1976-05-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to sections 19 and 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House certified copies of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission received this day from the Representation Commissioner for the province of Ontario and amendments thereto.


OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to make under this Standing Order. The urgent and pressing necessity and circumstances are quite apparent from the facts. Whereas an historical analysis of the Official Secrets Act makes it quite clear this legislation was originally passed to deal with espionage and was never intended as a means of punishment to be used by those in authority who might have suffered bruised egoes, embarrassment or red faces through the publication of classified papers in connection with domestic matters, this House requests the government to forthwith review the Official Secrets Act, and in particular Section 4, and propose to Parliament more appropriate measures to deal with unofficial disclosure of such government documents taking into account the principle enunciated at the Nuremburg trials, as well as the overriding need for more open government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be pressed only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONDEMNATION OF USE OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS BY POLITICAL PARTIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of recent disclosures that both major Canadian political parties, the ruling Liberals and the official opposition Tories, have engaged an international intelligence agency for the purpose of monitoring the activities of members of other political parties and in view of the fact that the intelligence agency in question, Inter-tel, Inc., has numerous ties to the United States intelligence community, many of their operators and directors being former employees of the CIA, the FBI or the national security agency, and in view of the fact that it is clear any information gathered through this agency would be available to the United States Government intelligence community thus making a complete mockery of any idea of Canadian sovereignty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House condemn the use by any political party of private investigative firms for the purpose of monitoring political opponents or any government activities and that it especially condemn the use of a foreign intelligence agency which is clearly a free enterprise wing of the secret service agencies of a foreign country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of continuing labour unrest in the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg and recent information from the Canadian airlines employees association stating that there has been no auditing of commercial ticketing and there has been no control system over Air Canada commercial ticketing plan, resulting in over 200 subscribers records showing unreported sales dating back to 1972; and in view of the fact that employees are being instructed to write off ticket billings which could indicate an uncollected receivable to Air Canada of over $2 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):

May 13, 1976
House of Commons
That the House direct the Minister of Transport to instruct the Auditor General of Canada to launch an immediate investigation into Air Canada billing procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent matter.
Considering that, since the adoption of the omnibus bill in 1969, homosexuals, not satisfied with being able to do what they want in privacy, between consenting adults, demand the right to attack children, as evidenced by their manifesto demanding the abolition of all legislation on the age of content, considering also that these repulsive demands clearly show that the liberalization of legislation concerning homosexuality was a mistake, because of the lack of respect shown by homosexuals for the great majority of Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House direct the government to amend the Criminal Code to include a provision making it an indictable offence for an individual to expose publicly his or her homosexuality and to advertise in favour of homosexuality.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


USE OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS BY GOVERNMENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reports which indicate that the government House leader is concerned about the use of legitimate private investigatory agencies for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of information, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
[Mr. Whiteway.J
That the government indicate, either on motions or otherwise, on how many occasions they had used detective agencies for their own administrative functions, including Intertel.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Repeated and continuing losses of fishermen off Newfoundland's coast, and particularly the most recent three incidents off western Newfoundland in a space of a week, prompts immediate attention again to the lack of lifeboat bases along four miles of coastline. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House orders that the plans to establish four new lifeboat bases be reconsidered to include locations in western Newfoundland and that those responsible for location planning be ordered to justify the serious oversight which exists.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN PACIFIC
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of CP Transport's program to discontinue freight service to certain rural communities in Saskatchewan, and in view of the serious effect this will have on the economic survival of the affected communities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the government take immediate steps to ensure that satisfactory freight service will be maintained.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 13, 1976


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE SPEAKER OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF NEW ZEALAND, SIR ROY JACK
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, I know hon. members would want to join me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of New Zealand, Sir Roy Jack.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the minister has stressed the importance of a tripartite approach to the solution of industrial strife in Canada through the Canada Labour Relations Council and, keeping in mind that the latest International Labour Organization figures for 1974 show Canada leading all other countries in man-days lost in strikes-that figure of 9.25 million man-days was exceeded last year, and is now 10.5 million-will the minister today clarify the confusion he has created by his statement on May 4 that labour's withdrawal from the tripartite discussions is hopefully temporary and by the equally confusing replies on Tuesday, May 11, when he said that labour's withdrawal paves the way for its participation later?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything contradictory about it at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: The fact of the matter is that it is my hope, and I assume the hope of the hon. member, that labour's withdrawal temporary, and the fact that it is a withdrawal rather than a resignation would pave the way for its re-entry later.


MEASURES TO SECURE CO-OPERATION OF LABOUR AND REPLACE TRIPARTITE APPROACH
John Allen Fraser: It is obvious that the minister does not see any contradiction in his words. In the anti-inflation white paper of October it is stated, and I quote:
There are several structural problems which need to be addressed in a comprehensive anti-inflation program. The third relates to the need to improve labour management relations.
... in co-operation with the two groups directly involved-labour and management-the government will seek practical solutions. The government has established the tripartite Canada Labour Relations Council to assist in this effort.
Oral Questions
This was government policy in October. The Canada Labour Relations Council, for all practical purposes, is now defunct.
I ask the minister, what new policy does he have to replace the now unworkable tripartite approach, and what exactly is the minister going to do to get labour co-operation between now and at the end of controls in December, 1978?


John Carr Munro: As I have repeated to the hon. member on several occasions, much has been accomplished under the tripartite arrangement. Some initiatives can now be proceeded with, since we were successful in arriving at a consensus and getting agreement from all sides. So the government can now proceed with several of the initiatives in that agreement, and I would be pleased to elaborate on those to the hon. member if he wishes.
Our relationship as a government with labour was never entirely dependent on the tripartite council to which the hon. member referred. The Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet have had many discussions, and other ministers in the cabinet are dealing with labour on an ongoing basis with respect to programs in their departments. I myself am dealing with the leadership of the labour movement in bilateral discussions constantly, and these meetings will carry on.


John Allen Fraser: The minister apparently is saying that officially there is a breakdown, but unofficially there are talks. Does this mean that the minister is actually saying that there is a real possibility that no solutions will be found for better industrial relations for the remainder of the controls program, which would be a loss of nearly three years in this vital area of concern? If this is the minister's dilemma, I invite him to be frank with the House and say so.


John Carr Munro: Of course it is not. I think a great deal has been accomplished already with respect to initiatives and broader-based bargaining with the desirability in the agreement to have a common data gathering agency which can make findings which will not be suspected of bias by either side. These are some of the things which have been accomplished. I am hopeful that other things will be accomplished with respect to having government involvement with labour, and in addition, labour's input with respect to policies in the post controls period. However, they may not be accomplished under the aegis of the tripartite council, but under some other format in terms of discussions. That is all.


EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OF LABOUR FROM LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL ON DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING POST-CONTROL PERIOD
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. The government has said that the CLC agreed to have discussions with the cabinet with regard to the economy in the post-controls period, reportedly decided at a meeting between the Prime Minister and high union officials in March. Has the withdrawal of the the CLC from the Canada Labour Relations

May 13, 1976
Oral Questions
Council negated the CLC commitment to such talks on the post-controls period as an official body?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe so at all. I think the position of the CLC, as the House well knows was that, although the government disagrees and I disagree, it feels that the present selective wage and price control programs is a negation of collective bargaining. Since the tripartite council terms of reference deal almost exclusively with improvements in collective bargaining they did not think they could sit on that body. They have always indicated their desire to meet with the government to discuss policies that would be in their best interests and the interests of the Canadian people in a post-control period. That is why they are willing to participate in these discussions.


MEETINGS WITH LABOUR CONCERNING POST-CONTROL PERIOD
William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question. I gather from the minister that there is no official contact with the CLC regarding this post-control period. Could the minister confirm whether similar talks are scheduled with other labour bodies on the post-control problem and, if so, when will they be held, in view of the special committee on post-control policy established by cabinet which wants to promote tripartite business, labour and government talks on economic efficiency and productivity.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member's original premise is not correct. I think that an agreement has been pretty well reached, subject to confirmation as to the particular day. There will be meetings between the CLC and the government with reference to post control and the general economic attitude of the government some time in June probably. As I said, however, the precise date has yet to be confirmed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has read the statement reported to have been made by the United States ambassador to Canada in which he said that a major irritant between our two countries was the lack of adequate defence spending by Canada? Does the minister propose to respond to the ambassador's remarks?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I noticed that report in the Globe and Mail this morning. My hon. friend may be interested in knowing that the United States ambassador believes he has been grossly misquoted. Instead of saying defence was a major irritant, he had said it was a promising avenue of co-operation.


John Allen Fraser: Maybe he was misrecorded.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. No doubt the ambassador has every right to express his own views. Will the minister convey to the ambassador the view held by many Canadians that the trouble is not underspending in Canada on defence but gross overspending by the United States on defence such as, for example, the Trident submarine base which is going to provide the means to destroy the whole world many times over at vast expense-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, some of my friends do not like this fact of life but that is not going to stop me from propounding it. Will the minister suggest to the ambassador that this is part of what the former United States Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara called the mad momentum of the nuclear arms race?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, while Ambassador Enders is arranging for a retraction from the Globe and Mail for the misreporting of his remarks, at the same time I will be clarifying the hon. member's question in my own mind so that I might be in a position to answer at a later date.


HOUSING
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Is the minister in a position to inform the House whether, recently or a few months ago, any sums of money coming out of the equalization fund or from other sources have been transferred to the Quebec government, and in particular to the Quebec Housing Corporation, for the purpose of building low cost housing for senior citizens? If so, can he say roughly the date and the amount?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give exact dates and times but at the time of setting of the budget of CMHC and of negotiations with the provinces, Quebec's budget was also arranged. Funds were made available for those programs. I would be happy to discuss that with the hon. member. I do not carry the precise figures for each program for each province in my head. Funds are available for senior citizen housing programs in Quebec.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the minister aware that officials of the Quebec Housing Corporation reply to citizens asking for funds to build low cost housing for senior citizens that they have not received any money and have not had any discussion with the federal government and that, consequently, any
May 13, 1976

application from municipalities or nonprofit private companies gets the same answer that there is no money available? Is the minister aware of that and could he make a statement to clarify the federal government's participation, and where does the matter stand now?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to look into the precise amounts. The funds are not transferred until projects are approved. There are also direct programs for senior citizens, which are implemented in Quebec. I visited some of those projects in the last couple of weeks, I might say. The budget for Quebec Housing Corporation is in place and those funds should be available. I will be happy to look into the precise amounts and figures for the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House will grant me indulgence for a moment and allow me to extend compliments to General W. W. Turner, his staff and, most of all, the gentlemen cadets of Royal Military College for their excellent drill and deportment during the presentation of the new colours this morning on the lawn in front of the Parliament Buildings. Watching these fine young men doing their jobs so well tends to restore one's faith in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Now I come to the less satisfactory part of my intervention. My question, directed to the Minister of National Defence, is allied to the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood; only I direct it to the Minister of National Defence as he has greater responsibility, I believe, for the inadequacies of our defences.
In a speech to a Canadian-American relations seminar in Winnipeg, U.S. Ambassador Enders said a satisfactory level of Canadian military spending is critical to the defence of North America because the U.S. is close to the margin point when it comes to maintaining an effective defence over Europe and North America. He also said that one of the major irritants in Canada-U.S. relations has developed because many Americans believe Canada gives too low a priority to defence spending. Would the minister care to comment on Ambassador Enders' assessment of the contribution which Canada has been making to the defence of the Alliance and also say something about what our future commitments should be?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Victoria for his complimentary remarks about Royal Military College. When we bring defence exercises to Parliament Hill, the defence critic has a chance to see some of the good work taking place in the department.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: It was very refreshing.
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: The second part of the question was answered in the response to an earlier question. I understand, as my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs said a few moments ago, that Ambassador Enders said in his statement that the defence relationship between Canada and the United States was a promising area of co-operation.


An hon. Member:: We have heard lots of promises.


REASON FOR PROPOSAL TO CLOSE BASES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my question had to do with what the future commitments should be for Canada. I agree that the minister has, in another area, discussed our capital spending increases. They are impressing. Although we have been promised everything, new tanks, fighters and ships, we still have nothing in hand. The promises are not far-fetched, but implementation is certainly far distant.
My question is this: As the government has suddenly seen the error of its ways and now given priority to revitalizing and re-equipping our forces, why is the Department of National Defence proposing to close as many as nine bases, nearly one third of our total?


Mr. Woolliams:: But not Calgary.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the department is not planning to close nine bases.


Mr. Paproski:: How many is it planning to close; eight, five, ten-how many?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the figure the hon. member used I believe comes from a statement made by the deputy minister before the parliamentary committee, in which he indicated the difference between the number of bases that were required and the total we have at present. He also made it clear that there was no recommendation coming forward from the department or from me to the government to close nine bases.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would like to correct the minister. He has, unwittingly I am sure, misled the House as to what the official said at the defence committee last Thursday. He said that for an effective infrastructure, the department needed only 23 bases whereas they now have 32. Therefore, I assumed that in the infrastructure rationalization paper they must have proposed closing nine bases. If this is not correct, that 32 less 23 equals nine, I would appreciate the minister correcting me and telling me what bases he proposes to close.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just requoted what I said a moment ago. The deputy minister did give those figures. However, he also very clearly said that there were no recommendations before cabinet at this time to close nine bases and that is a fact.

Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


AMOUNT OF AID TO ITALIAN EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS
[Stage Direction]
May 13, 1976
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: In view of the unanimous resolution passed by this House on Monday about the earthquake in Italy, is the Prime Minister in a position to inform this House as to whether a decision has been made regarding direct financial assistance by the government of Canada, in addition to the help already given?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the comments from the opposition indicate they know they have to do with a responsive government and they are right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The motion moved by the hon. member for Davenport and seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Michel was considered by the government, particularly in view of, as the hon. member said, the evident contribution by Canadians of Italian origin to the growth and development of Canada. Apart from the military aid and the aid by way of immigration, which was mentioned by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the government has decided to appropriate $1 million to help in this plight. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be issuing a press release on it later today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the apparent concern with which the government House leader views the use of legitimate private detective agencies as an information gathering device, can the minister advise the House if his department uses private investigators other than on the incident in October 1972, when they retained the services of Intertel?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I will check on it. However, I am sure that is not the case.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. Is the minister denying they hired Intertel at that time? If he is, I can give him the letter he sent to me wherein he states that they did. Will he now tell me whether they hired them?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I gave the answer. I will not change it. I will check on it, but it is not my understanding that is the case.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister considering the suggestion made by the committee of congress, that he should go to the United States once a year and address a joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives on matters of mutual concern as a means of improving United States-Canadian relations? If he considers that a constructive suggestion, is he willing to get in touch with the President of the United States and suggest that this be done a reciprocal basis whereby the Prime Minister will address the United States congress and the President of the United States will come to Canada once a year and address a joint session of the Senate and the House of Commons on matters of mutual concern as a means of improving Canada-United States relations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport with regard to Canadian Pacific and one of its operations, CP Trucks. In Moose Jaw in November, 1970, Commissioner McGee of the Canadian Transport Commission gave an opinion, and I believe a decision, that Canadian Pacific could carry and deliver by modes other than rail to points along its railway lines but that it had an obligation under Section 262 of the Railway Act to provide that service. Does the Minister intend to intervene at the railway's request to exempt Canadian Pacific from the licensing regulation of the province of Saskatchewan?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have received messages from both the government of Saskatchewan and the Canadian Pacific on this subject. I have indicated to both of them that before I take a final position, I will want to be very clear on some of the matters of complicated fact involved. I suggested a meeting in the first instance between ourselves and officials of the government of Saskatchewan to clear up these points.


SUGGESTION COMPANY BE FORCED TO HONOUR OBLIGATIONS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact Canadian Pacific was allowed to drop this rail service on the condition that it provide adequate alternate service on some 20 routes to nearly 200 communities in Saskatchewan, will the minister require Canadian Pacific to carry
May 13, 1976

out the obligation they have under the legislation in effect in this country or is he going to allow them to get out from another commitment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have checked into the background enough to know that the hon. member is completely misstating the exact terms and conditions at the time in question. The current obligations may be one thing and what we can impose may be another. I certainly will not associate myself with the grave misstatement of fact contained in the hon. member's question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For a change, I would like the minister to quit hesitating and procrastinating, join the people of Saskatchewan, and tell CP to live up to its obligations or they can haul their goods through North Dakota and Montana. Will he do one or the other? Why is the minister hesitating?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quick to defend and attack, but somehow seems to have a soft spot for the way the government of Saskatchewan handled the matter in trying to use the big stick of interprovincial trade to deal with a little, specific matter. I would ask him to examine carefully the legitimacy of that, however much he might dislike CP. On the other hand, he might indicate if he thinks I am procastinating by taking a few days to find out the facts as to why the government of Saskatchewan did not do anything from September until the end of April to find out about the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED PROPOSAL COMPANIES OPERATING IN NORTH AND OFFSHORE BE GIVEN LARGE WRITE-OFF BEFORE IMPOSITION OF TAX ON PROFITS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his absence, I will direct it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister confirm the reports in this morning's press that the government intends to allow oil companies operating in northern and offshore acreage a write-off of 175 per cent of investment before facing a profits tax, a proposal that owes its origin to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain? It is very similar to the proposal the British are using in the North Sea. Is that the proposal the Canadian government is putting forward?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I made quite clear yesterday in answer to a question from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that we would be making a full statement, I think sometime toward the middle of next week.


James McPhail Gillies: Is the minister denying the correctness of the report which appeared in the press this morning? If the government is making this proposal for the northern lands,
Oral Questions
is there any thought of extending this type of situation to other areas so that we can conserve capital and use it more aggressively in exploration for oil?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am not commenting until we make a full announcement. I indicated yesterday that many of the proposals are interlinked and have to be seen as a total package.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs. Since NABET intends to go ahead with its irresponsible withdrawal of radio and television broadcasting services from Habitat, can the minister tell us what contingency plans are in place to provide coverage for Canadians as well as for other countries taking part in the largest United Nations conference ever held?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am hoping that NABET and the CBC will be able to work out their differences so that there will be television coverage. The conference has a large audio-visual component and this will go ahead as planned. As far as external viewing is concerned, there would be a problem, and, as I indicated the other day to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, it would be a very sad thing if coverage were not possible; not only would it be detrimental to the image of Canada but it would represent a loss to people throughout the world who would be watching this conference, one which will affect their lives on a day to day basis.


Douglas Roche: My supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as co-chairman of Habitat. Since there has been no debate in parliament in connection with the government's stand at the UN conference on trade and development, presently going on in Nairobi, a situation which has led the media as well as the public to underestimate the importance of United Nations conferences on critical global problems, would the hon. gentleman introduce a debate in the House to consider the proposals Canada will be making at Habitat in order that members may comment and thus help the media and the public understand the importance of this conference on human settlements to millions of people in the developing world?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am in agreement with the hon. member as to the necessity for encouraging wider debate in the House and elsewhere, not only on the UN conference on trade and development but also on the important Habitat conference which is forthcoming in Vancouver. However, as a former leader of the House I realise that a decision following my agreement in principle really rests upon my colleague, the government House leader who, I am sure, will take into account the representations which have been made.

May 13, 1976
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FOREIGN MINISTER OF POLAND, MR. OLSZOWSKI
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the distinguished Foreign Minister of Poland, Mr. Olszowski.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister explain why two days ago at the United Nations Canada cast the only negative vote on a resolution dealing with racism?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity of explaining to the House of Commons why Canada was, as the hon. member stated, the only member of ECOSC which voted against two particular resolutions. As hon. members will recall, last November the Government of Canada vigorously opposed a resolution passed by the General Assembly which linked racism and Zionism. We vigorously opposed and voted against that resolution and subsequently the House of Commons unanimously supported the action of the government on that occasion. The two resolutions dealt with at ECOSC two days ago maintained that link, a link which we regarded as unacceptable and without foundation. It is for that reason we cast a negative ballot.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. It concerns a subject about which I have already spoken to the hon. lady's parliamentary secretary. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement by Telephone Communicators of Canada Limited which appeared in a recent edition of the Financial Post announcing and promoting the use of that company's services which include the ability to call half a million household and business telephones in Canada and subject the person who answers the call to a pre-recorded sales pitch of up to two minutes in duration? Does the minister not agree that this practice constitutes an invasion of privacy and can she tell the House what action, if any, she is prepared to take to protect Canadians from being plagued by these pre-recorded commercials?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: suspect that any measure which would deal with that kind of thing would constitute an even greater invasion of privacy since I suppose it would mean allowing telephone companies to listen to conversations on the lines.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


INFORMATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council? It arises from a report in the Montreal Gazette this morning as follows:
Sharp also defended the freedom of information act whereby all government actions would be subject to public scrutiny.
The following appears in quotes: "I don't know what good that would do". I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether the government is now opposed to a freedom of information act or whether he still stands by the view expressed on February 12 by this House when, without a dissenting voice, we approved the principle of a freedom of -information bill.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Fortunately I have a record of the conversation I had with the reporter of the Gazette when I said I strongly favoured a freedom of information act. But what I did say was that this would not have much effect upon leaks.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the most recent figures indicate there are now about 48,000 people unemployed in Canada, would the minister indicate in dollar terms the effect of this increase upon unemployment insurance expenditure?


Robert Knight Andras: I am sorry, but I did not catch the first part of the question.


Arnold John Malone: In view of the fact that the most recent figures on the labour force show an increase of 48,000 in the number of unemployed, can the minister indicate in dollars what this will mean in terms of expenditure on unemployment insurance benefits?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think simple arithmetic will indicate what the answer to that question would be. As of now, expenditures in connection with unemployment insurance are lower than we had anticipated they would be at this time.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Following the announcement about the establishment of Loto Canada and the tabling of the Quebec budget indicating that the contribution of Loto Canada to the financing of the Olympic Games deficit has been considered as provincial revenue, I would like to know whether the Quebec government has asked for some safeguard since evidently Loto Canada is somewhat problematical because we do not know what will be the results of that lottery and perhaps the anticipated results of Loto Canada will not be similar to those of the Olympic Lottery. I would like to ask the minister whether in his discussions with the Quebec government there has been a reference to some kind of safeguard for a financial contribution provided by the federal government should Loto Canada not be as successful as anticipated?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Communications aware of the present policy of the CRTC which results in effective media censorship through deleting FM signals from applications for renewal of cable licensing and, if so, what does she intend to do about it?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the situation to which the hon. gentleman is referring, but I will be glad to send the hon. member's inquiry to the President of the CRTC and perhaps let him have the answer later.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, would the minister check with the CRTC to find out if there was any evidence of broadcaster injury at the special hearing last Friday in Edmonton and, regardless of whether there was, whether this policy in respect of FM signals is to be applied consistently across Canada regarding all applications?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is begging me to comment on hearings that are presently taking place before the CRTC. As the hon. member knows, I do not want to, and should not, comment on these hearings.
Oral Questions AIR CANADA


ALLEGATION OF POOR BILLING PROCEDURES IN FINANCE BRANCH, WINNIPEG-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is he aware that the ongoing concern over the labour and billing problems during the last three years in Air Canada's finance branch in Winnipeg, which has been so ill-handled, is so great that the Canadian Airlines Employees Association has stated that Air Canada, Winnipeg, has asked Air Canada, Montreal, to contact former employee, Yves Menard, currently an official of Warnock Hersey Limited regarding approximately 400 airline tickets that are currently outstanding and unreported?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course, the hon. member is stating his own opinion about mishandling of negotiations and I disagree with him completely. I would say there have been some very difficult issues, including what amounts to inter-union disputes, which are at the basis of the real problem here in negotiations. I would also say to the hon. member that while he may be particularly partisan, I do not think his comments in this House are very helpful.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my feelings were also registered in the Estey Report on the problems at the Air Canada finance branch. In view of the fact that the Canadian Airlines Employees Association says that an audit of commercial ticketing has not been done since 1973, and in light of the allegations already stated, would the minister consider dispatching the Auditor General's officials to the Winnipeg finance branch to implement an audit immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will say again that I really do not think this kind of comment back and forth in the House on what is really a dispute involving complicated labour relations and relationships in respect of union affiliation is helpful, and I will not engage in it.


