INST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 9, 2003

0815

The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.))

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry)

0820

0825

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Allan Rock

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Allan Rock

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Allan Rock

0830

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Allan Rock

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

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

0835

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Brent St. Denis

0840

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

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

Hon. Allan Rock

0845

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

0850

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

Hon. Allan Rock

0855

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Hon. Allan Rock

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Hon. Allan Rock

0900

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC)

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. André Bachand

Hon. Allan Rock

0905

Mr. André Bachand

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. André Bachand

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)

0910

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Hon. Allan Rock

0915

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Hon. Allan Rock

0920

Mr. Brian Masse

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Brian Masse

0925

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Hon. Allan Rock

0930

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Allan Rock

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Allan Rock

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance)

0935

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Allan Rock

0940

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.)

Hon. Allan Rock

0945

Mr. Dan McTeague

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Dan McTeague

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Dan McTeague

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Hon. Allan Rock

0950

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

Hon. Allan Rock

0955

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Brian Masse

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Brian Masse

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

1000

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. James Rajotte

1005

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

1010

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

NUMBER 059

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0815)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering the potential economic impact on Canadian industry of implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

Today we have Minister Allan Rock, Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, and Assistant Deputy Minister David Fransen.

The objective today was to first hear from the minister concerning Kyoto and have discussions on Kyoto first. Then we would switch over to a brief discussion on the progress of innovation, have an update from the minister on our communications report, after which we would touch base on the progress of CAPC towards the end of the meeting.

Welcome, Minister, to the industry committee. It is early in the morning, so there are a few missing members, but I'm sure they'll be here sooner or later. I want to thank you for coming and arranging to have this discussion this morning.

Mr. Minister.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the members of the committee.

I think I have to accept responsibility for our being here at 8:15 in the morning. You invited me some weeks ago to come before the committee to talk about these subjects. We worked together to get a mutually convenient date. Later on today the Minister of Natural Resources and I are going to be making an announcement with respect to hydrogen at a fuel cells conference here on the Hill. I wanted to talk about it first here at the committee before speaking about it in that group, in order to show respect for the committee and its role. So we decided on this date and this time in the morning as, frankly, the only time I could be here. I really appreciate the fact that members have agreed to receive me at 8:15 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, you've asked me to talk about Kyoto and its implications for the competitiveness of Canadian companies. You've also asked me to talk about the innovation agenda. I think, frankly, there is a real connection between those two subjects, because I see a harmony and not a divergence between our Kyoto objectives and our objective of making the Canadian economy more innovative and productive and developing unique Canadian products we can market to the world.

[Translation]

Allow me to start with Canada's innovation strategy. As you know, it is the cornerstone of our economic policy in this mandate.

Eighteen months ago, we started by publishing an analysis of our economic situation. We identified the strengths and weaknesses of Canada's economy and the challenges it must face. We suggested an action plan containing certain key elements to reinforce our economy and make it one of the most innovative in the world.

I've spent months travelling across Canada. We held some 35 regional meetings to fuel the discussion on our economic future. We received very positive comments and valid suggestions for improving our strategy.

Last November, we held a pan-Canadian summit in Toronto, which was attended by 500 persons representing all sectors of Canada's economy. There were representatives of the universities, colleges, unions and all sectors of the economy.

We completed that process by publishing a game plan for the rest of the decade, that is until 2010, to address certain problems in our economy, build on our strengths and increase our productivity.

We have targeted certain objectives which we intend to achieve by 2010, including the percentage of our economy that will have to be invested in research and development.

¾ (0820)

[English]

That innovation strategy, I think, is going to serve as a blueprint to guide government in the exercise for the balance of the decade, in acting on many of the things this committee recommended three years ago in its innovation report and repeated two years ago when it did an update of its innovation report. In many ways, the blueprint reflects the work of this committee. You'll recognize it, I know.

Mr. Chairman, one of the key elements of the innovation plan is that Canada ought to identify areas of opportunity where it can accelerate the development of new technologies and new products and services that are unique, that are first in the world, and thereby open markets around the globe for Canadian products and services. One of those areas is environmental technologies, and that brings me to Kyoto.

You know that after much debate, Parliament agreed we should ratify—and we now have ratified—the Kyoto Protocol, which contains environmental objectives for the period to 2012. The Prime Minister created an ad hoc committee of ministers to work on the question of how we should invest the money allocated in last year's budget to make sure we achieve those targets.

On August 12 the Prime Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environment, and I took part in an announcement as to what we proposed for the first $1 billion of investment. The Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment take the lead in much of that, but one area in which I was particularly interested was technology and innovation.

You'll note that in the plan we announced that some $250 million is devoted to technology and innovation, for everything from new sources of energy to the development of biofuels, to the development of machinery and equipment that reduces emissions. That was part of the announcement on August 12.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the portfolio of Industry Canada is involved in various ways in Kyoto. Statistics Canada, which forms part of the portfolio, is involved in gathering statistics and measuring progress. The granting councils, including SSHRC and NSERC, fund research that's related to our goals: SSHRC looking, for example, at effective environmental regulation; NSERC financing some 580 Kyoto- or environment-related research projects last year on how to reduce emissions, how to make our contribution more quickly.

Of course, in addition to all of that I'm responsible for infrastructure, which is also a very important tool for achieving our environmental goals.

[Translation]

Over the past 10 years, we have made or announced investments of some $12 billion to improve Canada's infrastructures.

Through leveraging, we have invested an additional $20 billion, for a total of $32 billion invested in infrastructures since 1993. We have invested a large portion of that amount in “green” areas, that is to say drinking water, public transit and other areas that will enable us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Consequently, I consider that investment in infrastructures is one of the key tools of our strategy for meeting our objectives related to the Kyoto Protocol.

[English]

So Industry Canada is involved in many ways in climate change, particularly in technology and innovation. I believe that's completely consistent with our innovation strategy. I think if we focus on developing the technologies that will enable us to achieve our objectives, at the same time we'll serve our innovation strategy.

That brings me to the hydrogen aspect of the matter, Mr. Chairman. Later on today, Minister Dhaliwal and I will be meeting with stakeholders from the fuel cell and hydrogen sector. What we're going to tell them is that we're targeting an investment for hydrogen that will include the $80 million for hydrogen technology that was announced by the Prime Minister as part of this plan and the $50 million that was invested in the sustainable technologies development fund, which we're asking be devoted to creating interdepartmental partnerships on hydrogen technologies. Within the portfolio of Industry we're going to reallocate to find $85 million across the portfolio that will be invested to advance the development of environmental technologies using hydrogen and advance our understanding of how the hydrogen economy can serve Canada and the world.

All of this totals about $215 million. Mr. Chairman, it's intended to preserve the lead Canada has in many of these areas and make sure Canada is included among those nations that are developing the hydrogen economy.

I'll stop there. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to questions colleagues may have.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: Mrs. Gallant, you have eight minutes.

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

When we talk about implementing the Kyoto Protocol, naturally one must talk about access to economical, reliable sources of electricity for Canadian industry to be competitive. I've been disappointed that in the case of Canada's participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, ITER—the fusion research project—Industry Canada has not been the lead department on the project. It has remained, as you know, with Natural Resources, who are opposed to the project. As the minister knows, cabinet itself is opposed to fusion research, as they do not consider it research science or even an energy priority whatsoever.

On Tuesday, I was disappointed to hear that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources confirmed in the House that as a result of the policy decision of 1995, Canada would not be participating. The supporters of this major 30-year science and research project have suggested it could provide upwards of 68,000 jobs in addition to the research and assist Canada in meeting its Kyoto targets.

So with the collapse of the potential for Canada's participation in ITER, will your department, through the NRC, now fund the Canadian Neutron Facility to compensate for this loss?

Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Chairman, my colleague should know that the government has not made a decision on the ITER investment. My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, does have the lead because it's thought that such a project falls within the ambit of his portfolio as Minister of Natural Resources. I'm working with him, as all members of the cabinet are, in trying to understand the advantages of this project for Canada and whether we ought to bid to host it. That process is continuing. We're still looking at information. We haven't yet announced a decision on whether Canada will proceed with the bid.

The other thing I should mention is that while the ITER project appears to have many attractive features, it's also a very considerable financial commitment for Canada over the period. What we're struggling with as a caucus and as a government is whether, when you look at all the potential science investments we can make—whether it's hydrogen, or wind power, or nanotechnology, TRIUMF on the west coast, the Neutron Facility—ITER is the place where we should be putting our investment in the long term. As I say, we haven't come to a conclusion on that. We're looking at it.

Let me say one last thing briefly. My colleague mentioned ITER as a way to achieve our Kyoto targets, but it's really not, because it's a 30-year investment and development project. Of course, the Kyoto period is 2012. So it isn't really directly related to Kyoto, although it's obviously an energy issue.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: So if either could be put on the table, though after this week it will be too late, will the Minister of Industry champion the project?

