Debates of June 5th, 1996

Supply

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

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.

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.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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:

"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.

"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".

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?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

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.

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.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

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.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

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-

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

If it is not closed.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

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.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

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.

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.

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-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Your time is up. We must now move to questions and comments.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

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.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

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.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

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.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

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.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

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.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

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?