REQUEST THAT FRENCH BE USED AS WORKING LANGUAGE IN QUEBEC
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Considering that each year for five years the Commissioner of Official Languages has continuously singled out in his reports the slowness and the nearly insurmountable difficulties French language users have at all levels of the operations of Air Canada, can the Minister of Transport inform the House whether he proposes to ask Air Canada to review the regulations of the company as regards the use of the French language as working language and as a criterium for employment in Quebec, and to ask the heads of Air Canada to take immediate steps so that French becomes the working language at all levels of the administrative or technical operations in Quebec?

May 13, 1976
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that, while certainly there have been time lags in developing a full move toward bilingual performance in the operations of Air Canada, as indeed there have been even inside the government because of difficulties arising in this regard, the policy of Air Canada is very definitely and clearly to move toward the implementation of the Official Languages Act for Air Canada, and to assure complete service in the French language to the public wherever that is desirable under the terms of that policy, and to ensure the rights of employees to use their own language in their communications with one another, and progressively to designate positions as bilingual where that is required by the implementation of that policy. That is the policy and I can assure the hon. member, and hon. members, that the current management of Air Canada shares that policy and desires very much to move as rapidly as possible toward its implementation.


HOUSING
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs a question of which I gave him notice.
Following the question I-asked his parliamentary secretary on May 3, whether he had received a telegram from the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs concerning the agreement reached at the three government levels meeting of March 1975, the parliamentary secretary answered negatively, and I understand. I am referring to page 13064 of Hansard.
Since Mr. Goldbloom told me he had sent the minister a telegram, which seems to be false, can the minister tell the House whether he will wait for Mr. Goldbloom, who appears to be playing cat and mouse, or whether he himself is prepared to accelerate the final agreement procedure with his counterpart in Quebec?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question, I believe on Monday, which is so long ago I almost forget the answer.


An hon. Member:: You didn't know in the first place.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I realize it took him some time to be recognized and I appreciate that. The holdup has been eased. There has been agreement between Quebec and CMHC in relation to administration agreements on rehabilitation programs. The administration will be done by the municipalities with separate applications to provincial and federal governments. The holdup has been in the designation of all the urban communities in Quebec to which this will apply, in addition to Montreal. It has been the desire of Quebec to announce them all at the one time. That is the proposal at this time and I think there will be an announcement very shortly.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that when we were considering Bill C-52 last December the government seemed to get very close to agreeing to change the formula under which Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP personnel are denied pension increases until they reach age 60, will the minister say whether this matter is now being considered and whether we might expect an announcement in the near future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be an announcement in the near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the government will consider introducing the necessary legislation in the fall so it can be effective at escalation time, namely, in January?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister based not on the contents of the Toronto Sun, a newspaper which does not seem to have too much regard for him, but rather on an article in today's Ottawa Journal describing a statement by Commissioner Nadon of the RCMP outside the rooms of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs yesterday, wherein Commissioner Nadon is reported as having said there was no difference of opinion between General Dare and the Prime Minister, who is named in the article. In light of the fact the Prime Minister has described General Dare's assertions in the letter as being an honest mistake resulting in the difference of opinion, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he stands by that, having regard to what the Commissioner of the RCMP has said, particularly since the Commissioner said he was present at the cabinet security committee meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was at the same time trying to listen to the question and read the clipping which is before me, and I may not be dealing with it exactly. But what I see here is that Commissioner Nadon told reporters that the views of General Dare and the Prime Minister were compatible. Indeed, they are compatible on the matter of not investigating democratically and legally established parties. We can leave that to the gumshoes hired by the Tories. The same opposition which was shocked the other day because a former deputy minister was engaged in the private sector I am surprised

is not shocked about former intelligence officers of the United States and apparently of Canada-they are so little shocked that they hired this agency to snoop into members of the other political parties. It would be interesting to know if they are also looking at the private lives of members, and if so I would like to know who they are because it is a matter of privilege to every member of this House.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you would like me to get back to the question. I am not sure if it would be worthwhile, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member opposite is reported as having told the press that he did not believe the answers I gave him yesterday or the day before. If he was misquoted he should have the decency to do what the right hon. member for Prince Albert did and force the Sun to backtrack from what they quoted him as saying. If he was not misquoted, I do not know why he is asking me questions if he does not believe my answers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Quite a long answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. The answer may be of interest to other members of the House and I will address it to them. I repeat that there is no disagreement on this point about surveying other political parties. There is a disagreement on the conclusion drawn in the letter, in the paragraph which begins "consequently", where General Dare drew that conclusion. I repeat it was a conclusion he should not have drawn and which was not drawn from anything that the cabinet said. It was a conclusion-I am saying this for the third or fourth time to the House but the opposition and the media still manage to get it wrong-everybody but General Dare and myself-the conclusion that he drew was erroneous and he himself was referring to a cabinet committee or committee of officials to verify whether he was drawing the right conclusion. In the same article it says that I first denied issuing any such guidelines but admitted Tuesday stating there were committee meetings. This is wrong, too, Mr. Speaker. But as I said before if I spent my time correcting the errors spread about the government on the other side and repeated in the media we would-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REASON GENERAL DARE SENT LETTER TO COLONEL BOURNE

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have just one brief supplementary. Before I put it, may I say that if the Prime Minister would send to me the quotations to which he has taken offence I will look at them. If a withdrawal should be forthcoming in keeping with the rules and customs of this place he shall have it, but I would expect the same courtesy of him in respect of the reference by him to my being paranoid. That might also be considered in the same light. May I ask him this supplementary.
Since he, General Dare and Colonel Bourne were all at the same cabinet security meeting, if he did not have a personal discussion with General Dare-and I accept his statement in that regard-can he explain why it was considered necessary by General Dare to send a letter to Colonel Bourne which described discussions which took place during that cabinet security meeting.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely there are two very simple answers to that. The first is that the letter, as I just said, went beyond what the committee decided and General Dare was using the letter to draw a conclusion and suggesting that it be discussed by officials to see if his conclusion was right. So he was putting that in writing because he wanted to go beyond the cabinet decision and know if he was making a proper inference. In other words, it does happen that cabinet decisions are recorded and they are sent back for supplementary explanations.
The second reason is that in our system of cabinet all cabinet decisions are recorded. We record them for the purpose of the secretariat. I suppose it is acceptable practice that in departments they also put this on record in order to have action further from the record of decision. It seems to me it does not demand very great insight to ask oneself why this was put into a letter. There are two good reasons for that.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I asked the Prime Minister a serious question, which he did not answer. I was advised it was simply because he did not know it was directed to him; but he said, very kindly, he would be glad to answer it if I were allowed to put the question again. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I may put the question again because it is a serious and important question.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a procedure could take place only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking that the question be put, but I do want to say to the hon. member that I did not notice that he was addressing the question to me, and I am sorry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, near!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order to raise in connection with a matter which in recent years has not been raised too often in this House but which was raised a good many times in prior years. It concerns the privileges of all members of the House in connection with the making of alterations in Hansard. As I understand it, sir, the only alterations any member or cabinet minister is permitted to make to Hansard have to do with punctuation, grammatical errors or spelling errors, and the like, but in no instances are members or cabinet ministers permitted to make alterations to Hansard which change the sense of what was said and recorded by the Hansard reporter in this House. Yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), and I am quoting from photostat copies of the blues, had this to say:


Mr. Allmand:: I raised the point, which they thought might have been counter productive, that the letter-
Here is the alteration. The Hansard reporter recorded it as "might have been destroyed so they proceeded in this
13476

May 13, 1976
Oral Questions
way." The blues were altered so that the words "might have" were struck out by the Solicitor General, or his executive assistant or whoever looks after these matters, and the word "had" was substituted for the two words "might have". The record for yesterday, at page 13441 of Hansard, indicates that the words "might have" were restored to the official record, but in the meantime the press gallery had the altered "greens", and indeed in at least one newspaper report this morning the quote of the Solicitor General came out as "I raised the point, which they thought might have been counter productive, that the letter had been destroyed". So now we know that members * of the press gallery do get the altered "blues" in the form of "greens" and that that quote went out over the news media last night in the altered form. Yet today we are confronted with the original form as recorded by the Hansard reporter, and indeed which I heard, in reply to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
Of course, the use of the past tense "had" would completely negate any need for issuing a search warrant to find the missing letter that had been destroyed, so the logic of changing it back to the original future tense becomes very apparent. But even then it does not explain the actions of the Solicitor General. The point is that the complete sense of the Solicitor General's reply to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had been altered and then realtered back again so that the form of the record appears accurate, but throughout the country the press used the altered form.
There is another alteration on page L-9 of the "blues", in the third line from the bottom in the Solicitor General's answer, again to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, where he said, and I go back to the fourth line from the bottom:
-but to get the exact copy that was sent to the Toronto Sun so that we could get evidence as to whether it was produced, how it was produced and who might have sent it.
The word "whether", as recorded by the Hansard reporter, was altered by the Solicitor General to "where", thus completely altering the sense of his answer. It is not a spelling error, a punctuation or grammatical error. That kind of alternation is not an alteration permitted under the rules of the House, because it is a substantive change. Perhaps an alteration might be made by executive assistants, acting on behalf of cabinet ministers, who alter the "blues" to the extent of substituting the past tense for the future tense in the words "might have" with the word "had", and perhaps that might be in order because it certainly gives the wrong indication to the media, which has the power and, in fact, did disseminate this wrong information in its report of events in this place yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) read from Hansard rough copies and brought into question the editing of Hansard and the calibre of work done by the editor in respect of accepting what his reporters transmitted to him from this place. The hon. member brings it into play. I will have to look at it. I certainly think that in the past the calibre and the performance of all people who have reported and edited Hansard have been without question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presumably, the Solicitor General, when he is here in the House, will have something to say about what intervention he made.


An hon. Member:: You missed the point.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret it; that may be so. The Solicitor General is not here. I will have to hear his version of it and I will have to consult the Hansard editor to see whether he has accepted any admonition or intervention by any member of the House which would materially alter the words reported by the Hansard reporter here, because that has been part and parcel of what has been put forward.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should have stated that I regret very much raising this matter in the absence of the Solicitor General, but the rules call for it to be raised at the first opportunity, which I did. The substance of my question of privilege is that nowhere, in my submission to the Chair, did I question the integrity, efficiency and ability of the Hansard staff and its editor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: And I do not do so now. I have the utmost faith in their ability, and that is evidenced by the fact that I personally never correct any "blues". I follow that practice assiduously. But my complaint is that either the minister or his executive assistant altered the "blues" and changed the whole sense of what was said and recorded by the Hansard reporter, and I choose the Hansard version over the corrected version.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although I am not involved in this, I am a member who is concerned about Hansard and I am concerned lest some of the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) lead to a false impression. There could be reports in the press today saying "Allmand is accused of altering Hansard".
There are two things that I want to say. If, as the hon. member for Yukon says, changes were made that appear in the "blues", or "greens" that go to the press gallery, may I say that in my experience those are editorial corrections that the Hansard reporters make when they check back on their notes. When we make any corrections on the white sheets, that does not get photocopied.
I suggest that to accuse the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) of having made any change which appears on the sheets that go to the press gallery is to make an accusation without proof to back it up. The very fact that in the printed version of Hansard it is put back to what was taken down in the first place suggests, to my way of thinking, that there was no alteration on the part of the Solicitor General. He has not asked me to defend him, but one should not be accused unless there is some evidence.
As for the other change, I was listening very closely yesterday because I have been concerned about this matter. I have a photostatic copy of General Dare's letter which, incidentally, was not signed by him, and I wonder why there is so much fuss about it. My hearing was that
May 13, 1976

the Solicitor General did say that we could get evidence as to where it was produced. The reason I was following that closely was that I showed the Solicitor General, a few days ago, a photocopy that I have taken from the Toronto Sun of that letter. I drew his attention to the fact that it was not signed by General Dare, and he noted that the photocopy provided some evidence as to where the leak might have occurred. I believe that he did say "where" rather than "whether" in one case, and in the other case I think that if a change was made at all, it was made by the Hansard reporter editing his notes, trying to make it correct, but that obviously the editor later decided that what was said in the first place was correct.
I am speaking off the cuff, just as was the hon. member. When changes in Hansard are made, I am prepared to get into a fight about it, but it seems to me that accusations of this sort should not be made unless there is evidence to support them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the two questions which form the substance of the matter are on the questions that I directed in the House yesterday and on the answers to those questions. When the "blues" were delivered to me some considerable time later-and I am not concerned about who did it at this point, although the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is, and I think it is a reasonable suggestion for him to make on a matter which he is bound to bring to the attention of the Chair immediately when it becomes apparent to him, or at the earliest opportunity, and this was the earliest opportunity-they had the alterations which were mentioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister did not make them.


Walter David Baker: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will contain himself, making sure that the House has a complete record is for some other person to ascertain, certainly not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The "blues" came down. I listened carefully to the answers to the questions because the answers were to my questions. The changes were made when the "blues" were here on my desk. I think the House should know this. I passed them to the hon. member for Yukon because I wanted him to take a look at them because it did seem strange, particularly the last one, which was out of context completely. There are photostats available, so I understand.


Erik Nielsen: Hansard has them now.


Walter David Baker: Hansard has them now, with the notes of the hon. member for Yukon, and I think this is a matter which can be looked into, as Your Honour says. If what the hon. member for Yukon said with respect to Hansard needs any reinforcing, I want to make it amply clear that the position which I understand he took had nothing to do with the competence of the Hansard staff. It had to do with the question as to whether there had been an alteration made by the Solicitor General or someone on
Oral Questions
his staff. That is the simple question; I just want to make that amply clear.
When I handed those "blues"-or "greens"-back to the hon. member for Yukon, I handed them back to him on the basis that the answer was not as I heard it and I wanted him to look at it.


Mr. Blais:: Did he change them?


Walter David Baker: It was certainly out of context. I do not know what happened. If it was a Hansard change, that is one thing, but if it was a change by the Solicitor General, that is quite another matter and, if I may say so, I think it is an important matter because of the records of this House. I rose so that the House could know the full import of what happened on the floor of the House as we proceeded after the question period into these matters and where the particular "blues" are now located.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I heard the hon. member for Yukon on the point of order. I heard him again on a question of privilege. I do not think the matter needs to be expanded any further. I have indicated that surely the Solicitor General will have some input to make into this matter, and I will wait until he has an opportunity to make his side of the story known; and, indeed, we will check with the editorial staff of Hansard to see what in fact took place.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question of privilege based on an interjection by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) which may have been caught by Hansard. When the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was describing how he passed his "blues"-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was describing the manner in which he passed me the "blues", the hon. member for Nipissing interjected: "Did he change them?" I heard it, so I must assume the Hansard reporter heard it. That inference is most unworthy, in light of what I have said here. I can assure him and other hon. members that I did not make any alteration or addition to the "blues" which were passed to me, and the photostatic copies which were made are now in the possession of Hansard and provide the evidence for which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is looking. They will, no doubt, come back to me when Hansard is through with them after recording today's proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, does not in any way constitute a question of privilege.
95568-19l/2
Order Paper Questions BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



WEEKLY STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
May 13, 1976
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. Your Honour will be delighted to know that this point of order is a question to the government House leader as to the business as we proceed down through the calendar.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on government days in the foreseeable future, until the date of the budget at least, the priority will be second reading of Bill C-84 which, as I said last week, the government wishes to have dealt with before other matters before the House with the exception of the budget. On Thursday last I gave a tentative list of allotted days from now to the end of June. I have had some discussion with the House leaders and indicated that it would be desirable to make one change in that tentative list because of the arrangements for the debate on the budget.
Therefore, I wish now to designate the following allotted days: May 17, 20 and 21; June 1, 11, 15, 16, 21 and 22. There is one change. Instead of June 8, it is now June 1. That is the same day of the week and does not alter the mix of short and long days.
In accordance with Standing Order 60, I request you, Mr. Speaker, to designate the required order of the day to permit the Minister of Finance to make his budget presentation at 8 p.m. on May 25.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mitchell William Sharp: I also wish to appoint the following days for the budget debate: May 27; June 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the text of the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Spain for co-operation in the development and application of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following ques-

tions will be answered today: 4,087 (revised), 5,174, 5,212 and 5,279.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 4,087-Mr. Matte: (Revised)
1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare contributed for the past three years to the United Nations Drug Abuse Fund and, if so, does this contribution amount to $1,000,000?
2.	Does the Department plan to continue contributing to a similar programme and, if so, in what amount?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. For each of the fiscal years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Department of National Health and Welfare granted* $200,000 (for a total of $600,000) to the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control. However, the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control was established on April 1, 1971. Since that time Canada has made the following contributions to the Fund: FY 1971-72, $150,000; FY 1972-73, $250,000; FY 1973-74, $200,000; FY 1974-75, $200,000; FY 1975-76, $200,000. Total: $1,000,000.
2.	Officials in the Department are presently evaluating the performance of the Fund. A decision regarding future contributions will be taken after consideration of their report.
*Note: Please note the distinction between amounts "contributed" and amounts "granted" by reference to the Treasury Board's Authorities Manual, Chapter 30, 0.3.11.3.


Mr. Matte: In 1975-76, did the government participate in (a) French teaching programmes in Ottawa schools (b) English teaching programmes in Province of Quebec schools and, if so, what was, in each case (i) the name of the school and School Board concerned (ii) the amount granted?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Insofar as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: (a) Yes, through formula payments for the teaching of French as a second language and aid given to the pilot project for the increased teaching of French as a second language in the National Capital Region. In both cases, payments are made to the provinces and not to the school boards or schools. In 1975-76, Ontario received approximately $1,300,000 in formula payments for the teaching of French as a second language in schools of the four school boards of the Ottawa region and $875,000 for the National Capital Region pilot project, (b) Yes, the government of Quebec received $9,351,866 in 1975-76 as formula payments for the teaching of English as a second language.
May 13, 1976


Mr. Horner: 1.	Did the Secretary of State announce on September 9, 1970 that a government programme would provide $300 million to the provinces for bilingualism education in the schools by 1973 and, if so, how much was spent?
2.	To which provinces was the money given for the teaching of which language?
3.	How many students received additional education under this programme?


Coline M. Campbell: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1. Yes. More than 85 per cent.
2.	To all the provinces. English in Quebec and French in the other provinces.
3.	It is impossible to determine how many students took additional courses under this programme.


Mr. Murta: 1.	What percentage of the total number of farmers are participating in the Grain Stabilization Programme?
2.	What was the cost of setting up the Programme?
3.	What is the number of employees administering the Programme?
4.	What is the cost to keep the Programme in operation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Approximately 92 lA per cent.
2. $100,000.
3.	Fifteen.
4.	$421,000, estimated, 1976-77.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 5,099 and 5,158 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask that questions Nos. 4,446, 4,955 and 5,172 be made orders for return with reference to the information which has already been made available, and obtain the consent of the House so that the balance of the information would be tabled when that is produced to me.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What departments, agencies and Crown corporations publish magazines, newspapers and newsletters on a regular basis for distribution to their staff or the general public?
2.	How many copies are printed by each department, agency and Crown corporation and how are they distributed?
3.	What is the cost to each department, agency and Crown corporation of its publication for printing and distribution?
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	For the past twelve months, by department and agency, what amount was spent on the use of (a) private mail (b) courrier services and, in each case, what was the name of the company?
2.	Was any of the work done on contract?
3.	What types of mail are handled by private service and, in each case, for what reason is regular mail service not used?
Return tabled.


Mr. Dick: 1.	What are the names of all sufferance warehouses used by trucks in Canada and, in each case (a) where is it located (b) what year was it licenced?
2.	How many highway sufferance warehouses were there in Canada in each year (a) 1945 (b) 1950 (c) 1960 (d) 1970 (e) 1971 (f) 1972 (g) 1973 (h) 1974 (i) 1975?
3.	What are the names of the highway sufferance warehouses and, in each case, how many entries were made of goods coming in and going out for a 12-month period in (a) 1973-74 (or 1973) (b) 1974-75 (or 1974) (c) 1975-76 (or 1975)?
Return tabled.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Since the inception of the Consumer Assistance Grants Programme, for each year to date and by province, how many consumer groups have been awarded grants?
2.	In the case of each such grant, what was the (a) amount (b) name of the recipient group (c) date it was awarded (d) its purpose?
Return tabled.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1970 to date, have any departments or government bodies negotiated contracts with Berlitz for the teaching of a second language to public servants and, if so, in each case (a) what was the contract (b) how many (c) for what amount?
2.	For each year, what percentage of the money granted to the school was directed to salaries of (a) teachers (b) administrators?
3.	Are the requirements for (a) formation (b) experience of the teachers only under the school and, if not, is there a link between such requirements and those that prevail when hiring teachers of a second language for the Public Service?
4 For each year, how many (a) French speaking (b) English speaking public servants have followed courses offered by the school?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House prepared to adopt the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 13, 1976
Science Policy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth) moved:: That this House recognizes the necessity of Canada enhancing its scientific and technology efforts for its long-term benefit, and condemns the government for its failure to develop a strong science policy and for not adopting measures that will increase research and development in both the industrial and academic communities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, our motion today expresses not only our view of the state of science and technology in Canada, but I believe it expresses, as well, the view of a large majority of people in Canada in business and in the scientific and academic communities. I believe we could go so far as to say that most people in the department would probably agree with the temper of the motion. About a year ago, the subject of science and technology was debated on an opposition day; to be precise, on June 9, 1975. A review of that debate shows there was general agreement in parliament that increases were necessary for research and development in the sciences and in technology. One only needs to look at the trade figures for 1975. We had an $8.2 billion deficit in high technology trade. That, alone, should cause the government to review its objectives and goals in this area.
A short review of the attitudes of key departments of government shows a lack of purpose and direction. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) is a part-time minister. I do not say that in a derogatory way; I realize he carries two portfolios and that is an onerous task. He spends three or four hours a week, I understand, on the affairs of the department. He may wish to correct that figure, but that is the information I have. As I read his current view, Mr. Speaker, it is that we have a branch plant economy and perhaps we should purchase our technology offshore. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) echoes the view of the Economic Council of Canada that the future of Canadian industry lies in the development of knowledge-intensive, high-technology industries. These two views seem to be opposed.
Then we have the "on again, off again" special capital cost allowances-short-term in the main-of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), and the Anti-Inflation Board regulations that classify research and development in the same grouping as donations to charity, sales promotion and advertising. The amount spent on research and development by a company is tied to a formula based on previous expenditures. If a businessman wants to increase his research and development expenditures, he must decrease in some proportion his donations to charity or expenditures on sales promotion and advertising. An analysis of those three positions will show the state which science and technology are in from the point of view of the department, from the point of view of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and from the point of view of the Minister of Finance.