Hon. Allan Rock: We haven't come to a conclusion as a caucus and as a government on whether we're going to bid on the project. Obviously if we decide we're going to bid on the project, we'll all be out there championing Canada's role.

You say “too late”. There have been a number of deadlines over the last couple of years in this international process. My understanding is that we're talking now about the December period, by which time bids should be in. So I don't think it's too late. I do think we have a responsibility, though, to weigh this project against many other potential projects in deciding whether this is where we want to put our money for the next 30 years.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

In the minister's written response to the question I posed to him in committee back in May, where you requested more time to look into the issue in regard to boundaries for northern status, you wrote back to say that it's the Province of Ontario that sets the boundaries, and in this case it's the provincial Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. If that is the case, will the minister now write a letter to the new Premier of Ontario asking for northern status for Renfrew County?

Hon. Allan Rock: What I will do is this. I will be happy to take up with my colleague, Minister Andy Mitchell, who is responsible for FedNor, the question you've raised. And I'd be happy to sit down and speak with you and him, if you'd like to have such a meeting, to talk about that, the pros and cons. I understand the member's concern for the area she represents, and I frankly don't know all the considerations involved in such a step, but I would be happy to discuss it with her and with Minister Mitchell.

¾ (0830)

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: You mentioned Statistics Canada earlier in your presentation, and what we have are surveyors, mostly moms who stay at home and work out of their homes. They have to be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What we find troubling is that these people have remained at the same level of pay. They're not allowed to count their own phone lines that they have to bring into the house as an expense. More importantly, these women have to travel into the back country where they don't have access to cell phones, and they don't know where they're walking into.

So my question is twofold. What can Industry Canada do to better protect these women, and secondly, what are you going to do in terms of the department to get more towers up in the rural districts, where in some cases we do not even have hard lines for our residents to use?

Hon. Allan Rock: First, in relation to Statistics Canada's working conditions, those are under discussion now. You may know that there is a conciliation with respect to some of the workers at Statistics Canada and their employer...talking about a range of employment issues.

With respect to cell service, it's very difficult sometimes for government to solve those problems directly. We look to the private sector to perform its role in serving the market, and Industry Canada does regulate the construction of cell towers. We receive applications and we have a process for deciding whether or not to approve them. Whenever the private sector proposes a cell tower, whether in an unserved area or otherwise, we look at it very carefully.

So it's not so much government that has to provide the cell service, it's the private sector. And when the demand is there and the market is there, they respond.

If there's something specific that the member thinks I can help with, I invite her to let me know.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Gallant.

I'd like to make sure that you don't put me in the position of having to cut you off, questioners or the minister. We will have time for general questions later on, but let's stick to the topic at hand, Kyoto.

So, Mr. St. Denis, your Kyoto questions.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Minister. Thanks for being with us.

In your opening remarks you indeed talked about innovation in the context of Kyoto. I'm sure throughout your tenure as minister you have met not only a lot of the leaders of science and technology in Canada but even some of the people working diligently 24/7 to find some new solutions to some of the challenges facing not only Canada but also the world.

Much has been said about the opportunities for Canada not only domestically but also around the world in terms of helping the entire world meet its Kyoto objectives. And you've talked about the hydrogen initiative that you will be talking further about later today.

I'm wondering if you could characterize the ability, as you see it, of Canada to be a leader in the world when it comes to innovation, because we do have wonderful scientists. And we've added, as a country, a lot of new dollars to the research chairs and to the ability of our universities to do research.

I'm wondering if you could perhaps speak in a little more depth about Canada's ability to be a leader in the world when it comes to the new technology in support of greenhouse gas emission reductions.

¾ (0835)

Hon. Allan Rock: I think we're regarded as one of the world's leading countries when it comes to environmental technologies, and hydrogen is a good example of that.

We're all very much aware of Ballard fuel cells. It perhaps is the most prominent of the Canadian companies involved in the technology, but that's just the most obvious example of many companies throughout Canada, not just in B.C., that are at the leading edge of hydrogen technologies.

There's a company that used to be in my riding, and it's moved to an adjacent riding. It's called Stuart Energy Systems, and Sandy Stuart is well known throughout the world as a pioneer in hydrogen technology. His company goes back 100 years. It was founded by his ancestors. They are developing now delivery methods for hydrogen that are leading the world.

The real challenges we face in hydrogen technologies are threefold: how to produce it, how to store it, and how to deliver it. They're working on all of those, but particularly the delivery systems. They're suggesting ways of using hydrogen to fuel internal combustion engines so we wouldn't have to make a massive change in the way cars are engineered, but at the same time we'd be able to fuel them in a way that virtually eliminates emissions.

There's a centre of excellence in Trois-Rivières concerning hydrogen technology, which has an international reputation.

Auto 21 in Windsor is part of a network looking at hydrogen technologies in the automotive sector.

I was in Japan in April, Mr. Chairman, and I met with the Osaka Gas Company. They produce hydrogen from natural gas. They were telling me that they're looking to Canadian technologies and Canadian companies in their project to provide stationary fuel cells for co-generation of heat and power in homes and offices in Japan.

We have a real lead when it comes to hydrogen technology. If we're going to keep it, consolidate it, and further it, we have to continue rapidly because a lot of other countries are working on this as well, and that's why today's announcement, I think, will be important in that context.

The last thing I'll note, because I know my friend Mr. Rajotte is here, is this. Ballard was the recipient of a Technology Partnerships Canada investment that enabled them significantly to advance their technology, to develop it, and to get it on the market.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: This is sort of a supplementary question, Mr. Minister, and thank you for that.

I'm not certain it's within Industry Canada's mandate to deal with the public in terms of educating the consumer. Certainly the technologies that will evolve with the help of Industry Canada will impact consumers either directly or indirectly, whether it's the department's research facilities here at Natural Resources Canada working on housing, on new ways to insulate and heat houses.... I know that NRCan and Environment Canada have their responsibilities when it comes to the Kyoto Protocol.

We all create greenhouse gases. Is there a role for Industry Canada in terms of educating consumers, homeowners, in whatever way in that regard? And if not, well, that's fine. That may be somebody else's job. It seems to me that the couple who you referred to here and the many other good news stories about Canada's ability to help in the science are part of the story to consumers. It is making them aware that, hey, we should play a part of this as a consumer.

I'm not sure, but your thoughts on that would be appreciated.

¾ (0840)

Hon. Allan Rock: I think we all share the responsibility to make sure people know, first of all, of their obligation to help, and secondly, how they can help. It's one thing to tell Canadians they have to do their part, but we also have to make it possible for them to do that.

The one-ton challenge that the Minister of the Environment has designed is intended to challenge individual Canadians to change their own way of doing things, so they contribute to the common cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If we want them to do their part and purchase products that emit less, we should encourage the automotive sector to make cars that are hybrid or that use alternative sources of energy. We should enable the technologies to be developed, so the consumers can buy them. We should also do things like incentives to modify home heating systems to conserve fuel and make home heating more efficient. In infrastructure, we should invest in public transit so people have an alternative when they're deciding how to get themselves downtown.

So I think we share at Industry Canada the responsibility for showing leadership. We also share the responsibility for making sure people have the means by which they can make a contribution.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

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

Good morning, Mr. Minister. We are very pleased to have you here to talk about issues relating to the Kyoto Protocol. As you will remember, the Bloc Québecois supported and demanded that the Kyoto Protocol be ratified. We thought it very important to be able to leave our children the healthiest environment possible. As you will understand, we are now mainly interested in ensuring that the measures relating to that accord are putting place quickly.

I would like to know what portion of the votes that were announced in the 2003 budget has already been paid out. As to the measures announced on August 12 last concerning technology and innovation, when will we know the details and when will those measures be put into practice?

Hon. Allan Rock: In presenting the February 2003 budget, we announced that $2 billion would be allocated to measures designed to implement the Kyoto action plan. Of that amount, $250 million was allocated to the Sustainable Development Technology Fund. There remained $1.7 billion in the Fund at that time. On August 12, the Prime Minister announced $1 billion of investments, which included $250 million set aside for technology. We have announced the highlights of those investments, which appear in the news release you have before you. Eighty million dollars will be invested in hydrogen technologies, and, today, Mr. Dhaliwal and I will announce the details concerning not only that $80 million amount, but also how much of the $50 million from the Sustainable Development Technology Fund will be allocated to hydrogen technologies. Today as well, I will announce that my department will allocate $85 million of its existing funds to hydrogen technologies.

