1986-10-22

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Auditor General mentioned aspects of the auditing of private pension plans in Canada that have raised his concern.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General even said that of the bank failures, the situation is like a time bomb and that close monitoring is required. There are over 15,000 public pension plans in Canada. The federal Government is responsible for about 750 of these plans. Like Conrad Black did in Ontario, more and more businesses are using private pension plan surpluses to finance their activities and even to finance takeovers abroad. 1 think all Members of this House should support the Auditor General's request that the government provide a better mechanism for protecting the money of Canadian workers.


TRIBUTE TO MADAM DENYSE BELANGER-ROCHON OF MONTPELLIER, P.Q.
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, today, the Persons Awards prize will be awarded to five Canadian women for their contribution to the advancement of the status of women in Canada. The House will recall that on October 18, 1929, the right of Canadian women to sit in the Senate was recognized, following a petition to give women the status of persons in the British North America Act.
This day is a very special one for my own riding in Argenteuil-Papineau, since one of the prize winners, Mrs. Denyse Belanger-Rochon, comes from Montpellier, and she will be receiving her award shortly from the Governor General of Canada. Mrs. Rochon, former president of the Quebec Federation of Women, has pressured the federal Government and the Government of Quebec to improve their record on such important issues as employment equity, impact of technological change on working women, pensions, daycare,
and the like. Mrs. Rochon deserves our admiration, and we want to extend to her our sincere congratulations for her work in general and her contribution toward advancing the cause of Canadian women, and we also wish to congratulate the other prize winners.


PENITENTIARIES
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has defended its decision to build a maximum security institution in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding as an exercise in job creation. Phoney statistics have been cited to support the decision, but whether Manicouagan has higher unemployment than any other Quebec riding is not the point. Job-creation projects should be job-creation projects, placed where most needed to provide good, productive jobs. If the Government wants to justify a particular project it must demonstrate how many jobs will be created at what cost, and that its proposed measure would be more effective than other measures for job creation. The Government has not done this.
Prison construction should never be used as job creation anyway, and the fact that the Liberals were just as bad is no excuse. Decisions about prison placement should be made according to correctional principles and, on this, opinion is unanimous. Port-Cartier is totally inappropriate, as was Renous which was built by the Liberals according to the same reprehensible, opportunistic, and misguided motives as Port-Cartier.


&quot;THINK CANADIAN&quot; CAMPAIGN
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, October and November have been designated by the Government of Canada as "Think Canadian" months, with a special emphasis on Canadian supermarkets. Canadians are being asked to buy Canadian-grown foods, not just because they are
606

October 22, 1986
Canadian but because Canadian foods are second to none in quality and price.
If Canadians as a whole think Canadian when shopping, we will keep thousands of fellow Canadians working, create jobs for thousands more, and make it possible for the Canadian farmer to continue to do the job he loves and does so well. Every dollar spent on Canadian-made products contributes to a healthier economy and that is good for all of us.
Agriculture Canada asks Canadians when shopping always to check for the country of origin of any product and to ask retailers to show us Canadian-made products.
Think Canadian, and wear a "Think Canadian" button.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my shock and dismay at the concerted attack of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and his Department on the unemployed of the country.
First, unemployed Canadians were hit with a $100 million cut in job-creation funds. Second, there were changes to unemployment insurance which negatively affected members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Third, the Forget Commission has called on the Government to reduce assistance further to Canada's unemployed. Fourth, the Minister has said that there will be no short-term job-creation programs this year, programs which would have provided desperately needed assistance to many Canadians. Fifth, the Minister is now cutting back on the staff in his Department, staff which is badly needed to assist Canada's unemployed in finding work.
Canadians want a Government which does not attack the weakest and least fortunate segments of our society. They want a Government which is caring and is concerned about the unemployed and will provide long-term meaningful jobs to the thousands of Canadians across the country who desperately need employment.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to challenge the attitude of opposition Members who feel that regional development should not be a
government priority. Their view is that if it costs more to do it in the regions of the country it should not be done.
As a Member from one of Canada's disadvantaged regions, I want to tell those critics that Canadians living in the regions strongly support the commitment of the Government of Canada to solving the problem of regional economic disparity. Incurring greater capital costs or operating expenses for the purpose of enhancing economic opportunities in the regions is surely far more constructive an approach than that which calls for continuation of social assistance and UIC payments, with no hope of employment for these needy Canadians. Those payments also amount to millions of dollars each year.
Regrettably, the Liberals and the NDP appear opposed to initiatives which will mean improved economic circumstances for Canadians living in the regions.