The Anti-Inflation Board regulation will hold back our advancement in industrial technology for years. This policy has resulted in a further withdrawal from industrial research in Canada. Several companies were involved in rather extensive research and development, but they have either moved offshore or to a better financial and unrestricted climate to carry out their work.
We have a welfare state in Canada financed by a resource-based economy. Due to the attitudes and the performance of the Minister of Science and Technology, we will never move out of this trench. In spite of the advice from the Economic Council of Canada and the views put forth by the academic community and the National Research Council, in spite of the views of parliament, and industry, we appear still to fumble and stumble along with the cosmetic policies and platitudes in the minister's speeches about the advances we have made in our short history. We have little time for those who like to state and restate our past achievements about how we set up a department of science and technology. I will always give credit to those dedicated people whose persistence and foresight kept our scientists together over the years.
The problems facing us today are too urgent to allow us to bask in the sunshine of history. There is too much time spent rearranging, not necessarily in chronological order, a series of developments and laying beside it a so-called science policy and then saying our achievements are a result of that science policy. That is a clever psychological trick. How many people involved in administering the research and development programs put forward by the government have worked in the field of science and industrial research. It seems to me they spend more time producing press releases and multicoloured annual reports than looking to the advancement of our scientific knowledge and the translation of that knowledge into technology so that human and economic gains may accrue to the people of Canada and the world at large.
This party believes that scientific research should be financed by government. We believe that the crises we are facing in resources, energy, trade deficits and human wellbeing can only be dealt with by increasing funding for scientific research. We believe the present policies of the government will relegate Canada to the position of a third-class or fourth-class developed nation. We believe the present policies of the government will keep us in the backwater of developed nations and will widen the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. If we continue on our present course, our standard of living will gradually decline and the status of science, education, health and technology will descend to such a level that no amount of money will reverse the trend.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me now examine how scientific advancement is accomplished. Money alone is not the answer. The minister has stated this, and I agree with him. It is part of the solution, however, for researchers must be paid, equipment must be purchased and accommodation must be provided. A prime concern must be the environment in which the scientific community works. Scientific excellence cannot be achieved in an environment threatened each year by budget cutbacks and uncontrolled inflation. Scientific budgets have been vastly affected by inflation. Everybody knows this, but there does not seem
May 13, 1976

to be any response to it from the department. The rising cost of equipment has meant a decrease in the number of researchers in a given field. Many post-doctoral researchers are living on a pittance because the project head must try to balance people, budgets and inflation and the purchase of expensive equipment required for his particular field of research.
Scientific achievement is the result of hard work, a gradual building of knowledge in a field of science until, through the efforts of dedicated people, the result being sought becomes evident. That result must be translated into technology, and finally into the gross national product or into the enhancement of the health, well-being and standard of living of the people of Canada and the world. We often read of scientific breakthroughs. That is a journalistic term, Mr. Speaker. I do not really believe there are any scientific breakthroughs. Whatever we achieve in the advancement of scientific knowledge is the result of damned hard work. Our responsibility, as legislators, is to attain an environment stated in firm policy and backed by financial resources to allow the scientific community to pursue their research and to move Canada into the forefront of developed nations.
Great speeches are made by members of the government who say we must help the third world countries, that we must transfer technology to the developing nations, that we must help them advance and improve the quality of life of their citizens. What technology are we going to transfer? What technology will we transfer in the future? Are we going to transfer the branch plant technology the Minister of Science and Technology talks about? Are we going to transfer the knowledge-intensive, high technology the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce talks about? Surely anyone with an ounce of logic must realize that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is really jawboning, as are other people who speak for CIDA when they advance this platitude.
If we do not move on an emergency basis to fund scientific research and research and development in industry, we shall have no technology to transfer to third world nations as we go down the road in the future. If we continue to let our trade deteriorate and our high technology trade balance deficit to increase, we shall place the people of Canada in a precarious position from which they may never recover. If we do not listen to the advice of the Science Council of Canada, the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Economic Council of Canada and the voice of industry, and translate that advice into policy programs which are adequately funded, what future is in store for us? We shall become a second or third-rate scientific community unless we change the attitude of the government.
We must admit what most of us recognize, that a communications gap has opened between legislators and the scientific community. This was ably alluded to by the Science Council of Canada. Organizations such as Scie-Tech and the special committee on science policy in the other place, chaired by Senator Lamontagne, have been helpful and useful in bridging this gap. But the recommendations of the Special Committee on Science Policy have been basically ignored by the government. Instead, we
Science Policy
hear about a balanced policy of scientific research and industrial development as proposed by the Minister.
The people of Canada have the right to know the government's position on the future of this ministry. Will the government continue to downgrade the department, a downgrading made evident by lack of direction and funding? Are we to have a part-time minister in future? Or are we now seeing the demise of the ministry? We went from a full-time minister in 1971 to a half-time minister in 1974. Now we have the part-time minister of today. It would appear that the present minister has been given the task of overseeing the demise of the ministry of science and technology. That is the opinion of many to whom I have spoken in the last few weeks. When the minister was first appointed to this portfolio, people speculated that now we had some muscle in the cabinet. After all, the former president of the treasury board is responsible for overseeing science and technology. That is what people thought.
What is the reality of the situation? I submit that our science policy is heading for disaster. Years of excellent research are being undone, and the advice of the special committee on science policy is ignored. Many research teams are now being disbanded. I have, personnally, seen letters sent to some of our most expert researchers, inviting them to leave Canada and undertake projects in other jurisdictions. Is it not sad that I must report this to the House? If we had half the purchase price of one Orion aircraft, which each cost $60 million, devoted to the advancement of scientific research and the development of industrial technology, we would be in a position to reverse the dangerous course we presently pursue.
In an era of restraint, talk of increasing expenditures brings the usual response from the treasury bench, "They accuse us of talking about restraint but continue to recommend expenditures." When ministers talk in this vein, they are hunting for headlines. They try to discredit any positive recommendation with the use of such tactics. I recall, at the time of the last debate one year ago, going up in the elevator with the minister. He conveyed that very thought to me, saying, "You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You cannot have it both ways." I say that the government's priorities are wrong. They are out of phase.
The restraint program the government has implemented is, in my view, a dishonest effort at best. There is little or no co-ordination between the ministry of science and technology, the ministry of trade and commerce, and the ministry of finance. One wonders what they talk about if, indeed, they talk. We pour out millions of dollars in low-interest loans or no-interest loans to developing nations. Perhaps we should divert some of that money to science and technology so that in future aid will be available. By doing that we shall make sure that our economy is sufficiently buoyant to aid developing nations and any technology we shall transfer to them in future will be of such a calibre that it will enable developing nations more readily to take their place in the world community.
At a time when there is great speculation about the resources of the world, when gloomy predictions are made about limitations on growth, and when there is talk of more cartels in commodities and resources, the government of Canada appears to be in full retreat. We have in Canada great expertise in earth sciences. There have been major

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
developments in earth sciences in the last decade. We should use that expertise to understand better our resources and utilize better our technology.
I recall that a couple of years ago the members of the House were most interested in the people in western, northern and eastern Canada who were drilling for oil. We debated the subject and asked many questions in the House. Members on both sides spoke in glowing terms of the approximately 100,000 people engaged in drilling for oil and gas, people who rank among the world's most knowledgeable and expert in the field. What has happened to them? You will now find these people all over the world, the reason being our ill-conceived policies on energy and poorly thought-out policies on taxation. Now the government is beating its breast about increased exploration and drilling activities and creating more tax revenue, all in the name of energy self-sufficiency. If the government had possessed the foresight to meld the scientific expertise developed in earth sciences with the expertise of experienced seismic and drilling crews, perhaps we should not be in our present energy difficulties.
Let me turn for a moment to the subject of nationalism. Any time we talk about the academic community, the subject of nationalism seems to raise its head. It is true to say, I think, that in the late 1950s and early 1960s there was a wave of confidence in science. There was a feeling that we could translate much of the research being done into technology and lessen our dependence on foreign technology. With the growth of inflation and a series of cutbacks in research funding in the early 1970s, the hope of developing high technology for a strong, secondary industrial base faded.
We have seen lately an attack on the national origins of some of the leading researchers in Canada. This came about, I submit, because our universities geared themselves to the funding of the federal government and responded to the expansion of universities brought about by the provinces to meet the post-war baby boom. There developed in some fields of research, not necessarily scientific research, a surplus of researchers. It became the vogue to point to the national origin of a particular department head, and if he was not Canadian he was open to criticism. Let me say this: If we ever reach the point at which we assign a nationality to knowledge, expertise, vision and dedication, we shall deal a death blow to scientific research, a blow far greater than such research was dealt by cutbacks in research funding. Not only must we retain our best researchers in Canada but we must, with increased funding, continue to seek out the best minds in the world. I am afraid we shall lose many of our best researchers unless we can pry loose initial funds.
I think the government began its romance with science in the 1960s. In 1971 it appointed the first minister of science and technology. It was felt that the portfolio ought to be a low-profile one. After the initial splash of publicity was over, the first minister in the portfolio adopted a low profile. In fact, I do not think he is very high-profile at any time, in any portfolio. However, that is getting personal and perhaps I should not say that.

The second minister did not really have time to settle into the department before there was another shuffle that produced the present minister. Just in case some members think I am being unduly harsh on the present minister, let me say that I have the greatest respect for that gentleman. He has served Canada in many capacities and in many fields. I say that he has served Canada well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: I have a high personal regard for him. Having said that, I have to question very seriously whether this should be a low-profile ministry. When I see the confusion in the departments of energy, industry and finance, I think that science and technology should not be a low-profile portfolio. I recognize that it is difficult to place achievements in science beside dollars allocated for funding, but that is the nature of science. It is a series of building blocks that are put in place, with the assistance of funding, until a structure is built that produces the result sought when the project was begun. One of the side benefits of scientific research is the spin-off effect from one project into another. It is something that cannot be predicted; it just happens.
Many people have said to me that if Best and Banting were to apply today for funding for insulin research, they would probably be turned down because the criteria have been changed. They would be turned down because of the criteria put forth by this government. There are many other aspects and benefits from the spin-off that are not apparent to us and may not be apparent at the start of a research project.
We are faced today with declining productivity in our industry. I do not know how many people realize it, but last year we lost 11 million man-years due to strikes. We lost more than 11 million man-years in industry last year due to alcoholism and drug use. Surely we must address ourselves to this problem if we are to increase our productivity. We can have the most productive and highly developed technology available, but if it will not overcome the more than 22 million man-hours lost because of strikes, alcoholism and drugs, it is not going to be of much use. I believe we have many serious problems facing us at present, in the future, and as far ahead as we can see. We in this party believe we should have in the House of Commons a standing committee on science and technology.


Mr. Maine:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: I see the hon. member opposite applauding. I believe that his position is the same. We believe it should be, and can be, non-political in its make-up if its terms of reference are properly stated. We believe this could be a means of bridging the gap between the academic and industrial community and legislators. We believe this committee should have input from provincial governments, that it should meet with industrial and scientific groups and should co-operate fully with the committee in the other place. In fact, it may be that we should have a joint committee. Be that as it may, being a House of Commons man, I would rather see a committee here that would
May 13, 1976

co-operate with a committee there, and we could work together on projects.
We believe we should fund scientific research through various departments, on a priority basis. The funding should be projected for a minimum of five years but should be structured on a continuous ten-year cycle. While some scientific researchers do not like direction in their research projects, they must of necessity work toward broad national objectives. Surely, the fields of medical research, energy, ocean sciences, transportation, communications, housing, agriculture and pollution are of national concern. We must harness the scientific expertise we have in these fields and fund them on a priority basis over the next decade.
I cannot accept the philosophy that perhaps we should purchase our industrial technology offshore. That would place us in second or third place forever. While there is much technology we can use that has been developed elsewhere and may be a stopgap solution in the short-term, our long-term objective must be to translate the results of our scientific research into technology that we can use domestically and sell or transfer to others. In other words we must translate it into gross national product. We have to be hardnosed about where we are going. We can only do this if we plan on a continuous ten-year cycle and state the level of our funding on a five-year budget. If we could reach this objective, those involved in the field of research would be able to see where they were going. They would know what funds would be available to them and could time their projects accordingly.
When the minister spoke on June 9, 1975, he said, among other things, and I quote from page 6562 of Hansard:
Put simply, we want to achieve a balanced development of knowledge and research capability in all fields of science and technology. For this reason we propose introducing a more unified and co-ordinated granting structure. The change will not detract from the influence or prestige of either the NRC or the Canada Council. We look to the former to have a major influence in the development of our industrial technological base as well as research into problems which, because of the scale of facilities required or because of time frames, are inappropriate for non-governmental bodies.
Where is the more unified and co-ordinated granting structure? All we have seen is a drastic cutback in all research and a restriction in industrial research and development through regulation of the Anti-Inflation Board. Further in his remarks, the minister stated, again at page 6562, and I quote:
There is no decline in Canada's scientific and technological effort. The emphasis is shifting, I hope, toward growth in the application of science rather than the acquisition of knowledge, but in total I feel that our science and technology are healthy and ready to aid us in meeting the future. If we have a problem in relation to science it is in deciding where to put our money.
Well, they obviously decided not to put the money into science and technology. Because of the cutbacks, they decided not to adjust the budget of science and technology to account for inflation. When we view the cutbacks in this ministry and the cancellation of several research and development projects in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, we have to question the sincerity of the minister when he made these remarks last year.
I have gone on at some length. I know there are other members who wish to contribute to this debate. I will close by saying that we in this party are very concerned about
Science Policy
the future of science and technology in Canada. Unless we reverse the present trend, we shall lose valuable researchers. I have read letters which many of them received from universities in other jurisdictions, inviting them to continue research outside Canada and quoting the size of the funds available for their work. It is a shame that the body of expertise we have built up in this field should be allowed to dribble away. Once these people have left, it will be very difficult to get them back for the benefit of Canada.
What are our plans for industrial development? I have followed the great debate which has raged in connection with foreign-owned corporations and branch plant economies. Unless we continually fund technological development-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William James Kempling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I, before concluding, refer to the regulation of the Anti-Inflation Board which, in effect, restricts research and development work. I am sure hon. members will agree that businessmen do not put funds into research and development when they are operating at a loss, or merely breaking even; they do so when their enterprises are operating at a high level of profitability. That is the point at which they are interested in developing new products, confident that they have a market for them. To place any restriction on research and development is counterproductive. I hope the Minister of Finance will take this into consideration as he prepares the forthcoming budget, because if anything should be changed, that particular regulation under section 12 should be changed.
I thank the House for allowing me to conclude the remarks I wished to make. I know there are many others who wish to speak.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the fastest growing labour forces in the western industrialized world. We have tried to meet the needs of this country, according to a special commission of the OECD, by tremendous expansion of educational facilities from kindergarten to post-graduate level. This country is turning out more highly educated, highly skilled people than ever in its history.
The minister of colleges and universities in Ontario was quoted a week ago as saying that in Ontario alone more than 1,000 people were working to get degrees as doctors of philosophy. Extrapolating this figure across the country, and including those working on masters degrees, I would imagine the total number would be in the neighbourhood of 10,000. Many of these people have been looking forward to the time when they would conclude their difficult and extensive work toward their doctorates-looking forward to finding work which was rewarding both financially and in terms of achievement in Canada whether in our universities, in our research institutions, in industry or government.
9SS68-20

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me that those expectations are not founded on reality. There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community, in the universities, in government and in private industry that there are not, and will not be, positions available to the people who are graduating, and that in fact we have no science policy. Members opposite will, I am sure, maintain that I am saying these things because I take a very partisan view. I admit to being partisan. Let me, therefore, put on record the views of the Royal Society of Canada as expressed in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in April, 1976, copies of which were sent to all members of parliament. Allow me to quote a few paragraphs from that statement.
Budget freezes and cutbacks along with inflation have so impoverished research and development in all three sectors-government laboratories, universities and industry-that we are facing the break-up of competent research groups . .. the downgrading of the quality and scope of research, and loss of morale among researchers.
The brief goes on to say:
By 1975, government support for industrial research and development (considered as a fraction of gross national product) had declined to 87 per cent of the fraction of GNP it had in 1969.
In government laboratories, the 1975-76 level of financing was only 83.3 per cent of the level in 1969. "This has not arisen because of the transfer of significant amounts of research and development to industries or to universities. This transfer has not occurred. Instead, the decrease has come about as a result of inadequate budgets."
What did the society say about universities?
The situation in Canadian universities is even worse. In 1975, financing had dropped to 67 per cent of the 1969 level.
The letter goes on to point out:
The government has frozen the 1976-77 budgets of the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council, the two granting agencies which provide most of the funds for scientific research in Canadian universities. This freeze will cause a further decline this year to about 60 per cent of the 1969 level.
Senior civil servants are saying the same thing. The president of the National Research Council was quoted in the Financial Post of January 24, 1976, as follows:
Canada will not be able to hold its own in the international market for new and improved manufactured products in a few years time because of these research cuts ... We in Canada have been losing ground since 1969 in the research and development effort so vital to ensure that Canadian products compete favourably in the overseas technological market.
He goes on to point out that the freezing of the budget has meant cutbacks in all the support services which researchers in government institutes need. The government has cut back, or is in the process of winding up, a whole series of programs which we were told just a few years ago, in 1970, were the most promising method of building up our secondary industries to their full competitive potential. I refer, for example, to programs under the Industrial Research and Incentives Development Act and programs designed to ensure greater industrial productivity. Many other agencies created in this field by various government departments are being phased out as rapidly as possible.
Why is it, with government policies developed in answer to criticisms contained in the report by the Senate committee on science policy headed by Senator Lamontagne, criticisms to the effect that government policy was not meeting

the needs of Canadian people, we now see a winding-down completely or a cutback of these programs? It is not just the academics or the theoretical scientists whom I have already quoted who are saying we are in real trouble. Dr. Keith Downey, director of the oilseed program at the Canadian Agriculture Research Station at Saskatoon, who was awarded half the Royal Bank award of $50,000 which is awarded in science, annually, by the bank, for his work in developing Canada's rapeseed crop, one of the major new agricultural crops we are selling in this country, had this to say:
Canadian investment in scientific research and development is falling far short of the level that other developed nations consider essential to their survival. .. Canada's investment of 1.3 to 1.4 per cent of annual gross national product in research and development is only about half the total spent by Western European nations and Japan.
Furthermore, Canada's research outlays equal just 4 per cent of U.S. efforts and are lower than the targets set in 1972 by Ottawa's special Senate Committee on Science Policy.
This country is in a unique position because of its proximity to the United States and because the people, in the main, speak the same language. It is easy for Canadian scientists to pack up and leave Canada, particularly when the government says, as it is every day and has been saying for the last four or five years, that it does not want them, does not need them and does not have the money to finance the work they are doing. It is easy for them to pack, leave and go to the United States.
Efficient and productive research teams built up over the years in Canada are being destroyed and gutted. When the government and the people of Canada wake up, as they will in a year or two, they will realize that we must begin to give support to scientific research and development, which we have not been giving if this country is to survive, grow and utilize the major portion, if not all, of its potential. We will have to begin to recreate these research teams in government institutions, universities and private industry, those same teams which this government would permit, indeed encourage, to be disrupted at the present time.
It is not as though we did not have the researchers who are capable and want to work. Three months ago I put on the order paper a notice for the production of papers asking for the tabling of correspondence between Canadian researchers, scientists in physics, chemistry, agriculture and medical science and the Prime Minister, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). This correspondence had reference to the government's policy of freezing or cutting back on funds for scientific research. The government has not yet agreed to table this correspondence and I have not yet seen it, although I have received dozens of letters from people in these fields-and I make no secret of it-or copies of letters sent to the Prime Minister and various ministers. I do not have the time to deal with many of them, but let me quote from one which went to the Minister of State for Science and Technology from a professor of the department of chemistry at the University of Toronto, dated January 16, 1976. He says, in part:
One has only to examine the budgetary treatment of the National Research Council over the past six years to realize that support of basic
May 13, 1976

science in this country has occupied a very low position in terms of federal government priorities. This council, which plays a crucial role for all Canadian university scientists engaged in fundamental research, has received budgetary increases over the period 1970-75 which have fallen far short of increased costs due to inflation. In a period when the consumer price index increased by well over 50 per cent, the NRC budget received cumulative increases totalling only 5.5 per cent. In the forthcoming budget year (1976-77), when the CPI will probably again increase by more than 10 per cent, the NRC budget will be frozen at the already inadequate 1975-76 level.
I do not have time to read the whole letter, but let me put one additional sentence on the record as it indicates that we have people here who are capable and more than qualified to do the kind of work required. This is what Professor Yates says in part of his letter, talking about the calibre of Canadian scientists:
To name just a few from my own university: Geoffrey Ozin was awarded the Meldola Medal (from the U.K.) given annually to the leading inorganic chemist under 35; similarly John Polanyi was awarded the Marlow Medal (also from the U.K.), a corresponding award to the leading physical chemist; Adrian Brook recently won the Kipping Award of the American Chemical Society, given annually to the leading organosilicon chemist-
I am sure that kind of record can be duplicated by many universities in Canada. This is the situation, as I suggested earlier, the government is cutting back on in its winding up of programs and incentives to private fields. Let me just give two illustrations of the failure of these programs, a failure that we on this side predicted at the time. This government has given millions of dollars in grants and loans to RCA for research work in its laboratories in Montreal. RCA Canada had the largest private research laboratories in Canada. That company has made the decision to decentralize its research facilities. That is its decision, and the Canadian operations will ostensibly report to the United States operating division. In fact, I am told that the Canadian research facilities will virtually disappear. The highly educated, highly trained and highly qualified people who are employed there will be either laid off or transferred to the United States. That is an illustration of one result we have had in this country of this government's programs.
Then we have Northern Telecom which, together with Bell Telephone, set up a subsidiary called Microsystems. Microsystems received $34 million in past years to build microprocessors. These are computers of a silicon base which will be used increasingly in telephones, telecommunications, computers and in television sets-you name it, but they will be using microprocessors.
Northern Telecommunications has decided it can sell a lot more of its production in the United States than in Canada. Therefore, it has been proceeding to buy up companies in the United States which do this kind of work. It has been establishing new companies in the United States and is moving its operation to the United States. It will close down its Canadian operation, an operation in which, as I say, in the last few years we have spent $134 million.
Anything that has been learned as a result of the expenditure of that money which was received from the Canadian government will be used to make profits in the United States and to employ people in the United States. The policy of the government in respect of support for private
Science Policy
industry and for research and development has been, as the Minister of State for Science and Technology admitted, a failure. I would put it more strongly and say it has been a complete failure. It has been a failure because the government, as I said at the beginning, has no science policy and has not thought through what it hopes to do with regard to support for scientific research and development.
The government does not know what products it should try to develop. Therefore, it does not know what sort of research and development it should be funding and what kind of companies have a chance to market the products which might be developed. The government, therefore, does not know what skills it should try to establish and what skills should be taught at the manpower training centres. It does not know what kind of people it should be helping and supporting in their undergraduate studies at Canadian universities. The reason is very basic. The government has no industrial strategy. It has no strategy which will allow it to set research and development priorities over the next number of years. The government should try to sort out how it should fund its hit-and-miss research process which is funded now on an ad hoc basis. Such a strategy is difficult to construct, but this country will be in a great deal of economic and social trouble in the next few decades if we do not really think through what is needed in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are other members who wish to speak. Therefore, I thank hon. members for having permitted me to continue and assure them that I shall not abuse the privilege I have been given.
If the United States can successfully mine minerals on the ocean floor, as they have been discussing at the recent Law of the Sea conference, then much of the production and sale for export of minerals which have made this country so successful in recent years will be in not only a difficult but a crisis situation, because this will destroy to a large extent our present economic structure which is based on the export of raw and semi-processed materials mainly to the United States but to other countries such as Japan. If this should take place, we will have to pay for the importation of even more manufactured goods than we do at the present time. Where will we get the money required to pay for these things? In this country we need to develop a rational policy, a policy which covers the needs of our growing population, rather than the kind of hit-and-miss policy we have had.
We must have a policy which looks at the resources, the raw materials and the manpower we have. We must develop a program in which scientific research is an integral part, and we must use it to the best advantage. If we are to do that, we must start thinking about rationalizing our whole approach to production of goods, industry and scientific research. Without that, the debate we will have in 1977 will be even more dismal and will involve even more protest from the people in the scientific community, in the
13486

