Debates of June 5th, 1996

Committees Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. One is from citizens of London, Ontario and the other is from citizens of Toronto.

The petitioners say that abolishing judicial review for convicted lifers under article 745 of the Criminal Code will only serve to increase both the human and economic costs of the criminal justice system and increase public fear and misconceptions about crime among the Canadian public.

They say that article 745 is not a loophole, does not provide automatic release and is actually carried out by a jury made up of members of the community. They say that if there are concerns that the individual under review poses a risk of committing violence in the community, that person is not released.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to oppose the repeal of article 745 and to launch a concerted public education campaign to promote the need for more responsible and humane criminal justice approaches to enhance the safety of all Canadians.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 2,016 petitioners.

The petitioners request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure that a sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflect both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward the crime.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 73,300 people have signed a petition asking the Minister of Health not to go ahead with his plan to amend the regulations on importing raw milk cheese into Canada.

To avoid cluttering up the House, I am tabling a list of 45 signatures requesting the minister not to amend the regulations. I will send the remaining signatures to the minister directly.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first comes from Regina, Saskatchewan. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to society.

They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against traditional families that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second comes from Godfrey, Ontario.

The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first is from residents of Etobicoke, Ontario. The petitioners support effective endangered species legislation. Therefore they pray and call on Parliament to support the strengthening of the recent legislative proposal for an effective Endangered Species Act.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of Etobicoke, Ontario.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament will not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms to add the phrase sexual orientation.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting the following petition.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament amend the Criminal Code of Canada to set the age of consent at 18 so as provide protection from exploitation and abuses. There are close to 1,000 signatures.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Question No. 13.

Question No. 13-

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

What was the total dollar amount (direct and indirect) and source of government funding included in the 1995-96 estimates to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

In 1995-96, Human Resources Development Canada provided funding in the amount of $200,000 to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee for a youth service Canada project.

In 1995-96, the following departments and agencies report that they have not provided any funding to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee: Canadian International Development Agency; Department of Canadian Heritage; Environment Canada; National Capital Commission; Natural Resources Canada.

Other departments and agencies have not been canvassed concerning this question as they had not provided funding to the Western Wilderness Committee in previous questions dealing with this subject.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 2 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remain questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, still for the same reason. I also rose on May 27, 1996 and I do so today with respect to Question Q-19, a question on the Order Paper for over 45 days, since I tabled it on March 6.

Yesterday, I met the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in committee, he appeared to be very knowledgeable when answering

my questions. Since this is a question that relates directly to his area of responsibility, it does not take a rocket scientist and 200 officials to research it.

I would simply like to know if, in the past five years, there existed-within the Privy Council, the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, or elsewhere in the federal government-an emergency measures co-ordinating unit, and if so, who and what are its past and present members, budget meeting dates, and subjects of discussion at each meeting? Has this unit drawn up plans for emergency situations or not, and, if so, what are those plans?

This sort of thing, in a department that spends millions of dollars, ought to be easy enough to answer quickly.

I ask the government opposite when it will answer my question. These questions are easily answered. Millions of dollars were spent on the referendum, and on Canadian unity. Surely they can calculate figures and do accounts. They should be able to answer such simple questions.

I warn the representative of the Liberal government, that I will ask this question every week. Perhaps that will not please the minister before me, the member for Hull-Aylmer. Perhaps you do not find it pleasing because some of the money was spent while you were Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Perhaps we should find out how you spent this money, and how much you spent in Quebec. Answer the questions, if you have nothing to hide. Instead of answering me directly, while your microphone is not on and we cannot hear your stupid remarks-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleague, I think the point is clear. Before asking our colleague's permission to honour this request, does the parliamentary secretary wish to answer the hon. member?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, my colleague is eloquent in his attempts to make his point. We appreciate his patience.

If he has already spoken to the minister on the subject then no doubt he has received some assurances the answer he was seeking is available. We are attempting to get the information clarified and it is certainly our hope to provide the information to the member as soon as it becomes available.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there agreement to accept the Order for Return?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to inform my colleagues that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 23 minutes.

Supply

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

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, given the short time available, I will share my 20-minute period with the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

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.

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:

"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".

In reference to the issue, the president says:

"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".

In reference to the importance of basic science, Mr. Vincett writes:

"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"'.

The solution proposed by the president is the following:

"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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

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.

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.

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.

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.