INST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 1, 2004

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.))

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Industry)

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, CPC)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Á

1125

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Rajotte

Á

1130

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. John Appleby (Acting Director, Energy Directorate, Energy and Marine Branch, Department of Industry)

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. John Appleby

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Jeffrey Parker (Executive Director, Technology Partnerships Canada, Department of Industry)

Mr. James Rajotte

Á

1135

Mr. Jeffrey Parker

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Á

1140

Mr. Gérard Binet

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Marc Lafrenière (Deputy Minister, Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Á

1145

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Crête

Á

1150

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.)

Á

1155

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Hon. Mark Eyking

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1200

Mr. Jean-Claude Villiard (Deputy Minister, Department of Industry)

Mr. John McBride (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Industry)

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. John McBride

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Â

1205

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jean-Claude Villiard

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. John McBride

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1210

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Jean-Claude Villiard

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1220

Mr. Brian Masse

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Mike Sheridan (Director General, Labour and Household Surveys, Statistics Canada)

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Mike Sheridan

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Mike Sheridan

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Mike Sheridan

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Mike Sheridan

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Mike Sheridan

Mr. Brian Masse

Â

1225

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Michael Jenkin (Director General, Office of Consumer Affairs, Department of Industry)

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Michael Jenkin

Mr. Brian Masse

Â

1230

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1235

Hon. Joe Fontana

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward—Hastings, Lib.)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1245

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Dr. Richard Normandin (Vice-President, Research (Physical Sciences and Engineering), National Research Council Canada)

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Rajotte

Dr. Richard Normandin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

Â

1250

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1255

Mrs. Karen Redman

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Jean-Claude Villiard

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

·

1300

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

·

1305

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Hon. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Richard (Senior Vice-President, Canadian Space Agency)

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

·

1310

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

---

NUMBER 009

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 1, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.

    Our special guest today is the Minister of Industry. With her are two of her deputy ministers, I understand.

    We are here to have a look at the main estimates for the minister's department. Whether we get to votes today or not depends on whether members want to call in other ministers. Minister Robillard does not have responsibility for Western Economic Diversification or Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

    Without any further ado, we welcome you, Minister Robillard, and we invite you to begin. You are free at any time, of course, to call forward any of your officials here to assist with any responses to our members. I had undertaken last time to make sure that I gave good time to everybody to ask questions. If it's necessary, hopefully you can stay a little bit past 1 o'clock. We tried to get the message to you that we might need a little bit of extra time, and we hope that will be okay.

    We invite you to start, Minister.

[Translation]

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Industry): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to provide a brief update on the direction of Industry Canada and our portfolio partners and to clarify any concern or question that you may have pertaining to this year's Main Estimates. I also welcome any questions on Canada Economic Development for Quebec regions, for which I am also responsible.

    A strong and innovative 21st century economy is essential to generate the wealth needed to raise our standard of living. It is needed to finance spending on Canada's pressing social needs in such areas as health, the environment and other social priorities. Industry Canada is working with its partners to built such an economy. We are working on a broad and varied front. For simplicity's sake, however, I believe that you can group our overall activities into three broad themes.

    First, we are creating a world class business environment, with solid market place frameworks to encourage entrepreneurial activity.

    Second, we are fostering innovation in science and technology to ensure that discoveries and breakthroughs happen here in Canada and that the social and economic benefits of these innovation contribute to our standard of living and quality of life.

    Third, we are promoting economic and community development.

    I'm happy to report that we have made progress in each of these areas over the past year. That said, these are all long-term objectives, and considerable work remains to be done in each area.

[English]

    That is what the moneys applied in the main estimates are all about--continuing to press ahead with an agenda designed to create jobs, growth, and a more competitive and prosperous Canada.

    Before providing an overview of some of those activities, I should point out that the total budgetary spending for Industry Canada outlined in the main estimates for 2004-05 is $1.4 billion. This is an increase of $70.5 million over last year. This is primarily due to an increase in costs associated with important programs such as the broadband for rural and northern development pilot program, and the softwood industry and community economic adjustment initiative, and an increase in liabilities under the Canada Small Business Financing Act. As the members will notice, these increases have been offset by decreases in such areas as payments in the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program.

    When you look at the Industry Canada portfolio partners, you will see some increases in specific institutions, notably the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. These reflect our ongoing commitment to fund innovation across the country.

    Finally, the main estimates outline more than $400 million in spending for Canada economic development for the regions of Quebec. This is a reduction of $19 million over last year.

    I would now like to give an overview of some of our activities.

    Building a world-class business environment is a multifaceted process. Many elements create the conditions for success. There must be a positive tax climate, for example, not to mention the need for modern infrastructure. Equally important, there needs to be an appropriate regulatory environment, one that removes obstacles to effective business.

    Key stakeholders have identified regulatory reform as a pre-eminent priority. In response, my department is assembling a substantive agenda for the next several years to modernize the key business framework policies for which we are responsible.

    I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation, whose members represent the business, non-governmental, and academic communities. The committee is providing an external perspective and some expert advice to the Government of Canada on regulatory issues.

[Translation]

    As the members of the committee are aware, we have moved ahead with Bill C-2, which is designed to help stop satellite television signal piracy. We have taken measures to promote consumer protection through fraud prevention. In addition, we continue to work with Canadian Heritage on the issue of foreign ownership restrictions in the telecom sector. We intend to present options to Cabinet later this year that forge a path of sustain global excellence in telecommunications infrastructure in a Canada that as a tight grip on its own cultural destiny.

    Of course, having good regulations and laws alone is not enough to succeed in a new economy. You also need to develop and embrace new ideas and innovative ways of doing business.

    As the recent budget illustrates, the government is committed to maintaining our investment in research, and to placing a greater emphasis on helping the private sector improve its capacity to develop and commercialize the results of this research. And I'm not just talking about supporting high-tech companies. All Canadian companies, in all sectors, must increase their capacity to innovate in order to be competitive.

    To help accomplish this, over the past few years, the government has significantly increased its investment in university research, ensuring that Canada's research-intensive institutions can continue to develop a world-class environment and reputation.

    We have also supported industry through organizations such as the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and Genome Canada, and through programs such as Technology Partnerships Canada. In the case of the later, officials are currently reviewing TPC program activity to ensure that the program continues to be relevant to the needs of Canadian industry.

    Of course, funding research is only one part of the innovation equation. Innovative companies, particularly SMIs, must address three key issues: access to adequate early-stage financing; the capacity and resources to commercialize their ideas and grow their business; and adequate opportunities to demonstrate the results of this research and development.

    The government is acting to address these concerns by continuing to build on successful initiatives, such as the Industrial Research Assistance Program, which focus on increasing the innovation capacity of small- and medium-sized businesses. IRAP assistance and support gives these businesses the tools to perform basic research and development, to commercialize new products and processes, and to access new markets.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    Budget 2004 confirmed that I will work with the national science adviser and parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister for Science and Small Business, who is with us today, to study how the commercialization environment can be improved and how Canada can be at the leading edge of commercializing its intellectual property assets over the long term.

    As the budget indicated, we will increase our efforts to support the growth of small businesses by ensuring they have access to venture capital to follow through on their research discoveries and to seek out new markets.

    Finally, Mr. Chair and dear members, Industry Canada and our partners will continue to work to build capacity across the country so that all regions and communities can compete in the global economy. The recent budget provides increased support for the social economy, including some $100 million over five years to Industry Canada to increase lending to social economy enterprises and to develop up to four regional patient capital funds for social enterprises.

    As well, there is funding for an Industry Canada-led pilot program to support strategic planning and capacity-building of community economic development organizations.

    Industry Canada and federal partners, such as Canada Economic Development, are well positioned to champion the government's efforts in helping our cities, our municipalities, and our communities define their vision, identify their objectives, and plan their strategies. We can assist them in adjusting to market realities and in realizing their potential.

    We can play an important role through initiatives such as the national satellite initiative and the broadband for rural and northern development pilot program, which will help connect some 1,700 rural, northern, and first nations communities--imagine the impact this will have on skills development, medical services, and economic development--or through the National Research Council institutes, which help bring innovative technologies to market and build on local areas of expertise. These institutes across Canada, such as the Industrial Materials Institute's Aluminium Technology Centre, located on the campus of the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, play a major role in stimulating community-based innovation.

[Translation]

    To help built a 21st century economy bases in innovation, Canada Economic Development provides small and medium businesses in Quebec with a range of support functions designed to promote innovation. These include providing access to financial support to launch businesses and commercialize new products as well as helping businesses to adopt and apply new and more productive technologies. Through its 14 business offices, the Agency is present and anchored in each of the regions of Quebec.

    Of course, many of our traditional industries—textiles, steel and automotive—which contribute to the prosperity we enjoy today, are facing the challenges of the global market place. Industry Canada and our various portfolio partners such as the Canadian Space Agency, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Tourism Commission are committed to working with them to develop and implement the innovative strategies and tools needed to acquire new markets, generate profits and compete in the global marketplace.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, while Canada and Canadian industries face tough competition in a global marketplace, I am increasingly confident that we are well positioned for success. And I am confident that we—all the organizations within the Industry Portfolio—have the national reach, the region depth and the community presence to lead federal efforts aimed at building a 21st century economy. I look forward to working with you in helping us achieve that goal.