What will the amounts allocated to hydrogen technologies be used for? We will allocate $60 to $80 million to demonstration projects to enable people who have developed new technologies, in particular batteries, to apply them in, for example, buses, cities or buildings. Twenty of that $80 million will go to research and development, and $50 million from the Sustainable Development Technology Fund will be used to create partnerships between government departments and certain sectors of the economy to coordinate research already begun. The $85 million from my department will be used, for example, to fund more granting council projects involving hydrogen technologies. So this is a fund that contains a broad range of measures designed to advance our knowledge and capabilities with regard to hydrogen technologies.

¾ (0845)

Mr. Paul Crête: On August 12, measures were also announced concerning new technologies, including new renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy. A number of people found the $30 million figure distinctly insufficient for meeting real needs and achieving concrete results.

Does the government intend to increase that amount or adopt other measures to support the development of those renewable energy sources?

Hon. Allan Rock: It's true that it's only a start and much remains to be done. However, with the amounts we've announced, the process is under way. I agree that more must be invested to develop renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy. In those fields, the granting councils have already funded certain Canadian projects.

In addition, it is important to know that some tax measures were adopted last year to encourage investments of this kind. We increased the tax credit for wind energy investments. We must continue in that direction.

It's not enough, but it's a start. Above all, it is important to invest these amounts appropriately. Then we can build on that base.

Mr. Paul Crête: As an elected representative, I would like to make a suggestion. The application of these measures could have a promising impact on economic development in the various regions of Quebec and Canada.

In my riding, for example, people plan to focus on cultivating a hybrid poplar. This tree, that grows in 20 years, would make it possible to develop carbon sinks more quickly. This may fall more within the natural resources area, but I nevertheless cite it as an example. A paper maker wants to develop that resource. The provincial government doesn't have all the necessary funds to create the plans and apply them. I know there is available money; I wrote to Mr. Dhaliwal on the subject. However, the connection between need and available money was made almost accidentally.

So would it be possible to give members more information of this kind so that they can be more aware of recent developments and in a position to realize the development opportunities that arise in the regions?

Hon. Allan Rock: Of course. The information must be distributed so as to clarify the opportunities that arise in the various regions of Canada. We are always prepared to give you details on programs already implemented and to discuss the possibilities you're considering as a member in your riding.

I agree with you about the development opportunities. During the summer, I visited the Gaspé Peninsula and looked into a project funded by the Government of Canada to promote wind energy. It's a good project, and the location is ideal for wind; it directly faces the water, and there's a lot of wind 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

That's only one example of an economic opportunity. Together we must look at these kinds of things closely, and, if I can give you any information you need, let me know.

¾ (0850)

Mr. Paul Crête: My last comment concerns the infrastructure program, the $1 billion that will be allocated to the small municipalities and the effects they could experience as a result of the Kyoto Protocol.

Is it possible to speed up negotiations and to get the money spent as soon as possible? We've been calling attention to considerable needs for a long time. In my opinion, however, this program will reach each of the small municipalities, which will thus prevent us from making the same mistake of allocating all the money to very large projects.

Would it be possible for you to give us an idea of the state of the negotiations respecting the $1 billion, and to do so with respect to each of the provinces? The funds have to get to the municipalities as soon as possible. Very often, years elapse between the announcement and the time people start to spend the money.

Hon. Allan Rock: You're entirely correct. We announced the $1 billion amount in February. We completed the internal government process with Cabinet, the Cabinet committees, caucus and the Treasury Board a few weeks ago. We are now negotiating the agreements with the provincial governments. Mr. Andy Mitchell is working with me on this. We're making progress, and we're near the goal.

However, I agree that we must move the negotiations forward and speed up delivery of these amounts because we need them. I hope we'll be able to announce shortly how the municipalities and small communities can submit funding applications for those projects.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.

Minister, I think the Kyoto Protocol and the things it represents are incredible opportunities for Canadian businesses and for Canadians. I was a consultant prior to being elected, at a time when people were trying to deal with solid waste issues, bring in the three Rs, and change our habits. There was a lot of change, and a lot of people were struggling to deal with the issues. In fact, business found there were incredible cost savings; there were other ways we could do business.

On the implications of the Kyoto Protocol and what we're going to have to do, it will also have improved benefits for air quality, and in the long run for cost savings in energy use, and what have you.

This process, or these changes, are taking place partly within the Department of the Environment and partly within your department. Have we made sure that within Industry Canada, whether it's the infrastructure fund or science and technology types of funds, we're encouraging as much as possible the environmental innovations on that side? I mean in terms of Kyoto, but also other improvements that will make a difference, not just for Canadians and Canadian businesses, but will also represent some serious export opportunities when those products are up and running.

Hon. Allan Rock: That's certainly our intention. While we can always do better, I'm proud of the record we have in allocating the dollars available to encourage the development of new products, ideas, or technologies that we can export. I mentioned Japan and its use of our fuel cell technology. That story can be repeated around the globe. We have an international reputation for innovation, in that sense.

At Technology Partnerships Canada, one of the focuses is on climate change and environmental technology, encouraging pre-competitive R and D in long-range investments in new technologies for export. The same is true in the research projects at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and at the National Research Council itself.

Canada has a relatively small population of 31 million people. The vast market is in export. In hydrogen alone, the numbers are staggering. One speaks of a $46-billion-a-year market for hydrogen products by the end of the decade, 2010-11. The potential is enormous.

The American government is committed to investing in the development of the hydrogen economy. In England and in Europe there are also important government commitments in that regard. So it's a worldwide effort. The faster we can develop and put products on the market, the faster we can take advantage of that international awareness of the need to move in this direction.

I see great potential for Canada, and that's why I started this morning by saying to the chairman that the two topics we're talking about today are very much connected: how to achieve our Kyoto targets and how to make sure we achieve our innovation targets. If we do one we'll help achieve the other, because one of the ways we'll close the gap on the megatons in Kyoto is to develop technologies we don't have today that will enable us to do it. That will also serve our innovation agenda of developing new products that will attract investment, create jobs, and open markets around the world.

¾ (0855)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You mentioned the size of the Canadian market, and it can be a bit of an issue. I know this week you met with the Irish minister of industry and innovation. They certainly have an even smaller domestic market and have cause to internationalize much more quickly than we do.

Were there any lessons learned? Are there some programs we should be looking at realigning or improving in Canada, based on some of the discussions you had with the minister from Ireland?

Hon. Allan Rock: I spent some time with the minister of industry from Ireland. She's also the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yes, I did hear about what they're doing in this regard, but the main lesson I took from that was it is a very good reminder of how fiercely competitive all this is among countries of the world.

Ireland is trying everything it can to maintain its pace of extraordinary growth, to continue its record of remarkable foreign direct investment, to attract the best and the brightest among researchers, and to continue expanding in the way it has done over the last 10 or 12 years in the most impressive way.

They have their own innovation agenda, and it's very close to ours. They are trying to do exactly what we're trying to do. So when they're looking for immigrants, they're looking for the same immigrants we are. When they're looking for foreign investors, they're after the same markets we are. When they're developing technologies, they're on the same track we are, and they want to get there first.

I admire what the republic is doing. They've had an astonishing record over the last decade or 12 years in economic growth and achievement. But it's a very good reminder, Mr. Chairman, that we're not the only country trying to do this. We're just one of many, and we have to be smarter, work harder, and invest more carefully, because it's a race and we have to win.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: One of the things I've asked you before--and it has always concerned me because of my experience in my own constituency--is with regard to when a foreign company is trying to invest in Canada and they're looking at different sites across the country. Clearly there are different issues in terms of unemployment rates, access to research facilities, and those things that are different in different places, whether you're in a remote region or an urban area. But one of the things that I think is important is that we establish a very clear process that says to this company, don't try to play off different parts of our country, one against the other. Make sure this is a package, so that any company that comes to Canada and wants to invest and create new jobs will have the same access, whether it's in Newfoundland or Ontario or Alberta.

Are you confident the departments have organized themselves in terms of attracting investment to Canada in a way that will ensure we don't play off, saying “How good is their MP and what can they get out of it?”, a way that acknowledges there are certain provincial programs that augment these initiatives from the federal government, but as much as possible ensures the federal government's message is consistent and fair no matter where you go in Canada?

Hon. Allan Rock: I can't be certain, but I believe so.

Our objective through infrastructure, for example, is to make sure that throughout the country we have the road network, the basic water systems, and the communication systems, including access to broadband, that will level the playing field and make every region of the country attractive for investment.

We also distribute our technology investments across the country to take advantage of the talent in universities and colleges and the private sector in every region.

That having been said, Mr. Chairman, it's bound to happen that clusters will arise, and in fact we encourage them to arise, so that southern Ontario and Quebec are identified as places where the automotive sector is very strong, although parts suppliers may be throughout Canada.