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
private sector, in government and in universities than what we have at the present time.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the tone that the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) injected at the beginning of his comments. Sometime in a motion of this nature we end up arguing and someone trips both of us. However, the member does show a sincere interest in the topic, and honestly seems prepared to make recommendations in which all of us might be interested. I hope, for my part, that I might be able to do the same.
The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth referred to the minister as being very low-profile. I think the minister would agree that probably the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth and myself have more weight, either separately or together. Perhaps that is not a profile. I also notice the hon. member mentioned something about there being something dishonest, basically, in the thought of dealing with industry, trade or finance as though the departments might not really be working with each other but moving in different directions. It seems to me that the minister has had pretty close consultation with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
We have heard talk of the possibility of there being a super-corporation probably to deal with the air-frame companies in Canada. If this were done, obviously one would presume there would be some research moves in the direction of inventory and manufacturing capabilities in this country today. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce probably has some close contact with science and technology in this regard.
At the finance end, I would presume the finance department has probably had more contact than anyone else, because although there was a reference to a cutback, I notice in the budget that, rather than being a cutback, there was a 13.6 per cent increase, and in respect of the average department we are dealing with a 13.5 per cent increase. So it appears that science and technology has been dealing with finance.
One of the great problems is the discussion of pure research versus the very practical technology industrial type of research. I must be fair about this. My main interest, being English, is that I speak somewhat as a layman. I leave the really serious scientific side to members who are highly qualified in this field, such as the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) and some members on the other side who I know have strong and good views on this subject. As I say, my main interest is English and I have received the odd gold medal for public speaking, but I would say that the best medal I have received, or the most important, would be the copper medal I received from a football team for common sense.
Perhaps there should be some common sense here, and maybe some ordinary souls should speak out. With a minister as interested and as diligent as the one we have, a minister with as broad a range of interests in science as he has, a minister with a profound interest in art, music and the writings of Khalil Gibran and others, and also a strong interest in science and technology as evidenced by his own
(Mr. Orlikow.]
capabilities and applauded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth, I think I can speak to him in a common sense way, and perhaps as a person I might say to him that I make a plea for pure research rather than continually developing the industrial and practical side. It may be that Franklin's wife said, "Hey, Ben, go fly a kite" and we got all these lights. Maybe it was not planned, and maybe he did not have the lab going at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I think we have to take note of the fact that we do not know if in some areas of research people are doing a study into the coefficient of the speed of skating in relation to the size of the blade and the size of the rink. This sounds like interesting research, but I assume that when the blades get big enough, they back up against the boards and you stop. I do not know why you should have to reearch that. When the blades get bigger, they slow you down. Other people might do research into basketball rebounding. It is very interesting to stand and throw a ball up and see in which direction it goes-but if you are not in the direction it went, there is not much point in throwing it up in the first place.
I must say that in my opinion the layman has something to say here, and since I have spent some time at universities and I have some friends whom I meet across the country, since I have met people in la belle province at the Universite de Montreal, since I graduated from McGill myself and have spent some time in the maritimes at Mount Allison and, of course, my close connections at McMaster and with the west through UBC and Alberta, this brings me in touch with many people who are concerned at this time.
I consider the motion before us today a very serious one. It deals with a specific area of government activity, but in a broader sense it reflects our total country today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak because it affords me the opportunity to respond to the remarks of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth. I have mentioned his name several times because I really believe he has set a tone which I hope will be maintained through the entire day when we will be putting forward some of our own ideas which we think are of benefit to all concerned.
I have met many great teachers, professors and researchers through these years and I have come to admire their dedication and skill. During the past several months I have met with many, both here in Ottawa, in other parts of the country and at McMaster in Hamilton. In our discussions I have been most impressed with their commitment to Canadian research and their concern for our research capabilities in the future.
At this time, the entire nation and every aspect of it is battling the war against inflation. The inflation rate in Canada has caused hardship on all sections of our society. Research is not exempted. Our dollar does not get us today what it did in the past. Our research dollar does not provide the same benefit today as it did yesterday. This [DOT] situation has unique effects on continuing research in Canada. Those who work in research may feel forced to leave Canadian centres to seek a better environment in which to work and live. Programs which have developed over the past years may suffer and never be completed

because of lack of continued funding. We may lose for years the one cure that we have worked for and to which we are so close.
I have another great fear. At our universities research plays a dual role. It provides for society today, and trains our scientists for tomorrow. A university teacher engaging in original research is able to bring to his teaching of undergraduate and graduate courses a first-hand excitement and freshness in presenting the latest in new scientific knowledge.
There are reasons why we are all concerned about the status of Canadian research. We are one of a few nations with a wealth of resources and a low population density. This will permit the creation of a future society, implementing western ideals and avoiding past errors. We can mould our future on the basis of national analysis and creative imagination. This potential, in itself, is a valued resource. This resource may suffer also. Mr. Speaker, the value of research is not only the good news it brings us, but also its ability to warn us of danger and prepare for these dangers. It is a cost we bear today for tomorrow. There are the concerns that have been presented to me by the research community in Canada. They are concerns for Canada today and for our future.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of the ill-effects of our restraint program on research in Canada. I have said this without embarrassment, for I know it was a difficult decision the government took-a decision they would rather have not taken. However, the seriousness of our present economic situation called for strong, firm leadership. The cutbacks demonstrated to all the government's ability to show leadership in difficult times. The word "cutback", do not forget, is not to be confused with the government actually going in and cutting back. The fact is that in these inflationary times the amount available, even with increases, means that those in charge within the research areas would have to make these decisions themselves. They have taken this responsibility and they have made the decisions, but still they indicate to us-and in some ways I hope they will win the battle-that more priority should be given to them and that, as we move toward the end of the control period, some day we should be planning now to give more priority to research than we have in the past so that we do not contribute to what might be called intellectual colonialism where we depend on research coming from elsewhere and holding us in its grasp. We may utilize those fine researchers who come and work in our communities and help develop our young students, but we must also utilize our own young students, doctors and researchers so that we do not become victims of intellectual colonialism.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) is well aware of what I have said. In October, 1975, the minister wrote a paper for Science Forum which indicated not only the government's commitment to the science policy in Canada but also a firm understanding of how the scientific community functioned, its problem and its need. I know the minister would welcome all hon. members' views and thoughts on this topic. I have every confidence that all recommendations would be considered with a fairness and freedom which we have come to expect from the minister.
Adjournment Motion
Canadian research has produced good things for Canada and the world. Our medical research has reduced suffering and death. Chemical and industrial research advances have put Canada in an enviable position. Our nuclear research and development is highly acclaimed throughout the world. On a more personal level and a more important one, our children do not die from diphtheria, our contemporaries can live satisfying lives with diabetes. There are many ways in which we benefit from past medical research. Does not our generation have an obligation to leave to our grandchildren the benefits of our contribution to the control of other as yet uncontrolled diseases?
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of the present hardships facing research in Canada today. I have spoken of the success we, as a nation, have seen in this important area. We should be equally disturbed and proud at this time. I have said that the minister would receive recommendations in good faith and with fairness. I believe that research can only thrive in a climate of continuity. We risk too much if funding is "stop and go". The scientific community seeks to moderate the size of the downswings in funding, and this preoccupies them to advocate forcefully a solution of continuity. We should structure our research activity in such a way that both politician and scientist can work with the economic resources available. We should consider the advantage of more effective and direct communication between scientist and government. Only in this way will the research community and government be able to better serve Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we in Canada have much to be concerned about. The government has shown leadership in its fight against inflation. We know the program is working. It is important, during this period, that we concern ourselves with the days ahead. I see a strong light at the end of the tunnel, and it gets brighter all the time. While they are hard time, they may also be the best times. The people I have spoken with on the matter of funding for research share this view. It is willingness to work together and to labour in Canada for the good of all Canadians. There is an appreciation of the current situation in our economy. There is a belief in the future, and a conviction that it will be better. We can, indeed, spend and study today to plan for tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Pensions-Denial of pensions to retired members of armed forces and RCMP until age 60-Government action to rectify; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Manpower-Measures to provide employment for students; the hon. member for

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Multiculturalism- Proposed appointment of minister.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kempling:
That this House recognizes the necessity of Canada enhancing its scientific and technological efforts for its long-term benefit, and condemns the government for its failure to develop a strong science policy and for not adopting measures that will increase research and development in both the industrial and academic communities.
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I might just comment on a couple of the items raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane). In his assessment of Canada's research, development, scientific and technological efforts, he sees a light at the end of the tunnel. I suggest to the hon. member that if he is going to be accurate in his assessment of our situation in Canada today, that is a headlight of a train coming the other way.
The hon. member made another interesting statement. He indicated that spending on research, development, science and technology by the government would be frozen until the end of the controls period. I hope that was an error in semantics, or an error in language, and not an error in fact with regard to an indication of the intent of the government, because the situation is far from being rosy and far from being a situation which is getting better daily, as might be indicated by the metaphor "the light at the end of the tunnel."
My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), who introduced this motion today, indicated that it was just about one year ago, on June 9, 1975, that I had the honour of introducing a motion on an allotted day dealing with the subject of the Liberal administration's science policy for Canada. That motion not only had the support of all opposition parties, but was also supported to a greater or lesser degree by a number of speakers from the other side of the House.
That day marked the first time in the history of this House of Commons that a full day was allotted to debating science and technology, and by and large the debate was erudite and of a high level. Several hon. members, albeit mainly from the opposition, spoke with supporting facts and figures about Canada's comparatively poor performance in this vital area. Hon. members from all parties, including the minister, acknowledged the importance of science and technology to Canada's and to the world's future. Yet comparing this administration's commitment to support science and technology for last year and this year, there is a deterioration: apparently this administration, when confronted with the issue of science and technology, is prepared to genuflect, but beyond that to do nothing

whatsoever to demonstrate a sincerity of belief in the importance of science and technology to Canada's future.
In this technological age it is fair to say that there are few, if any, aspects of our society which are not affected by science and technology. However, in the context of the issues facing Canada today there are a few areas which are affected more than others by science and technology, toward which a meaningful science policy must be specifically directed. One of the scars remaining on the Canadian economy as a result of the policies of the Trudeau administration is the seriously weakened secondary or manufacturing sector of the economy. To a large degree, industries within this sector can be termed high technology industries. This deterioration has certainly had a bad effect on our trade, but another effect has been to lower the rate of employment in these industries. The current unemployment rate is at a record level, 7.4 per cent, and is directly related to the lack of health and vitality in this very important, high technology sector of our economy-and this the Trudeau government refuses to acknowledge in any substantial way.
In addition to its effect on highly technological industries, science policy is absolutely essential to any positive program of Canadianizing our economy and reducing our dependency on foreign investment, because foreign investment and foreign technology go hand in hand. The issue may have dropped from the front pages, but there are still millions of Canadians who want to see this government take positive steps toward the goal of increasing the proportion of our economy which is owned by Canadians.
To a very large extent the quality and quantity of life of Canadians will depend upon how we utilize science and technology. To even the most myopic observer our scientific potential is nowhere near being matched by our performance. With positive programs and strong initiatives we can effect dramatic improvements in such areas as housing, education health care, food, production, and urban transportation. It is difficult to imagine any aspect of our Canadian economy which is not affected by science and technology, but the problems associated with the above four areas in particular, namely, secondary industries foreign investment, quality of life and the environment, can be cured through the implementation of a meaningful science policy. The present ad hoc approaches of this government are simply unsatisfactory.
The other day, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) introduced his follow-up or second green paper on energy and analysis of Canada's potential energy policies, he introduced a new term selfreliance, as opposed to self-sufficiency. It was introduced in a context which is desirable for Canada for self-sufficiency in energy. I would go so far as to say it is extremely desirable and necessary that as a national we be self-reliant and that we not rely on other nations for our welfare. It is only through self-reliance that we can have freedom of action to pursue goals which are meaningful to Canadians so that we can have the security which is so necessary for a good life. That is the only way in which we can pursue independent policies which will provide Canadians with the better life they deserve and can have.
However, in talking about self-reliance I think it is necessary to acknowledge that it would be foolhardy to

seek self-reliance and self-sufficiency in all things. Quite clearly, we will never be self-reliant in bananas or pineapples, but one can identify three very key elements of our society in which it is imperative that we be self-reliant if we are going to have true self-reliance as a nation. The first of those areas is, of course, energy. In the last three or four years we have had ample demonstrations of how precarious a nation's future is if it is not self-reliant in energy, and we in Canada have that potential. The second area is food. A country which consumes more food than it produces is in a very precarious position, and one in which we as a country need not be in. Indeed, we are not-and I trust and hope that the government recognizes this. The third leg of this stool which forms the foundation upon which a self-reliant nation can be built is the area of technology. The government apparently does not even recognize the necessity for self-reliance in technology, because if we must continue as we have in the past and as we are today increasingly relying on foreign technology, we will never be able to have the freedom of action to pursue Canadian policies and Canadian goals which we want and deserve.
Self-reliance is not synonymous with isolation or with putting up barriers. A nation can be self-reliant and maintain active trade with the rest of the world, as indeed Canada does; but in order to trade I think it has to be recognized just what commodities a country has to trade. I think this can be broken down into four basic commodities. A country can obviously trade in renewable produce, agricultural goods, wood and wood products or hydroelectricity if it is generated in that form. These products we have in relative abundance, and through them we achieve a favourable trade balance. These items are products from non-renewable resources such as iron, steel, oil, gas nickel and other minerals. Canada produces and exports these in great abundance. It is very much like a farmer who maintains a standard of living by selling off a piece of the farm every year. Eventually the farm is sold off and there is no capital left, so the farmer has no means of making a livelihood. We cannot continue, in perpetuity, to rely on the sale of non-renewable resources to finance our standard of living. We can sell a third commodity, as any nation can-the sweat of the brow of its people. The Canadian people would never tolerate the long working hours and low pay necessary to make us competitive with some third world nations whose main component in the manufacture of commodities is brawn.
This leaves only one alternative, and that is to sell the skill, talent and technology of Canadians. This comes in two parts, the buying and selling of talent and, more important, the sale of technology in the form of value added in the manufacture of high technology products. In this area our performance as a nation is nothing short of disastrous. I have before me the trade figures for the last 25 years, broken down by groups, from Statistics Canada. Until 1970 our trade imbalance in high technology was $2Vi billion. That was not good, but we produced more than enough primary products to pay for our negative balance in high technologies.
Since 1970, two years after the present government assumed office, there has been a steady, straight-line
Science Policy
deterioration in our trade performance in high technology. In 1975 our negative balance in high technology trade was $8,192 million, an astromonic and disastrous figure. If this straight line continues, the nation will soon be bankrupt. We will have to resort to the draconian measures that Great Britain resorted used. There is precious little evidence that the government recognizes the severity of these figures. They certainly do not show that they recognize it by offering tangible programs and policies.
How is all this related to research and development? Coincidentally-possibly coincidentally, although I do not think so-we examine the figures which relate to gross expenditure on research and development as a percentage of the gross national product, and we see that the peak was in 1969. For years prior to this our research and development efforts were increasing as a percentage of the gross national product. In 1969 they represented 1.33 per cent of the gross national product. That is half of what the United States spends on research and development, Mr. Speaker, and it was the second lowest figure amongst industrialized nations in the western world. Since then there has been a steady deterioration closely paralleling the deterioration in our trade balance in high technology goods. In the latest figures I have, for 1974, .84 per cent of the gross national product was spent on research and development-one-third of what is spent by the United States, and that compares badly with industrialized western nations.
It is absurd for hon. members opposite to claim that we have a great minister who knows how important this is and who is working hard on behalf of science and technology in Canada. We have not seen that demonstrated. The minister may have had a fine record in the past, but his recent record is abysmal. This disastrous trend has to be reversed, Mr. Speaker, but the options are limited. We can resort to such draconian measures as Great Britain took, and devalue our dollar, impose high tariffs, put on exchange controls and all those things that are predicted by the pessimists. Already capital is leaving the country in anticipation of such measures because people see that evidently the government has no other programs to offer.


Charles L. Caccia: Could you name them?


Harvie Andre: I could, but I will not. If the hon. member does not know about them, that is the typical myopia of members on the other side. They should read the newspapers. Our second alternative is to buy the technology needed in order to compete in the world. But that is self-defeating. A high percentage of our economy is already foreign-owned. Foreign technology does not come without foreign ownership; they go hand in hand. Xerox, Kodak and Polaroid have technology-but no amount of money could buy it. They can all set up branch plants in this country, but of course that does not cure our trade problems. The third and only reasonable alternative is to develop our own technology. Unfortunately, this government has not demonstrated any appreciation of this option.
In my opening remarks I noted that this is the second time that science and technology has been debated in this House-both times, I might note for the record, at the initiative of this party, and that says something about the priority given the matter by the government. In another sense, it has to be recognized that the House of Commons

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
is not the only forum for such a discussion. The question of science policy has been discussed widely outside this House. For example, the Senate Committee on Science Policy, the Lamontagne committee, has been studying Canada's science policy since 1965. It has produced three reports containing a multiplicity of excellent recommendations which have not been implemented. The committee is now hearing witnesses and trying to draw to the attention of the government the disastrous path that has been followed.
The Science Council of Canada, funded by the federal government for the purpose of examining science policy, has been in operation a number of years and has produced excellent reports and materials. The minister, who I guess devotes three or four hours a week to the department, has no time to read the reports. Evidently he has not been briefed by anybody who reads them. There is not one iota of evidence to show that the government has paid the slightest attention to what that scientific group has been saying. Scie-Tech, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and a multiplicity of technical organizations across the country, have all commented extensively and contributed valuable studies and data on the subject. But judging from how the government has responded-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member, whose allotted time has expired. The hon. member may not carry on without the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give its unanimous consent for the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will not prevail on the House much longer. I was of the opinion that our speeches were to be limited to half an hour, not 20 minutes. I will summarize by saying that the Science Council recently submitted a brief to the Special Committee of the Senate on Science Policy indicating the six areas in which in the 1960s our scientific and technological posture was seriously weak. Evidence accompanied the material; it is available to the minister and anybody else interested. It shows that in each of these areas the situation remains precarious and difficult.
In summary, let me spell out quickly the things the government ought to do. Regulation 12 of the Anti-Inflation Board should, as the hon. member for Halton-Went-worth suggested, be changed. That would cost the taxpayer nothing and could stimulate research and development.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I agree.


Harvie Andre: The government could institute positive research and development incentives, because the amount of industrial research and development undertaken in this country is steadily decreasing. There must be more direct government spending in this area. As the previous speaker, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth indicated, in the present period of restraints the government, unfortunately, can do nothing. But it has decreased spending on research and development since 1970. In periods when government spending rose 28 per cent, 32 per cent and 29 per cent

respectively, spending on research and development went down. Therefore, no person opposite can claim that research spending decreased this year owing to constraints of the restraint program. That, Mr. Speaker, has been this government's posture virtually since it took office. I am convinced that not until this government is turfed out will there be any change in this policy.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, I have some bad news, some good news, and some more bad news. First, I thank the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) for bringing this issue to the fore in the House today. It is an important issue and deserves more attention. I support the hon. member's suggestion regarding the creation of a standing committee of the House of Commons on science and technology.
Now I come to the bad news. I feel that Treasury Board must be condemned for its policy of freezing university and government research budgets, and I include the budgets of the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Science Research Council. This policy has done much damage and is doing much damage. It will be hard to tell how much damage this policy will ultimately do. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) said he thought the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) had said that this was to be an ongoing freeze. With respect, that is not how I understood the comments of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. I understand it is to be a one-year freeze. At any rate, that is what I understood the hon. member to say. Even so, a one-year freeze is not satisfactory.
Mr. Speaker, our present standard of living is the direct result of the harnessing of science, engineering and technology. This will be true to an even greater extent in future. It is very shortsighted indeed to tinker with our standard of living, which is exactly what the freeze is doing. So far as I can see, this dastardly policy has brought only one benefit. It has aroused the scientific community as it has never before been aroused-and it is about time, too. It is about time the scientific community realized that it, like others in the economy, must explain and justify how they spend the taxpayers' dollars. I urge people in the scientific community to organize, to join organizations like SCITEC where they can make their case known. Let them advise their members of parliament so that we can, within this political process, be informed of the problems of the scientific community. In this way we can also inform them of the realities of politics.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Great stuff.