    Mr. Chairman and committee members, I'm accompanied by my Industry Canada Deputy Minister, Jean-Claude Villiard and my Canada Economic Development Deputy Minister, Marc Lafrenière, but I would like to inform you that all of the agencies and organizations that are part of the large Industry Canada Portfolio are represented in the room. Consequently, should the committee members have any specific questions, such as one for the Canadian Space Agency, Statistics Canada or the Canadian Tourism Commission, all of these organizations are represented here and will be able to answer your questions.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1120)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Minister.

    We will start with Mr. Rajotte. Again I will try to give members good time to ask their questions.

    James.

    Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, CPC): Welcome, Minister, to you and your officials.

    I'd like to begin by discussing Bill C-9. When you were last before the committee you were before it on this issue. You know this is the bill to get cheaper medicines to least-developed and developing nations. The bill was introduced last year to great fanfare. Opposition members, I believe of all parties, welcomed it. We offered to pass it immediately. The government then halted and said it should not be passed immediately because there were some problems with the bill. This bill was re-introduced in January. Again all opposition parties agreed to send it to committee immediately after second reading.

    We've altered our agenda on this. Even though Bill C-2 was passed prior to Bill C-9, we moved Bill C-9 ahead of Bill C-2 at the industry committee. We altered our schedule. We were very cooperative on this bill. We've had some excellent hearings and excellent presentations from various stakeholders on this. From our party's point of view, we wrote the previous minister in October. We wrote to you in January saying we wanted to work with you on this bill. All our amendments have been submitted. In fact they were submitted on time, and I believe other opposition members and even, I believe, some government members have submitted their amendments.

    Our impression is that the government cannot amend its own piece of legislation. Therefore we've had three or four committee meetings cancelled or put off. I'd just like you to explain to us and to all the stakeholders who appeared before us why the government does not want to pass its own piece of legislation.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, we want to pass this legislation. Perhaps it's an opportunity for me today to thank the members for their involvement in the legislation. I think all parliamentarians agree with the objective of the legislation, and also the stakeholders who will apply that legislation.

    This is a complex piece of legislation, when we look at all the different aspects of the bill. As you have seen yourself, I think, during the hearings you had with some witnesses around this table, sometimes it's difficult to get a consensus among all the people who are involved. We've tried to achieve, through the legislation, the right balance here to be able to achieve our objectives.

    The delay is really linked with the fact that we are working on some amendments to present to you, the members of this committee. I'm told we will be ready when we come back from the two-week break we're having. When we come back, we will be ready to table those amendments with the committee.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. James Rajotte: I appreciate that, Madam Minister, but with due respect, we have been told that about three or four times now, that the government would have its amendments ready, and then I get a phone call at 5:30 that the committee has been cancelled because the government doesn't have its amendments ready.

    Did you talk to the stakeholders, the NGOs, people from the HIV/AIDS Legal Network? Did you talk to the pharmaceutical associations, both the generic and the brand names? You say you can't get a consensus and yet....

    If the government introduces a piece of legislation and has a press conference with five ministers--and now the Prime Minister is across the country on TV promoting this legislation--and it is the government itself that is holding this piece of legislation up, it just seems to me a preposterous situation here. You have all the opposition parties basically in agreement with this, and it's almost like the minister is opposed to her own piece of legislation that she introduced. It just seems absolutely ridiculous.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: No, Mr. Chair, let me correct that. We don't oppose the legislation. We are in continual contact with the stakeholders. That is why we have a certain delay here, because we want everybody satisfied with the bill. Do you know what? We want to pass this legislation, but most importantly, we want the legislation to be effective. Two years from now we want to be sure that medicines were sent to those countries. So we need, really, to have the right process decided among all the stakeholders.

    I think you've seen yourself that there are different points of view on it, the NGOs on one side, the generics on the other side, and the brand companies on the other side. You have to keep that balance all the time. That is why it is so complex to bring forward amendments. But I think we'll be ready to table those amendments when we come back after the break, and you will have a chance to discuss that and see if it makes sense to have these amendments, in the sense that we want to achieve the objective of the legislation.

    Mr. James Rajotte: The second issue I want to raise, then, is the issue of the Kyoto Protocol. As members know, this was signed in 1997. It was ratified in December 2002, I believe. We have been asking, and industries have been asking for a long time--in fact, since 1997--will companies that took early action since 1997 get credit for that action they've taken from 1997 until 2002-2004?

    I wrote to you in January, Madam Minister, and in your response you're not clear on this. So I'd just like to ask a very, very specific question. Will companies that took early action to reduce their emissions and reduce their emissions intensity get credit for those reductions from 1997, when this accord was signed by Canada, up until the present day?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I thought I was clear in my answer to the member, but let me clarify again.

    It was clear for us that the government will take into account any action taken by industry, if they did so. It's Natural Resources Canada that is in charge of that, to see with the industry exactly what they have done before. I think that was your question, whether we will take that into account when we measure the exact efforts of all the industry.

    Mr. James Rajotte: Well, just for the minister's information, I can read it. This is you responding to me:

With respect to your question regarding companies receiving credit for taking early action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the Climate Change Plan for Canada commits the government to work with industry to design a system that will not disadvantage firms....

    That's a very general statement. That's not specific enough for these industries that have been asking since 1997-98 for some clarity from the government on this matter.

    Therefore, I'm asking on their behalf for some clarity from the Government of Canada. Will these companies get full credit for actions they've taken on emissions and reducing their emissions and their emissions intensity since 1997-98?

Á  (1130)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, perhaps to have more details on that I will ask my acting director from the energy and marine sector, John Appleby, to answer the question.

    Mr. John Appleby (Acting Director, Energy Directorate, Energy and Marine Branch, Department of Industry): This is primarily something that NRCan is looking after. They are in negotiations with large industrial emitters on how to proceed in these areas, and consultations are underway.

    Mr. James Rajotte: So the answer is that the Government of Canada does not know whether these companies will receive full credit. Is that the full answer then?

    That is the accurate answer. The Government of Canada does not know, because Natural Resources Canada...I can't get an answer out of them either.

    Mr. John Appleby: All I can tell you is that the consultations are underway, and we're working hard with NRCan in that area.

    Mr. James Rajotte: Do I have more time, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Perhaps I will encourage the member to see the Minister of Natural Resources, who is the lead minister on that.

    It makes sense to me that we have to recognize the efforts of the industry.

    Mr. James Rajotte: As a final comment, I would encourage you strongly.... They've asked for this for 1997 and 1998. I know that discussions have been ongoing for years now, but I think some clarity on this would be very helpful for these industries and companies.

    The third issue I want to touch on is Technology Partnerships Canada. The most recent information we have is that about $2.4 billion has been spent on this program since 1996 and that it has a repayment rate of 1.9% since 1996.

    I'd just like to ask the minister whether that 1.9% is acceptable to her, in terms of repayment of taxpayer money on $2.4 billion.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I think there's a broader issue here about the repayment. I know the member is following that very closely. He has asked a question, and he is looking at our annual report all the time. I want to clarify something here.

    We created that program in 1996, if I remember well. As you know, this is a program to encourage the development of new technology with some risk in it. When we sign an agreement with a company for repayments, as an example, we know in advance that it is a long-term project and that we won't be able to receive repayments in the short term, which will start perhaps after five or seven years.

    Now that the program has existed for seven years, we have started to see more repayments for the earlier projects. I think it's normal in the flow of these projects.

    Mr. James Rajotte: Well, as a supplementary or last question, can I just ask about the information we have here on repayments? Grants in the area of $58 million and $85 million of taxpayer money have been given to companies like Pratt & Whitney and Bombardier in 1996, 1997, and onwards, and repayments have been zero to date. You say five, six, or seven years, but it has been five, six, or seven years and still we have not seen any repayments.

    I think this is just a completely unacceptable way for the Government of Canada to be spending taxpayer dollars. Instead of putting it towards hospitals or whatever, they direct it towards these large companies that, frankly, do not need this sort of corporate welfare.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, my official, Jeff Parker, who is in charge of that program has more information.

    Perhaps I will ask him to complete....

    Mr. Jeffrey Parker (Executive Director, Technology Partnerships Canada, Department of Industry): Mr. Chair, with respect to repayments and the observation by the member that companies who had received TPC investments in the early days—i.e., in 1996 or 1997—have still not repaid, I would point out that Pratt & Whitney, for example, has now begun to repay our early investments in them in 1996 and 1997.

    When you made the comment in terms of Bombardier—

    Mr. James Rajotte: What percentage?

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Jeffrey Parker: Well, in a sense, we put a floor in; we basically said they would have the opportunity to sell a certain number of regional jets, and when it went beyond that floor, then we would start to receive repayment based upon further sales. We are just about to reach that point right now.

    We are very confident, and the company is very confident, that we will receive full and complete repayment—not only that, but also a substantial return on that investment.

    Mr. James Rajotte: So when will it be higher than 2%? It's 2% every year, and every year we hear it's going to be higher.

    The Chair: We'll have to come back to that, James.

    Mr. Parker, we'll leave it at that, and we'll make sure James has time to come back to that.

    Gérald Binet, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good morning, Ms. Robillard. I would like to congratulate you on the work you are doing in your department. In short order, you have managed to take charge. You know that in Quebec's regions, Economic Development Canada is very important. Moreover, it was seeing the Canadian government get involved in the economic recovery of the regions that prompted me to get into politics.