WELFARE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the National Council of Welfare reported that almost four million Canadians are presently living in poverty. Many of them are youngsters under 16 years of age. It is a disgrace that this situation exists in a country as wealthy as Canada. It is obvious that the system of welfare which was developed has broken down and no longer meets the needs of people whose needs are so great. I call upon the Government of Canada to work with the provinces, rethink the programs we have established, and to establish new programs which will meet the needs of our poor.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: During the summer recess, Mr. Speaker, I took it upon myself to travel throughout my riding of East Quebec and call on most businessmen who had availed themselves of the Challenge 86 summer employment program. In Quebec East, Mr. Speaker, 82 businesses and community organizations joined this program under which 221 jobs were created and $327,158 invested in the future of our young people. All employers with whom I met were enthusiastic about the work done by students and stated that this Government program has been a great help to them.
October 22, 1986

As to the students themselves, they candidly admit that without this program they would have been hard pressed to find such remunerative employment related to their studies or prospective career. I was even able to ascertain that some of them changed their career plans after this experience because they came to the conclusion that the work they were asked to perform was not really what they had expected in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I can only echo the feelings expressed by many of them and hope that the Challenge program will continue for years to come.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: According to the Auditor General's report, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has granted tax credits valued at $225 million more than the Post Canada deficit. Yet a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, we learned that Canada Post intends to boost first-class postage by 2 cents and slap charges on people who do not benefit from home delivery and others who receive special delivery items. In light of the Auditor General's report, Mr. Speaker, I should think that the Minister responsible for Canada Post ought to instruct Canada Post officials to stop forthwith any procedure aimed at increasing the cost of services to Canadians, and to restore full delivery service throughout the country.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply concerned about the Auditor General's reporting the unaccountability of $57 million by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Not only is this an unaccountability of CBC funds, but it is most importantly an unaccountability of Canadian taxpayers' money.
In a time of deficit reduction and curtailed spending this lack of accountancy organization exhibited by the CBC must be investigated. Parliament must be concerned with the lack of business organization demonstrated by the Corporation. I urge that a complete study of the Auditor General's reported inability to pass audit be commenced as soon as possible. Parliament must make every effort to make the CBC accountable and responsible.


THE FRANCHISE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker,
2,000	B.C. fishermen will be effectively disenfranchised from voting in today's B.C. election, because no arrangements were made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the B.C. Elections Branch. The Department announced a fisheries opening in the Johnstone Strait on Monday. That meant fishermen from Vancouver to northern Vancouver Island had to leave their homes early this morning; therefore they cannot vote in today's provincial election. They did not have the opportunity to vote in the advance poll, because the opening was not announced until Monday, and the advance poll closed last week.
It is disturbing that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the B.C. Elections Branch were not able to arrange for voting to take place on the fishing grounds, or for earlier notice. Surely, at the very least, the Department could have provided the use of one of its ships for this purpose and taken the initiative of informing the Elections Branch accordingly. As it is, the Elections Branch is saying that no facilities could be provided. Democracy is more important than this kind of buck passing.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express today in this House my deepest feeling of dissatisfaction concerning the current leaks about the Forget report scheduled to be tabled in late November. Over a year ago now, Mr. Speaker, our Government set up an inquiry commission to examine thoroughly the whole unemployment insurance scheme and the related legislation which goes back over 45 years. We asked the Forget Commission to submit a report, so that we might amend and improve the unemployment insurance scheme. Mr. Speaker, six qualified people have been mandated to report to the Government at a cost of some $5.6 million to Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that members of a commission may disagree with the content of a report, but it is altogether a different story when leaking information results in creating confusion among the public, and this, even before the final report is tabled. The situation is such that one wonders what has happened to professional ethic.

