance of the minister with a very modest suggestion?

The former heritage minister had indicated that the flags and kites for Heritage Day would cost $7 million. Does the Minister of Natural Resources agree that Quebec needs federal R and D funding to generate employment far more than it needs flags or kites?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, let me reconfirm and reiterate for the hon. Leader of the Opposition that my department provides approximately 25 per cent of its regional R and D funding to the province of Quebec. In fact, that is marginally greater than the population of Quebec.

Across the federal government I believe that it provides approximately 25 per cent of its R and D funding to the province of Quebec. In fact, the federal government has nothing to apologize for in relation to its funding of R and D in the province of Quebec.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in endlessly repeating statistics, must remember that they do not apply to Ottawa and that she should perhaps correct her geography when she mentions them.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Given the government's significant expenditures for all of its activities, Quebecers have a hard time understanding how $7.2 million could represent a stumbling block for the federal government, which is thus compromising a research and development project that creates jobs and is vital to Quebec.

How does the minister explain that it was suddenly so difficult, indeed impossible, to come up with $7 million for Quebec's tokamak project, when her colleague, the Minister of Industry, only a few months ago increased federal funding for the federal TRIUMF project in British Columbia by $15 million a year?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we are always happy when members of the Bloc ask questions on research and development. It is rare, but sometimes they do.

On the subject of the TRIUMF project, the former science and technology critic agreed with our decision to support TRIUMF. It is a totally different matter in the case of tokamak. The opposition should be asking about other aspects of science and technology matters and about our expenditures throughout the field of research and development. We have helped not only Quebec, but all regions of Canada.

For example, I note we have just received a Quebec astronaut, who was in space as a Canadian astronaut. He works at our space agency, which is located where? In Saint-Hubert, Quebec.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we did indeed support the increase in funding for the TRIUMF project, but we had no idea then that you would be cutting in Quebec to make up for it. The president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Mr. Vincett, has said that the tokamak project had a very high ratio of results to dollars invested and enjoyed an excellent reputation internationally.

In these circumstances, how does the minister explain the sudden difficulty in finding $7 million for the tokamak project? Is it because it is a Quebec project?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House, government is about making choices. Because of the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves, the choices are very tough. They are not easy.

As I have explained before to the hon. member, we had to determine our energy research priorities. Fusion is not one of those priorities. One, we do not know whether it will ever be commercially viable. Two, if it is, it is going to inure to the benefit of Quebec Hydro, Ontario Hydro and their customers.

I would suggest to the hon. member that-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Do you want to listen?

[The Speaker]

I presume the minister was posing the question to me. The answer is yes, but I will go on to hear the hon. member for Calgary West.

First Ministers Conference

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

In grand Brian Mulroney style the federal government is planning a first ministers conference behind closed doors with only the federal government able to set the agenda. The premiers of Ontario and Quebec have said they do not want constitutional issues on the agenda and the premier of Alberta has said he will walk out if the Constitution is reopened.

My question is very simple. Since there is no necessity of discussing the Constitution, little desire to discuss it and no possibility of agreement, will the minister simply agree that reopening the Constitution will not be on the first ministers' agenda?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the agenda is still under negotiation. We are consulting the provinces about it. When it is known, it will be my privilege to discuss it with the hon. member.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me ask about another item that may be under discussion, the GST.

Several premiers say they want to discuss the botched GST harmonization and the special payout of a billion dollars to the Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada.

Will the minister agree with several of the premiers that this should be put on the first ministers' agenda?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, at the express request of the Minister of Finance of Alberta, the issue of taxation will be on the agenda for the finance ministers conference, including the issue of the GST.

We also will be discussing the entire area of adjustment policy, the way in which the federal government must act when one region or another of the country is going through profound structural change. That there are differing tax levels, one region of the country versus another, is a historic fact. It is something that we will be examining at that meeting.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that there is a finance ministers meeting on this. The premiers of Ontario and Quebec and others have asked that this be on the agenda for the first ministers meeting.

There are rumours that the conference is scheduled to discuss transfers of federal powers and realignment of authority to the provinces. Will the federal government table its proposals in this area in this House so Canadians can know in precise detail what is being offered and discussed by the first ministers before any deals are cooked?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the agenda has not yet been decided. We are still consulting the provinces on it. When it is known, it will be my pleasure to discuss it with the hon. member.

Airbus Planes

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

A few days after he assumed his duties, the Minister of Justice met with RCMP investigators in order to provide them with information concerning Swiss bank accounts connected to the Conservative Party. This morning, the minister has denied being behind the Airbus purchase investigation.

Can the minister tell us, if it was not he, who within his department or the government is behind that investigation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, it is true that after consulting with the solicitor general I met on his advice with members of the RCMP in late 1993. In early 1994 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wrote to me saying that after having looked at the information I had given them they had come to the conclusion that a further investigation was not warranted and they were not proceeding.

As to the origins of the investigation into the so-called Airbus affair that is now ongoing, I have no idea how or why that began. The RCMP tell us according to public statements it commenced sometime in 1995. I can tell the hon. member that I did not initiate it. I do not know who did initiate it. I am sure the police have their sources and their reasons. It is up to the police to conduct police investigations.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Justice explain his allowing a letter to the Swiss authorities on the Airbus affair to go out over the signature of Ms. Kimberly Prost, a senior official in the department for which he is responsible, without a check of all of the pertinent information concerning this matter?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, that matter is before the court. I do not think the subject matter of this question is necessarily before the court and therefore I feel at liberty to respond.

It is a very important principle in the administration of justice that attorneys general ought not to be directly involved in police investigations. The reason the department wisely did not consult me and ask me to go over the letter to Switzerland or to review the state of the investigation, to decide whether it should proceed to the next step is that politicians and police investigations do not mix.

Politicians should not run police investigations. That is an important principle of law. It is an important principle of government. It is fundamental. If I were directing police investigations, this House of Commons would be the first place to call me to account.

That is the reason the Department of Justice wisely did not involve me. In fact, in documents that were made public under access to information late last year, it became clear from internal memoranda that the Department of Justice officials consciously decided not to involve me out of respect for that very important principle.

National Defence

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the military special investigations unit continues to conduct covert operations, contrary to the Marin recommendations of 1994, recommendations that the Minister of National Defence yesterday said have been followed. However, we have proof that the special investigations unit is still spying on Canadians.

Will the minister explain why on March 15, 1995 the judge advocate general authorized the special investigations unit to spy on a Canadian civilian in direct contravention of the Marin recommendations?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I answered the question yesterday. Obviously the hon. member did not like the way his colleague posed the question.

The fact is that the SIU does not initiate or take part in these investigations, except in support of the military police. The hon. member says he has proof, let him table the proof in the House of Commons.