Biotechnology seems to be centred in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. We have the whole cluster of science around the Synchrotron in Saskatchewan. We have a cluster around marine biosciences in Halifax, nutrisciences in Prince Edward Island, and e-business in New Brunswick, because of the NRC centre of excellence at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton.

Those clusters are bound to form and then attract additional investment, because they are areas of expertise. When people come to Canada with money to invest in a certain sector, they'll think of those places perhaps first.

But apart from that we try to establish a platform for investment across Canada where every region has the necessary fundamentals to attract investment and put it to good work.

¿ (0900)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Good morning, Mr. Minister.

During talks on the Kyoto Protocol, a number of provinces were in favour, including Quebec, and a number had reservations, including Alberta. Right now, what kind of participation, consultations or negotiations on Kyoto is the Parliament of Canada having with its partners, the provinces?

Hon. Allan Rock: The Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Dhaliwal, is currently directing negotiations with the provinces, more particularly with the private sector, so that everyone is aware of the details of the plan that we have proposed and their own roles within that plan, so that they are comfortable with the rate of our investments and aware of the changes that we have proposed. So Mr. Dhaliwal is responsible for those negotiations, together with the Minister of the Environment, Mr. David Anderson.

We are also involved with the Department of Industry. Mr. Fransen and his colleagues from the department are aware of the discussions. However, Mr. Dhaliwal is responsible for that file.

Mr. André Bachand: Thank you. You talked a lot about hydrogen. Much was said about the automotive industry as well, which is a real presence in Canada, particularly in Ontario.

You talked about reducing greenhouse gas emissions from those vehicles. A number of groups have long suggested that there be a special tax on large utility vehicles, like Hummers, which are not used for commercial or industrial purposes, but simply to look good on Wellington Street opposite Parliament.

What do you think of the suggestion that there be this kind of tax or a financial means of discouraging the use of these large, energy-consuming vehicles which produce a lot of pollution compared to other, small vehicles, including hybrids? In particular, what do you think would be the reaction of the major car companies in Canada if the government, in its fight against greenhouse gases, considered levying a tax on highly polluting vehicles which are not used for commercial or industrial purposes, because truck drivers, for example, should not be penalized? Are you in favour of imposing such a tax in order to send a very clear message? As the Minister of Industry, what do you think would be the Canadian industry's reaction?

Hon. Allan Rock: I'll leave it to my colleague, the Finance Minister, to speak on the tax system. It's up to him to discuss that.

As to the automotive industry, my concern to date has been to work with the builders to achieve our objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from their products by 25 percent by 2012. We're optimistic and confident that we'll be able to achieve the objective that has been set. We're currently working toward that with the automotive industry.

¿ (0905)

Mr. André Bachand: If I understand correctly, what you want to do now is leave the vehicles that produce the most pollution alone and invest in a new technology.

I understand that taxation is the responsibility of other departments than yours, Mr. Minister, but, as Minister of Industry, what would your reaction be if, at the time of the pre-budget study or in a budget announcement, a tax was levied on the most polluting vehicles that are not used for commercial or industrial purposes, such as the big SUVs? How do you view that as the Minister of Industry? What would your position be?

Hon. Allan Rock: As I said, I'm going to let my colleague make all the comments on the tax system. If the Finance Committee receives such a recommendation, I'm sure he'll go and inform Mr. Manley and that Mr. Manley will react. I prefer to leave it to him to discuss the tax system.

Mr. André Bachand: With regard to my last question, what I meant was that, everything being credible in the application of the Kyoto Protocol, at the same time—and this was a fear of a number of industrial groups and a number of provinces—the right messages should be sent and the right actions taken, without any foot-dragging.

Consequently, SUVs and Hummers, for example, may even pollute less than other large vehicles. But it's hard to strike a balance when addressing these questions.

Last question. When it comes to providing Canadians with incentives, there's a component that concerns heating units in houses. We know we want to encourage people to acquire much more efficient heating units; we're not necessarily talking about air conditioning.

Can you tell us where this program stands?

Hon. Allan Rock: It's a program administered by the Department of Natural Resources. So I have to ask Mr. Dhaliwal and his officials to give me an update. Frankly, I am not aware of the developments since the announcement, but I know that Mr. Dhaliwal is putting a mechanism in place to implement this program. I can ask my officials to provide me with a summary, and I will be very happy to give it to you.

Mr. André Bachand: Thank you very much.

I simply want to make a comment. I don't know whether other members have been informed of this matter, but a number of individuals were interested in modernizing and improving their residential heating systems, precisely in order to meet this objective. However, residents are required to conduct a study that costs between $300 and $400 and even more, whereas the subsidy granted is about $1,000 or $1,200, depending on the unit and number of parts. I would just like to tell you that, although the idea may seem good in principle, the mandatory cost of a complete study on the residence relative to the amount of assistance granted for the heating unit detracts from the program's appeal.

That's simply a comment that was made to my riding office. We must ensure that the program is really optimized in order to encourage people in the country to make their own efforts. By making their own efforts in their own homes, they will definitely be able to support other government initiatives. These are minor problems that we face in our ridings and that I wanted to share with you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bachand. For your information, in answer to part of your question, Mr. Manley will be appearing in front of the environment committee at the end of the month.

Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, thank you very much for coming before our committee. Ours is a little bit of an unexpected intervention, even though we've studied this in some detail. Our focus, as you can tell by some of the commentary and some of the questions, has been really on the role of Industry in achieving the larger objectives set out by Natural Resources and Environment on climate change.

Before I begin the question, I'm wondering if we can speak as colleague to colleague about the objectives—our government's, our country's—because this is a national issue; it's not a partisan issue. As part of a group of countries that have decided the Kyoto Protocol was a valuable global objective, where would we stand in the light of Russian intransigence now about signing the Kyoto Protocol? As you know, of course, it's not enforceable, and it won't be implemented by everybody if the Russians don't sign on. Is it our intention, as a country, to continue to meet those targets, notwithstanding the fact that as a planet we don't have a sufficient number of countries that will sign on?

¿ (0910)

Hon. Allan Rock: As Minister Anderson said last week in response to President Putin's ambivalence on the question, our intention is to continue. We've decided as a country that this is a worthy effort. We've decided it's important for us to do our share as a good citizen of the world. We have a plan in place on which we've worked very hard with provincial governments and the private sector, and we're going to follow through. We believe this is a problem and a challenge of sufficient importance that we have to follow through regardless of what Russia may do.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of a royal commission in the United Kingdom, the government there has committed to a 60% reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050—a 60% reduction. That's vastly beyond Kyoto, and it's vastly beyond the Kyoto timeframe, and it may be beyond the life expectancy of many of us in this room, but it's all about the future for our children. This is not a political issue, as my friend has pointed out. It is not a partisan issue or a regional issue; it's a national issue. We live on a planet that's very small and that has a problem. If we don't address that problem, the ice is going to continue to melt, the water level is going to continue to rise, temperatures are going to go up, agriculture is going to be disrupted, health is going to be affected, and the very quality of the future of our children's and grandchildren's lives is going to be very much undermined.

We've decided as a matter of morality and as a matter of responsibility that we have to do something about it. We're not only doing something about it because we're part of the Kyoto Protocol, and whether it's legally ratified or not will determine whether we do our part, but we're doing something about it because we think it's important for us not only to make a contribution but to lead by example, so that other countries can point to Canada and say, look at these people; regardless of the fact that the Americans chose not to ratify, regardless of the fact that there is controversy about the targets and the timeframe, this nation went forward, took on the challenge, and is seeing to its achievement.

Yes, regardless of what happens in Russia or anywhere else, the policy of this government is to follow through on this commitment, because we think it's all about the future; it's all about our kids and grandkids and the quality of life they will have. It is something worth making an effort for today.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Those are laudable objectives, and it makes me feel good as a Canadian.

I know that our Department of Industry.... This has been our concern. It's not only that Canadian industries stay competitive, but perhaps even more importantly, if we're going to make a contribution on a self-imposed—because that's what we're talking about, a self-imposed international objective and contribution.... What components of our strategic plan in Industry—just in Industry; I don't want to talk about the other two departments that play a lead here—can we point to that will more than mitigate the impact of the greenhouse gas exchanges that have been set up in Brussels and New York to circumvent whatever benefits might accrue out of direct efforts on the part of industries everywhere to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Hon. Allan Rock: As I said in my opening statement, Industry as a department, quite apart from what's happening elsewhere, has an important role to play in making sure we encourage the development of new technologies that will accelerate the achievement of the Kyoto targets and indeed the longer-term targets of a cleaner planet. That is done through the investment in hydrogen, for example. It's done through the investment in the Sustainable Development Technologies Fund. It's done through the sustainable cities initiative we are in large part sponsoring. It's done through our granting councils, who give money for research and climate change projects, and it's done by working with sectors of the economy that are prepared to do their part, either by investing in pre-competitive research through the Technology Partnerships Canada fund—because we have invested in environmental technologies through TPC—or using the IRAC program to provide—

¿ (0915)

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Will we have in place a performance reporting system, a report card of sorts, if you will, so that the Canadian public can feel comfortable that there is progress being made towards the objectives we've established, especially through these particular initiatives?