    In the past, we were more or less a one-company town. About 80 per cent of the jobs in our region were in the chrysotile sector, but now this percentage has dropped to no more than 20 per cent. We were, therefore, able to diversify our economy but, to do this, we needed government support. There are only automatic banking machines in the town of Thetford Mines now, so we always have to deal with banks located outside of the town. This explains why it is very important that we be able to tap into the financial assistance such as that provided by Economic Development Canada and the CFDCs.

    Some regions in Canada do not understand this situation because they're very prosperous, but I can attest to the fact that as far as we MPs from the Quebec regions are concerned, this is an indispensable tool.

    According to the main estimates, Economic Development Canada will be spending $428 million in Quebec's regions. This represents a reduction of $19 million for Quebec.

    Very often this money is spent on loans, which means that reimbursement will be made. I would like to know where the cutbacks will be made and what will be affected. I know that the money has been renewed for the CFDCs.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure the member. When you see a decrease, that is because of certain variables: some programs have increased whereas others have declined. It is true that the total has been reduced. If I may, I would like to explain the situation in greater detail.

    For instance, there has been an increase of more than $23 million for our SRIs. I think that you are very familiar with the strategic regional initiatives, which exist in each Quebec region. So there has been an increase in this area, and in the cod fisheries adjustment measures as well. There has been an increase in this sector, which is included in the $23 million amount that I just mentioned.

    There has also been an increase in assistance to the Canadian textile and clothing industries and there has been an increase in our refundable contributions. The decrease is primarily due to the fact that the Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Works Program has come to an end. I'm referring to the 1993 agreement and not the last agreement which was signed in 2000. This agreement has expired. Consequently, there has been a decrease in the agency budget. There have also been some other small reductions. I think that this accounts, in large part, for the $19.2 million decrease.

    I should also inform you that our friends from Economic Development Canada were responsible for the Canada Small Business Financing Act. This responsibility was transferred to Industry Canada. The $19.2 million decrease is primarily the result of the fact that Economic Development Canada transferred responsibility for the Canada Small Business Financing Act to Industry Canada. As well, there were the variables that I have already mentioned.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Gérard Binet: This was really good to hear. The SRI program is a really wonderful program for the regions. In a region such as mine, the program has been tailored to meet the requirements. I was afraid that the decrease would have an impact on the SRI program.

    As for the renewal of the CFDCs, is it more or less the same as last year?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, we are still working in partnership with the CFDCs. There are even some CFDCs in Quebec where we are renewing the capitalization funds in certain regions. Indeed, Economic Development Canada is still working closely with the CFDCs.

    Do you wish to add anything, Mr. Deputy Minister?

    Mr. Marc Lafrenière (Deputy Minister, Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec): Indeed, the funding of the CFDCs will continue at least at the same rate next year, and we are expecting that there will even be an increase further to discussions that we have had on the issue of capitalization. I can assure you that there is very close cooperation between the CFDCs and us. We do not intend to cut back on the funding of these institutions which are so very important to community economic development.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: To conclude, I would like to point out that Bombardier, as was said earlier, got its start in a region. As we know, necessity is the mother of invention. Since the needs are greatest in the regions, it follows that the creativity is as well. We must not think about reducing budgets for economic development in the regions, because the people who live in the regions are proud and assume their responsibilities.

    What really also pleases me, and I would like to point this out, is that we've heard about big companies, but we see that the Canadian government really believes in the SMEs. I can attest to the fact that, when you have many small companies and one shuts down, that does not create a catastrophe in the region. But if you encourage a big corporation with incredible financial means, when it decides to shut down, it does so. It has no feelings.

    This is why it is very important that we encourage SMEs, particularly in the regions, because the financial institutions, the headquarters and the decision-making bodies are located in Montreal and Toronto, in the large centres. So I would urge Economic Development Canada to please not cut back in our regional budgets.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    If there's no comment, Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back to Bill C-9. To some extent, I feel as though the government has taken me for a ride.

    On February 24, you testified before this committee to underscore the significance of this bill. Three meetings, namely the meetings to have been held on March 11, 25 and 30, were postponed. Every time there was a postponement, the government said that it would be tabling amendments, but this never did occur. An election may be called on April 18. If that happens, we will not have voted on the bill. The vote will be postponed until the fall, and the two-year timeframe which you referred to earlier will be very difficult to respect.

    I would like to know if there is any way we can find a solution to at least examine the amendments during the Easter break. In this manner, we will be able to report to the House or, at least, ensure that this stage has been completed, so that we do not have to continue at the current pace. I do not understand why this matter cannot be resolved at the committee level. We are being told that there is a desire to enhance the role of members of Parliament, and now, we're waiting for the amendments to be ready in the government backrooms. This is unacceptable. I would like to have the minister clarify this matter.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, once again, I understand the frustration that members are feeling. I am pleased to see that there is support for the bill and for the objectives that we want to achieve together. I want to reiterate the Canadian government's commitment to passing this legislation, but it needs to be accepted by the partners that will be implementing it. It is very important that we come up with amendments that will be well received by all partners who will have to implement the legislation, thus enabling us to get drugs to the countries that need them.

    Mr. Chair, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata-Les Basques is proposing that the committee sit during the parliamentary break. That is up to your committee to decide. We in the government will accept the decision made by the committee.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Paul Crête: But we need the government's amendments in order to do that. The tabling of those amendments has been postponed three times. If we meet on the Tuesday after Easter and we still do not have the amendments, we will be very out of sorts. There is no point bringing us all to Ottawa so that we can be told once again that the government has not done its homework on this file. The government needs to confirm to us that it will get its homework done quickly.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, if the committee is prepared to indicate officially that it wants to sit during the week after Easter, I will be able to confirm to you during the day today that the government will table its amendments. I will confirm that officially before the end of the day if you make that decision.

    Mr. Paul Crête: I can assure you that if you confirm to us that the amendments will be tabled, I will move that the committee sit during that period. Thank you, Minister.

    On a different note, I would like to ask you some questions about the softwood lumber issue. In your presentation, you referred to the Softwood Industry and Community Economic Adjustment Initiative in a way that suggested that there was additional money available. However, the analysis that I did with departmental officials seemed to indicate that this is merely money that was carried over from last year. Will there actually be additional money available in the 2004-05 budget?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: No. You are quite right, this money was carried over for 2004-05, particularly with respect to Quebec. As you know, delivery of this program began in April 2003. We already have the statistics, and I can tell you that as of December 31, 2003, 157 projects in Quebec had been approved, for a total of $17 million. That means that part of the money allocated for the program was not spent—if I remember correctly, $72 million was carried over to 2004-2005—not only in Quebec, as you know, but also in other regions of the country implementing this program.

    Mr. Paul Crête: You are surely aware that when that money was allocated last year, people thought that the softwood lumber dispute would be resolved by now. I acknowledge that, for 2004-05, there is funding that can help communities diversify their economies, but there is no money to help the companies, and no money to help the workers, who are not your responsibility. Does that mean that, over the next year, these businesses will have to deal with the high dollar and keep waiting for a final decision, until the battle has been won but there are no more combatants?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Since there is still funding available under the program, businesses in this sector will receive support over the coming year. Meanwhile, as you know, my colleague at International Trade is working incredibly hard, and there has even been a recent ruling that once again came down on Canada side. Everyone is hoping that this issue will be settled. If it is not settled in 2004-05, the government will have to address the matter again.

    Mr. Paul Crête: I am sure that it will not be settled before the American election.

    My last question deals with the Canadian Tourism Commission. I am going to tell you what I see happening. Two nights ago, I was in Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies, at the Seigneurie des Aulnaies. There has been a significant drop in tourism, not only in Toronto, but in every region, because there has been a ripple effect, especially packaged trips like bus tours, etc. I am shocked to see that the budget has been cut, when in fact more needs to be done to help industries, not only around Toronto and Niagara Falls—which is very understandable—but everywhere else where these events have had a spill-over effect. Wholesalers that organize travel from Europe include Niagara Falls, Montreal, Quebec City and the Gaspé on their itineraries. People are in a very difficult situation right now, because $5 million has been cut from the budget. The budget is decreasing from nearly $84 million to $79 million. I would like to have an explanation and urge you to see whether there might be some way of finding extra money for this.

Á  (1150)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: It is true that the tourism industry operates not only in major cities, but in all regions of Canada. All I can tell you is that the $5 million decrease in the main estimates is directly tied to the decision to reallocate $1 billion in resources. As you will remember, that decision required all departments and agencies to reallocate resources to higher priorities. One of the key priorities was to be able to provide $2 billion to the provinces for health. As part of that effort to contribute to the reallocation, the budget of the Canadian Tourism Commission was cut by $5 million.

    I would remind you, however, that ad hoc measures have been taken over the past year, in response to the various crises Canada has had to face, to try to revitalize the tourism sector.

    I take it for granted that you support this industry. I also want to mention that the latest federal provincial meeting of ministers responsible for tourism in the various provinces resulted in the decision to draw up a strategic plan for tourism development in Canada. I am pleased to tell you that we are currently finalizing that plan with the various provinces to try to enhance this industry which is present throughout Canada.

    Mr. Paul Crête: There is $2 billion for health, and that is a good thing. We would have actually liked to see $2 billion for the last fiscal year, especially since there ended up being a $5 billion surplus. Taking $5 million from a $5 billion surplus would not have created big problems and it would have helped people in all regions of Canada.