Walter David Baker: Well said.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: I feel that Treasury Board has made a mistake. But then, any government, or any person cannot avoid, if action is to be taken, the making of mistakes. Only if you do nothing can you guarantee that no mistakes will be made. The great thing is to minimize your mistakes and to learn from the mistakes you make.
I say that the government is to be commended for establishing the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. In 1971 the government considered a new concept, a difficult concept which had never been put into practice. The ministry was set up, action was taken and mistakes were
May 13, 1976

made. But the government learned from those mistakes. Last summer, three years after being established, the new minister, having been installed in office in 1974 and having learned about the department's problems, action was taken and the department was reorganized. What has emerged is a completely new organization-and new faces with it. You will now see new faces in the entire top structure of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. In the last nine months the ministry has accomplished more than most departments accomplish in decades.
Initially, MOSST made the mistake of adopting too high a profile. This created difficulties and made it difficult for the department to accomplish what it deemed was necessary. The department was ineffective. That, primarily, is why the reorganized department has adopted a low profile. It wants to be effective, and it is now doing its work without making a lot of noise about it. People who do not understand the department have criticized it for adopting a low profile. But people in the scientific community and those closely associated with the department know why this must be so and give the department full credit for what it is doing.
In this connection, may I quote from issue No. 8 of the proceedings of the Special Committee of the Senate on Science Policy, commonly known as the Lamontagne committee. On Wednesday, March 31, 1976, Mr. John Shepherd, executive director of the Science Council, that advisory body to the government, said, as reported on page 8:15 of the Minutes of Proceedings of that committee:
At a very practical level MOSST is performing exceedingly well now as compared to the way it performed two or three years ago. It is struggling manfully to make the contracting out policy work, for example; it has established very effective relations with many mission departments: it is being extremely co-operative in science policy problems such as the transfer of technology from government laboratories to industry; and there is every indication that at that level of practical, low profile co-operation, MOSST is indeed performing very much better than it has hitherto.
The brief of the Science Council is printed as an appendix to that same issue of the committee proceedings. Paragraph 55 of the brief states:
As an agency of the federal government, MOSST needs to respond to immediate problems and thus is oriented to short and medium-term issues. In addressing these problems, its role is to exercise influence rather than to wield power. In the vernacular, MOSST must have a low but distinctive profile.
Because it is a low profile department does not mean that action has not been taken. The people responsible for this action have been very effective. What has been this reorganization? We have a new secretary who was a deputy minister in the Department of National Health and Welfare. He brings with him the knowledge of the organization of government. Being a deputy minister, he knows how it works. Under the deputy minister we have three assistant secretaries covering government, industry and university. The man heading the government branch is a government man with 20 years experience dealing with different departments of government. He is very smooth, diplomatic and effective. In nine months he has accomplished a tremendous amount in getting that department working smoothly and co-operating with other departments of government with which it has to deal. The uni-
Science Policy
versity branch has as its head an ex-vice-prefeident of the University of Quebec at Three Rivers. She is a very efficient, effective woman, who is extremely well qualified and knows the university sector. I only hope the civil service does not grind down the efficiency which she has displayed to date.
The other sector-the most important one in so far as our economy is concerned-is the industry branch. The industry branch has been doing exactly the things in the last six to nine months that I have been advocating, and that is the primary reason I am in this House today-my concern with science in industry. It is almost an extension of Treasury Board, and as such has been extremely influential in the science policy that has been implemented in so far as the funding of science as every budget has to go through Treasury Board.
In the industry branch there are three primary areas it has been working on that are of extreme importance to this country. Make or buy, a policy whereby we are trying to transfer more technology to Canadian industry had been working very successfully with the assistant secretary of the industry branch when he was in the Department of Supply and Services, the most effective and effecient branch of government I have heard of. They were able, within two or three months from receipt of an application, to have a signed contract out to the applicant. With most departments of government I cannot even get a reply to a letter within two or three months, let alone a signed contract from initial contact. That policy has been in effect for a short period of time, since the first minister introduced it. It is now being re-evaluated to see if it can be improved in any way. It has been successful; they are trying to make it more successful.
The second, very important area has been government-incentive programs. Some have worked, some have passed their usefulness and others need a revamping because they have not accomplished all the objectives. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce contracted with Mr. Gordon Sharwood to look at this and make recommendations. He worked in consultation with Dr. Peter Mayboom of MOSST. They made their report at the end of January, and it was submitted to cabinet. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) reported to the Lamontagne committee yesterday that he had been briefed by Mr. Sharwood and that recommendations would be forthcoming within the next month or so. Hopefully, the whole document will be published and released to the public. This is an extremely important area, how to tackle the increased research and development needed in industry.
The third area the industry branch worked on, which is also extremely important in the Canadian environment, is the Grasley report on innovation, "The Availability of Risk Capital for Technological Innovation and Invention in Canada." Robert Grasley is a consultant who has been hired by MOSST for this report. The report has been submitted and is currently being evaluated as to how to implement its recommendations.
An extremely important factor for science in Canada in industry is how to encourage the entrepreneur. How do we harness his talents to benefit the Canadian economy? The government is beginning to understand the importance of

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
research and development and how it solves our problems. I quote the recent announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) about increasing funds for research and development. In a period of restraint, when moneys are not available, $9.7 million has recently been added.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis William (Frank) Maine: All members should support that increase. This brings us to the point of what are the justifiable cases which will help solve the problems of Canadians. Where can we see the results of how money spent will benefit Canadians. Increased moneys can be obtained. This is a message to the science community, as well as the government, on how to increase the funding for science and technology in this country.
There is one area of importance that has not been tackled. Science and technology not only have to be harnessed, but controlled. It is this area of control that the government has not tackled. That is a shame. I urge them to get involved in this area post haste. The problem of the multinationals is very severe. I would like to go into detail on a current problem, one that occurred last month with regard to the RCA labs in Montreal. Radio Corporation of America decided to reorganize its company. They rationalized the North American market, that is, Canada and the United States, and made regions within that area responsible to New York. Canada is just another region of the United States in so far as RCA is concerned. As such, they do not need research labs in Montreal: they have centralized all research labs in the New York area.
I say to the minister and the government that that is not acceptable. In so far as the Canadian people are concerned, it is irresponsible. It shows a lack of sensitivity for those who work there. It involves Canadian priorities, Canadian jobs and Canadian contributions. This complete lack of responsibility by RCA should not go unchallenged. The government has to stand up, take notice and do something about this. We cannot carry on this way even though it is a branch plant of the United States. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would say, we will be milking in a rear position on the cow's udder.
There is one other area which is totally unacceptable. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth said, and the hon. member for Calgary Centre added, the Anti-Inflation Board's recent guidelines classified research and development expenditures with charity and donations. Research and development is not a charity; it is a necessary part of Canadian life. Our standard of living today is a direct result of harnessing our science and technology. It will be more so in the future.
If you enjoy your standard of living and you want to enjoy it more, you had better not cut off our funding. To treat it as a charity, or an area where we should not increase our spending, is absolutely ridiculous. I appreciate the necessity of the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines to get across the message of restraint in this country. We have to beat inflation. However, you do not cut off your right hand in doing it when it will provide our future. Research and development, science, engineering and technology-that is our future. You do not cut down on the donations to
increase science and technology. You do not cut down on science and technology to increase your donations.
I would like to finish off with one positive note. I have hope. What I have seen in the past nine months in MOSST gives me hope. Something can be done and is being done. I only hope the importance of these other areas is recognized by the government, and I hope, also, that the same energy will be used in dealing with them as was used in turning around the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and making it an effective department.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate. May I say at the outset that I certainly agree with the first part of the observations made by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine). However, I take exception to his description of the Ministry of Science and Technology, and I plan to develop this theme later.
Members who have followed the debate and who have listened to the speeches by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and my hon. friend from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), will recognize that there is a great deal of diversity of scientific endeavour which touches on the lives of all Canadians. I want to focus on two important points. I want to reassess the Ministry of Science and Technology, to take, as it were, an overview. Then I wish to turn to an area which I believe holds out a great challenge, one to which the government has not addressed itself: it is the development of institutions capable of handling the explosion of knowledge we have witnessed in recent years.
Before going further, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth for introducing this motion, one which clearly reflects the government's disregard for the importance of science and its inability to establish a science policy for Canada. After four years of existence, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is on the verge of collapse and its operations during that period can best be described as ineffectual and powerless. When the ministry was first established it was formulated, one might say, with sex appeal and presented as the government's response to the need for providing better scientific and technical advice to various government departments. This exercise was doomed to failure for three reasons. First, with its limited budget it was obvious the ministry would be unable to generate the expertise necessary if it were to develop a forceful voice for science in government circles. Second, in keeping with Parkinson's law, it was inconceivable that a fledgling ministry could have any significant impact on well-entrenched departments with extensive in-house research expertise available to them. Third, the ministry's mandate was doomed to failure from the outset because it lacked authority for action.
In response to the inevitable failure of the program, the government introduced its new science policy for Canada during the Speech from the Throne in 1974. A kit was circulated providing background information which was interpreted by many as the forerunner of the establishment of a super-ministry. In commenting on the National

May 13, 1976

Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Canada Council, the document stated:
Generally the councils have been successful in achieving their major objectives. However, the disciplinary approach to financial assistance has not produced sufficient balance among the various research disciplines. Further, the increasing importance of interdisciplinary research demand financial assistance to this field of endeavour.
There is still a need for financial assistance programs on a disciplinary basis. At the same time there is a growing and increasingly urgent need for a stronger co-ordination of the granting councils to assure support of a balanced development of knowledge and research capability.
The science policy enunciated in the Speech from the Throne and accompanying documents envisaged substantial changes which would have far-reaching effects on public policy. The scope and authority of the ministry were to be broadened and strengthened to such an extent as to give it the potential for affecting virtually every scientific endeavour carried out in Canada. The changes proposed were to involve not only government structures but future policy orientation and development. Thousands of the most able and highly qualified people in the country, together with teaching and research institutions across Canada, would be directly affected. With hundreds of millions of dollars at the department's disposal every year, the total spectrum of research and development would be directly related to government priority and national goals. What happened to these grandiose ideas? The minister disappeared. The promises contained in the Speech from the Throne vanished, and the responsibilities of the important portfolio concerned have been relegated to the Minister of Public Works.
The final chapter in the demise of the ministry was written when the present minister announced, in September of last year, that the existing policy would be scrapped and replaced by three branches with responsibility for science policy in the government, university and industrial sectors respectively. As if this were not a sufficient indication of the low priority attached by the government to the development of a science policy, he also stated that a corporate services branch would take over responsibility for the administration of the ministry.
We have now come full circle. Having begun with the expectation that the government would show genuine concern about developing a science policy, we have reached the present position in which we find a minister without authority, without a policy and-what is even worse- without any apparent interest in shaping future government policy in this field.
My own views of the importance of research and development are well known. Work in this field has been a major source of economic growth; it has been responsible particularly for the creation of new industries in the areas of electronics, chemicals and computer technology. The search for improvements in productivity has made it possible to expand output while lowering costs.
It is not my intention this afternoon to attempt to cover the broad spectrum of science programs, neither do I wish to go into detail respecting the low priority the government has attached to science in Canada. To place the subject in perspective, a brief comment on the Medical Research Council will serve to illustrate what has been the experience in other areas of scientific endeavour. In the
Science Policy
relatively short span of eight years, the prestigious Medical Research Council has seen its confidence in the future replaced by financial crisis. Funds for medical research have not kept pace with the demands of society or with the expectations of the research community. In terms of constant dollar value, funding has declined. Increased difficulties have arisen in deciding on which discipline or project money should be spent. Increased difficulties have been encountered in attracting and retaining highly qualified people. There is a growing feeling that the quality of research staff and the significance of their work is not recognized by policy-makers responsible for funding research.
The resulting atmosphere of stagnation has created new phenomena, alien to many in the academic and research community, which will inevitably have an adverse effect on the quality of health care. I find it incomprehensible that the federal government should budget such an infinitesimal sum of money for research into health and welfare, such an important cornerstone of our national health system. For reasons which have never been explained, or perhaps even comprehended, those responsible on the benches opposite have refused to accept the principle that medical research, medical education and the quality of health care are inseparably linked.
In the few remaining minutes I have I wish to comment briefly on the urgent need and, indeed, the challenge confronting the federal government to develop the political capacity and understanding to respond in a very positive way to developments in the scientific community.
Perhaps the most important challenge of our generation has been the immensity of the technological revolution and our inability to develop political institutions and the intellectual capacity to deal effectively with these changes.
We have to recognize there are many thoughtful people, including those in various scientific disciplines, as well as consumers, who are asking the basic question if this technological revolution is producing dehumanization. I do not pretend to have the complete answer to that question, but I believe in part it is related to the difficulties we are experiencing in defining humanism in terms that are universally acceptable and, secondly, the infinitely difficult task of defining the technological revolution in terms that Canadians understand and in a context that will eliminate fear and assure the security and peace of mind Canadians are seeking.
The technological revolution has been characterized by an explosion of knowledge that is advancing at a pace faster than politicians understand, or at least admit that they understand, and what is readily apparent is that the pace of this advance is accelerating year by year. I have no doubt that by the end of this century man will learn more about himself and his environment than he has learned in all the history of recorded time, and yet despite this obvious fact the government has ignored this particular challenge and has remained mute.
Scientific progress and knowledge have produced and will continue to produce a total change in man's economic, social, and moral environment, yet the government has

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
developed Minamata vision and fails to act in response to this challenge.
The danger of this change is not the burden or responsibility of the scientific community, but rather the danger is that we have not seen a corresponding change in our political institutions to deal with this knowledge which may be decisive as to whether the course of change will be for good or for evil. For example, the development of the atomic bomb has created a fundamental change in all our thinking regarding relationships with other nations.
We see a growing concern in the world community regarding the risks of nuclear warfare, yet despite our fears there has been a proliferation in the number of nuclear weapons and a failure of our political institutions to reverse this trend, and an absence of universal moral persuasion to force our politicians to eliminate there weapons. Canada as an intermediary power with the technological know-how should be a leading moral voice in attempting to resolve this issue. Our record, which has been debated very many times in this House of Commons, gives evidence to the contrary.
The disparity between the developed and non-developed nations is a well recognized problem, yet despite malnutrition and starvation of over one billion people our efforts to eliminate these social injustices have been primarily limited to phrases like "the new economic order", etc., which I can assure you do not fill empty stomachs.
Computer technology has unquestionably added to the affluence of our society. However, its infringement on the privacy of individuals has not evoked an adequate response from the political institutions and we have not developed the intellectual perception to measure its future impact.
Medicine has not escaped the technological revolution. In many respects the technological explosion in health services has been far greater than that experienced in other disciplines and, not unexpectedly, has been accompanied by political and moral questions that remain unanswered.
We have seen substantial development of scientific methods capable of shaping the political values of individuals, or what is sometimes commonly referred to as brainwashing. These measures, both physical and psychological, will undoubtedly be developed and refined in future years.
More profound is the likely development of the science of adapting the human personality by chemical and surgical means. It is presently an established fact that certain personality defects can be eliminated by such methods. The consequences of these developments are profound, yet I see little thought given to such matters by governments or, indeed, by those governed. The rapid evolution of the science of genetics poses serious political and moral issues which remain unanswered.
If these examples seem somewhat futuristic, let me assure you they are not. I think all I need do today is mention such topics as organ transplants, artificial insemination, lifesaving systems, euthanasia or abortion, and I am sure I could elicit an immediate response and obviously an immediate debate.

We must recognize that advance in knowledge cannot be suppressed, and yet this is precisely the impression the government is conveying to the scientific community and the public by failing to respond to the aspirations of the scientists on the one hand, and failing to develop the institutions to deal with this knowledge on the other hand. I want to remind all hon. members in this House that in the past when suppressive tactics have been utilized or attempted to be employed, such action has invariably failed.
Demand for knowledge is as much a part of man's nature as is this spirit for adventure. What is needed is derection and purpose, and these will only emanate when we exert an equally profound effort to advance our knowledge and develop our political institutions in concert with scientific advancement. This is the government's challenge if we are to develop a meaningful science policy for Canada. In my opinion the government has failed in that challenge.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question in the motion before us deals with two primary points, industrial research and development, and academic research. Members who preceded me have talked of both of these areas and I think those who will follow will do the same, dealing I hope more specifically with the academic side, which I do not propose to deal with in a substantial way in my speech.
The first point I should like to make is a more general one in connection with the problem governments have with priorities; that is, where they are going to spend their money.
Quite obviously it seems to me, from my experience here in the House of Commons since 1968, the opposition-in fact I think all politicians at every level-spend very much of their time paying lip service to the need for governments to spend less money. They do this on every occasion, yet when you look at this in hard cold terms here in the House of Commons it is quite evident that the same people, in practically every area, are trying constantly to get the government to spend more and more money. I do not think they can have it both ways.
It is unfortunate the public do not really see us as we really are. They hear the statements we make on television blasting the government for high expenditures. They hear such statements directly in their communities, but they do not see the reality here in the House of Commons where those same people are talking out of a different side of their mouths compared with what they say to the public. It is very important that the public begin to realize that they cannot have it both ways either.
In terms of research and development there is no question but that it is very important. However, so is every other area of government activity. I do not think there is any doubt that we ought to look after our senior citizens, that we ought to look after those who are sick and in hospitals, that we have to look after our veterans, as well as problems in respect of industrial and academic research. We have to do all these things. It is not very fair or very constructive to turn around and zero in on one narrow area in one particular debate, pointing out that we should be spending more money, without at the same time telling us

;

May 13, 1976

where we should be spending less in order to get additional funds to put into that particular area of activity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The next point I wish to discuss is in line with industrial research and development, an area in which I have taken a great interest since being elected to parliament. In my riding I have conducted a series of seminars' at which I bring representatives of the government from Industry, Trade and Commerce, Statistics Canada, and other branches dealing with the business community, to meet the people of my riding in order to acquaint them with what I call the other side of the coin. People often say that the government has a negative influence on our lives. They know that the government takes tax money out of their pockets but few, especially small businessmen realize that the government has a very positive effect on their lives and has something to offer and contribute in respect of the advancement of their development in their particular areas of activity. When one looks at what has been done, for instance in the area of research and development, by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have a little order. There seems to be a battle going on here and I would appreciate having the opportunity to speak.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, may I say that although I do not happen to agree with what the hon. member has been saying I have attempted to listen to his speech and give it the credit it deserves because of the work I know he has done on it. I apologize to him for what has occurred. We have attempted to listen to his speech, and I hope he will be permitted to carry on.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I must admit I have always found him to be a very attentive member of this House, particularly when I am speaking. I do not know whether it is because he wishes to attack me later on or whether he agrees with what I say. However, I have no complaint and I appreciate the comments he makes.
I was talking about the work done by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in connection with research and development. There is no doubt that no other department, in a government of whatever political party, deserves more credit than the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is one of the best departments in government in attempting to deal effectively with the business community. When I say this I do not mean to imply that I agree with everything done by this department, but by and large its programs are well conceived, well implemented, and have accomplished great things, I think, for the advancement of industry and industrial development in this country.
I might mention the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act and the program which flows from that act in which the government becomes involved in expanding scientific research and development which might be of significant benefit to Canada, if successful. This particular program involves itself with the private
Science Policy
sector in a very significant way. In the past five years over $150 million has been expended by the Government of Canada directly in respect of the private sector in order to assist it in this area of activity so that it might expand its industrial research and development to create job opportunities, advancements in our economy, and thus help the private sector as well. I think that program has been quite successful.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has the PAIT program, the program for the advancement of industrial technology. This is designed to assist Canadian industry develop new or improved products, processes or services, which incorporate an advancement in technology and offer good prospects for commercial exploitation. This program is being used very widely by the industrial sector in Canada. Over $135 million has been expended in this area in the last five years. These are both good programs.
I think one of the unfortunate things in respect of both these programs and other programs the department has is that very often the small business community does not have the expertise to go after these programs, to make out the applications, and pursue them sometimes at considerable cost. Too much of these benefits is left with the large industrial organizations. That is a problem which I believe the government recognizes. I certainly do. It is an area of activity in which we as individual members of parliament can become quite involved in order to bring these programs to the attention of small businessmen so that they can take advantage of them. I know that as a result of initiative taken in my area, in co-operation with the federal government, we have managed to bring that lesson down to the small business sector. This has been quite effective with people who normally would not have used these programs.
There is also the program called the Defence Industry Productivity Program which is designed to assist Canadian industry in developing and sustaining its technological capability to supply defence requirements on a competitive basis under the Canada-U.S. defence products sharing program. This program too has been very widely used. In that area we have contributed to the private sector in excess of $240 million in the past five years. These programs under Industry, Trade and Commerce, and many others which I do not need to outline today, are an indication of the importance the government attaches to industrial research and development.
My rough estimate would indicate that the amount of money we have spent in the private sector, or which we are proposing to spend in the private sector, in the 1975-76 fiscal year in this area alone is nearly $300 million. We also spend, in terms of research and development work, about $950 million on in-house laboratory work related to scientific activity through the National Research Council, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and others. This is a large amount of money to be spent on research and development. I am pleased that we are spending that amount.
I will say, however, I am a little disappointed that we have not moved more quickly in the area of transferring amounts of money from in-house research and development into the private sector directly. The policy has been laid down by the former minister of industry, trade and

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
commerce that this is the general approach and direction of the government in the future. I know that the wheels of government move slowly, but I would hope the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) would follow the example established by his predecessor and move quickly to move this kind of research back to the private sector, where I think it can be done more effectively and efficiently. There might be more benefit in the private sector than we would perhaps generate by doing it in-house.
In addition to this, there is a fair amount of money, I think about $200 million, spent on university grants and scholarships in the non-profit sector for research and development. All in all the contribution of the government on an annual basis of about $l'/2 billion toward research and development is a large amount of money in anyone's language. I think it could be argued that the amount should be greater, but I think there are just as many arguments that it should be less in a time of restraint. These are value judgments all of us have to make as individual members of parliament concerning where the priority should be.
I am relatively satisfied that the priority given to research and development has been reasonable in a time of restraint. If we spend a lot more money there might be significant benefits from it. But like all research, of course no one knows what the pay-off is until after the money is spent. That is the very nature of research work. There is never any certainty even whether there will be a pay-off. To put more than $1.5 billion into that area at this time with the risks that are involved seems to me perhaps to be going too far.
In addition to the money that is spent by the government itself, in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion, there is a large amount of money spent by the private sector. It is estimated that in 1975 in excess of $700 million was spent on research in the private sector by the industrial community. You might wonder why I would bring this up when we are really debating the amounts of money contributed by the government itself. I do so because there are special arrangements under the Income Tax Act for fast write-offs in connection with money spent on research and development, which amount to about a 40 per cent contribution, which means that of that $706 million spent in the private sector alone the government is contributing in excess of $300 million in special tax write-offs in order to allow it to do that kind of work.
There is a lot of money being spent on research and development, but there is obviously room for spending a lot more. I think that when our economy is in a condition where we can allow an increase in government expenditures, some consideration should be given to accelerating the expenditures in this area of activity, but at present I am totally satisfied that the amount we are spending, particularly in the industrial sector, which I have talked about most in my few remarks today, is a reasonable amount.
Perhaps in some way we could get more benefit without spending more money, but I would simply make one point to the government for consideration. A large section of our research funds is provided by way of grants, some of which 
range up to 90 per cent of the cost of a research project, and some go down as low as 25 per cent. I think there would be some merit if the government were to consider giving less in grants in certain specialized areas, where it ends up giving low interest loans to many corporations which wish to get involved in research and development and which are quite confident they will have an economic pay-off in the immediate future, and cease to put money out with no expectation of return. I hope that the government, particularly the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will give some consideration to adopting such an approach.
I have spoken to many large and small businessmen who praise these programs quite highly, but at the same time many of them say that what they are really looking for is access to funds. They say they cannot get funds at a reasonable cost in order to make high risk investments in research and development.