Hon. Allan Rock: I know it's the intention of the Minister of the Environment to provide periodic reports to Canadians on the progress, both to encourage them by showing that there are successes and to keep track of our commitment toward the targets. So I think there will be periodic reports to Canadians.

In terms of my own portfolio, today I'm meeting with Fuel Cells Canada, who coordinate the work of very many Canadian companies involved in that technology. They're going to provide me with a report on what progress they've made, what markets they've opened, the volume of sales, the state of their technology. Much of that technology has been enabled by Industry Canada through the National Research Council and its Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation in Vancouver, or through investments we've made in research and development.

So, yes, there will be reports, and in fact I'm here today to provide a report of what we're doing so far. You can expect the minister in the future, whoever that person may be, to come here to make similar reports at your request. I think it's important that we give report cards.

What we're also doing is reporting on innovation. Starting in November we're going to have an annual report produced by the Conference Board of Canada as an independent, arm's-length third party, measuring Canada's progress against the targets we established for ourselves last November on everything from R and D as a percentage of GDP to increasing foreign direct investment, to reducing the burden of red tape.

When I was in Health, you and I worked together. We talked a lot about report cards there. Report cards are a good way of establishing accountability for government, but also reminding Canadians of the distance still to go and encouraging them that we are making progress, so that they feel more positive about the effort.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Chairman, obviously in Health it was a wonderful working relationship. We accomplished many things. I guess it augurs well for the same kind of report card for Industry, because now we're working in the same relationship as well. This is good. I'm glad you brought that up.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Minister.

One of the things you noted in your presentation and I was glad to hear concerned infrastructure and the effects it can have on improving Kyoto emissions and transportation through this country, economically as well.

We know that in Windsor we've had the announcement over a year ago of the $300 million, but we've yet to see anything happen on the ground. Can you tell me right now where the nine-point plan is with your department, especially given the provincial change of government, which also has concerns about the nine-point plan?

Hon. Allan Rock: You're right to say it was over a year ago that the Prime Minister and the Premier announced that each government would contribute $150 million to the border infrastructure at Windsor-Detroit, which I needn't tell the member is crucial to our economy—not just of Ontario, but of the nation. Thirty-five percent of Quebec's exports to the United States go through that crossing. It's the most important crossing we have, for the most important trading relationship we have. It's crucial.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, the state of the infrastructure there was such that we ended up with very large trucks on the streets of Windsor trying to cut around clogged highways to get access to the bridge. There were real health, safety, and quality of life concerns in the city of Windsor about the volume of truck traffic in the streets, so something had to be done.

Right after the PM and the Premier made that announcement, we began working with a local group led by Mr. Walker, who produced a report on recommendations. We worked with the province and the city on developing proposals, which were made public last December but were not well received.

We went back to the drawing board, working with the community in trying to find other approaches. We eventually came up with what the member referred to as the nine-point plan, announced in May or June, I believe, with the support of the mayor, the provincial government, and the private sector. We're now at the point of looking at implementing that, which means undertaking construction, concluding environmental studies, and getting on with it.

There has been a change of provincial government. We're going to be speaking with the new government and new minister, to determine their views on the plan. I haven't had that opportunity yet; we don't yet know who the responsible minister will be. I'll do it as soon as I possibly can. Of course, there's also a municipal election going on in Windsor, to be held on November 10, in which this is an issue. The mayor is not presenting himself again for election.

So there are some political items that are in flux. But I can assure the member that this was urgent a year ago, it's urgent now, and we have to move on with it. I'll be meeting with the provincial minister, the new mayor, and representatives of the city council as soon as possible to see how we can advance it. If the member can play a constructive role in that, I'd be very happy.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Brian Masse: I'm encouraged to hear that you will meet with him. I think that's an important part of the leadership.

I sincerely believe you meant it when you came to our community and said to the kids at Benson school that you're concerned about the quality of the air they're breathing. But the problem has been so dramatic, the city council has a resolution right now, which the mayor may support, to oppose the plan. In fact, they've hired one of Canada's foremost environmental lawyers to fight the federal and provincial governments on this. So I think your leadership down there would be very important.

There are some areas of consensus, though. One of them is a pre-processing staging area outside of the city. The kids at Benson right now have the trucks clogged up before them on the street, just sitting there in front of their school. Some of them are hazardous material trucks with contaminated waste, and some even have radioactive waste, yet they sit on our city streets. There is a consensus in the community to have a pre-processing centre that would prevent that from happening, which would also reduce our emissions for Kyoto, because we're talking about tens of thousands of vehicles sitting there.

Why can't that initiative move forward when the community is behind it 100%? There is no division on that fact; it's something people expressed quite clearly in the meetings over a year ago. Even people who are opposing the plan, be it the city council, constituents, or myself, and among businesses, there is no consensus.... Why can't that happen now for the city, because there is consensus and there's money available?

Hon. Allan Rock: It's part of the nine-point plan that we would have staging areas. We'll work with Madame Caplan and the ministry of revenue to try to get some of the processing done before the trucks get to the border. But even if they're pre-processed somewhere along the highway, they still have to get to the bridge, and that means passing through those streets.

The nine-point plan deals with all of that, not only pre-processing, but also opening up a new route from the 401 down to the E.C. Row Expressway, broadening it and making it a provincial highway, so that it becomes an efficient route to the Huron Church Road connection, and then also opening up the 401 down here on Huron Church Road to the E.C. Row Expressway, so that the trucks don't have to stop at all those traffic lights and won't cut around the highways to go through the streets of Windsor. It's part of a whole.

Even if we had the pre-processing places in place tomorrow, the trucks still have to get from there to the bridge. That's why all of this is important.

Mr. Brian Masse: Well, there's no doubt about that.

I don't agree with your analysis of the situation that it's because of the fact there are a whole bunch of factors on the E.C. Row and what not, and that's fine. I don't want to debate that here. But the reality is we could get those trucks to stop idling on city streets, get them into an area where they could be turned off while they wait for the processing, instead of being backed up and sitting on the streets. And that's the whole point. Right now they sit on city streets and they idle; they don't move. They could actually be outside somewhere, turned off, and then brought through the city at a more efficient pace, reducing pollution emissions. It's also an issue of the safety and security of the citizens there.

I don't understand why that is tied with the rest of the nine-point plan, because it affects the Kyoto emissions and it proves the assets of the infrastructure and the safety of the citizens...and there's consensus on that. I just can't understand why that can't happen on its own.

¿ (0925)

Hon. Allan Rock: I believe the reason is that if we proceed in an uncoordinated way with these investments, we might end up putting that place in a spot that isn't consistent with the eventual construction of the roads. If we're going to proceed with the nine-point plan, then we should put the staging areas where we've proposed them. That makes sense with the highway network in the nine-point plan.

That's why I see it all as a package. We want to move forward with it as soon as possible. We're ready to break ground tomorrow. If the provincial government, which has just been elected, is prepared to proceed with the plan, all other things being equal, we will. But I think to do part of it in an uncoordinated way might not be the best way to invest the money. I see it as an integral plan, each part contributing to the objectives.

Mr. Brian Masse: I'm sorry to hear that.

The Chair: I'm almost sure you're going to run for mayor to coordinate the project.

Anyway, thank you very much.

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to follow up a bit on infrastructure. Most of my questions related to Kyoto are for Mr. Dhaliwal, on residential housing and heat exchangers, things like that.

Global warming, of course, has even more dramatic effects on the north--in my riding--than anywhere else in the country. In fact, today I have the expert in arctic sovereignty and global warming in town. I met with him this morning and I'm meeting with him later today on this.

It looked like it was very dramatic. Most of the scientists said 3% a decade is melting, but a new study by NASA suggests we've underestimated by three times. It's 10% a decade. So it's very dramatic and it really affects our infrastructure in the north. Some of this infrastructure is buried in permafrost, and if the permafrost melts, of course, it crushes all the infrastructure, the pipes and everything. So it's very expensive, over and above the expense due to the fact that we have few taxpayers and we have long distances to put this infrastructure in.

And infrastructure, depending on how it's designed, if it's designed to assist in reducing global warming, costs more money. It's also instrumental for economic development. In the Yukon, my riding, I think we are the second worst in the country right now, after Newfoundland, as far as the economy is concerned.

I'm just wondering if you could outline some recent initiatives or what the government could be doing for infrastructure, especially in these special conditions in the north.