    This is a very down-to-earth problem: people with small tourist operations all through these tourist areas have been affected by the situation and are having a lot of difficulty making up for lost time. Promotion should be done to tell people that they can visit these regions without any problem, that the situation has been resolved. There is a need for publicity across Canada and especially in Quebec. But work also needs to be done at the local level, and I think that an extra effort is needed there.

    A Mr. Reford, who comes from the Lower St. Lawrence region and is very competent, has just been appointed to the Canadian Tourism Commission. In my opinion, a special effort is needed, especially because, in terms of reinvestment for every job created, this is one of the employment sectors where it is easiest to get people working who have relatively low levels of education.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Your message is clear, Mr. Chair, with respect to the importance of developing the tourist industry out in the regions. And you are right. When I look at the programming developed by CED in the various regions of Quebec, I notice that local partners in a number of regions have emphasized the tourism aspect under the Strategic Regional Initiative. There are discussions, in fact, about developing this aspect further.

    It seems important for people at the local level, as a way of promoting economic development. So you can rest assured that we will continue to make the necessary effort.

    Mr. Paul Crête: Do I have any time left?

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Eyking, please.

    Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming, Minister.

    I'd like to tell you about a situation we have. My riding is in Cape Breton, and over the last ten years we've lost our groundfisheries, our coal mines, and a steel plant. We've lost about 10,000 jobs. We've also been left with a bit of an environmental disaster.

    Now, your department has set up an agency, ECBC, under ACOA. I have to say that they're doing a great job. Over the last few years, they got two thousand jobs created, and they have one thousand more in the slings. They also were recognized by the Auditor General--and it's hard to get praise from the Auditor General--for being one of the top crown corporations in the country. We still have a long way to go, because we still have 28% or 30% unemployment.

    When I look at Canada overall, it seems there's no specific area that gets hit any more. It seems to be sporadic--the softwood lumber issue out west, for instance, and mill towns having problems. Different pockets are having problems. So I'm wondering if we should have some type of response action plan, similar to what they did in Cape Breton, for areas of the country where they quickly get hit. Perhaps it would be working with other departments, such as HRDC. You would go in there and kind of save the area. Take the SARS situation in Ontario, where they were hit hard. It might have helped to...or you could bring people from those agencies that are used to that.

    It's just an idea. It's worked for us, and from what I see happening in our country, nobody's immune to a disaster or a shot in the arm.

    I don't know if you're very familiar with ECBC, or if your officials are, but I'm putting a plug in for them. They're doing a good job, and I think that model could be used more across this country. It seems to work. For instance, if there was a disaster with P.E.I. potatoes, and their economy had to change from one to another....

    I'm just bouncing that idea off you.

Á  (1155)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, as the former President of the Treasury Board, I'm aware of the work done by that crown corporation, but not from my role in Industry Canada. This is directly under the responsibility of ACOA, and Minister McGuire is in charge of that. Since I've been in this portfolio, I haven't had to deal with it. But I do understand what you're saying here, that when a region is hit by something, we should perhaps have a special mechanism to try to help that region. I think right now we almost do it crisis by crisis.

    I have to say we're thinking especially about the regions where all the economic development is linked to one industry, which happens in some cities and rural parts of this country. If that industry is in trouble, you don't have anything else in the communities or in the whole region.

    Perhaps we should reflect more about these situations, on how we could help these regions to start to diversify more. Even if they have one industry that's very successful, as you've said, we never know what could happen. It's very risky when all your economic development is linked to only one industry.

    That brings me to the same point Gérard Binet made, that when your economic development is linked to a big industry and not small and medium-sized enterprises, you have a problem when that bigger industry has to close or--I don't know what--goes into bankruptcy, and we've seen that in the country.

    But what you're saying is about something bigger than that; it's also for other industries when they are hit. I think it's a good idea, and we can think about it.

    Hon. Mark Eyking: Usually what happens is the industry goes bankrupt, and you're not only left with an economic and social problem, but many times there's an environmental problem as well, with a mine closing, for example. So there's quite a bit of fixing to do all round.

    Anyway, we have them throughout this country--and I just brag about my own--and maybe we can draw from them to see how they've responded. Maybe they're in the loop to be in a kind of response and action team. It's just a suggestion.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We're going to go to Ms. Gallant.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    It was recognized by the minister's predecessor that the lack of a regional development agency has been a problem in southern Ontario. And, Minister, southern Ontario is not eastern Ontario, as the county wardens told you last week. It was confirmed in the House last week by a member of your own party, what I and the member for Lanark--Carleton have been saying since this government took office in 2000, that federal economic development has been neglected in eastern Ontario.

    Now, the wardens were promised money in days as opposed to weeks or months or after the election. If you've promised this money to the wardens, why wasn't this funding in the budget, or is this coming from the decrease in payments in the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I think you are raising a very good question here, that some parts of the country don't have a regional development agency. You're pointing out southern Ontario here, and we can also speak about other parts of Ontario. We can speak about the north as an example, because now we have a regional development agency for the east, for the west, for Quebec, and for the north of Ontario; other parts are not covered by these types of programs.

    I have to tell you that it brings out some very specific problems in those areas when some industry or small and medium-sized enterprises are in difficulty because they cannot have access to national programs and they usually don't have the program delivered by an economic development agency. I have to tell you that right now in the government we are reflecting on the orientation of economic development in the regions. I think in the budget there was also a part...I don't know how you say that in English.

    My deputy minister will say it in English; I don't know the term.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Villiard (Deputy Minister, Department of Industry): Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

    Mr. Chairman, the question the member had relates obviously to regional development, as the minister has said. In the budget there was mention of the review, which will be conducted this fiscal year—it started today—of the community futures development corporations. It is mentioned there as a matter of fact that this review should take into account especially those regions where there is no regional development agency, as in southern Ontario. But there was also mention of eastern Ontario in particular.

    Mr. John McBride, our assistant deputy minister, could maybe comment additionally on that.

    Mr. John McBride (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Industry): CFDCs do exist in rural eastern and southern Ontario and they've been a very effective tool for helping. I think that's one of the reasons in the budget to reflect on how useful CFDCs have already been in eastern and southern Ontario, particularly in the rural parts and how that program could perhaps be expanded and enhanced to continue that good work. Whether that will be sufficient or just part of the overall solution is part of the reflection that needs to happen.

    There's also infrastructure programming that covers all of Ontario, which is helping communities. It is delivered by regional agencies elsewhere in the country and is part of the tool kit for helping communities as well, which is part of a federal-provincial program that you'll see in the estimates. There is a significant amount of money flowing to communities through the infrastructure program as well.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Chairman, these wardens were promised the money in a matter of days. It's not in the budget. Now testimony has said that this is coming from the Canada-Ontario infrastructure programs, whereas in the minister's statement she said we're decreasing the funding to the infrastructure program. So I'm trying to understand, where is this money that's been promised to the wardens in eastern Ontario coming from? One person says there's a review, so it won't be coming for at least a year. Another person says it's coming from interior infrastructure and that's being decreased. I don't see where it's coming from.

    Mr. John McBride: I'm not exactly sure what reference to money being promised to wardens you're referring to.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The wardens from eastern Ontario were here on the Hill and met with the minister. They were promised that money would come in a matter of days.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: To the former minister?

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: To this minister.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I've met with whom?

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With the wardens from eastern Ontario.

  (1205)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: The warden is the mayor?

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Kind of. They're heads of the counties.

    They were promised infrastructure money right away.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I'm sorry, I did not, myself.... I don't know what minister you're speaking about.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Okay, let's talk about these CFDCs then, the community future development corporations, in Ontario. The Department of Industry went over budget on these this year, while the budget says you're broadening and deepening the CFDCs' mandate. Again, it seems to be all talk with no money.

    If this government is sincere about making a more effective program with better delivery, why is more money for this program being promised right before an election, when this action should have been taken years ago?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Villiard: With your permission, Madam Minister, the review we have talked about, which is also mentioned in the budget, is this mandated review that has to happen after a period of time. In this case I think it's five years. So we had to do it this year, 2004-05. The mention in the budget was that not only will you do that, but when you do that and when you prepare recommendations for the future, you should take into account those regions where there are no regional development agencies. In particular, eastern Ontario was mentioned, which obviously has its own development problems and where organizations like CFDCs could make a difference in terms of our support for their operations and also our support for them to have capital to support local organizations and communities in their specific areas.

    That's the context of this review, which would have had to have happened anyway, because this is the end of the time now, but with a specific reference to, as I said, those areas.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: There's a swifter solution to this, Mr. Chairman. One of the ongoing problems I had with your predecessor was that while Renfrew County is considered eastern Ontario, much of that county shares the same characteristics as northern Ontario. Considering the fact that northern status in Ontario extends to Muskoka, which is actually south of Renfrew County, why don't you just declare right now northern status for Renfrew County, in recognition of its unique characteristics? That would put it right in the category of northern Ontario and the money could start to flow immediately.

    Mr. John McBride: You're referring particularly to the boundaries in which FedNor operates, which have been established pursuant to terms and conditions set by the Treasury Board. Those are decisions that are made by ministers, and my guess is that what happens in terms of regional and economic development in Ontario, as the minister referred to, will be subject to a broader discussion. Whether or not it means extending the boundaries of FedNor or supplementing the resources for CFDCs, the debate is over the right tools and mechanisms to deal with that.

