René Laurin

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Such an imbalance maintains provincial disparity in research and development funding. And the statistics are not mine, but the government's own. This imbalance has a direct impact on the provinces' rate of growth. In other words, this harmful policy has been operating for years. With this policy, some provinces get R and D funding, while others, like Quebec, get UI funds.

And it goes on and on, year after year, and the government keeps doing nothing about it. We have been denouncing this kind of thing for 15 years now.

Certainly cuts could have been made in other areas. Let me set aside my prepared speech to give you statistics I just received this morning.

Where could more cuts have been made? We, Bloc members, often suggested National Defence. In DND estimates, astronomical amounts could have been saved in forecasting errors alone. For example, $2.8 billion are supposed to be cut over the next three years. Our estimation was that $5 billion could be cut, but DND said this was impossible. The fact is that these forecasts were wrong, and here is why.

Take the closure of the base in Portage la Prairie for example. Savings of $411 million were expected, when in actual fact only $170 million was saved. A $241 million shortfall.

With respect to space training, we were told that the cost of basic training was $200,000 per student, when the actual cost is $700,000, or $500,000 more per student. They make this kind of forecasting errors and come and tell us that they will be able to save $2.8 billion. We cannot be sure of that, Mr. Speaker. There will be more unforeseen deficits.

Improving housekeeping in DND and several other departments would be one way of making funds available for research, research being the seed of successful new products that would promote rapid growth.

We will have a chance to pursue this at a later time.

For now, I suggest that these new statistics should give both the department and the government food for thought. The minister should go back to his drawing board, his operation table, his computations and come back with another set of estimates. This way, perhaps we will be able to see more eye to eye with the government in a few months.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

The quality of Quebec's industrial structure cannot justify the low level of federal investment in research and development. Especially since Quebec runs off with more than 30 per cent of grants awarded on merit, which clearly shows Quebec's competitiveness. When our projects are assessed on their merits, we qualify for 30 per cent of the grants, but when the award is motivated by favouritism, Quebec is always outpointed by Ontario, the other most powerful province.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot tabled in this House an amendment that I am happy to support.

Bill C-76 is inconsistent and the Minister of Finance should go back to the drawing board and introduce in this Chamber a bill that truly reflects what Canadians want, which is to see more fairness in the government's handling of its fiscal responsibilities.

The absence, or in some cases, the weakness of certain measures in this bill are of particular concern to me. I would like to speak about two of them. First of all, there is the government's science and technology strategy. In his last report, the auditor general deplored the lack of a government strategy with respect to science and technology. He stressed the importance of such a strategy, in light of the liberalization of trade and the new technological era we would be entering in the 21st century.

The government must demonstrate strong leadership in this area, so that Canada can continue to develop technologically and to maintain its competitiveness on international markets. The standard of living of Canadians and Quebecers depends on it. There must be some sign of this leadership in the government's budget. It is the cornerstone of any strategy to put Canadians back to work. Unfortunately, there is not a trace in this budget of

any strategic planning with regard to research, science and technology. Worse yet, the cuts are in the areas of highest performance.

I will give some examples of cuts in the funds made available to granting councils. The minister told us in his 1994 budget that he would not touch the money set aside for granting councils, because of the importance the federal government attached to research and development activities. But now, in a complete about-face, the Minister of Finance is cutting the councils' funding by more than 10 per cent, despite what he announced in the 1994 budget.

In order to better understand the impact of such a decision, let us look at Canada's situation with respect to science and technology. Canada ranks sixth among the G-7 countries, just above Italy, when the size of its budget is considered as a percentage of the gross domestic product. On the other hand, according to the relevant trade journals, given the quality and use of research and the size of its population, Canada ranks second among the G-7 countries, after the United States.

This situation is primarily due to the fact that granting councils award funds to our universities and industries on the basis of merit. And yet, in his report, the auditor general has pointed out the sorry state of our science and technology strategy for the last thirty years. This is not a recent development. For thirty years now the auditor general has criticized this lack of strategy. He recommends that the government focus mainly on the most successful research activities which, in our case, are those financed by granting councils.

It is important to point out that most of the stakeholders consulted by the government, that is, the experts who testified during the consultations held on this issue, stressed that the budgets of granting councils should be maintained. These highly qualified consultants said that if research budgets had to be cut, the government should at least keep at the same level the funds allocated to the granting councils, given the effectiveness and quality of the research projects they accept, and cut elsewhere in the budget.

The government ignored these consultants' recommendations. Not only did it cut the budgets of granting councils and the research budgets of all government departments and agencies, but it has the nerve to continue giving $1 billion in R&D tax incentives to business, arguing that the consultation process is still under way. This clearly shows, once again, that government is holding consultations just for show and to smooth the way for the blind cuts it intends to implement in its budget.