Hon. Allan Rock: The infrastructure needs north of 60° are vast, and in places like the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, they're also the key to unlocking economic development.

As you know, I was in your riding last week, in the Yukon, and together we announced a very significant investment in infrastructure. Usually infrastructure is allocated on a per capita basis across the country, but that makes little sense in a place like the Yukon, where the population is 29,000. A per capita allocation would result in less than a million dollars being committed. So what we did in the strategic infrastructure fund is we established the amount of $20 million to be allocated to each of the territories, and for the municipal rural infrastructure fund we established 1.5%, or $15 million, as a minimum investment in each of the 13 jurisdictions, plus a per capita allocation. In the case of the Yukon, it came to $15.6 million.

The total announcement last weekend was a fund of the two $20 million plus $15.6 million, so we're talking about $55.6 million that will be invested in infrastructure. And the first $15 million was announced last weekend. That's going into improvements to the Alaska Highway, which is the principal tourist and commercial route through the Yukon, enabling goods to get to market and summer tourists and even winter tourists to get to their destinations safely and efficiently.

For the other $5 million of the first $20 million we're looking at some water projects that have been proposed in Carcross, and for the balance of the fund we're in discussions with you and the territorial government. In fact, we met with the minister last Friday, you and I, to talk about how we could make the best of those investments, which will be matched by the territorial government.

On the issues you raise about climate change and the disappearance of the permafrost, I saw for myself how the roads are heaving and collapsing, how special construction techniques have to be used to take into account the climate change. It's a real issue. And when people talk about the cost of implementing Kyoto, they should also bear in mind the cost of the problem we're trying to mitigate here. It's enormous.

The other thing we talked about in north of 60º last weekend was the investment in broadband. Mr. Chairman, we announced that we're investing $155 million in infrastructure for broadband to purchase satellite transponders that will enable high-speed Internet broadband access to be brought into communities right across the north and mid-north of this country. Hundreds of communities will be enabled through this investment, and the Yukon territory will be principal among them.

So infrastructure is a crucial issue for the north. Unless we put those roads in place in the NWT, we won't get the diamonds out, we won't be able to bring down the oil and gas--we won't be able to achieve the economic potential of that territory. Unless we have infrastructure in housing in Nunavut, we won't be able to accommodate the fast-growing population. And we're on it, Mr. Chairman, working with the member. We're grateful for his help, and I think we're making progress.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Is my time up?

The Chair: Did you have one short question on Kyoto?

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Gallant, you had a question, and then we'll go to Mr. Rajotte.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Okay.

One of the ways for individuals to help meet Kyoto targets is to do what they can to make their homes more structurally and energy efficient, and RRAP, a program administered through your ministry, provides for people with low income who have emergency situations where they need a new roof or a new furnace put in their home. But the situation many people find themselves in is that while they receive a letter saying they qualify, they're disqualified if they start the program before the cheque is in hand. But after waiting weeks for the cheque, they're told that the money is already all gone, and that's only a couple of months after the program starts for the new year.

So my question is, what measures are you taking to ensure that money actually gets into the hands of those who need it most?

Hon. Allan Rock: The member refers to a program that I believe is administered by either Public Works or the secretary of state for housing, Mr. Mahoney.

A voice: It's CMHC.

Hon. Allan Rock: I'm not in a position to answer the question about the program, but I'll be happy to make inquiries ot CMHC and get the member some information about it. I can't comment on the details, I'm afraid.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: All right.

Another part in construction is making sure the buildings are energy efficient, and that comes under infrastructure, which we've talked about before. I understand that the guidelines for the new $1 billion municipal-rural infrastructure fund are still being written, and I'd like to know whether or not consideration has been given to including long-term care facilities for our seniors in the list of eligible projects.

Hon. Allan Rock: The parameters for the program were published on August 19. We're still working on agreements with the provinces on the process for receiving, evaluating, and deciding on projects. We hope to have those in place very soon.

We haven't identified long-term housing as a specific category for investment, but there's no reason why that would be excluded. If municipalities want to bring such projects forward, they'll be considered.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr. Minister.

I have a few questions, particularly on the implementation plan of Kyoto. First, as you know, many industries and companies were quite concerned by the lack of details in the government's implementation plan leading up to and following ratification. There's a question I'm often asked that I've heard different answers to from the government, and if you could just clarify it for me, it would be very helpful.

A lot of companies took initiatives from 1997 to 2002 to reduce both the intensity of their emissions and their emissions overall. They took some early action and got what they called “low-hanging fruit”. They took a lot of voluntary steps at that time, and I've heard mixed signals from the government as to whether those companies and industries will get credit for that early action.

Can you just clarify whether industries and companies that took action from 1997 to 2002 will get credit for their emission reductions?

¿ (0935)

Hon. Allan Rock: That's under discussion right now at a table chaired by the Minister of Natural Resources. He's meeting with sectors where that was done to negotiate with them on how best to deal with those early actions.

Mr. James Rajotte: When can we expect that decision?

Hon. Allan Rock: I'm afraid you'll have to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, who is conducting those discussions.

Mr. James Rajotte: On the second serious question, I've had discussions with certain companies--large industrial emitters. One company says that from 1997 onwards they reduced their emissions by 24%. When you go to a second company in the same industry and tell them that the first company says they've reduced them by 24%, the second company says that's not true, and their figures show they've reduced them by about 12%. You're obviously going to have situations where companies within various industries will disagree as to how much they have respectively reduced their emissions.

Who, in your view, will act as the arbiter here? Will it be the provincial governments, or the federal and provincial governments? Who will say, between two companies in an industry, whether one reduced emissions by 12% and not 24%? Who will be the final arbiter?

Hon. Allan Rock: My colleague raises an important point. I'm sure that's part of the discussion going on between NRCan and the industrial sectors at the moment. One of the issues they're going to have to pin down is to have some objective measurement to know, if credit is to be given, what it will be given for, and how to agree on the appropriate numbers.

I don't know if you intend to have the Minister of Natural Resources before the committee.

The Chair: We've attempted to have the minister here, but we're having a lot of scheduling problems. One of our problems is that these questions are being asked from the industry standpoint, so should we wait until we can get the minister to come here, or should someone from the industry department be following this up on behalf of them? We need to think that through. Maybe a contact in your department needs to help us, to make sure we get answers to these questions that are coming to us from industry on all sides.

Mr. James Rajotte: With respect, Mr. Minister, that is where a lot of frustration occurs, certainly on my part and on the part of a lot of these industries. Canada ratified at the end of 2002, but it signed in 1997.

You talked about leadership. Frankly, from the leadership perspective, a lot of these companies took on issues from 1997, and to be fair, the federal government did not. The federal government showed almost no leadership during those years. Now we're talking about expenditures of $2 billion and upwards.

The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With the United States not signing on to 25% emissions, and with Russia now up in the air on their 17% emissions, it seems as if Kyoto, in its main goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, will be an abject failure.

I think we are very supportive, as a party, of trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, but if we can't answer these fundamental questions, how are we going to meet our targets? How is giving out Technology Partnerships Canada grants going to meet emissions, when Canada signed in 1997, ratified in 2002, and allowed emissions to increase? Unless we have these sorts of details, how can Canadians or any of us be assured that emissions will actually decrease in Canada and around the world?

Hon. Allan Rock: I believe we'll find the answers to the questions my friend asks in the course of parliamentary debate, in the negotiation of the plan for Kyoto implementation with provincial governments and the private sector, and in the announcement the Prime Minister made in August.

We've taken on the goal of reducing by 240 megatons during the relevant period. We've calculated how we're going to do that. We've said publicly what our strategy is, and we've talked about reduction by large emitters. We're now at the table with large emitters to negotiate ways we can distribute that challenge across those sectors so the overall target is met, but no individual company or sector is disproportionately affected.

We've talked about how individual Canadians can contribute to the one-ton challenge; the ways we can change our own consumer behaviour to bring down emissions. We've talked about using Industry Canada and its various instruments, from infrastructure investments in rapid transit, to granting councils funding research to discover tomorrow's solutions, to investments in hydrogen technology along with the private sector, to accelerate alternative fuel sources. So I don't agree that we don't have a clear idea of where we're going. I think a clear idea has emerged from the work over the last three or four years.

The government was not idle after the 1997 negotiation of Kyoto. I can remember in 1998, when I was Minister of Health, working with the Minister of the Environment of the day and meeting with groups about how we were going to get the targets achieved, what we could do on the health side to mitigate some of the damage of greenhouse gases.

So we have been working steadily from 1997 forward, and we now have a concrete plan. We're still negotiating some of the details with stakeholders, but I do believe we have a clear idea of how we're going to get to where we're going.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rajotte, Ms. Gallant.

Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Chair, thank you.

Minister, thank you for being here today. It's been several months since we've passed the enabling legislation in Canada to meet our commitments to Kyoto.