    If I can refer to your previous comment on the meeting with the wardens, my guess is it was probably a meeting in the context of infrastructure programming, which the budget announced was going to be accelerated. We're negotiating with the Province of Ontario on the municipal rural infrastructure program. It will not only be a new program, but the money that was announced in the 2003 budget has been accelerated and will be spent more rapidly. So that discussion with the municipalities may have been in the context of the spending on infrastructure.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Jobin, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière): Welcome, Minister. It is a privilege for me to be replacing someone here today and to be able to ask you a few questions.

    Media reports indicated yesterday that Canada's economic growth had declined by 0.1 per cent of GDP. SARS and mad cow disease are no longer given as factors, but the focus is on the strength of the dollar and its impact on manufacturing companies.

    As you probably know, there are many manufacturing companies in my riding, in the Chaudière-Appalaches region, where SMEs abound. I think that a good way of helping these companies in the face of a strong dollar might be to give them incentives to innovate and use new technologies. They could become more competitive and be better positioned to compete with the yellow peril—China—that is threatening manufacturing companies, especially those in the Chaudière-Appalaches region.

    I would like to know what steps Industry Canada has taken to help these businesses deal with the 20-per-cent increase in the value of the dollar this year and what could be done to encourage them to adopt new technologies. We know that companies in the Chaudière-Appalaches region use a lot more labour to make their products than companies elsewhere in the world, which rely more on technology to make the same products.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, that is a very broad question. There is a large number of programs, both within Industry Canada and the Canada Economic Development Agency, aimed at helping our businesses develop new technologies and support mature businesses that need to modernize and find new niches or new markets. So there are many programs, ranging from research investment to research marketing. Businesses can get assistance in bringing new products to market. So there is quite a wide range of programs.

    I read the same article you did, Mr. Jobin. The numbers come from Statistics Canada, and we find them disappointing because we were expecting better. But I would invite you to remain optimistic since, when we look at our economic growth for the past year, it is basically clear that even though the rate of growth has been lower than forecast, there has been economic growth in the country. This growth has taken place despite all the crisis that we have faced and all the problems that we had as a result of SARS, mad cow disease, hurricanes and forest fires. We had quite a number of crisis situations in Canada and yet we still managed to end the year with economic growth. That means that our fundamentals are solid. Otherwise, we would not have been able to get through all that. How is it that we still manage to have economic growth, despite all these problems?

    That said, I am not saying that the situation is perfect. We had all those crises and, as you mentioned, there was also the strengthening of the dollar which happened quickly, too quickly, especially for our export-oriented businesses. Some businesses have had a hard time adapting to the rise in the dollar's value. The dollar has been relatively stable for some time now. In the short term, the change has been difficult for companies, but in the medium term the higher dollar encourages them to buy equipment. One of the reasons that productivity is lower in Canada than in the United States is that not enough equipment is bought here.

    So there are two sides to the coin. We would of like to see the appreciation take place more gradually. In the short term, there have been negative consequences, but in the medium term we can see positive impacts.

    That said, if you would like an explanation about specific programs to help businesses in the region, I would mention in particular IDEA-SMI, which is a Canadian Economic Development Agency program targeted at helping small businesses develop new technologies.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Christian Jobin: In the government's estimates for 2004-05, $200 million has been provided for increasing activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in other words, to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.

    In your budget, Minister, how much of this $200 million have you set aside to meet our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed by the Canadian government?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: That is a very good question, Mr. Jobin. I will ask one of my officials to come to the table.

[English]

    Mr. Jean-Claude Villiard: David Teal is senior policy adviser with sustainable technology in the services industries branch.

    I'll begin.

[Translation]

    Last August, an announcement was made within the framework of the Canada Plan on climate change. Industry Canada was allocated funds in order to launch certain initiatives, particularly with respect to the hydrogen issue. New programs, managed within the framework of Technology Partnership Canada were established. These programs aim at encouraging the adoption of hydrogen-based technologies. I believe the amount to be in the order of $60 million.

    In this context, in addition to the fact that TPC received additional resources to tackle the issue of climate change, members of the Industry Canada portfolio set aside, if my memory serves me correctly, an additional amount of $60 or $80 million to examine this issue, mainly through the National Research Council.

    That gives you an idea of the scope of the programs which were established, and which we were called upon to manage. We invited stakeholders from the private sector as well as from non profit organizations to make suggestions so that we could implement the hydrogen issue and move up the technological application of solutions.

[English]

    Would you like to add something to this?

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Jobin, is that all?

    Mr. Christian Jobin: I would like to ask a supplementary question with respect to Kyoto?

    You know that the main producers of greenhouse gases are vehicles which we find on our streets. Is your department, Industry Canada, working together with Transport Canada to develop an overall transportation plan—an intermodal transportation plan, which for all intents and purposes, would take into consideration marine transportation which is the safest and cleanest mode of transportation per kilometre?

    If we really want to reach our Kyoto objectives, reducing emissions to the 2000 levels minus 15 per cent, we will have to take concrete action with respect to marine transportation. We're talking about intermodality and a true Coasting Trade Act. We will also have to consider the St. Lawrence river as an asset rather than a liability.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, in my opinion, the member is raising some very good points here. There is indeed work which is being done in cooperation with other departments. I can tell you, for example, that the Canada Plan on climate change is based on interdepartmental collaboration. If my memory serves me correctly, seven or eight departments, including Industry Canada, work in collaboration. I will give you an example.

    As you know, it was announced in the last budget that we would be developing a policy framework for the automobile industry. I'm giving you this example because you raised the issue. In fact, it goes without saying that in such a situation, the Minister of Environment emphasized the fact that by developing this economic sector, which is important not only for Ontario but for the rest of the country, we must respect our Kyoto commitments. Therefore, we must make it mandatory for businesses to comply with these standards.

    I believe that all together—citizens, businesses and governments—we must pull our efforts to reach these objectives, which must be the responsibility of all citizens of our country.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Masse, please.

    Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    On Bill C-9, representations are still being made internationally by this government. The most recent was the Canadian delegation of the 60th session on human rights in Geneva on March 24, where they indicated to the world once again that we're currently in the process of amending our domestic legislation.

    A colleague of mine asked a question of you, Madam Minister, on the 25th. Your response was that it “is currently under consideration by the parliamentary committee”, which it wasn't at that time, because we're still waiting for the government amendments.

    What is the actual holdup for bringing forth the government amendments? What specifically needs to be fixed, and will that happen before an election? If we do not act on it now, it's not likely anything will get done until September or October, even if there is political will by the government of the day to move forward on this bill.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I will say—as I think the members realize, after the hearings you had—that in the legislation you have in front of you to study, I think the element of discussion around the table is the right of first refusal. This is exactly where the NGO organizations, the generics, and industries also said they could not live with that. We're working here on some amendments on how to make sure that not only the generic industry but also the brand industry can participate in that, while respecting our international obligation about intellectual property.

    I think the Doha decision does not exempt us from all of our international obligations. We have to find the right balance.

    I think this is where we will work very hard, but I want to reassure you that it is the will of the government to pass that legislation. We will bring forward the amendments as rapidly as your committee can reconvene their work.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Brian Masse: We've had four months. This government has reintroduced the exact same legislation and it has been stalled. I hope there's at least bold and decisive action taken on this issue. It will be a national embarrassment, I believe, given the representations and the constant promises that are out there, and that continue to be made by government officials during this process, when we still have a problem with it.

    If I can move to another subject matter, Madam Minister, I'm concerned about the outsourcing of Statistics Canada that has happened with Lockheed Martin. One of the issues that has arisen about this is privacy and security. I've asked questions in the House of Commons about this issue. I'd like to know specifically where that data will be located.

    Secondly, did this government get a legal opinion about the Patriot Act? How does that affect multinational subsidiary countries? The British Columbia government, at this time, believes the Patriot Act could be a trump for the privacy and data being provided to them and their agencies of law enforcement. They've expressed concerns about that. What is the address where the data is going to be kept?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I will ask Mike Sheridan, from Statistics Canada, to directly answer that question, please.

    Mr. Mike Sheridan (Director General, Labour and Household Surveys, Statistics Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The 2006 census will be conducted by Statistics Canada, by sworn employees of Statistics Canada who are Canadians. The data will reside in Statistics Canada.

    Mr. Brian Masse: Lockheed Martin will have no involvement in Statistics Canada?

    Mr. Mike Sheridan: Lockheed Martin was contracted to provide a set of hardware and software for Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada is leveraged on behalf of the Government of Canada through a contract tendered by Public Works and Government Services Canada. Lockheed Martin's experience is in the United Kingdom and in the U.S. in conducting their censuses.

    We've bought from Lockheed Martin, ostensibly, their investments in electronic scanning software so that we can reduce the cost of the 2006 census.

    Mr. Brian Masse: Where will our data be stored?

    Mr. Mike Sheridan: The data will be stored at Statistics Canada.

    Mr. Brian Masse: Okay. It won't be moving now.

    What type of feasibility study was conducted? Why outsource this at all to Lockheed Martin? Is the RFP that was issued available?

    Mr. Mike Sheridan: The RFP is available. In fact, it's published, I believe, on the PWGSC's Internet site.

    Mr. Brian Masse: I haven't been able to find it on the website. Maybe you can get the address to me.

    Mr. Mike Sheridan: I'll make sure the clerk has a copy of that, but it was published. They may have taken it down now. The actual RFP was issued in 2001, so they may have rotated it.