Walter David Baker: That is borrowed money.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, borrowed money. Although they like these programs-and I cannot see any reason why they would not if they can get a pile of money for development and not have to pay it back-many of them would rather have access to more money and have to pay it all back than get less money under the present circumstances and not have to pay it back. I think that we might be able to get a bigger benefit from our dollar in terms of research and development in the industrial area if we were to consider financing these projects on a repayable basis, at low interest rates. Clearly I am not trying to wipe out all the forgivable loan features in our programs. Some of them are in high risk areas, are highly desirable, and produce tremendous results. But I think we should take another look at all these programs to see if there is not a way in which we can assist our industries in a more significant way without having to allocate more resources in the process.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, since it is nearly six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock now and begin my remarks after the supper recess?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion introduced by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), for one area of government failure has been in its allocation of funds for fisheries research.
May 13, 1976

When the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on March 30 he stated that the estimated cost of carrying out the fisheries and marine program of the government amounted to slightly over $261 million of which some $155 million would be used for operating expenditures, while just over $113 million would be devoted to fisheries management and research and while some $42 million would be allocated to support activities related to ocean and aquatic sciences. On the surface this would appear to be an aggressive program. To someone looking at it for the first time it looks quite large. It is not unlike looking at an iceberg which looms large at first glance, until it is realized that nine tenths of its size are beneath the surface. The amount made available by the government for the fishing industry is readily comparable to an iceberg, for the basic needs of nine tenths of this important industry are, unfortunately, being ignored by this government.
I say this because the fishing industry is one of Canada's most important assets. It is vital to the livelihood not only of the residents of Atlantic Canada, not only of the residents of central and western Canada, but also to the livelihood of many people residing up and down the entire length of the Pacific coast.
The commercial landed value of the 1974 fisheries harvest, for example, was estimated to be close to $500 million and, of course, the resale value of this resource was much greater than that figure. Canada needs a viable, vibrant, strong and healthy fishing industry because it is the fisheries which provide employment opportunities in many areas of Canada where there are no alternative employment opportunities. In order to bring this about, constant, and I realize, expensive ongoing research is not only necessary, but I say mandatory. Unfortunately this government has not seen fit to maintain and staff an adequate research department, and this is reflected in the decline of our fisheries and those employed by the industry in all areas of Canada.
When I look at the Blue Book of estimates for this year, I cannot help but question the spending priorities of this government. I cannot help but ask how it is more important to be entertained than it is to be fed and to be employed. The minister mentioned, for example, that of $261 million for the government's fishing and marine program, $42 million was to go toward ocean and aquatic sciences. This is little more than half the amount made available to the CBC this year, which spends all it takes in from any particular area and which still requires a handout from the public purse in the amount of $416 million. This is some $63 million more than it required just a year ago. Yet the quality of CBC productions and, I might add, the record of service of its employees, seem to deteriorate in direct relation to its increased budget.
When I state my views concerning the lack of research funds for the fishing industry I am not alone in this stand. The Fisheries Research Bureau complained in its report of February, 1976, that the research planning, programming, and funding procedures with respect of Canada's fisheries resources are in a state of chaos. In fact out of a total
Science Policy
budget of $261 million the Fisheries Department has allocated only pennies to its research program.
Salvation for the fishing industry could well come in the form of a 200 mile limit. The government has stated that such a limit is mandatory for the good health of our fisheries, yet this self-same government has delayed and is continuing to delay putting this 200 mile limit into effect. Canada needs this limit, and needs it now. We need the research to manage intelligently the harvest of fish within the limit as well as to extract the possible oil, gas and minerals which may exist on the continental shelf.
Canada once had a national research institution, the Fisheries Research Board, with a network of laboratories, and granting functions. This has recently been taken apart, however, and the pieces have not yet been put together in an alternative, viable structure.
A number of senior scientists have retired, and a university grant program has been transformed into a process in which university scientists are expected to serve as junior assistants to younger scientists in the federal field. As a result, at a time when Canada needs effective scientific studies on fisheries resources, the industry finds itself without an appropriate institutional structure to stimulate, guide, and achieve scientific success.
As well as the problems raised by insufficient research there are certain problems with the research that does exist. I believe that too much of our fisheries research effort is being diverted to manipulate coarse data into simple models with little objective reliability. For many stocks, herring, for example, maps of various stages of their life history are totally inadequate. Monitoring is in a difficult state in that the accuracy of statistics and landings for all countries is suspect; data on area of capture may well be falsified; technical samplings for sizes and ages both landed and caught are inadequate, and sizes and kinds of fish being discarded are unreported.
I have a letter dated March 11, 1976, from Professor K. H. Mann, chairman of the Department of Biology at Dalhousie University, regarding Canada's research effort. He states:
I wish to draw your attention to the steady erosion of support for research in the universities through the National Research Council. During 1969-75 NRC funds increased, on average, less than 2 per cent per annum, and our present research grants are now worth, in real buying power, 41 per cent less than in 1969. Since most basic research is done in universities, this means a serious cutback in fundamental studies of problems of importance to Canada. We cannot argue that Canada can apply to its own problems the basic research done elsewhere. My own research is an example. We are studying the fundamental problems of the ecology of lobsters. This work is not being done anywhere else in the world. Lobsters do not occur on the Pacific coast, nor in waters south of New York. Hence there are very few first class laboratories with facilities to study the problems of the lobster fishery. We are told that provision has been made for the government to award contracts through the Department of the Environment, but in 1974-75 there were no contracts in biology which were on topics suggested by the university professors. This was in a year when the government spent $110 millions on intradepartmental research on biological and medical topics, and $6 million on research contracts.
I find this position most alarming, and trust that you will share my concern and take appropriate action.
We certainly share his concern, for lobsters are among the largest dollar earners in Atlantic Canada. From the efforts of the Minister of State (Fisheries) to curtail the catch, we know there is considerable concern over the decline in stocks.

Science Policy
Certainly we know quite a bit about the lobster and its growth. One of the difficulties about raising it in captivity is its cannablistic tendencies. Come scientists have discovered, however, that by putting each lobster in a separate compartment and feeding it, it is possible to raise it from the larvae stage to a saleable age of four or five years. I hope the minister will seriously reconsider the amount of funds available for the development and improvement of our lobster stocks which provide so much of the income for inshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada.
The time for action on these problems was yesterday- not some foggy time in the future which may well be too late. In the recently released publication entitled "Policy for Canada's Commercial Fisheries" the need for more and better research is briefly mentioned twice. It states that Canada needs a co-ordinated research and administrative capability to control fishery resource use on an ecological basis and in accordance with the best interests, economic and social, of Canadian society. It also states that there is a need to provide the research and the institutional innovation necessary to foster the development of viable aquacul-tural enterprise. Although it could be construed that these two vague ramblings denote that fisheries officials recognize the problem, there is still no evidence that the present government plans to meet and challenge it.
I brought up this problem about the lack of research in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on April 27, 1976. Witnesses from the department continually wanted to stress that their research on east coast redfish is unequalled. They were not as willing to talk about research on the other fish stocks, however. In light of the fact that there are some 60 different stocks on the east coast, that leaves some 59 stocks without adequate research.
We might ask what the economic result is of this inadequate research, Mr. Speaker. A regulation was passed on February 26, 1976-without consultation with any of the provincial governments-which I submit may well be a contravention of the British North America Act. There was no consultation with any provincial premier on this matter which could well put some of the major fishing ports in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia out of business. Why are we not managing all the other species that are in serious trouble, and in some areas are almost wiped out?
Statistics indicate landings of 23,946 metric tons of all ground fish species in the first two months of this year, of which 12,096 metric tons was ocean perch. Perch has been the backbone of the TRAWLER fleet and is the species required to give the volumes necessary to keep the all year round ports open. Existing government assistance programs will not overcome the increased costs due to the effect on overhead of decreased volumes.
To the Atlantic redfish regulations, codfish caught in the Gulf have now been added. The redfish regulations make second class Canadians of Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians. I say this because of some of the rules and regulations laid down. In light of the time limitation I shall not read all of them, but I should like to place one on the record which was Gazetted on February 26, one day before government officials called representatives of the industry together to get their views on what should be done. Mr. Speaker, this is hypocrisy in high places.

One of the rules states:
No person shall use any vessel that is more than 100 feet in length over-all to fish for redfish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence if the port from which that vessel operated prior to February 1, 1976 is situated outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The owner of a ship of 100 feet in length based in the Gulf of St. Lawrence may continue fishing, but a Newfoundland captain or a Nova Scotian captain is unable to continue fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I say this regulation makes second class citizens of Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians. Either we are all Canadians, with equal rights in this country, or we in Atlantic Canada are being discriminated against in legislation. I submit this regulation is unfair. It is unjust. I personally hope that changes will be made in future regulations of this type.
One may ask on what were these regulations based? I say that they were based on the inadequate assessment of L. S. Parsons and D. G. Parsons of Environment Canada. I do not wish to place the entire assessment on record. The first paragraph states that this was "a directed fishery". The quality and quantity of redfish stocks in the 1948-50 era was such that they were capable of sustaining a very heavy fishery. The report suggested that the people in Atlantic Canada should build fleets sufficiently large to take advantage of these stocks. This was done. Many large operators decided to expand their fleets in size and number, to take advantage of these stocks. They did this on the basis of the report submitted by L. S. Parsons and D. G. Parsons of Environment Canada, fisheries and marine service, Newfoundland Biological Station, at St. John's, Newfoundland.
The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 1 of the report reads in part:
... intensification of fishing pressure on redfish in the Gulf created concern about overfishing.
Later in the paragraph one sees the words "based on limited data." On the basis of limited data it was concluded that the red fishery conducted in recent years should be concluded. Because of limited data some companies may well be put out of business.
When Canada declares a 200-limit she will then be responsible for managing and allotting quotas within that area. Fisheries has stated that it plans to give Canadian fishermen as much quota as they need. Foreign fishermen would take the rest. However, is Canada presently in a position to determine what the quota levels should be? The Fisheries Council of Canada does not think so. Nor does ICNAF, which has stated that Canada does not have the necessary boats or manpower to collect adequately the needed data on the numbers and breeding patterns of the fish stocks within the 200-mile limit. Mr. K. C. Lucas of the Ministry of Fisheries said in committee that more funds for research were needed. He stated:
You do not mount a research program overnight. You also do not get the results overnight. The results are probably five to ten years in coming. It is certainly something that we ... will be asking government, and bringing to their attention the fact that we will need, in particular, after extension of jurisdiction, substantial new resources both in operating funds and in terms of vessels and equipment to do a decent job of stock assessment so that we can, in fact, make better predictions and make better regulations for the harvesting of the stocks.
May 13, 1976

On the other hand I would say that these additional funds are needed now, not later. What Canadian fishermen gain by having a 200-mile limit could be lost by the government's inability to know and to preserve what we have out there.
Finally, our lack of research is costing us dearly in yet another field, in the lack of technology in developing a capability for mining the resources, mineral, oil and gas, on our continental shelf.
On Tuesday, May 11, as reported at page 11386 of Hansard, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) about the U.S. proposal to mine some 6 per cent of its nickel requirements from the nodules on the seabed, and what our response was to this proposal. The minister replied that we opposed it. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to bury our head in the sand, and cannot continue to ignore new technological developments merely because we in Canada choose to be penny wise and pound foolish.
It is predicted that the mineral resources of the sea will provide great wealth in future, once technological processes to extract them are developed. One example is the five million tons of gold said t* exist in the ocean. At present large amounts of petrolfeum and natural gas are being extracted from the oceans. Approximately 18.5 per cent of world oil production now comes from off-shore wells. This proportion is expected to increase by another 14 per cent within the next ten years. An estimated 2,500 billion barrels of liquid fuels are potentially recoverable from off-shore areas of the world, and some of this potential is believed to exist on our own continental shelf.
Phosphate deposits, which may eventually refurbish the supply of fertilizer phosphates, have been found off the coasts of the U.S.A., the west coasts of south and Central America, and off Argentina, Japan, and South Africa. Of course we do not know if there are any deposits off the coasts of Canada because we have not the research funds with which to find them.
I submit that manganese deposits hold the most immediate promise of reward for exploration. Plans are well advanced for the building of a plant in the Gulf of Mexico area which is to handle one million tons of nodules a year, from a 4,000 square mile mine site discovered between the continental U.S.A. and Hawaii. This operation is planned to yield 260,000 tons of manganese, 12,600 tons of nickel,
10,000	tons of copper, and 2,400 tons of cobalt per year.
As with other resources of the sea, the conflict in positions is between those with the capacity to exploit resources and those without such capacities. I submit that unless we make more funds available for research and development we may not only lose more of our fisheries resources but stand to lose our potential oil, gas, and mineral reserves, owing to our lack of technology for finding them and making them available not only to Canadians but to all mankind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I join with others who have spoken today in commending the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) for putting down the motion which is the subject of debate and which covers all areas of research. I suppose one could contend that just about everything that
Science Policy
needs to be said has been put on record, but I welcome this opportunity to speak for a few minutes as I wish to emphasize an area of research which I feel deserves a better break than the government has been giving it. I refer to the entire field of medical research.
Sir, Canada's contribution to medical research over the years has been tremendous. In recent years, in large measure owing to government funding, there have been assembled in our universities in particular, and in our medical institutions, teams of research workers who have enthusiastically been doing research on some diseases which are yet to be conquered and on ways and means to improve our environment, our diet, and all the things which make for healthy living for Canadians and, indeed, for human beings all over the world.
I think I can say that most of us in this House are disheartened because the so-called restraint program under which we are asked to live is being unfairly applied to medical research. In some cases amounts available are being frozen, in others they are being dropped, with the result that many teams working on medical research projects will very likely be dismantled or cease doing the valuable work they have in hand.
We are aware of some of the killers still with us, cancer and heart disease; we are aware of cripplers which still need to be mastered, such as arthritis and multiple sclerosis. We are aware that many diseases we thought hit only older people hit younger persons, even children. Surely, Sir, in this field in which Canada has done so much in the past, we should carry on in that tradition. I regard it as disastrous that the fine young men and women in our universities and medical schools who have shown such devotion to medical research are being discouraged by the present policies of the government.
I am interested in the various areas of research which have been discussed today during the course of this debate. They are all important. Next to medical research, I regard as extremely important research into things that relate to the environment, to the provisions of food of such dietary quality that it makes for good health and, indeed, all that goes to raising the standard of health of our people. When we talk about medical research and the health of Canadians, and the health of human beings generally, we talk about things that are extremely important.
I rise for these few minutes in this debate to join in the plea that was made earlier today by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and to emphasize the plea that we have made repeatedly, that the government desist from applying its restraint program to medical research.


Mr. MacKay:: Cease and desist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend with his legal background wants me to use the phrase "cease and desist". In plain language, I want the government to stop it.
I know the government has a restraint program. When you see how money is spent in some cases, you are not sure that the government is aware that it has a restraint pro-

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
gram. But in any kind of program there should be common sense. Just because the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is selling the idea that everything should be cut down is no reason why particular programs should not be looked at and the realization admitted that those programs should not be cut back or should even be expanded. You can cut back on some things and save a few dollars and, when the restraint period is over and the money supply goes up, there has been no great harm. However, if you cut back or abandon research programs, and our top scientists and medical students go to other countries, the loss down the road can be incalculable. We will never be able to measure it. We will never know what discoveries, in terms of conquering disease or promoting good health, were lost because of this disastrous, ridiculous restraint program that is being applied in this area.
When you put my name on the list, Mr. Speaker, you asked me whether I would take my full time. I said no, I just wanted a few minutes. I have said what I wanted to say. I want the government to have some common sense, to remove the restraint program from medical research, and to give medical research and those engaged in it the opportunity to carry on the good work they have pursued over the years.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I hope in the next few minutes I might attempt, by describing certain activities within the Department of Communications, to outline very much a thrust by the Government of Canada in its science policy, more particularly by the Department of Communications, to do just the contrary of what today's motion accuses the government of doing. In fact I hope in the next few minutes, by developing on a particular theme, Canada's new communications technology satellite, I might prove that in fact the Canadian government is adopting measures that will increase research and development in both the industrial and academic communities of Canada.
I would like first to outline some basic details of the communications technology satellite. It is an experimental satellite which was placed in space early this year from the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida. CTS, as it is called, is seen as the advanced technology forerunner of a new breed of high-powered orbitting transmitters expected to provide a wide range of expanded communications services in the 1980's. It is the product of more than five years of work by Canadian government officials and Canadian industry space scientists and engineers. The work of those people over five years was a forerunner in the world.
The primary objectives of the CTS program are to demonstrate high powered television and other transmission to small and other low cost earth stations. That is one of the primary purposes and in itself will be a revolution, not only for Canada but for earth stations and radio station technology around the world. Further, one of the intentions of the CTS program is to flight-test major advanced technology subsystems of the spacecraft itself. The program is to develop further and demonstrate the abilities of the Canadian industry in the design and fabrication of subsystems and components for the space/com-munications systems of tomorrow.

With a design life of two years, the $60 million satellite is being used for a series of social, technological and technical communications experiments by various groups on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.
The CTS is being orbitted under a continuing program of Canada-United States collaboration in the peaceful uses of outer space that began with the 1962 launch of Alouette-1. Some hon. members may recall that the functioning of Alouette-1, the first satellite put into space by any nation other than the two superpowers, brought great credit and esteem to Canada and Canada's space scientists from countries around the world.
Canada designed and built the CTS spacecraft. The United States, after providing its high powered transmitting tube and free-launch test support, carried out the launch. The European Space Agency also participated through a bilateral agreement with Canada. I should point out that the satellite itself is more than 90 per cent Canadian produced and made up of Canadian components. As I began by saying, this is the most powerful communications satellite in space.
Canadian experimenter groups, whose interests encompass the fields of broadcasting technology, telemedicine, tele-education, community interaction, data transmission, and government operations in remote areas, will carry out experiments during the two year lifespan of CTS. Experimenters include several major universities in central Canada and the maritimes, the Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba governments, the CBC, Bell Canada, Telesat Canada, the Alberta Native Communications Society and the Rural Health Society of Victoria, B.C. When the charge is made by the opposition that the government is not adopting measures that will increase research and development in both the industrial and academic communities, they are overlooking this program. As I just read out, the people, companies, associations, academic community and political interests that will be involved, it is indeed broadly adjusting and interesting all the various scientific sectors in its program.
CTS is the first to operate in the new 12 and 14 Gigahertz satellite frequency bands allocated by the International Telecommunications Union. It incorporates three major advanced technology subsystems which are in themselves important experiments. If I may, I will just mention those systems.
The first is a pair of lighweight, flexible solar power arrays or "sails", to provide an initial power output of about 1,200 watts. It is those sails and, through the performance of them expanding in space, moving outward and revealing to the sun the solar cells, that in fact makes this satellite the most powerful communications satellite in space. I might say it is a totally Canadian owned company that was encouraged to carry out that technology as the result of the planning done on the CTS. The company in particular is Spar Aerospace of Toronto.
Another major advanced technology subsystem is a travelling wave tube amplifier of approximately 50 per cent efficiency with an output power of about 200 watts and a three-axis stabilization system designed to maintain high antenna pointing accuracy in spite of the flexing of the solar arrays.
May 13, 1976

While people around the world may well think of the United States and Russia as landing people on the moon and going into the far distances of outer space, Canada is right up there with the major powers of the world in modern communications and space technology, and the reason for that is the long run planning of the Government of Canada through its Ministry of Science and Technology, and especially because of the efforts of the Department of Communications and the ministers who have been in charge of that department.
Mr. Speaker, there are 26 major projects which will be carried out with the help of the communications technology satellite, and to show that the government is acting to increase research and development in both the industrial and academic communities I should like to cite several of the experiments which will take place. One is called radio broadcasting applications. The objectives are to demonstrate the technical feasibility of the satellite CTS for radio broadcasting, its relevance for the extension of radio services between small communities, and its possibilities for providing special interest programming direct to individual broadcasting stations. It is, of course, in the interest of our remote northern communities to receive this specialized programming which takes into consideration the needs of our ethnic peoples and the variety of their backgrounds. This kind of technology will also be of great importance and use for our native people.
A further test on the CTS will consist of television special demonstrations. By transmitting coverage of the 1976 Olympic equestrian competitions from Bromont, Quebec, to Montreal during the period July 17-August 1, it is hoped to determine the suitability of a CTS type spacecraft for remote broadcast and control and transmission reception from large, populated areas, while evaluating the flexibility and handling efficiency of portable ground stations under operational pressures.
One of the experiments is something called "Staff Training By Satellite". This is something of great significance and when we talk about restraint and the need to increase efficiency and reduce government costs. Staff training by satellite is a program where characteristics of satellite operation which might lead to the development of cost-effective, high-speed learning environments for training federal employees in their home offices will be studied. Improved professional development methods will be sought through exploration of new directions for educational TV via satellite.
There will also be telemedicine experiments with CTS. The satellite will be used to provide continuing medical education for doctors and allied health professionals practicing in remote areas by one-way video, with two-way audio. Community health education programs and transmissions of medical data such as electro-cardiograms and X-rays from remote areas will also be assessed. What this means is that in time somebody critically ill with a serious and complicated disease in a remote part of Canada could be quickly analyzed via a satellite in one of our major cities where a leading expert in that area of medicine could, from that vast distance, do his very best to treat a patient who otherwise would not get adequate treatment.
Science Policy
To mention another project, there is what is called the omnibus network. To ensure the widest possible access to higher education in the province, the University of Quebec is decentralized, operating out of regional centres with a telephone network utilized for teaching, management, and document exchange. The experiment using the communications technology satellite of the Government of Canada will test the ability of the satellite to improve this process, stimulating educational satellite applications considered likely to be operational in the 1980's.
Radio telephony with remote camps is another program. One-metre terminals will be used to establish high quality telephone links with remote sites in the James Bay area. The transportability of the terminal, and any change in productivity due to better communications between the head office of the James Bay Development Corporation and survey parties will be assessed.
To get into some of the more technical kind of programs along the scientific rather than the educational and social field, I might mention one or two which CTS will carry out. There are telephony, data transmission and synchronisation studies. The flexibility and reliability of the CTS system to aid in the precise control of remote power stations in Northern Quebec will be determined. At present, high frequency radio links connect such generator sites with a regional despatching centre in Quebec City. During the experimental period clock synchronization as well as voice fascimile and transmission of slow rate data by satellite will be studied.
The Manitoba government computer centre will be involved in a program called the "Government Teleprocessing Network Experiment." Further, a satellite link radio interferometry experiment will be watched by scientists who are keenly interested in the location, distribution, and structure of a number of intense sources of electromagnetic radiation deep in space. The purpose of this experiment is to permit the real time comparison or correlation of signals from such sources as received by different radio telescopes hundreds of miles apart. Much information can be determined or inferred from such comparisons, helping to unravel mysteries surrounding extragalactic radio sources. That is one of the 26 experiments which is to the forefront of the advances being made in space and satellite technology. It is carried out by means of a satellite which has made Canada a world leader, the most powerful communications satellite in space. It is almost entirely Canadian developed and built. It has been built through the work and effort of the Department of Communications, but also by encouraging the private sector. It has made several Canadian companies leaders in particular areas of space research.
In this context I might mention Spar Aerospace of which I spoke earlier, the company which developed the expandable wings which carried the solar cells which supplied power to the satellite and, because of that technology, made it the most powerful in space. In turn, the encouragement of such a company means that in the future when the U.S. government finally puts in place its space shuttle, which is the coming way of placing in orbit satellites, that space shuttle will include as a major part of its equipment an arm developed by Spar Aerospace of Canada, and it will mean that Canada will play a major role in the success of

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
that major space ship, the space shuttle, which is due for launch and eventually for regular use late this decade or early in the 1980's.
There is much more of course that is being carried out by the Department of Communications in relation to the overall science policy for Canada. I might mention particularly the Anik B, the fourth of the Anik series of satellites, which is planned to be launched in about two years in a program undertaken through co-operation between TELE-SAT Canada and the federal Department of Communications. That particular satellite will not only be carrying on its responsibility of providing domestic satellite communications, but it will include as well a 12 and 14 Gigahertz section as well as the traditional 4 and 6 Gigahertz bands in order to continue the CTS program of experimentation so that Canada may continue to be a leader in space Technology.
I might add that at the Shirley's Bay Space Research Centre of the Department of Communications important work is being done to find ways of reducing costs and improving telephone services in rural communities because of the serious problems we face there. As well, through the co-operation and assistance of the Government of Canada and because of the structure in Canada the subsidiary of Bell Canada, Bell Northern, now re-named Northern Telecommunications, has a reputation around the world as a front runner in telephone science and technology.
The motion laid down by the Official Opposition charges that the government has failed to develop a strong science policy or implement measures to increase research and development in the industrial and academic communities. One must always be concerned that every effort be directed toward research in Canada, and research has many various aspects but it seems to me the opposition is forgetting the very real world leadership position Canada has because of the planning of the government in space research and technology.