I was pleased to learn of your announcement today, which will further increase the ability of business to meet the challenge of providing alternative sources of energy—and more importantly, clean energy.

On that score, without doing a PSA here for a company in my riding, something that I think is nevertheless important is the talk about hydrogen in the next decade, or perhaps the next 30 to 50 years, being the source of energy in the future. I believe this is consistent with Mr. Bachand's concern over vehicles emitting for unnecessary purposes, as they do. But in the meantime, the possibility exists right now for small amounts of hydrogen with companies like Dynamic Fuel Systems in Pickering, which has secured a fairly large contract in the United Kingdom with the ministry of transport to put what amounts basically to a cupful of hydrogen, or water, into an engine in a truck, for instance, increasing the horsepower or output of the engine by some 60% and decreasing emissions fourfold. This technology exists within Canada.

I'm concerned that things like this are not on the radar screen here in Ottawa. It's very difficult for me to bring forward this kind of new technology, which is being sold around the world but which we seem to be losing the purpose of in Canada.

I guess as we are looking to some of the winners, the Ballards, the Ontario Hydros, etc., and all of these other individuals who have very large names and presences in the media, we tend to forget the ones who are going to get us from where we are today to the full, or virtual, hydro or hydrogen economy, if you could call it that.

Is your department working in conjunction with Natural Resources Canada in trying to identify what we need to do, not only to meet Kyoto but also at the same time to get us through that period where we can deal with the hybrid technologies using the conventional fossil fuels, which are doing better at trying to bring us that much closer to the fuel cell or hydrogen era?

Hon. Allan Rock: Yes.

The member raises an important point about not losing sight of some of the enabling technologies that are way stations along the route to achieving our goal.

One of the things we're drawing attention to today, Mr. Chairman, is that $60 million of the $80 million coming from the action plan is for demonstration projects. So if, for example, Dynamic Fuel Systems has a proposal that we can put into practice as a pilot project in Canada.... Or perhaps the most obvious example is if we could get hydrogen-powered buses on the streets of some of our cities, through a cost-shared project with municipalities and provincial governments and perhaps the private sector. What we want to do is use this $60 million, perhaps supplemented with the $85 million I'm reallocating within Industry Canada, to create a fund to allow us to put some of these things into practice, to capture the public imagination, to show how they work, to demonstrate their success, and to serve as a marketing tool for people around the world who will come to Canada and see them and perhaps be impressed enough to bring them home.

So I'd like to work with the member and the company in his riding, and with all of the members, in identifying opportunities—which I'm sure all of you know some of—where we can invest this money to demonstrate that this technology works, to get it into the field, where we can work out the kinks and problems, and to help these companies market these technologies by showing that at least the Government of Canada has confidence in the technologies and believes they can help.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Dan McTeague: I appreciate that. I will certainly have you in the riding at some point in the not too distant future, Minister.

On that same score, which would certainly help Mr. Rajotte in his neck of the woods, as far as western Canada is concerned, I am told by scientists that the most efficient form of fossil fuel is not oil and not electricity, but it happens to be coal, and that the amount of energy that can be produced by burning it is infinitesimal. Every nation around the world is blessed with it in one form or another—usually in a very dirty form. China is about to launch a very aggressive international foray into our markets, and it primarily uses coal as its energy.

With the science around what's known as sequestration, that is capturing all of the greenhouses gases, such as CO₂, NOx, SOx, etc., the technology exists—in part through partnerships of American scientists with Canada—to be able to burn coal without any emissions.

On the same score, I'm wondering if it's possible, Minister, through your good advice to cabinet, that perhaps one would give some consideration to the notion that rather than decommissioning coal plants, or looking for the finite supply of natural gas, which we know is going to be in very short supply this winter.... And having had experience in providing rebates for individuals, I don't think I want to go down that road again. But is it possible, in terms of meeting our Kyoto commitment or targets, to give strong consideration to looking at the possibility of zero-emission coal, using the sequestration process, given that Canada has an abundance of what's known as serpentine as well. Is it something that you might want to consider, or that you will take up with other ministers, particularly your Minister of Natural Resources?

Hon. Allan Rock: Yes.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you.

Hon. Allan Rock: And it's in the plan. Looking at sequestration or looking at clean coal technology is one of the areas identified for funding—

Mr. Dan McTeague: Excellent.

Hon. Allan Rock: —in terms of advancing research and the development of technologies.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Good. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question, but it doesn't concern the Kyoto Protocol, but rather the telecommunications report.

[English]

The Chair: We might first want to hear from the minister. We have about 25 minutes left.

I'd like the minister to give us an update on our report. Although you've sent us an answer, and you've made the proposal to cabinet and so forth, could you just bring us up to date on our communications report on telecommunications? And you might want to make a quick comment on CAPC, and then we could have general questions.

Hon. Allan Rock: On telecommunications, the cabinet considered your report over the summer.

[Translation]

I can answer in French if you prefer. We've carefully studied the recommendations contained in your report and gave you our reply two weeks ago.

First of all, thank you, because the work you did was extraordinary. It was an in-depth analysis of a complex and important question. We very much appreciated the scope of your review and your detailed recommendations. It was outstanding.

Second, we have acknowledged that your recommendations regarding foreign interests in the telecommunications sector are appropriate. At the same time, however, we have received a report from another House committee, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which does not agree. In fact, it takes the opposite view. It has made quite different recommendations.

The Cabinet has asked me to work on this so that we can, I hope, harmonize the two perspectives, yours and that of the other House committee, in order to develop a coordinated approach. I've been asked to return to Cabinet in the spring and to propose an approach. Consequently, I intend to meet the members of the other committee and to discuss the matter.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Paul Crête: In the letter, you tell us that there will be no response before spring 2004. In that context, knowing the timetable, we can therefore expect that there will be no amendments before the next election.

Hon. Allan Rock: When will the next election be held?

Mr. Paul Crête: It should be held some time between May 2004 and, let's say, Christmas 2004.

Hon. Allan Rock: We'll see, but...

Mr. Paul Crête: And if we're serious about this, we can talk about the last Monday in May.

Hon. Allan Rock: But frankly, this is an important file for me. That's why I originally asked this committee to examine it. At the same time, we have a reality, various opinions among members and committees, and I frankly don't expect that we'll be in a position to table a bill pursuant to your recommendation before spring because we have to work with the other committee and find a solution. That's going to take time.

Mr. Paul Crête: I have a brief question of an entirely different kind. You know that the Statistics Canada interviewers have been in negotiations for a very long time; negotiations are dragging on. Ninety percent of those involved in the negotiations are women. The subject has previously been raised in the House.

Can you be optimistic? Is there any way to ensure that you will intervene so that the negotiations produce results? We have people who have been waiting for results and whose status has been very precarious for a number of years.

Hon. Allan Rock: Statistics Canada's objective in this file is to find a fair and equitable agreement for all stakeholders and employees. We're still working on this. A conciliation process is under way with one group. With the other group, I believe it's now complete, and we have problems. But we're still working within the guidelines laid down by the Treasury Board, and I hope we'll soon be in a position to resolve this matter.

I'm fully aware that these employees have significant fears, but, at the same time, Statistics Canada representatives are currently working to solve those problems, and the process is ongoing.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Marcil, three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I would like you to speak to us a little about the status of TPC. Should its status, its mandate be revised? If so, in what direction? What orientation will Technology Partnerships Canada take in future?

Hon. Allan Rock: Yes, we are reexamining the mandate of Technology Partnerships Canada. We established that program a few years ago now, and, when it was created, it was aimed mainly at certain sectors such as aerospace and information technologies. But the needs for a program like this are greater than that. We now have a full range of sectors in our economy which need investments in order to promote or permit research and development and to advance our objectives under Canada's innovation strategy. We're currently looking at what we can do to improve the program so that it can meet the objectives and achieve positive results in the field.

That being said, Mr. Chair, we are very satisfied with the program's performance to date. I know that some don't necessarily agree, but I look at what's going on elsewhere in the world. I look at Europe, where the European Union has allocated $1.4 billion for programs like this, in addition to the specific, individual investments by the countries.

We're looking at how the enormous military budget is used in the United States to subsidize research and development for defence. Here in Canada, we have to compete with all that; we have to be competitive, and we've instituted a fairly modest program relative to the programs elsewhere in the world. That's also consistent with WTO requirements. So I think it's very important that we continue acting in this area, notwithstanding views to the contrary.

He's preoccupied, so he doesn't hear me, and I'm very glad of that.

¿ (0955)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Masse, did you have a final question?

Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the backdrops to the work we've been doing here, especially implementing measures like the Kyoto Protocol, is the change of Liberal leadership and of the Prime Minister that's going to be happening. The upcoming Prime Minister has made some very critical comments about the Kyoto plan and he has had some questions about it.