    In terms of the question with respect to why Statistics Canada used Lockheed Martin in this context, the census is one of the largest peacetime operations undertaken by the Government of Canada. It involves 45,000 people and implicates 13 million households, almost all of the households in Canada.

    In the past, the data from the census was captured at the same time as tax forms. It's a very labour-intensive type of work. The business case that was put forward by the agency, with respect to moving to scanning technology, merged on two issues. One is the fact that more and more Canadians are filing their taxes electronically. The amount of keying capacity available to capture the census, which made a good business case at that time, has clearly diminished. The other part of the business case was that levering on the investments, which both the U.S. and the British statistical systems had made in these scanning technologies, would reduce the cost of the census by about $20 million.

    Mr. Brian Masse: You're saying it's only the software that is going to be procured.

    Mr. Mike Sheridan: And the hardware.

    Mr. Brian Masse: I want to move to another issue about privacy that has been raised in recent days. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was folded into your department in the 1990s. Since that time, they've gone from a budget of $68 million to $4.5 million, a significant decrease. At a time when there are many privacy issues related to telephone technology, commerce on the Internet, and credit cards--for example, the prime rate is around 4.5% right now and for credit cards the interest rate is 18.5%--what is this government doing to ensure that the decrease doesn't affect consumer rights? Are we going to protect citizens so that they will be able to advocate for themselves with regard to changing technology in different types of financing issues? There are companies out there where the most vulnerable go to have their cheques cashed, and they are charged 60% interest. What's the plan to protect those people? Why has the budget been cut so much?

  (1225)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I'm very happy to receive a question on consumer affairs because this is under the portfolio of Industry Canada. Sometimes people don't realize it is there. We have a specific office in Industry Canada, which is led by Michael Jenkin, who is here with me today.

    Most of the questions you've raised were on the table at the last federal-provincial meeting I had with the ministers responsible for consumer affairs in the different provinces. The last meeting was held in Winnipeg in January of this year. We are working very closely with our provincial partners to make sure we have some specific action on all the matters you've raised.

    I will ask Michael Jenkin, who is responsible for the Office of Consumer Affairs, to elaborate.

    Mr. Michael Jenkin (Director General, Office of Consumer Affairs, Department of Industry): Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Masse, a committee of officials, federal and provincial, has been working on this issue since January. In fact, we've had our eye on this industry for some time. I think it's the payday loan companies you're talking about. We're studying a number of potential options for ministers to look at during their next meeting, which hopefully will take place at the end of this year or early next year. It involves dealing with a whole range of issues, including business practices, rollovers, better consumer education, and the whole gamut of issues concerned with the financing structure of the industry. So we're hoping to be able to come up with a set of proposals for ministers to look at.

    It's not a straightforward issue because in addition to the fact that it requires coordination of two levels of government, this is an industry that doesn't fit under any existing regulatory structure, largely, and there are important differences in the consumer interests that are involved here. Some of the traditional users of this industry are, as you'd expect, low-income people. But the people who use this industry also include medium-income Canadians. So the consumer protection issues here are quite complicated in terms of making sure we have a framework that addresses the needs of all of the people using the industry.

    Mr. Brian Masse: The resources for this department are significantly down from the past. We've never seen advances in technology like this. Vulnerable citizens are literally being fleeced by some businesses.

    Mr. Michael Jenkin: Mr. Masse, I think some of the numbers you were referring to, although I didn't catch them all, relate to the expenditures that the former Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had for consumer protection issues. A lot of those functions were transferred to other departments--for example, to Health Canada. So what's spent by the Department of Industry right now on consumer protection is not really for an equivalent set of functions because many of those were transferred to other departments about 10 years ago. So it's really an apples and oranges comparison.

    Mr. Brian Masse: I would like to know what Industry is doing with the auto issue. It was the former minister's number one priority. I notice that in your speaking notes you just have it at the end. What specifically is being invested in the auto sector, not only for the development of technology, which I think is very important, especially with the move toward a green environment, but also with regard to an actual strategy to deal with the fact that the United States is providing massive subsidies to procure assembly plants south of the border, as is Mexico? What is our tool kit to deal with this, and will it evolve? Has the Prime Minister directed this department to deal with auto policy?

  (1230)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The answer is yes. We are directed to look at the auto policy. It was very clear from the Prime Minister and it was very clear--I don't know if you noticed, Mr. Masse--in the finance minister's speech. You will find a paragraph on that, on the fact that we will work on the auto policy.

    We'll do that, of course, with our partners, especially through CAPC, with all the partners we have there from the industry, and with the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec that are around the table for that.

    We have received that direction, and we're starting to work on it right now. In the meantime, we know we have some projects around. I've met with the companies recently, and they have submitted some projects to my department. I think in the near future perhaps we'll be able to clarify the direction we will follow with those projects.

    The Chair: Mr. Fontana, please.

    Hon. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

    Welcome, Minister, and congratulations to you and your department with regard to setting the policy framework for working with the government in terms of where we go in the future in this country.

    There's no doubt the areas that will ensure Canada's success in building the 21st century economy are not only creating the macro environment to allow for entrepreneurships and creation of small and medium-sized enterprises, but growing those small businesses into big companies and global companies. One way of doing that, of course, is through innovation and technology, and the budget really does point to the fact that over this year, $1 billion is going toward creating those new technologies that hopefully will find themselves in the rest of the world, creating those jobs and value-added jobs here in Canada. I think that's absolutely essential. We also need to make sure that each and every region of the country and each community is allowed to participate in the economic growth.

    My question relates to small and medium-sized enterprises. As you know, over two million small and medium-sized enterprises are the economic life blood of our economy. They also need some assistance, and there's no doubt that governments need to be partners with business, even in technology.

    While Mr. Rajotte might call it corporate welfare, the fact remains that when business and industry and the academic partners work together, we can create global companies. I would invite him to meet with the aerospace industry. They would be the first to tell you that Canada's success is because of the Government of Canada's investment. In the automotive industry it's the same thing. Government has to partner with those major sectors, especially in western Canada, which just happens to be a big provider of aerospace jobs. So I would invite him to meet with the aerospace industry. They have an entirely different take from his take of it being corporate welfare.

    But, Minister, could you just point out to me, with regard to a small business agenda, how we can support and move small businesses forward so they can create jobs and become global players?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: We have to pay more attention to small and medium enterprises in this country. That's clearly where the economic development is, and as you said, Mr. Fontana, it's in all regions of this country. I think we can do that through the different programs we have, and perhaps we also need to think about new programs and how to be helpful to those small and medium enterprises.

    I think we have to look on the side of the regulatory regime to see if we have smart regulation for these small and medium enterprises. We know it could be a burden on them. I'm not speaking about abolishing regulation; I'm speaking about having smarter regulation that will help our industry.

    I'm thinking about how to help them be more innovative. That means how they can get access to some research laboratories, so they can be partners in that. I think you have some programs, like the IRAP program through the NRC, which are very effective to small and medium enterprises around the country.

    Having said that, I think it's one thing to help them do some research here, but another thing we have discovered in this country is that small and medium enterprises have some problems in accessing venture capital to start new enterprises. That's why in the budget you find different tools or mechanisms to help the small and medium enterprises, not only to be more innovative but also to be able to commercialize their research and have access to venture capital. I think it is through all of these things that we can be partners with them throughout Canada.

    I don't know if my deputy minister wants to add something.

  (1235)  

    Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Vanclief will take my minute. Go ahead.

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward—Hastings, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And again, Madam Minister, thank you very much for coming.

    I want to return to some discussion that took place around the community futures developmentcorporations and maybe clarify things. I was at the meeting that wardens and CFDC people attended last week. So was the Prime Minister. I can tell you that I'm sure those CFDC delegates representing all of eastern Ontario would be somewhat upset if they heard what we heard at this meeting this morning--a member of Parliament saying they aren't doing anything.

    They gave the demonstration very clearly. It is also outlined in an excellent response to a question I asked in an earlier meeting of Mr. Nelson of your department. It outlines what the $45 million investment in CFDCs in Ontario does, and it leverages another $61 million. It helped 1,036 small businesses with financing and it also created or maintained 4,900 jobs. I could go on. I would suggest that all members read it.

    No specific province was promised that dollars would be forthcoming within a few days. What the Prime Minister said very clearly was that he too recognized the importance of CFDCs, and that we need to take a look at an economic development strategy for eastern Ontario. He recognized the importance of the CFDCs because of their history, their being there as a mechanism that would let us build upon the successes of the past.

    I just wanted to clarify what was said and who attended the meeting, and to point out, as we all have, that governments make different investments in different ways--be it through Technology Partnerships Canada or in some other way--and sometimes the return on the investment is quicker in coming for some methods than for others, but it's there to support and encourage development. I can tell you that both the wardens went away from that meeting, Madam Chair, pleased with the fact that our government has moved up the rural infrastructure money from a ten-year delivery period to a five-year delivery period. The Prime Minister himself recognized that we need to take a further look at an economic development strategy through the CFDCs. As has been pointed out, this too was recognized in the budget.

    I would just ask if you had any comments on discussions within your department in seeking those resources to give the CFDCs some additional funding to continue to use. When we look, Madam Chair, at the work being done, jobs are being created at an investment of only $9,200 per individual. If we look at other government investments aimed at creating employment, this is probably one of the lowest investments to create a job of any program in Canada.