A. Daniel McKenzie: May I at this time direct a question to the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) with regard to statements made by the hon. member from York West (Mr. Fleming)? It will only be a brief question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The minister may accept a question with the unanimous consent of hon. members. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In his speech the hon. member for York West set out a description of all the work being done by the Ministry of Science and Technology. I would like to ask the minister this question in his capacity as Minister of Public Works. This is a point which was brought up during a meeting of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works yesterday where it was pointed out by myself that $875,000 is going to be spent on installing new elevators in the Confederation building. I should like to ask the minister whether he considers it is a priority at this time to instal private elevators in the Confederation Building at a cost of $875,000 when we are curtailing expenditures in respect of medical research? We were told at this meeting by the

Deputy Minister of Public Works that there are supposed to be savings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I believe the hon. member asked a question. He is now entering debate.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I want to know if there is any assurance-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member requested permission to ask a question, not to enter into the debate.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will conclude very briefly, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I recognize the hon. Minister of Science and Technology.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I was not at the meeting of the committee yesterday, nor am I familiar with the circumstances of the particular building. I think it was pointed out to the committee, however, that what we have been doing as part of an energy conservation program is a total energy survey in respect of each building under our control. As a consequence of that survey and integration of a total energy program we are making investments designed to conserve energy, and I suspect these new elevators are part of that.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I regard it as an honour to take part in this debate. It is a high level debate that deals with high level and important issues. For a long period of time the science community of Canada have wondered whether the House of Commons would ever turn its attention to the practical problems which beset that community. I suspect they thought their issues carried very little political sex appeal. I suspect also they were pessimistic in that their problems were being ignored by us.
In the last year there have been at last three debates of consequence on the problems of the scientific community. The first debate was launched on June 9 of last year by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). There was a debate prior to passage of an appropriations bill during which several members expressed a concern in respect of medical research. Now there is the present motion before us today by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) which gives us another chance to consider something that is especially important.
In looking back at my correspondence from those who wanted to direct my attention to the problems of the scientific community I find they had very little to say to me and I, therefore, to them over most of my parliamentary career. The file I have tonight I find has grown up and developed mostly since the year 1974. I should like to share some of the views, the fears and hopes that are set forth in the letters that comprise this file.
Perhaps it is an obvious point, but one that should be made, that these are thoughtful Canadians capable of forming public opinion, and who do form public opinion, who have written us about their problems. These are bread and butter issues being presented in large terms with long
May 13, 1976

vision, rather than in short terms with immediate vision of self-help for one's own pocket.
I know the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has talked about scientific research on the late show on a number of occasions, and others in the House have raised these problems from time to time. When something becomes such an issue that it is raised on at least three occasions during special debates in parliament within a year, this surely means there is something wrong.
I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming). After making a clarion call of self-satisfaction and patting the government on the back for what it has done, I still maintain the fact is that more and more people feel the government is not doing enough in this very large field of scientific research and development and technology.
I support the motion of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth. I am glad he has proposed it, and I suspect many similar motions will be put forward and that members will find it more and more attractive to debate a subject such as science policy than has been the case before last year.
The file I have contains letters from all aspects of research; from experts in biochemistry and in pharmacology, as well as from the University of New Brunswick with its famous forestry school. A copy of one letter addressed to the minister who is the custodian of science and research in Canada, and who is also the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury), was forwarded to me.
Let me now move to some specific points of view. I want to present the histories or points of view from particular aspects of research. Since I am a member for part of the Halifax area one might suspect that many of these views would come from the university community there. That is precisely the case. They come from Dalhousie University, the medical college of which stands a few blocks away from my home. When you read letters such as this you realize some of the attributes and qualities that go into the making of a first-class research person, some of whom are also able to put the language into pretty glittering terms.
The first quotation I have contains one of the finest pieces of writing that has ever crossed my desk as a member of parliament. It comes from three members of the Department of Biology of Dalhousie University, Professors K. H. Mann, E. C. Pielou, and L. C. Vining. These gentlemen, involved collectively in biological research, state in part:
We are alarmed at the steady decline in government support for basic scientific research. As evidence we point to the fact that since 1970 the funds allocated to the National Research Council to support research in universities (where most basic studies are done) have increased only 5 per cent while in the same period the Gross National Product has increased 49 per cent and the Consumer Price Index by 29 per cent. Moreover we are falling behind in comparison with other developed nations: in the period in which our expenditure on basic research rose by 5 per cent, that of Britain, France and the U.S. increased by about 50 per cent.
The argument that belt-tightening is unavoidable in the present economic state of the world and that basic research ought to be sacrificed to short-term problem solving ("mission-oriented" or applied research, as it is called) is most shortsighted.
Science Policy
Brace yourself now, because here is the line that so took my fancy:
It would be as sensible to advocate cutting off the roots of apple trees since, as any fool knows, apples grow on the branches, not the roots.
My friends continue:
The problem solving functions of science that are now so urgent (because of the energy crisis, the population crisis, the world food shortage, the environmental crisis, and all the other crises that beset us) will falter unless there is a steady advance in basic science to nourish them. Everyone in this country daily uses products derived from the basic research of the past.
Anyone who uses a telephone, a radio, or a TV, is using a device that could never have been invented without the basic knowledge of electromagnetism gained beforehand. Anyone who benefits from modern medicine, who flies in a modern plane, or who merely eats a modern load of bread, is profiting from basic research carried out some time previously. The dependence of our civilization on scientific knowledge is so taken for granted that it is forgotten.
That is the letter from the three professors of the Department of Biology at Dalhousie University. I think they make the point as effectively and as tellingly as it can be made. One of the students, Gynheung An, also entered another piece of correspondence. He pointed out the following in his letter:
Our basic budget has now been frozen at $12.4 million for 1976/77 while the Biological Council of Canada recommended a basic budget of $18.5 million-
By very quick arithmetic that is approximately 50 per cent more.
-and the Science Council recommended $19.9 million for the same period.
That, by a quick calculation, is more than 50 per cent. The student continues:
As things stand now, over 60 per cent of the funds allocated through NRC are spent on graduate student support and technicians' salaries. A freeze at the present inadequate level of support is thus unjustified.
Professor Vining, writing for himself and not in association with his two other colleagues, wrote me the following about two months ago:
We in the universities are seeing a rapid erosion of the value of our research grants as the cost of equipment and services skyrockets. To quote an example, a roll of dialysis tubing purchased in 1974 for $14.18 last week cost me $45.76 on re-order. Much of my NRC research grant is spent on salaries for technicians, summer student assistants or postgraduate associates. A freeze on research funds means that I can increase salaries for some to cope with inflation only at the cost of dismissing others. Highly trained people forced into unemployment in the present job market must seek other occupations and soon lose their skills.
All of this makes worse an already difficult position for university research in the biological sciences. In 1974/76 NRC handled 1546 grant requests in biology and was unable to fund 22.5 per cent of them (the rejection rate was 0 per cent in nuclear physics and only 12 per cent in physics as a whole). A high proportion of university professors in biology departments are unable to undertake research and the university teaching environment has suffered accordingly.
Finally, because I know there are other speakers and I would hope that everyone who wishes to participate will have that opportunity, this point is made by Professor S. D. Wainwright, President of the Canadian Society for Cell Biology at Dalhousie University, and a member of the Department of Biochemistry:
In my own case for example, of a total of $56,000 awarded by the NRC for the fiscal year 1975-76 approximately $36,700 will go toward salaries,

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
etc., for four employees. The balance is used for purchase of equipment and other supplies which are purchased from local dealers and agents as far as is possible. Actual proportions of grants spent on salaries and on supplies will vary for different grantees, and will on the average probably be less for faculty receiving the smaller average grants from NRC. Nevertheless, the over-all situation for all grants combined here, as in other parts of Canada, will correspond roughly with that for my own grants.
Time will not permit me to read all of the letter, but later he states:
The more severely the graduate programmes at Dalhousie are crippled by reductions in effective support for scientific research, the greater will be the future dependence of this region upon research scientists trained elsewhere (i.e. the U.S.A.). Indeed, it seems possible that in many areas Dalhousie would be unable to offer any graduate programme at all.
What a pity that would be because the history of that great university has been built in new directions and now is threatened with loss of some of the programs which have been won through an immense amount of effort and money. Those are examples, Mr. Speaker.
I can see at least three evils if correction is not undertaken. First, there is the very obvious one that what is lost will take years to recover. If an important scientific establishment is dismantled or crippled, the effects can be devastating not only in the short run but in the long run as well. The second thing is that the United States, with all its economic and other difficulties, which are as major as the economic difficulties of Canada, is doing a much better job of showing respect for scientific research. The inevitable result is that many scientists will be working in the United States who will have stamped on their personalities the expression "Made in Canada". Finally, we will lose thereby some of our industrial and scientific strength.
I think this all indicates that it behooves us not only to debate this question today but to take a good long hard look at it, and try perhaps as a parliament to do a selling job in some areas. We must go about the business of raising money by taxes and spending it, and I happen to think this is one of the areas in which this should be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the particularly warm applause I heard from the other side of the House. I know it is heartfelt.
I must say it was a privilege to have been in the House during virtually all of today to listen to the contributions made during this debate. Like some other members I am grateful that the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) brought down this motion, the general topic of which I approve, or at least the first sentence or so in it. In the second part the hon. member appears perhaps somewhat to have lost his sense of balance and has engaged in what is meaningless, partisan rhetoric.
I do think it is useful from time to time for as distinguished a body as this to turn its attention to some of the problems facing science, the scientific community, the de-

velopment and application of technology in this country. Everyone is agreed, it is quite clear, that both science and technology are immensely significant, immensely important in the development not only of our prosperity as it is generally understood but also, and perhaps equally, in the preservation and enhancement of the environment and the quality of our life. Understanding this, the government has introduced a number of policies and programs, some of which have been described to the House, mostly, I must confess, by supporters on this side. The details given indicate quite clearly that the regrets expressed by the hon. member who moved the motion are really without any adequate foundation.
I would point out that we in the government look at science and technology or research under three headings. One is the support of science or the support of research essential in the pursuit of science, in its broader sense meaning knowledge. In this respect the government does make a significant contribution to advancing the frontiers of knowledge in this country, principally through the instrumentality of universities, and both to create this effort and to sustain it there are three councils: the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council, and the Canada Council, all three of which dispense annually substantial sums of money in support of research almost entirely in the universities.
The purpose of this research is two-fold. First, it is recognized that higher education in order to be fresh and good must provide a field for its teachers to advance continually their own state of knowledge in order better to be able to pass it on to their students, and second, the general advancement of knowledge, of research outside the straight teaching function. Here is a field in which the three guiding councils I have mentioned have interested themselves. They have sums, voted by parliament, made available to them annually, and these are distributed among the classical disciplines according to the judgments made as to appropriateness in size and destination by peer groups, that is, members of the scientific community who themselves are knowledgeable in the particular field.
This year, as a consequence of the general policies of restraint which have been visited on and by the government, the increases over last year of funds available to these three councils have been very modest indeed. They have been less than the increase in inflation this year over last. As a consequence, there has to be a restraining of effort and ambitions, as indeed is the case in most other sectors of the economy, and perhaps research to devise ways of accomplishing more for less in the way of resources.
I think that most of us would agree that periodically such an exercise is both intellectually and economically a healthy one. I suggest, however, that it cannot be maintained indefinitely or it will have the result of running down what up to the present has been a first class product, a first class effort in Canada, which is internationally acknowledged.
This then is the year of restraint and, as I think a good number of hon. members are aware, this has caused a great deal of heart searching, and indeed in many cases considerable difficulty in the academic community. We are aware of this and we sympathize, but it is difficult to achieve a

universal policy of restraint visited with fairness on all the citizenry of Canada without anyone having in any way to suffer.
It would be my hope that the kind of severe restrictions under which we are labouring this year will not be continued indefinitely. Indeed I am sure it would be harmful if they were. However, there is one thing I should like to say. I have said that the purpose of this research is to enhance the teaching in institutions of higher learning. We are not too sure how many of what particular kinds of training will be needed in the future in Canada.
It will be an endeavour of the government during the course of the current year to establish a study looking into the future to try to see if we can find out with more certainty what will be the kinds of university training, what will be the kinds of university produced skills which are most likely to be in demand in Canada in the next ten to 15 years. If we can do this, then we will be able to arrive at a rather more intelligent guidance for our young people either entering university or contemplating, following a general arts or science course, specializing in post-graduate work, to provide them with a little more in the way of guidance than we have been able to do in the past. This would avoid the situation which we seem to run into periodically of facing shortages of engineers, of doctors in particular lines, or of physicists, and then rushing to find them abroad or to take half-trained people to do the jobs, whereas if we had looked ahead more intelligently the shortages could have been anticipated, planned for, and met. Equally, we hope we will not be in the position of having surpluses of perhaps narrowly trained men or women coming out of universities into what would be an over-crowded avocation or profession.
Unfortunately, however, I do not expect that we can be very successful in much less than a year in producing such a forecast for the future. I have invited a number of people in the academic world to participate in this, and hopefully the results will not only be useful but indeed important in getting the kind of resources put into, through these granting councils, the universities, to match the resources needed for the particular job of training, which we can contemplate with a little more certainty than we have been able to do in the past.
In addition to those policies and programs in support of research we have a number of policies and programs for the application of research, science, and technology to the solution of non scientific problems or general problems. Rather than constituting an end or aim in itself, science and technology are tools which, if they are useful and productive, can and should be used.
I see it as one of the tasks of the ministry, about which there has been some complaint, to ensure that in attacking the problems which the various departments of the federal government face that scientific tools are available for use by them if they can be effectively and efficiently utilized in the solution of these problems. In some cases this is so; in other cases it is not. However, as one hon. member pointed out, there has been much discovered and much new knowledge acquired at an ever accelerating pace. One of the tasks of the ministry is to see that this new knowl-
Science Policy
edge is available to other departments of the Government of Canada in the solution of their problems.
Equally, it would be the choice of the particular department, which has problems to solve and missions to accomplish, to decide the extent to which science and technology are and can be useful, and can and should be used. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose were the super ministry, of which there has been some mention, to direct other departments of government, such as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, to lay down a prescription for it or to point out that it is not employing such science, that it is not making enough use of technology, and that more of its resources, for the sake of some principle, should be going into science and technology. More should be going into science and technology if it is useful in accomplishing its main mission. If science and technology are not or cannot be of assistance, there is no sense providing scientists and technologists merely to satisfy some formula or number.
Increasingly it will be the role of the Ministry of Science and Technology to see that newly acquired knowledge is available, that these departments of government have access to this new knowledge in the search for the accomplishment of the most effective way of achieving their particular departmental missions.
In addition to helping out in the application of science and technology for the solution of problems, particularly social problems, in the federal government, I think perhaps the government, particularly my ministry, has a duty and a responsibility to endeavour to see that the same kind of assistance is given to the manufacturing industry.
If I might just be permitted a minute, in Canada we have a rather unique situation with respect to industry in that we have greater, easier, and cheaper access to the largest and most prolific source of science and technology in the world. It is greater than any other country in either the northern or southern hemisphere. The source is the United States, and its neighbour, Canada, enjoys a favourable relationship which no other country enjoys. In some ways we have been fortunate-in many ways in economic terms-in having been granted this ready, easy, and cheap access to technology. It has meant that Canada, unlike a number of other countries in the world, has not had to develop its own science and technology. We have been able to get it easily and cheaply, and consequently we have not engaged in the harder, longer, and more expensive process of developing it for ourselves.
While this has meant that in order to progress economically the cost to us may well have been less, we are vulnerable to the possibility that for one reason or another this source might dry up, and we would then be unprotected and lacking in scientific and technology generating self-sufficiency. Perhaps I should say that this, however, has meant that the investment by Canadian industry in research and development has, for economic reasons, been lower and less than in most other comparably industrialized countries. As I say, this has been cheaper, but it has made us more vulnerable. Recognizing this, the government has instituted a number of programs, mostly in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, designed to reduce this vulnerability and to get a greater level of

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
inherent, indigenous research and development capacity in Canadian industry itself.
With respect to some firms these programs have been very successful indeed, but so far the average has been very low. As a consequence of failure to increase our own capability and to reduce our vulnerability, we as a government are now currently in the process of reviewing the various incentive programs designed to enhance our industrial research and development capability. I hope that during the course of this year a number of these studies will come to fruition, and perhaps we will be able to devise more attractive and more successful incentive programs than those which we have now. These programs and policies have been working to some degree, but not really to the degree that would achieve the kind of progress that seems to be desirable if indeed we want a reasonable measure of invulnerability.
In order to enhance our industrial capability in research and development we have been placing emphasis on what is known as the "make or buy" policy, under which all new research and development projects will be contracted out to the manufacturing industry in Canada in preference to being performed in government laboratories. The test is whether it can be performed outside. It is only in the event it cannot be done in the Canadian manufacturing industry that it becomes a project in a government laboratory, if such capability exists. This means that during this period the laboratory capabilities of the federal government will not be growing at the rate and in the rather spectacular way they did during the early and mid sixties. We are trying to turn new research and development in Canada from the government to the manufacturing industries. If industry does not have the capability or cannot create it, the universities are a second choice. It is only as a laboratory or a locus of last resort that a particular program is carried out within government laboratory apparatus.
Even though it is fairly recent, the "make or buy" policy has been achieving a modest but continuous growth. So far it has been limited to new research projects and new research money. In the last couple of years there have not been large sums of new money for research and development so the developments have not been very significant. It is a step in the right direction, however. Hopefully, when the time comes that useful projects can be found and rather large quantities of money can be made available, then more significant emphasis can be given to the "make or buy" program and significant results quickly achieved. By and large the capacity seems to exist in the Canadian manufacturing industry; what is required is an incentive to get it into operation.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that this debate has been set afoot by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth. I think he will agree that considerable efforts are being made by the government in the two areas I have mentioned, even in a year of restraint. Perhaps there is not as much progress as he would like nor is there as much as you and I would like, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that it is a year of restraint, however, we have to limit our efforts to shifting resources rather than finding new ones. We will continue the endeavours to find better and more effective ways of deploying our available resources in science and
[Mr. Drury.)
technology, but perhaps we will have to wait for a period of more rapid growth in order to take full advantage of what I hope will be new and rather more attractive incentives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This requires acceptance by the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure he will accept one.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is prompted by something the minister said in the early part of his speech. Does he know when the government will table a document entitled "Post Doctorals in Canada in the Mid-Seventies"? The report is said to have been commissioned by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and brings out how many Ph.D.s there are in Canada, how many do not have jobs, what they are doing, and so on. Can the minister tell the House when that report will be tabled?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I know the report to which the hon. gentleman refers. If tabling merely meant taking what we have and putting it on the Table that would be one thing; this is in a sense an historical document-Ph.D.s 1970-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "In the
Mid-Seventies."