Have you had discussions with him to ensure that we're going to continue on with this? What has been the nature of those discussions to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol will move forward and also that there will be resources there for the actual implementation over the next generation?

Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Martin has made it clear that he supports the Kyoto Protocol and he supports the government's position. We can expect continuity as he assumes office and leads the government.

Mr. Brian Masse: Have you been meeting with him? Other ministers have identified that they have been meeting with Mr. Martin to ensure that there are briefings and what not.

Hon. Allan Rock: No.

Mr. Brian Masse: Would it not be a good idea?

Hon. Allan Rock: Well, Mr. Martin is a member of the caucus. He's an active participant in our discussions in these matters. Obviously he's made his own position clear, and he's a member of the team. He'll soon lead the team, and he's made it clear he'll lead the team in implementing the obligations we've undertaken.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. St. Denis, do you have any more questions?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: No, I'm good, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Rajotte, did you have any more questions?

Mr. James Rajotte: How much time do I have? Fifteen minutes?

The Chair: No, you have three or four minutes.

Mr. James Rajotte: If there are no other questions, Mr. Chair....

The Chair: Well, you might want to get them all.

Mr. James Rajotte: I would like to follow up first on a Kyoto issue and then perhaps get back into telecommunications, Mr. Minister.

With the Kyoto Protocol, if we look realistically at the energy sources we have today, nuclear is about 8%, hydro is about 11%, coal is about 12%, and natural gas is about 26%. Part of the problem we've had in Canada, and certainly I know you in Ontario have had this problem, is with the supply of natural gas and the result, the overdependence, as my colleague said, on natural gas as a fuel source.

He talked about clean coal technology, which I certainly appreciate you're going to be looking at. One of the things that was mentioned in one of your earlier plans was the building of a CO₂ pipeline and looking at sequestering CO₂.

Has there been any further development on that in terms of who's actually going to build the pipeline? Who's going to pay for it? I know there are some developments in southern Saskatchewan on this, but can you update us on the building of the CO₂ pipeline?

À (1000)

Hon. Allan Rock: I'm afraid I can't, but I'll be happy to inform myself and let you know in writing as soon as I can. That's principally carried on by Natural Resources Canada, but we'll find out and let you know.

In an earlier question by Mr. McTeague, he was pointing out that coal was a reality, whether we liked it or not, and it would be for some time because it was such a plentiful source of energy.

Sequestration and clean coal technology are expressly part of this action plan. I know that at NRCan they're working on developing proposals for a pipeline.

Mr. James Rajotte: If we look at where we are now and where we want to be, obviously, I think, everybody is in favour of things like wind power, solar power, but they see there's a time period in order to get there. What role do you see, then, for clean coal technology, even for nuclear energy? Do you see that in the immediate and medium term filling the need, while we advance towards wind power and solar power?

Hon. Allan Rock: I don't like to do it, but I really must suggest that I defer to the Minister of Natural Resources. I don't want to be at cross-purposes with him. We share responsibilities that are slightly different. He worries about sources of energy, and his job is to make sure that we manage the sources we have and we develop new renewable sources.

My responsibility is more in the way of working to develop those new sources through innovation and an interface with business and industry to the natural resources department so that we maintain our competitiveness while we take on these environmental obligations.

So I'm not trying to evade the question when I say Minister Dhaliwal is better positioned to comment on the specific question about sources of energy at the moment, about which we should be favouring, and about how they should play out in the nation's energy supply.

Let me say that I'm very much aware that wind power is an underdeveloped possibility in this country. We're not doing enough, quickly enough, to take advantage of wind power, and we're well-positioned to do it. We have enormous potential there and some terrific technology. We've made some changes to the tax system to improve the tax credit. We've made some investments in some projects, sometimes with foreign investors, but we can do more, and we have to do more.

That, I think, is my area of responsibility, and I can speak to you about that. When it comes to the mix of energy supply for the country and strategic approaches for that, this really is more in the domain of Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. James Rajotte: Perhaps I could switch to telecommunications. I must say, I was pleased with many of the statements you made in your letter to the committee, but I was frankly very disappointed when I read that on page 4, and I quote:

Accordingly, the Government of Canada undertakes to immediately launch an analysis on this question. This review will be completed quickly, and by the spring of 2004, the Government of Canada will be in a position to examine possible solutions.

I think you know why I'm disappointed.

It seemed to me we produced a report that, as you know, was a very in-depth report, but it had four basic recommendations. You had the government and the official opposition certainly agreeing, and I think as the minister you frankly had a mandate. You talk about harmonizing this committee and the heritage committee.

Frankly, I don't think you can harmonize. I think there has to be leadership and a choice made, either for this committee's perspective or that committee's perspective. In the end, that is what the government is going to have to do.

So I would encourage you to really grab this issue and show some leadership. Frankly, if we push it off until the spring of 2004, we all know that's a likely election date, and then it gets pushed back until the fall. Frankly, for those companies that really need the access to capital, this just seems like we study this issue and we're just pushing it off for them.

I don't know whether you want to comment. I think this is an issue where you could have grabbed at the official opposition, and the government agreed. I think, frankly, Mr. Minister, you're going to have to make a decision in cabinet to either go with the perspective of this committee or with the perspective of the heritage committee.

À (1005)

Hon. Allan Rock: You're right. We are.

I think what cabinet has said to me is this. Before we do that, let's see if we can bring these two perspectives closer together. Let's sit down and talk about the preoccupations of the heritage committee and try to provide some reassurance, try to better understand the concerns they're raising.

Look, I want to see this dealt with. The reason I raised it with you is that I believe it's an important part of our innovation strategy to attract foreign direct investment. I don't believe there is a strategic interest of the country that is threatened if we make the changes you recommend. Frankly, we have some homework to do to try to ease the concerns that have been expressed and to see if we can meet them, to see if we can resolve them.

The other thing I might say is that the sector responded fairly positively to the government's position. Many saw it as a prudent approach, a good first step, as doing the right thing. So the sector was fairly positive.

Lastly, as you know and as the committee observed, this is only part of what telecommunications in Canada needs to thrive. We need competition in the marketplace. The CRTC has been moving in its decisions in recent years toward encouraging that. We've been encouraging it, particularly with the decision we made on the price caps petition and in the speech I made at that time. It needs sensible regulation, and we have to get our regulations right in the sense of being efficient, and it needs capital. That's where the foreign ownership restrictions come in. So it's part of the overall picture. We'll continue to work away on all three of those.

I have an interest in the telecommunications-foreign ownership issue, and I will continue to pursue it. I do hope that in the spring we can come back with a clear position in the public interest.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. Crête, you can have just a short question, because I did promise the minister we'd try to allow him to leave a little early.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: In response to a question from Mr. Marcil a moment ago, you mentioned the future of Technology Partnerships Canada and new areas of action.

Without providing an exhaustive list, I would like you to give us an idea of what that might include. For example, could we expand it in the health sector like a new project designed increasingly to make health an economic lever? There's also the entire question of the automotive and biotechnology industries. I know that those sectors are already on the list, but I would like to know the new fields.

One investment back home was very profitable, very successful. There could be others in the regions of Quebec and Canada which would make it possible to boost regional economies.

Could you tell us a little where you're headed in terms of new areas of application for Technology Partnerships Canada?

Hon. Allan Rock: First, despite the fact that we started with a concentration in the aerospace and information technology sectors, over the past six or seven years, we've expanded our program. We've already made investments in, for example, the marine and health sectors, in that we've invested in certain technologies used in the health sector.

However, what we're looking at right now is the question of what other sectors we should invest in. Should the sectors be limited, or are investments open to all economic sectors? You can think, for example, of research, new technologies and new developments in each of the sectors of our economy and in each of the regions of our country.

The flip side of the coin is cost. How much money have we invested in this? With the other pressures on our budget, it's hard to predict to what extent we can provide more money for the program. But I can assure you, Mr. Crête, that we're currently considering exactly that question. Given the questions that have been raised by some with regard to the program's operation, the time has come for a frank and open discussion on TPC's future.

À (1010)

Mr. Paul Crête: It may be less costly not to invest as to invest. But this isn't an expenditure; it's an investment. In the international agreements, this is perhaps where we should head right now.

I'm thinking, for example, of the softwood lumber crisis. There may be sectors where we could have invested in research and development, without violating international agreements, and giving our industry a chance. I cite that as an example.

Hon. Allan Rock: I agree.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Crête.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing today and for starting early, at 8:15 a.m.

Hon. Allan Rock: Thank you for receiving me at 8:15 a.m.

The Chair: If you want to have any final remarks, please do so.

Hon. Allan Rock: No, I'll follow up with the items that members have mentioned, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned until after the next recess.