    Are you in discussions to augment that support to CFDCs?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Thank you for the clarification about that meeting. Unfortunately, I was not aware of that meeting, but I completely agree with the importance of the CFDCs for the economic development of a region, especially because eastern and southern Ontario don't have an economic development agency. In other parts of the country you have both CFDC and the economic development agency. That's why I think it was very clear in the budget that here at Industry Canada we have to look at the revision of CFDCs, especially in the regions where there are no economic development agencies. Of course, in that revision we will have to make some decisions about the allocation of resources here, and we will look at that very closely.

    I would completely agree with you that this is an important mechanism or tool to help with the social and economic development initiatives of the communities. I can assure you that we realize the importance of this.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Rajotte and then Mrs. Redman.

    Mr. James Rajotte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Madam Minister, I just wanted to clarify something. You mentioned the national science adviser, Dr. Carty, in your opening remarks. I did write to you about that in the letter of January. You outlined in general what he would be doing, but perhaps you could add some clarification on what his role will be. I believe he assumes his position in April, this month; that's what I was informed. If you could, just clarify what he will do and in particular address a couple of questions. In the United States the national science adviser is actually considered a member of cabinet. Will Dr. Carty be considered a full member of cabinet? That's the first question.

    The second question concerns the fact that in the United Kingdom the chief scientist is actually a full parliamentary position that reports directly to Parliament. The chief scientist would then report to parliamentary committees and be able to advise all parliamentarians on science matters.

    So the two questions are, first, will Dr. Carty be considered a full member of cabinet, and second, will he be able to report to Parliament, appear before parliamentary committees, and advise all parliamentarians on science matters?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: To my knowledge, Mr. Chair, as you know, that special science adviser advises the Prime Minister directly and not the industry minister. I share with him some mandates, developing a strategy for commercialization of research, as an example, and also share a mandate with the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister on science and small business.

    To answer your question directly, I have to say that to my knowledge he is not a member of the cabinet; he is an adviser to the Prime Minister. Second, in his relationship with parliamentary committees, I would imagine that he would accept any invitation from any parliamentary committee to appear and explain his role as to what exactly he is going to do.

    Mr. James Rajotte: Thank you for that.

    The second issue I wanted to touch upon was the industrial research assistance program, which you also mentioned in your opening statement. I've asked you questions about this before. As we've said before, we don't have a big problem with the program in and of itself, but we have some concerns with some of the spending that's been going on there, an issue I've raised with you on numerous occasions. In your response to me in March of this year you said:

The NRC completed its internal investigation into program irregularities last fall and took administrative action.... Four employees involved are no longer with the NRC. One left in January 2003 and three others were dismissed in October 2003.

As a follow-up to the internal investigation, the NRC has also commissioned a comprehensive forensic audit, which is ongoing, and is establishing new procedures to ensure the integrity of the whole program.

    Then you talk about the amount of funds. You say the NRC is acting to recover all the funds, but you say the amount of funds is in the order of $500,000. My information is that it is more than $500,000, so if you could, clarify for me the amount that is involved in this. Is it $500,000 or is it in fact an amount greater than this?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, Mr. Rajotte is talking about a letter I sent, but I think through the study of the supplementary budget estimates you people hear from the NRC on things you have questions about. When they appeared, they made a commitment to send you more details about what they had done. I don't know if you have received the letter; I have a copy here. They wrote to you, Mr. Chair, on March 29 with all the details on what they had done. I hope the members of the committee have received that.

  (1245)  

    Mr. James Rajotte: I don't have a copy of the letter.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: You don't have a copy, but I have here with me Monsieur Normandin, who could perhaps answer the question directly.

    Dr. Richard Normandin (Vice-President, Research (Physical Sciences and Engineering), National Research Council Canada): Thank you.

    The report has been sent, and in the report there's a financial summary of the various amounts recovered from the various firms. Also, some of the firms are in the process of looking at and disputing the various amounts. In further investigation it was found that some firms misrepresented aspects of their company. Therefore, the possible total overpayments are projected to be in the order of about $500,000; it could be anywhere between $312,000 and $611,000. This is also in the report you have received, and there's also a breakdown of these costs.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I'm sorry if that was not distributed to the member.

    Mr. James Rajotte: Let me just clarify that there's no internal audit with the NRC that says there are actual over-claims amounting to over $3 million; this is not factually correct. This is the information I have: that the actual over-claims are over $3 million and not $500,000. I'm just asking you to indicate which is the correct figure for me.

    Dr. Richard Normandin: No, I don't think that's the correct figure. I have the report that was submitted, and it deals with that issue.

    The Chair: Karen Redman, please.

    Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have three questions, Madam Minister. I think I'll put all three forward, just in the interests of good use of time.

    I think there's a lot to be said for how instructive internal audits and indeed the reports from the Auditor General are on how we can make systems work better.

    But I look with interest at the reallocation of $1 billion in spending that was required of your department in the year 2004-2005. I know our recent past budget, while it wasn't just directed at the Department of Industry, was speaking of reallocations of about $3 billion over four years. My question is really one of efficacy. It isn't just a question of how we go forward with where we spend the money and whether or not there are good accounting practices. Within the department, is there a view to saying “This program is very effective”? Are there tools and instruments in place to say “This is something government ought to continue because it is accomplishing its goals, and we may indeed want to put more money in it”, notwithstanding some of Mr. Rajotte's concerns?

    I know IRAP to be a very highly effective program of your department, and one that I think runs out of money about halfway through its mandate annually. It's very well subscribed and, from my personal experience of companies that have used it, highly effective. I wonder if that kind of lens is being used to view how we reallocate money.

    Another issue that comes out in the estimates of this year is the fact that both ACOA and Western Economic Diversification have a different relationship with Industry Canada. I have to tell you that if you're interested in economic development of small and medium-sized businesses, one need only to look at the women entrepreneurs who are busy across Canada. In my work with the Task Force on Women Entrepreneurs, we were really struck with how effective the programming under ACOA and Western Economic Diversification was.

    What really appealed to me in the Western Economic Diversification model was the fact that it was relatively elastic. It had certain criteria and certain goals it was trying to accomplish, but they didn't all look the same; they really responded to community need. I think it was very effective in how it was working on the ground. When we did our launch with over 200 women entrepreneurs last November, there were some announcements made by Prime Minister Chrétien to put additional funding into women's business enterprise centres under Western Diversification and to continue multi-year funding under ACOA.

    My question is one of coordination and what the relationship of those two agencies is now with Industry Canada. If you could clarify it for me, I'd be interested in knowing that.

    The other issue is about government online. Again we heard from women entrepreneurs that despite their geography or where they were throughout Canada, their needs were pretty consistent. Having government online was one way they were able to access business through the government. I'm wondering if you could outline a little a progress report on the acceleration of this initiative and answer whether all of Industry Canada's key services will be available on the Internet by 2005.

    Those would be my three questions.

  (1250)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, the member asks very good questions. We can speak a lot about it. The first one refers directly to program evaluation, not only internal audits. These are two different operations.

    Internal audit is one thing; program evaluation is another. I think to be able to reallocate money from programs that we consider are less effective, that are no longer a priority, or we have discovered that somebody in the community is able to deliver that program and not the Government of Canada--so there are different reasons and you have other priorities and you should reallocate the money--every department needs a very good program evaluation team. The skills of the people who are doing this are different from the ones who are auditing. It's quite different. It is larger, it is broader, and it is a more fundamental question, even on the existence of the program itself at a certain point.

    At Industry Canada we have people for that, but we need to develop more. Unfortunately, when there was some downsizing in the public service over the last year, some of these people were affected, the expertise we have in some departments, including Industry Canada.

    I think we have to reinforce that if we want to make the right choices. If we don't have good program evaluation, we could decide to reduce a program, or even cut a program, without realizing the long-term impact of that. In the short term it looks fine, but in the long term you could have an impact that you would regret.

    I think the ministers, to be able to make some good decisions, the right decisions, have to have these program evaluations on the table. I think we want to go further. In the budget it was announced that we should reallocate $3 billion over the next four years. I told my colleagues and my officials that I need program evaluations on the table to make the right decisions.

    You speak about ACOA and WD. WD is no longer part of the portfolio. ACOA is part of the portfolio, but the Minister of ACOA now has full responsibility and full authority for all the programs of ACOA. He does not have to refer to the Minister of Industry to sign off authority and all that. He's fully responsible for all the programs of ACOA, but he is still in the loop in the portfolio, like my deputy minister here. I am also the minister responsible for CEDQ. That's why Marc is here. I have two portfolios: Industry Canada and CEDQ. That's very useful, I have to tell you.

    Having said that, the ministers responsible for WD and ACOA and I have agreed to work together--even if they are not specifically included--for the vision of economic and community development in all regions of this country.

    Coming back to your specific question, I don't know if I've been clear. Mr. McGuire at ACOA is part of the portfolio but has full responsibilities. Mr. Pagtakhan at WD is not part of the portfolio any more but works with us in collaboration.

    You referred to women entrepreneurship and the fact that we are committed to developing some specific centres for women. I don't know where that file is at WD. We could ask the minister if there are any projects on that side. I have to tell you that at CEDQ we're working on that right now, and I hope to be able in the near future...and Toronto as well

  (1255)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: There were actually two announcements. The ones through Western Economic Diversification already exist. There were two names in that.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: We're working on a project with Toronto as well, and we're working on a project called the Réseau des femmes d'affaires du Québec. So yes, that's on the line.