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The only one I know is dated 1973 and gives the state of affairs in 1973. We thought of tabling this and indeed publishing it, but it calls for translation, which is an expensive business as the hon. gentleman knows. If he wishes to peruse this particular document I would be delighted to let him see it. I am not sure it would be worth the money to table it in the House, however.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not
just sitting on it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate on the motion criticizing the government for its lack of drive in the field of science and technology I think my remarks will dovetail very closely with those just completed by the minister.
This is not a new subject for me. I recall some 18 years ago the same questions coming to the minds of the government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I recall that the issue was basically the same as it is now, that our lack of "go ahead" in the field of science and technology comes down to one word-finance.
When you study what various industrial nations have spent in the field of basic scientific research you will find that Canada ranks as high as any other industrial nation in the world, if you just measure the contribution of govern-
May 13, 1976

ment. The minister implied that tonight in his remarks. When you move on and examine the contribution of the private sector in the field of science and technology, and particularly the application of it, you will find that Canada is lagging seriously. The reason for this lag is obvious; we are a branch plant economy and it is easier to borrow or earn this technology from the parent companies of the branch plants in Canada. Having said all this and heard the minister, I say there is no excuse for this situation to continue indefinitely.
Let me repeat in a general way what has happened under the last two or three governments. In the Diefenbaker government we felt we should encourage private enterprise to move more vigorously into the field of applied technology based on university and government research. We thought we could do it with a system of tax incentives, whereby business could write off 150 per cent of money spent on research. I have looked at the figures and noted what has happened since those days. Our measures had some effect, although small. As the minister said, as companies in Canada could obtain cheaply research information from head offices, branches of multinational corporations operating in Canada did not have much incentive to put money into research in Canada.
I recall this question being debated several times in the early years of the Pearson government, they thought the answer was the establishment of a new department. They took the political science approach and put civil servants in charge of science and technology. They thought that putting a minister at the head of the department would lead us to the promised land and result in greater scientific and technological development. Tonight we heard the minister in charge of that department confess things have moved pretty slowly.
We are examining what is happening in universities and will study how we can improve the relationship between the demand factor for certain disciplines and the supply factor. This is good. Nobody quarrels with this. As well, we could consider what is happening in applied research in Canada. There is no question about this being necessary. I do not think anybody will quarrel with me when I say that Canadian scientists, whether at the university level or working at the government level in Canada, are as good as those of any nation. Our track record with regard to basic science is as good as that of any industrial nation. Our weakness, as the minister suggested, is that we have failed to apply basic science to our problems, the excuse being that we live in a branch plant economy.
This evening I shall not address my remarks to the minister, whom I hold innocent in this matter. I shall talk about the basic problem confronting us, and I return once more to the matter of financing. Every time there is a cry of alarm in this country, every time the nitwits in the Department of Finance say we are moving too quickly, that we need restraint and restriction, the first item on which we cut spending is research. This happens every time. Why? First scientists have no strong political voice to speak for them. Second, they are most vulnerable.
When I became a minister in 1957, I found that the maximum salary for scientists, some of whom had Ph.D.s
Science Policy
and had served the government for 20 years, was in the region of $8,700. At the same time the administrative people, who are always coming to Treasury Board and asking for more, were earning salaries up to the $20,000 level. Mr. Speaker, I sat on that Treasury Board and resisted every effort to increase the salaries of civil servants in Ottawa until the salaries of scientists had been raised. That effort on my part met with some success; at least scientists in the government service today are better paid.
When I was a minister-I suspect it is the same today-I recall seeing all this scientific information for which we had spent a great deal of money piling up and being stored in our libraries. We stored more knowledge than we needed for the next 50 years, knowledge which could apply to almost every field. But there was no awareness of the existence of that knowledge, and it was not put into the hands of the people who needed it. I suppose the classic example is knowledge concerning agriculture, which was stored in the Neatby building. That knowledge was not put into the hands of the public. The reason, again, was the myth that education was a matter for the provinces, and that therefore we must not do anything to give this knowledge, made available to government by the government service and universities, to the people who needed it. That is still going on today.
There is still no federal government service to disseminate or carry abroad knowledge gathered by the National Research Council, the Medical Council, by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, formerly known as mines and technical surveys, by researchers working in the Department of Agriculture, and so on.
Let me also mention forestry. For 20 years our forestry scientists have been advocating the use of knowledge they had gathered for the last 100 years, yet I do not know of a single provincial government using it. Knowledge concerning one of our greatest renewable resources is not being utilized due to the myth that because certain of these services are considered as educational services, the federal government should not touch them. I have spoken on this subject several times in the House in the last ten or 12 years but have seen no change in attitude.
I now come to the present Trudeau administration. I am aware of the government's tax changes, and of write-offs allowed for research. The government allows 150 per cent; yet, I suspect that, as in the days of the Diefenbaker government, that measure has not had much effect. I am thinking of what can be done. I do not say I have all the answers. I suspect that as our capital needs in the next 25 years could amount to several hundreds of millions of dollars, we shall need to invest tremendously in technology and science, so that we may take advantage of technological advances. Technology will be the key. Therefore we are not thinking merely in terms of educating farmers or men in the forestry field.
In future we shall spend huge sums of capital in Canada. Our very survival will be at stake unless we have reasonable access to adequate supplies of energy. We must do all we can to use our basic knowledge and reduce development costs.
Several members of the House have spoken of the farce being played out in areas such as the development of our tar sands. Here we have the government of Ontario, the
13508

May 13, 1976
Science Policy
government of Alberta, and the federal government joining with business in a $2 billion venture to build one Syncrude plant. We are to use our resources to produce oil from the oil sands which will cost us $11 a barrel and up. I suggest that we know that there are two or three other techniques available. One has been available for 20 years, but not mentioned. In this connection I suggest that we must provide incentives. I think we must attack on two fronts. First, we must let the people of Canada know why no government has ever mentioned the other techniques available for the development of the oil sands. I know what they are, and I know why governments are afraid of the technique I have in mind. The reason, of course, has to do with the myth to which I previously referred. That myth must be exposed for the sham it is.
The second approach must be in the field of finance. As the House knows, I put my ideas forward in 1974 to the then minister of finance, and to some other ministers in 1975. And I am pleased to note what is happening.
The headline to an article appearing in the Globe and Mail of May 13, 1976, reads, "175% Recovery Share in Oilfields Proposed Before Big Tax Take." I am interested in the coming announcement. According to the newspaper story, the government next week will make an announcement concerning northern and off-shore oil and gas fields. The government is to give the companies in that field a tax break. It will pledge that, to compensate for risk, the returns from operations will not be milked until the companies have got all their capital back. The government will allow 100 per cent of their capital return, plus 75 per cent to pay for the interest and other costs which they have. After that, the government is really going to hit them.
I am pleased that the government is going to make that announcement because it gets at the basic problem of these capital intensive enterprises. Nearly all these new developments demanding this new science and technology are capital intensive. This gets at the basic cost. Seventy-five per cent of the cost of a modern capital intensive industry goes to the payment of interest. We can no longer avoid that if we continue with out of date techniques of financing.
In the proposals I have made in the past two or three years, one of them, the second choice actually, was this type of proposal. I praised the British government, socialist as it is, for having pioneered this technique in financing.


An hon. Member:: Which government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The government of the United Kingdom. It pioneered this type of approach and it looks like our Canadian government is going to apply it. I suggest that in the field of science and technology, if you are going to get small or large Canadian companies to take up the slack which exists in technology, it will have to be by this same type of approach. The government will have to consider that the 150 per cent write-off is not enough. Even the accelerated write-off is not enough.
We will have to go into joint enterprise with these companies whereby we take a part of the risk for them, 10 or 15 per cent, and see that the knowledge that we have

from our government and university circles is put into practical application. The reward that they get will be market return and interest return before we apply any tax to them. However, we, the people, will own shares in those companies and will share in the profits that they make.
I make that point because in my work I have quite a bit to do with newly developing countries around the world. I know the desperate hunger there is for new technology. I know that we in Canada have quite a bit of it, and how saleable it is. However, in many cases our companies are indoctrinated with the concept that you must only move very cautiously and safely, and that if they take the plunge in selling this technology to a foreign country they will be left exposed in case it comes up a bummer.
I suggest that the joint enterprise concept should be extended into foreign countries, particularly the newly developing countries where you take a risk. I can give examples of what I am talking about.
I hope the House will not laugh at this, but recently there was a discovery made by a group of farmers. You take biomass in the form of animal waste and, with a simple physical and chemical action, change it into pure food suitable for recycling through animals. If I talk in dollars qnd cents, what I am talking about becomes more apparent.
If you take a ton of animal waste and use it for fertilizing the land, it is probably worth $2.50 or $3 a ton. If you take that animal waste, remove the methane, that animal waste is probably worth about $30 a ton. If you take that animal waste and put it into pure food suitable for recycling through animals, it is worth $140 a ton. There is the technology discovered by accident by a group of farmers. However, when you go to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and suggest that they join with a Canadian company, put that technology to work here, and then take it around the world, they say that under their program they are not allowed to do that. They can only support technology that starts and ends in Canada.
The minister should be supported in his statements that we have to take a new look at the programs and new incentives that we have. Thereby, with regard to this motion we are debating today, for nearly two decades we have talked about the necessity of improving our work on science and technology that we are doing on behalf of the Canadian people. Always it is talk. It is time that we took the method into our hands, and went forward and did something in the applied field.
There is no need talking to the House about this being a year of restraint, because the minute you stop scientific development you are carrying out an inflationary policy. The only way you can keep inflation down is to get at your productivity, and 80 to 90 percent of productivity comes from technology. If you are going to keep inflation down, you do not do that by stopping the development of technology in Canada.
I wish the minister would carry this message to his colleagues in cabinet, particularly to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). Cut out this nonsense by these ministers who simply say to reduce everything 20 per cent, without any awareness of the fact that by reducing the money spent on science and technology they are adding
May 13, 1976

an inflationary force to the country's economy. That is the basic point I wanted to make.
It is not the minister who should be attacked. It should be Treasury Board which works on a pure percentage basis. If the order comes through from the nitwits in Finance that you need to have restraint, the first target they aim at is research into all forms of science and technology. These people have borne the brunt of cuts and slashes every time in the past 15 years.
This motion is well put and timely. It brings to the attention of the Canadian people this phony effort to introduce a program to fight inflation called the AntiInflation Board, which does not even begin to get at the basic causes of inflation. It pretends that it does, and uses that excuse to cut down on research into basic science and technology. That type of attitude on the part of Treasury Board and the government is not serving the country in fighting inflation. In fact it adds to it. I strongly support this motion that the government should really take a hard look at itself, and not use science and technology as the guinea pig in carrying out any form of pretending that they are cutting expenses.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 58, proceedings on the motion of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just before three o'clock this afternoon, during the question period, I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) regarding one aspect of the operations that take place under the Supplementary Retirements Benefits Act.
Usually, as private members, when we put down a question for the late show, we like to have the minister here. I hope I am not expressing anything that the minister will take as a slight when I say I am just as happy to have the parliamentary secretary tonight because, in all honesty, I think he has been connected with this question for a very much longer period. His representation in this House from time to time, in and out, in and out, has been on behalf of a constituency in which a great many public servants reside. He has therefore been obliged to pay some attention to the pensions of public servants.
Adjournment Debate
The question I asked this afternoon had to do with the fact that the escalation of pensions which are paid by the government does not normally begin until the age of 60. I say "normally", because that is not an absolute rule; there are cases of public servants and others whose pensions are escalated prior to age 60, particularly if they are 55 and have put in 30 years of service, or met certain other conditions. But there is the particular case of retired RCMP personnel and retired Canadian armed forces personnel; there are other cases but these are the two main bodies in connection with which this question arises.
Because of their work, the personnel I have mentioned are permitted to retire early. In fact although I say they are permitted, they are, in many cases, forced to retire early. So their pensions begin at an early age. There are some instances of pensions actually beginning in the late forties, though I suppose the more common time for them to begin is in the fifties. Yet despite the fact that most persons who receive government pensions get the escalation once a year in accordance with the rise in the consumer price index, the individuals about whom I am speaking are obliged to wait until they are 60 years of age.
When this measure was first brought in the escalation amounted to only 2 per cent a year and did not mean very much to the persons affected. It was true, also, that at first no civil servants could get the escalation under the age of 60 and it therefore seemed reasonable to deny it to anyone else under 60. But now, when some persons are getting it under the age of 60 and when indexing is in the order of 8, 10 or 11 per cent, the question is of greater importance.
The parliamentary secretary will agree that we had a good discussion on this subject, that we were closest to coming to grips with it during the time when the Special Joint Committee on Employee-Employer Relations in the Public Service dealt with Bill C-52. That was last December. We had before us such persons as Mr. D. N. Nadon, President of the Canadian Forces Long Service Pensioners Association, and Mr. Fred Whitehouse, National Secretary of the Federal Superannuates National Association. Both these men and those associated with them pressed us on this point, and the hon. gentleman knows that somehow or other the notion got around that the government was going to yield, that there was going to be some change in the formula generally known as the 85 rule-that is not a good name for it, incidentally, because not every combination which adds up to 85 does the trick. However, when the crunch came we did not get it, and the people these organizations represent were disappointed.
That was the reason for my question this afternoon to the President of Treasury Board. I reminded him of what happened in December and I dared to hope that maybe by now the matter was being reconsidered. But the answer was no. When I suggested that it be made effective in January, at the time the escalation takes place, at least I had to give him credit for a straightforward answer. He said "no". I found this extremely disappointing, especially after the recognition I thought we had at the committee last December that there was a real case.
I am sure my friend, the parliamentary secretary personally supports the case, but since his minister this afternoon said no he cannot stand up tonight and say yes. However, I
95 5 68-2 l'/2

May 13, 1976
Adjournment Debate
hope he will tell me, as one who is close to the throne that he will go to bat and try to persuade his minister that this issue we thought we had resolved last December does need to be considered again, and that action should be taken on it just as soon as possible.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member who has just spoken for his complimentary remarks in my regard. I must tell him that I do not think his compliments are going to change in any way what I have to say.
As the hon. member knows, pension increases are currently payable to retired forces members when they reach age 60 if they have fewer than 26 years pensionable service. I think 60 and 25 was the origin of the 85 rule.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fifty-five and 30.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Various combination will arrive at it. They start age 59 if they have 26 years service, at age 58 with 27 years service, and so on to age 55 for a member with 30 or more years service.
This formula was determined after consultation with representatives of the Canadian forces and the RCMP, bearing in mind the amendments made in 1971 to the Public Service Superannuation Act which permitted public servants to retire on full accrued pensions at age 55 if they had over 30 years service. Such pensions were subject to yearly increases under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. In order to correct this anomaly between Public Service employees and members of other groups, the formula mentioned above was established with retroactive effect to January 1, 1973. However, it was felt that any further lowering of the age at which retired members of the Canadian forces or the RCMP could receive pension increases would have created a different anomaly in comparison with pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Under the forces pension plan, and others, individuals can retire at a much earlier age than public servants and receive their full pension. Therefore it was considered equitable to begin payment of pension increases to retired forces members at the same age at which long service public servants can receive both their full pension and the escalation.
Further, in looking at what the needs of retired members of the forces, public service and others may be, it seemed reasonable to expect that those who retire at younger ages are more likely to be able to find alternative employment. In such instances, the need for earlier escalation of pensions did not seem so acute as for those who have reached age 60, or over age 55 with long service, and who are more likely to have retired from active working life.
As my hon. friend mentioned, during the consideration of the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, the suggestion was made for a change in the escalation formula for members of the armed forces and the RCMP and these were considered. However, the govern-

ment could not see its way clear at that time or indeed, at present, to introduce such an amendment.
I can assure the hon. member that, in the on-going review of pension legislation, consideration will continue to be given to this matter although at present the government has no plans to introduce such an amendment for January of next year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary's time has expired.


MANPOWER-MEASURES TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I debate the issue tonight of student unemployment because of the precarious position with which we will be faced in Canada this summer as students graduate or return from universities to face a summer of almost record unemployment in Canadian history.
In my question to the minister yesterday I indicated that the total thrust of the summer student employment program would produce only some 12,000 jobs from 17 programs, and this will be only about 1.2 per cent of those seeking work. With a student population of some one million this will only be an insignificant dent in the need.
I recognize that, as the minister said in reply, I chose to refer only to programs of direct job creation. Indeed that is what we are looking for, direct job creation. He also said that the main effort of the government, and the one offering the greatest degree of success, is the increased co-operation of the private sector in placing students this summer. However, I fail to understand what this will achieve when we have an unemployment rate of 7.4 per cent.
As much as I want to be fair, I fail to see how the government will create 109,000 unpaid activities for students and summer jobs for an anticipated 200,000 students as a result of the national "Hire a Student" campaign. All I can say is that the government can come out with fancy names for programs which are varied and many, but cannot produce jobs.
The minister also in his reply evaded my request that he make a statement on motions to declare the programs which would realistically combat youth unemployment. He answered to the effect that all members were aware of the many and varied programs which were available. Well, I am aware of each and every program that was announced. I will list some of them. They include the Summer '76 program, the Information and Evaluation Program, the Summer Puppet Program, health activities, student community services, cadet training, community assistance, reserve training, parks awareness, Parks Canada, native employment, and many other programs to stimulate employment as the minister indicated.
I know about these programs, Mr. Speaker. I must know about them because of the embarrassing rate of unemployment in my district of Newfoundland. I also know that I will be getting hundreds of letters from students and parents of students wondering why there are no jobs available. The parents will be asking how their sons are to go
May 13, 1976

back to university, or indeed enter university, and the students will be asking the same thing. I will be receiving letters from high school graduates who will want a job so that they can earn enough money to enter university because some politician told him or her on their graduation about the wonderful world of opportunity we have in Canada.
I will also be receiving letters from university graduates who were told the value of a university degree. They will not be able to find that golden horizon they have been told about. I also know what the facts are. The facts are that for the 14 to 24 age group the unemployment rate for March, 1976, was 14.8 per cent for males, 11.5 per cent for females, an average of some 13 per cent. As of this date 348,000 in this age group are unemployed. This constitutes 45.8 per cent of the entire unemployed population of Canada and yet this age group only accounts for 26.4 per cent of the population.
Based on Statistics Canada figures, student unemployment peaks in June and gradually dwindles by August. In
1975	the labour force figures were 839,000 in June, 1,000,043 in July, and 984,000 in August. So, even if the minister's figures by any stretch of the imagination are correct, this will prove to be a critical summer for student employment. Yet the government has cancelled the OFY program, and the LIP program has been cut back. While LIP does not sponsor students directly it has been a source of student employment in the past.
I know that I will get the answer that OFY was cancelled because of restraints, but this is hypocritical because students will have to make excessive demands on student loan programs or there will be an additional burden on the over-burdened Unemployment Insurance Commission fund, increased social welfare payments, let alone the social spill-over.
We need only refer to the report of the committee on youth which, when referring to the high level of youth unemployment, said this:
The present tragedy is more than personal; it is societal in scope. Canadian society cannot cease to generate a broad range of options for its youth in the employment field.
I hope that the government realizes what a burdensome problem youth unemployment will be this summer, but it will not be overcome by expensive and meaningless ads that shout slogans such as "Have a Young Summer", or asking business and industry to "Hire a Student," when each day, almost repeatedly, there are more and more lay-offs in business and industry.
The government must initiate a massive youth employment program immediately. I do not see how it can avoid doing so. I hope that the reply I receive tonight will offer some hope of plans by the government to alleviate serious student unemployment which threatens our youth in Canada.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in the summer of
1976	an estimated 85 per cent of an anticipated student labour force of 1.3 million will find work in the private sector. Therefore to communicate the student hiring philosophy to employers across Canada, the Department of Manpower and Immigration is presently engaged in an
Adjournment Debate
intensive hire-a-student advertising campaign. They have been joined in this effort by the five major banks in Canada which will display their promotional material in some 6,000 branch offices across Canada. The message urges employers to hire students either for the entire summer or on a casual basis. This program is increased in size over previous years, but with no increase in costs. This has been accomplished by repeating last year's program, thus allowing savings to be channeled into a media campaign that will permit a wider distribution of publicity material.
In addition, the minister has personally written to all his provincial counterparts to request that every effort be made, despite present fiscal restraints, to create as many summer employment opportunities as possible. It is expected that provincial governments across Canada will spend approximately $48 million and create 60,000 jobs.
The federal effort will be in two areas. The first is the student summer employment and activities program in which eight federal departments operate 17 individual programs and create opportunities for an additional 109,000 to participate in unpaid activities, and includes some 300 Canada Manpower Centres for students which will operate across Canada in 1976, and it is anticipated that some
200,000	students will be placed in employment through these centres. The second is direct departmental hiring in which federal departments hire large numbers of students to supplement regular staff on holidays or increase regular departmental activities during the summer period. However, as these funds are within regular resources available to departments, it is difficult to calculate the total expenditures. Estimates provided by departments in September, 1975, for 1976 indicated that some 10,000 jobs would be created, costing individual departments approximately $17 million.


MULTICULTURALISM-PROPOSED APPOINTMENT OF MINISTER
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question tonight in the adjournment debate with respect to a matter which I raised some time ago in the question period with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) relating to the re-appointment of a minister responsible for multiculturalism. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister at that time indicated to me in a rather extended reply that he and the government had no interest in the appointment of a minister for this portfolio.
We all know that prior to the last election this portfolio was occupied by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hai-dasz). He was in fact given a great deal of profile with respect to the interest of the government regarding the third force in this country. I think it is interesting to remind ourselves in the House that fully one third of our population in Canada is neither of French nor English extraction. I suggest it represents a very important force in our country, one that requires reasonable representation within cabinet. I am sorry to say that the condideration that this group has so far received has been a consistent and continuing downgrading of multicultural concerns in our country.

May 13, 1976
Adjournment Debate
In the brief time I have at my disposal I should like to refer to what I think is a very appropriate and telling editoral from the Toronto Globe and Mail. I think this editorial really puts the finger on the matter of the multicultural program-or the lack of it-of the government. This editorial appeared on December 1, 1975, and in part it stated:
The multicultural program which Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau draped noisily upon his government's shoulders in 1971, was-to pick the best words for it-intended solely to persuade those Canadians of other than French and English mother tongues that they would not be neglected while Ottawa pushed ahead with official biculturalism and bilingualism. In short, a bribe-to buy off opponents of bi-and-bi-and a bribe of rather cynical dimensions.
The game plan was to pick a Polish-Canadian from the Liberal caucus, Dr. Stanley Haidasz, give him a cabinet title of Minister of State for Multiculturalism and let him have millions of dollars to hand out for ethnic poetry readings and choir singing and costumed dances and similar forms of ancestral consciousness-raising and-in particular-government advertising in the ethnic press.
All that, however, is the past. There is a new game plan (multiculturalism lost its Minister of State some time ago and shrank into a branch office of the Minister of Labour). We hear now from Labour Minister John Munro that the "folkloric aspects" of multiculturalism are going to be de-emphasized and instead there is going to be something called "group understanding" and "combatting discrimination"-all, mind you, at no extra cost.
Meaning?
We frankly have no idea and we doubt if anyone in the country does. Mr. Munro gives no specifics, no details, not even hints-except to coyly reveal that it will include government measures that are, or should be, already in place, such as Justice Department action against discrimination. So does National Health and Welfare next announce that it is changing its policies to support motherhood?
The government cannot be honest enough to say that what it is trying to do is pare its spending. (And, indeed, multiculturalism's budget has shrunk to about half of what it had in the halycon Haidasz days.) But we have our doubts about whether the government will do anything to save money and we suspect that the sum product of Mr. Munro's new policy will be to insult ethnic minorities with its emptiness.
As I pointed out, about one third of our population is of neither French nor English extraction, but if we compare the amount of money which is expended with respect to that portion we will see that there is in excess of $350 million for the biculturalism and bilingualism program as opposed to something like $7 million for the multiculturalism program.
Quite frankly, one is not surprised at the lack of representation of people from other than French and English extraction on the government side. There is very small representation from the third force of this country, and I suggest that the reason is that the government has no interest, except at election time, in giving anything but lip service to multiculturalism. It is an insult to that third of our population. The fact of the matter is that people in our society, such as my colleagues, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), and other people in our party, are members of this third portion of our country. We all try to speak out and to encourage the government to do something tangible to encourage the
ethnic traditions we and our forefathers have brought to this country, but I am afraid it all falls on deaf ears.
It was a specious argument the Prime Minister gave to me when he answered my question and tried to relate multiculturalism to the fact that he did not want to create other portfolios and expand the cabinet to unreasonable proportions. The fact is, that we had a portfolio of multiculturalism. The government is only playing a political game. I can assure the parliamentary secretary who is here to answer on behalf of the minister that the one third of the population which falls in this category will not be fooled in the next election. They will look back at the record of the government, and I can assure the hon. parliamentary secretary that the government may expect that one third of Canada's population will make their feelings known.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for his recent appointment by his new leader. I am convinced that this is an acknowledgment of his constant and excellent work.
The question raised tonight has already been answered several times before. In particular, on November 26, 1975, as show on page 9457 of the French Hansard, the Prime Minister indicated his difficulties in organizing his cabinet so as not to exceed the number required to serve the Canadian people well. He mentioned that there were many areas where the appointment of a minister would be useful. Moreover, he said the following:
... the government does not intend to lend any less emphasis to its strong belief in the policy on multiculturalism.
In fact, the last budget shows this since no cuts were made in this program. To administer the program, the minister responsible has a vast experience within the cabinet, of which he has been a member since 1968, after having been parliamentary secretary, and, like myself, all Canadians recognize his devotion and his great involvement in multiculturalism.
Like the President of the Treasury Board, I am convinced that the opposition should make up its mind either to accept willingly budgetary increases or to stop to continually urge the government to increase all its budgetary items.
I would also like to mention that the Minister of Labour has not announced any fundamental change in the multiculturalism program. In fact, he announced his intention to evaluate the result of this program, which is only five years old, and perhaps to reallocate funds so as to insist on certain aspects which seem to have been neglected.
However, Mr. Speaker, you can be assured that I would be proud and happy to accept the position recommended by my hon. friend if the Prime Minister judged it appropriate and if the budget allowed it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Friday, May 14, 1976