October 22, 1986
Oral Questions


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the House a letter which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by one of my constituents, Mr. David Villeneuve of Navan, Ontario. It reads:
I write in regard to the planned cuts at NRC.
An important and widely supported part of the Conservative election platform was to increase Canadian R&D to world levels, yet we have seen nothing but budget cuts and layoffs.
NRC has been hit three times, in November, 1984, in the government-wide cuts of November, 1985, and now the space station cuts. Surely that is enough.
All industrialized nations have national laboratories of some sort; ours is NRC. NRC maintains physical standards, provides national facilities for the use of industries, performs long term research in areas of national importance, and co-ordinates technology transfer to industry. Since Canadian industry is already doing very little innovative research, surely further cuts to NRC will only worsen the situation.
I urge the Prime Minister to listen to my constituent, Mr. Villeneuve.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon.   John. N. Turner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. He claims to have been motivated by regional development considerations when he spent $41 million in public funds to build a prison in his riding. Does the Prime Minister know that, according to the same Statistics Canada documents on which he based his argument in support of building the prison in his own riding, Quebec has 680 communities and villages where the unemployment rate is higher than in his own riding?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as we have said on many, many occasions, there were two main reasons for locating the prison at Port-Cartier; first, there is a need for protective custody cells within the Province of Quebec. That is not disputed. Second, this was an economically depressed region and this would assist the region. This is something which was certainly approved by the former Solicitor General in the former Government. I am surprised to find that those Hon. Members have suddenly changed and now
find it is not a good practice to assist regionally depressed areas of the country.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, if that argument were evenly applied, it would have more credibility.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
John Napier Turner: Does the Prime Minister recognize that his argument for building the prison in Port-Cartier, based on regional development, is a bit of a farce in view of other statistics? Does he realize that 89 per cent of all the communities in Newfoundland have a higher unemployment rate than Port-Cartier? Does he know that 20 per cent of all the towns in Newfoundland have over double the rate of unemployment of Port-Cartier? Is that the way to spread the regional development of this country?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, what we are discussing here is the forecast and need for prisons in the Province of Quebec. In Quebec there was a need for protective custody cells. That is borne out by the Auditor General's report. That is the need we are fulfilling and we are fulfilling it by putting the prison in an area which is regionally depressed.
Surely there is nothing wrong with that, and we make no apologies for it.


PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO ACCELERATE CONSTRUCTION OF PRISON-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Right Hon.   John. N. Turner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to the Auditor General's report where it is also stated that the Government had spent $11 million in surplus funds to build the prison, anxious as it was to complete the project before 1988, before the next general election, that is. Will the Conservative Party be billed for the $11 million in public funds wasted to speed up the project?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly amazed to see the Leader of the Opposition hounding the brave people of Port-Cartier, courageous people in the remote region of the North Shore who have been through severe hardships from 1975 to 1985.
The Governments of Quebec and Canada were asked to help people who were particularly hard hit by the economic crisis and, by taking this step, the Government of Canada came to the assistance of poor people, as it did in western Canada and in the depressed regions of Newfoundland. I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition should harass courageous people who asked for and obtained help from the Canadian Government.
October 22, 1986


CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING PROCEDURES
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Auditor General's Report in relation to the Port-Cartier prison. The report states that in order to meet the deadline of September, 1988-presumably set by the Prime Minister himself-short-cuts had to be used in the normal contracting procedures and that sole source contracts were used. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what is wrong with public tenders? Why were they not used for this process?
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions

Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the Minister confirm that Treasury Board made the decision to purchase the land for the London Research Centre from Donald Matthews, the co-chairman of the Prime Minister's committee at the PC leadership convention, before Treasury Board received adequate answers to questions which it posed to the Department of Agriculture?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take the Hon. Member's question under advisement and obtain the relevant information. Honestly, on a specific issue such as that, I cannot be expected to have the answer at my fingertips.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say to the Hon. Member that the usual call to tender procedure was followed in this case. There has not been the least abnormality or irregularity.


