Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board June 11th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table in both official languages the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the governments of the United States and Canada for the period dated October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1995.
Supply June 5th, 1996
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.
Supply June 5th, 1996
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-
Supply June 5th, 1996
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.
Supply June 5th, 1996
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.
Supply June 5th, 1996
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.
Labrador Power June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Industry. The internal trade agreement is his responsibility.
I have worked very closely with my hon. colleague. I am sure we will be discussing the matter with the Prime Minister in terms of what aspects of the internal trade agreement will be on the first ministers agenda later this month.
Labrador Power June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the hon. member on a number of occasions, the issue is one about which there is ongoing interprovincial discussion. This is not an issue on which the federal government can dictate an outcome.
As a government we choose to act in the spirit of co-operation and we continue to facilitate discussions between the provinces in relation to the energy chapter of the internal trade agreement, in particular as that chapter relates to electricity markets and the restructuring of those markets in Canada.
Research And Development June 4th, 1996
Do you want to listen?
Research And Development June 4th, 1996
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-