    The last question is about government online. I think Karen Redman is right. This is so useful for our enterprise. First of all, when they go to the Canada site, they have a specific passerelle only for the enterprises.

    All the information is there, but we must go further. As an example, if an entrepreneur has to ask for some permits from different departments, he will register only once and that will permit him to go everywhere. I think this is the direction we are working in.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Villiard: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

    To complement what our minister has just said, of course this is a very important subject for us, government online. Already the department has made a lot of efforts in order to promote, to establish, means to communicate better with our stakeholders. You have, for example, the site Strategis, which is a great source of information, of knowledge. But the department seeks to go beyond this, in fact exactly as our minister has mentioned, in terms of how to not only provide information but interact through a portal, for example, with our clients, our stakeholders.

    For example, companies, especially small and medium-sized companies, would like to have one source where they could knock at the door in order to get answers, for example, when it's a question of asking for permits, or licences, or what not, and this is exactly what we are developing now. We call that the BizPaL portal. The important aspect of this is that not only would an enterprise be able to connect with the Government of Canada, with the Department of Industry, as it relates to interactions with the private sector, for example, but the same enterprise could, through this, connect directly with provinces, because sometimes they have to get permits or licences or other information of that sort coming out of provinces.

    Also, there are some municipalities that would like to join. So we are developing this now. It's on time, and we believe it's going to be a great tool, as you said, to support efficacy in what the governments are delivering for the sake of their clients.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: To add to that, I think we have done a pilot. If a person wants to open a restaurant, I think he has to look for 13 or 14 different permits and licences at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels. So the task is how to join everybody together so that person won't have to go to 14 different places.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We're going to try to squeeze in a few short questions, with your indulgence, Minister.

    Mr. Crête, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    With respect to Bill C-9, can you confirm whether or not there was, a few weeks ago, a meeting in the Prime Minister's office, where he summoned different parties to try and resolve this issue.

    As well, is this the reason why the amendments are now stalled somewhere in the government?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I can only tell you that we are working very closely with the Prime Minister's Office, because this is a project which is very dear to him. Since there are five ministers involved, it is coordinated by the Prime Minister's Office. There were meetings. I don't know if you're referring to any one of those meetings in particular, but there were several meetings.

·  (1300)  

    Mr. Paul Crête: Called by the Prime Minister's Office.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: When five ministers meet, coordination is handled by the Prime Minister's Office.

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.

    I have a question on a different topic. In your proposal, you say that you are developing, for more traditional industries, the establishment of more innovative tools and strategies to confront globalization. Indeed it is necessary for us to be very proactive, and one of my suggestions was accepted so that the committee could look into that soon.

    But there are other situations such as the one in Montmagny, where the multinational company Whirlpool is closing down a factory of 600 employees. This is in the sector of home appliance manufacturing. I was wondering if it would be possible to launch a particular relief initiative, a sort of pilot project that you could take advantage of for other similar situations, elsewhere. Is it possible to launch such an initiative, a pilot project to support economic diversification in this region and to address the layoff of these 600 people?

    I know that there are already things happening in the Department of Human Resources. There's work to be done with respect to older workers. On the regional economic diversification front, can you commit to launching a focused initiative within a year or two, to help the majority of workers get involved in other businesses and to also contribute to encouraging entrepreneurship among these people?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. I am told that Economic Development Canada is already involved in the Whirlpool issue. We are working very closely with the industry stakeholders ever since the decision was announced. I believe it was in May of this year.

    Mr. Paul Crête: It was announced two years ago, to take place this year. It is Whirlpool's last remaining factory in Canada. This wonderful multinational company, which sells a lot of household appliances all over Canada, has decided to relocate its factories outside of Canada.

    People would like to see us make a special and additional effort. We know that the department is making efforts, but could there be a sort of pilot project to give these people a helping hand?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: There certainly could be something, because we are part of a working committee which is studying alternative solutions in the area of industrial manufacturing. We even financed a feasibility study to see if we couldn't develop new markets. I don't know if this study has been published. Apparently not, but once we have the results, Economic Development Canada, through its regional programs, will certainly be a partner.

    Mr. Paul Crête: To conclude, I will say that this is a matter of great urgency, because there will be 600 layoffs by the end of April.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Paul.

    Christian, a short question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Madam Minister, my second question is on the social economy. It was mentioned in the Speech from Throne, in the budget and in your speech today. You talked about $100 million over five years to create four funds. Are these regional funds which are going to be created?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. Firstly, allow me to say that people in the industry are very please to see that the Canadian government can be a partner in the social economy. Therefore, there would be $100 million for the funds, allocated through our economic development agencies, which work closer to people in the industry and which will be able to oversee the management of these funds.

    Industry Canada is responsible, and should, in the months ahead, decide on exactly how to deliver on those budget commitments.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Madam Minister, you know that the best way to counter the underground economy is to help this economy. Currently, many services are provided by the underground economy. If we allow people to structure themselves and if we help them, we will tackle another problem, that of the underground economy.

    In your speech, you also talk about launching a pilot project on strategic planning for community economic development. If, through strategic planning, it is determined that more money is needed in this sector, will you be ready to follow through?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Honourable member, I think this is the very first time that the Government of Canada is involving itself in this area. Therefore, we will proceed gradually. There are some provinces which are more advanced than others in the area of the social economy. I think that we will learn from different models.

    Allow me to say that the home of the social economy is in Quebec, where people have developed an expertise in the area and with whom we will work very closely. This amount will be used to help them develop their skills, and enhance the “capacity building“ of all those businesses involved in the social economy.

    We know that businesses engaged in the social economy create jobs. Private profit is not their goal, but rather social profit at the community level. They're very useful in the community. They're some quite interesting success stories which we can draw inspiration from to develop these programs.

·  (1305)  

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Madam Minister.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci. C'est tout.

    A final short question to Cheryl Gallant, and then we're going to be done. Just two minutes, Cheryl.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Regarding funds that were budgeted to contracting services that were not used by the Canadian Space Agency, contracts were allocated for these and the contractors allocated their time accordingly, but they've never been asked to actually do the service and therefore have never been compensated for the proposals and time they have committed to work for the CSA.

    We want to know whether or not there's going to be an alternative use of the funds to the benefit of the Canadian space program and the commercialization of the infrastructure initiatives. What exactly happened to that money, or what will happen to it?

    On the Canadian Space Agency also, the minister mentioned that they're “committed to working with them to develop and implement the innovative strategies” to participate “in the global marketplace”.

    With the push to go to Mars, coupled with a budget that's really a fraction of NASA's, how will the government ensure that experienced Canadian contractors in the field of application development of commercial, off-the-shelf parts for the space industry be involved in this whole project?

    The Chair: Thank you, Cheryl.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard: On the question about the space agency, we have here Mr. Pierre Richard, who is the senior vice-president of the agency. I will ask him to answer the question.

    The Chair: We have about thirty seconds left for an answer.

    Mr. Pierre Richard (Senior Vice-President, Canadian Space Agency): Maybe I'll take a holistic approach to your questions. Regarding the future of the Canadian space program, Mars strategic planning, etc., we are looking continually at how to optimize the use of the A-base that is granted to the Canadian Space Agency. Much of what we do is done in partnership. In fact, everything we do is done in partnership with international partners.

    You mentioned Mars. Yes, we are looking at possibilities of contributing to Mars exploration. Canada will participate in 2007 by providing an instrument on Phoenix, which will be exploring Mars and will be looking at weather on Mars. We're also looking at and discussing with our American colleagues how Canada could play a role in the vision announced by President Bush a few months ago. In that vein, as you know, Canada has many niche technologies, where we are world leaders. What we are doing is exploring with our American colleagues where Canada could better contribute and build on these niche technologies, such as robotics and space radar to see how we could perhaps fit into the overall international effort for exploration. Canadian companies are working with us to see how we could best make proposals.

    Of course, these are expensive options, and we will be bringing forward proposals to the minister and to government in due time on how Canada could best optimize the use of space in these areas and many others.

    Regarding your question about contracts, the Canadian Space Agency is committed to doing annual priority reviews on all of our programs. In fact, last year we cut $57 million in programs to reallocate to higher priorities and also to fit within the current budgets. Therefore the contracting money is always reallocated to higher priorities. I can ensure the honourable member that all of our contracting practices are totally in line with Treasury Board and Public Works policies.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: These contractors have been on line to do the work but haven't been asked to do the work, and when the tenders.... There's no money.

·  (1310)  

    The Chair: Cheryl, you can follow up with a letter if you want.

    We have to adjourn, Paul.

    Encore.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: I would like the consent of the committee to adopt the following motion: that we ask the government to table, as soon as possible but no later than April 13, amendments made to Bill C-9, in order to allow us to hold a meeting on April 15 on this subject, whether or not we have received the government's amendments.

[English]

    The Chair: We don't have quorum, but I was going to say the same thing. If it's possible, Madam Minister, could we have the government's amendments on Bill C-9 by Tuesday, April 13, which is the Tuesday after Easter? I will talk to the committee members about having a meeting on the Thursday of the break on April 15 if there is agreement to do that, but at least they'll have enough time to look at them for the Tuesday meeting if we don't have a meeting on Thursday, April 15.

    Thank you very much, Madam Minister, to you, your deputy ministers, and all your officials.

    Everyone, have a good day.

    With that, we're adjourned.