This is not a consultation process, my dear colleagues across the way. This is a case of manipulating public opinion, which really shows this government's deep contempt for the Canadian population. I also want to talk about the inequities in federal spending. The Bloc Quebecois has always deplored the federal government's flagrant inequity in its R&D spending.

In 1990-91, Ontario received a 53 per cent share of federal spending, while Quebec received only a 19.5 per cent share.

The government figures I received this morning show that, since 1985-86, if we exclude the National Capital Region, Ontario has received about 22 per cent or 23 per cent of all federal science and technology research funds every year, while Quebec receives only 17 per cent. If we include the National Capital Region, we realize that Ontario has received 27.9 per cent, almost 30 per cent, every year since 1985-86, while Quebec receives only 3.1 per cent. That is government equity for you.

If we compare what the federal government spends on natural sciences in Ontario and Quebec, we see that Ontario gets between 24 per cent and 26 per cent of federal spending each and every year, while Quebec's share, if we exclude the National Capital Region, is 19.9 per cent. There is still a 6 per cent difference.

Now, if we look at what has been done in the National Capital Region in terms of natural sciences research, the Ontario side of the NCR gets 26.6 per cent while the Quebec side receives 1 per cent.

It does not take a PhD to figure out that 26 less 1 equals a 25 per cent difference. That is what the government calls budget equity.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a short answer if you can tell me how much time I have left. One minute. My answer will have to be short.

What I wanted to say when I spoke about the farm in L'Assomption as an example of the government's lack of planning is that a week before it was closed down, the employees did not know the experimental farm was to be closed down.

Six months before closing down, a new building worth $3,5 million was opened with a ribbon-cutting ceremony. Now, the annual operating budget was only about $1,3 million. The farm did not cost a lot to operate, but it was very productive and yielded very interesting results. In fact, it was just about to sign agreements with the private sector, but this was ignored, because cuts had to be made. I would not be surprised to hear that the real target was the farm at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, and that it has not been hit because closing down the military college was already quite enough.

Thus, the government did not want to add the experimental farm at Saint-Jean to the list, so it chose two others elsewhere, thinking that everybody would be satisfied and that they were free to cut. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we want to denounce.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

That is all part of the planning problem I was talking about at the beginning of my remarks. That is what is lacking with this government. Cuts were made not because the government has a well thought-out plan, but because cuts had to be made.

To give you an example of the slash and burn policy of this government, let me deal once again with the closing-down of the farm in L'Assomption in my riding. A lot of research and development was being done there. They had new horticultural products ready for marketing. Those products would have been viable; a fine example of applied research. The whole farm was cut anyway.

The government put up a new farm building in L'Assomption at a cost of $3.5 million. It was inaugurated last fall. This year, it is being closed down and 19 employees are being sent home. What about the equipment there? They do not know yet what they will do with it. Is this the kind of planning we can expect from this government? Is this the way the government intends to deal with the most viable research and development resources in Quebec? If so, the Bloc Quebecois cannot stand and watch while Quebec farmers are being treated unfairly, as will be very well demonstrated by other Bloc speakers today.

This kind of situation cannot be tolerated and this is why we will speak loud and clear against that.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

There is another aspect of this budget that we need to talk about as it relates to agriculture. Despite the fact that the federal government promised in the red book not to cut research and development spending, Mr. Martin's budget makes drastic cuts in R&D spending.

In the Department of Agriculture, as mentioned earlier by a previous speaker, research budgets will be reduced by 11 per

cent over the next three years. Seven research centres will be closed, two of them in Quebec. The closing-down of the centre in La Pocatière, for example, will eliminate 30 jobs and result in savings of $1.5 million and that of the farm in L'Assomption will eliminate 19 jobs and result in savings of $1.3 million.

Yet research is the most important ingredient in the creation of jobs, and the development of agriculture and animal production. What would you think of a farmer who has to reduce his costs and decides he is going to stop buying seeds? That will be a fine way to cut spending, but at the same time, it will cut all his income.

We are acting exactly the same way when we start cutting research and development. We keep producing with the same methods and they eventually become obsolete. We forget about the future and our products become less competitive because our production procedures are obsolete and we cannot lower our costs.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the opposition chose to focus on agriculture on this opposition day and especially on the budget cuts, our intent was not to say that we have something against budget cuts when they are needed.

Canadians throughout the country, including Quebec of course, realize that we do not have any choice. With the economic situation being what it is thanks to the previous Liberal and Conservative governments, we have to cut.

But when the taxpayers are asked to tighten their belts, they want to know why and for what purpose.

As a member of the Bloc Quebecois representing a mainly rural riding, I know that our farmers and milk producers are wondering what would be the point of making such sacrifices. What does the government intend to do? What is the government aiming for when it cuts in my industry instead of somewhere else? Is the government trying to put our financial house in order so that we can all compete more efficiently against each other in Canada? Is the government making short-term cuts in order to help farmers in Quebec and Canada better compete on the world market in the medium term? Or has the government simply decided that to pay back our debt it has to cut spending wherever it can, since the important thing is to cut?