INQUIRY WHY SEPTEMBER, 1988, CHOSEN AS DATE FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder why the Auditor General included paragraph 7.95 in his report in that case.
As a supplementary, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if I may why the date of completion of the project is September, 1988. Where did this date come from? Is it only for political reasons that the Prime Minister wants to open himself the prison located in his constituency? If there are other reasons, he should stand up and say what they are.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that, first of all, there was a need which is clearly identified in the report of the Auditor General, and instead of trying to confuse the public, the Hon. Member should refer to paragraph 7.51 which says that, even with the construction of a new prison in Port-Cartier, there will be a surplus of only 30-


An Hon. Member:: Oh! Oh!


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, look at the right table. In the case of an institution with a useful life of 25 years, this simply shows good planning. There was a need and we have met this need. The site was chosen for socio-economic reasons and I have no excuse to make for trying to alleviate the regional disparities in Quebec.


QUERIES CONCERNING PURCHASE PRICE
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. If he read the Auditor General's Report he would know the facts. Is the Minister prepared to confirm in this House that the questions raised by Treasury Board with the Department of Agriculture, to which the Auditor General said no appropriate responses were received, concerned the price of the land, the amount of the land, who the vendor was, and alternative properties?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Hon. Member gets so excited. In actual fact some 36 sites were identified by qualified people within the Research Branch of Agriculture Canada as appropriate sites. Four of them reached the short list; but only one of those sites met all the criteria-


Mr. Broadbent:: And it was owned by a Conservative.


John Wise: -criteria not laid down by the Hon. Member, not by myself, but by research scientists.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General and the President of the Treasury Board have indicated today that there is a need, based on correctional considerations, for a protective custody prison at Port-Cartier. I would like to refer both Ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister, to Paragraph 7.89 of the Auditor General's Report in which the Auditor General has said that the decision to build at Port-Cartier cannot be justified on the basis of need.

October 22, 1986
Oral Questions
He goes on to say in Paragraph 7.98 that at the time the decision to relocate the prison from Drummondville to Port-Cartier was made, there was a surplus capacity of 381 cells. Based on these facts that are outlined-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Put the question.


John V. Nunziata: -in the Auditor General's report, can the Solicitor General provide us with figures that would substantiate the statement he made today that there is a need based on correctional considerations for the prison in the Prime Minister's riding?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to supply the answer to the Hon. Member. It is right in Paragraph 7.51 of the Auditor General's report dealing with capacity versus forecast. The Hon. Member will see that the actual surplus forecast for protective custody where the prison is being built in the Prime Minister's riding is only 30, and that for maximum security it is 381. However, that figure includes Drummondville 1 which, while it was built for maximum security, is being used for medium security. The actual maximum surplus is only 129.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: There is undoubtedly a need, and the reason this occurs is because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is maximum incompetence.


COST OF CONSTRUCTION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Forty-one million dollars is a lot of money. Think about it: $41 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John V. Nunziata: The Prime Minister has decided to fritter away $41 million of taxpayers' money, but does he realize that that money could have been used to send to each and every senior citizen in Canada who is living below the poverty line a cheque for $32, or it could have been used to send to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline a fact of which the Members opposite seem unaware.
The new institution will replace the Laval institution which has to be closed. At this time, we have to spend $4 million in capital costs alone for an institution which is outdated.
When you deal with figures, you have to consider both the savings and the expenditures.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I obtained this morning a copy of a Treasury Board minute of a decision made on November 30, 1984, when the Minister was President of the Treasury Board about the purchase of a certain piece of land near London, Ontario. Since he has offered to look into the matter, will he confirm that, while he was President of the Treasury Board, the Treasury Board agreed to purchase land with insufficient information about price, with insufficient information about from whom the land was being purchased, and with an unanswered query about why more than twice the amount of land that was stipulated as being necessary was being bought? In short, could the Minister tell us why a decision of such incredible wastefulness was made by the Government?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I indicated before that the assessment of need was done by research scientists from Agriculture Canada. In fact, if there is any suggestion of patronage, the Hon. Member might be interested to know that the research was done and indeed the decision in principle was made and announced by my predecessor, the Hon. Eugene Whelan, in London in July of 1984.