Under these circumstances, no one will agree to make such sacrifices.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I should have told you at the beginning of my speech that, starting with me, the speakers will be sharing their allotted time.

I was saying that the way the cuts are made seems unfair to us. In fact, the government announced the elimination of the $560 million annual subsidy known as the Crow rate and-others have pointed it out before me but I think it is worth repeating-that subsidy primarily benefited Western farmers through low grain transportation rates. However, to help farmers adapt to the change, the Minister of Finance will give them $1.6 billion as compensation for the loss in value of their land, $1 billion in loan guarantees to buy grain and $300 million over a five-year period to facilitate the transition.

These could be seen as satisfactory measures. We could say: "Good for them. The cuts will not harm them too much since they will get compensation". The problem is that when the Quebec producers compare their situation with that of others, they see that they are not treated fairly. Take milk producers. The Minister of Finance will reduce the subsidies to milk producers by 30 per cent over two years, which represents $70 million over a current budget of $300 million. There is no financial compensation to help Quebec producers absorb this major cut.

We show compassion for the Western farmers, we feel sorry for them and we give them compensation, but when we talk about Quebec farmers, we tell them: "You are used to suffering, you are tough, so we will not give you anything, it is your problem".

The government gives $2.2 billion in subsidies to Western farmers, the vast majority of whom will recover their losses, but it will not give a single penny in compensation for the cuts that will primarily affect Quebec farmers.

In the face of such flagrant favouritism, can we really talk about a fair and equitable budget? I do not think so. The impact of these inequitable measures could be very harmful for Quebec farmers.

The Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec argues that with this generous compensation package, Western farmers will have no trouble competing with Quebec farmers, who will be struggling with the cuts. Is that what the government wants? This is the question I asked at the beginning.

Does the government want to give some farmers an advantage over other farmers in Canada? Does it want to specialize farm production? Does it want to specialize crops? If that is what it wants, it should say so. Maybe it would help farmers become more competitive. However, if all farmers specialize in the same production both in the west and in the east, then Canadian farmers will find themselves competing with each other.

This might work under different circumstances, for example after a victory in the Quebec referendum. Then it could become healthy competition and the same taxpayers would not be paying twice. Taxpayers in Quebec would pay to promote their own products and taxpayers in the rest of Canada would pay to promote their own products. Quebec is certainly capable of responding to this challenge. However, it is not willing to pay for the development of both its products and those of western producers. It is unfair and totally unacceptable.

We could talk about hog farmers in Quebec who are also threatened by these cuts in subsidies. The compensation given to western farmers creates a distortion on agricultural markets that will be very costly to Quebec farmers. The 30 per cent cut in subsidies to industrial milk producers is particularly unfair because it so happens that Quebec dairy farmers produce over 47 per cent of Canadian industrial milk.

It always boils down to the same question: What is the purpose of asking Quebecers to make such a sacrifice? Quebec farmers account for 47 per cent of the total production and they are being asked, without any compensation, to keep producing and to remain profitable. Does the government really want to help the dairy industry in the medium and long term or does it want to encourage other provinces to compete with Quebec?

[National Defence, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister explain this situation other than by saying that Canadian Airlines International is being systematically favoured? First, that company benefitted from the sale of those aircraft to the government, then it was awarded the contract for their maintenance, and now it is enjoying a $45 million a year deal to transport Canadian troops while these Airbuses stay on the ground.

[National Defence, March 31st, 1995]

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

This morning, we learned that five Airbuses bought in 1992 by the federal government from Canadian Airlines International, at a cost of $250 million, are grounded eleven months per year. At the same time, the government has a $45-million-a-year contract with that company, to transport military personnel.

How can the minister tolerate such a waste and, at the same time, hit the poor so hard by slashing $307 million in this year's budget for social housing, and over $6 billion in the UI program, in the last two budgets?

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said earlier that one of his constituents called him. It is another one, not the one mentioned earlier, he was not the right one. So, another of his constituents who is on strike complained that he could hardly live with a $3 a day strike pay. Let him find comfort in the fact that the legislation the government is trying to pass and that he will have to live with for at least two years is not worth a nickel.

The government's contentions are hogwash. We have to put an end to that strike, they say. We are willing to put an end to the strike, and we agree that we could have done it before. But we feel that we should not do it at all costs.

With its special legislation, the Liberal government wants to put the train back on the track as fast as possible, with no thought to the consequences. If the train, meanwhile, runs over the employees, that is too bad; so be it. The train must keep moving, no matter who suffers. In the long run, a return to work under such conditions will doom the railroad companies to several years of completely deteriorated labour relations.

We keep saying to the government that it can still reach an amicable settlement and that if it wants to resolve this conflict this afternoon, we will not object, provided that it agrees with the very humane amendments which we have proposed to solve the issue.