REASONS FOR PURCHASE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, to quote someone else, I want to say to the Minister that he had an option. He had a choice. His Government was elected to make certain changes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Oshawa has the floor.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the decision to purchase this land was made by the present Government. I have the Treasury Board minute dated November 30, 1984. The Conservatives, I remind the Minister, were in power, not the Liberals in November, 1984.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, who is smirking away about this additional waste of government money, does he agree that purchasing more than twice the amount of land required at almost double the price seen to be appropriate by the Auditor General is a sensible way to run a Government? Is that why he was elected?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated for the third time, I believe, the assessment and the criteria were laid down not by the Auditor General, not by the former Minister of Agriculture, not by this Minister
October 22, 1986

of Agriculture, not by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, but by qualified research scientists.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: The butler did this one too.


John Wise: Obviously my precedessor looked at the information. He evaluated it and followed the advice of the research scientists. We did have a choice. We did have an option. We exercised that option. It was the right option because the facts were there and it was the obvious place to build a research centre.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Minister, a man I respect, that in this case the facts were not there according to the Auditor General.


PRIME MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Prime Minister. According to the Auditor General and according to the Treasury Board minute that I have, more than twice the amount of land was purchased than was deemed necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has referred fulsomely to the document and told the House what is in it. Would the Hon. Member put his question?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who is responsible for his Ministers' decisions. Does the Prime Minister intend to continue this squandering of public funds?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's colleague was denouncing this decision a few minutes ago. The President of the Treasury Board said that he would look into it and respond to my hon. friend. I find it interesting that he was denouncing the decision apparently because Mr. Don Matthews is a co-chairman of the PC Canada Fund.


John Edward Broadbent: No, not so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is also the father-in-law of David Peterson.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: How does that answer it? That is a great answer. We will see how that flies.
Oral Questions


PENSIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, during a press conference, the Auditor General stated that in view of the failure of a number of banks, the issue of the auditing of pension funds could be compared to a time bomb. In his report, the Auditor General expressed concern about the increasing tendency of companies to use pension fund surpluses to finance their own activities.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us clearly what he intends to do immediately to protect workers' money against this increased tendency of companies to use their employees' pension fund surpluses?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for this opportunity to respond to that point raised in the Auditor General's Report. I know the Member will not want to be an alarmist because the Auditor General himself made it very explicit that he was not being an alarmist with regard to these pension plans. The purpose of his report, of course, is to flag possible problems in the future. The Department of Insurance has been studying this matter and will be making a report to me shortly on how it is further going to improve supervision of this matter. Speaking of the present, I do want to say that the management of federally registered pension plans has been extremely good. There have been almost no problems. Management has been so good that it is producing surpluses rather than problems.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Minister that the administration of banking institutions was fine until this Conservative Government came to power and two banks failed. We should not wait until something similar happens to pension plans.


REQUEST FOR STANDARDIZATION OF AUDITING PRACTICES FOR PENSION PLANS
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is well aware that there are over 15,000 pension plans in Canada and that the federal Government has jurisdiction over 750 of them. Is the Minister prepared to call a meeting of his provincial counterparts to standardize auditing practices for pension plans, both at the provincial and federal levels, to make sure that the $120 billion in employees' contributions are protected?


Thomas Hockin: That idea is among many that have been presented and I will be glad to have a look at it, Mr. Speaker.

October 22, 1986
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ELIZABETH CARR, HON. MURIEL MCQUEEN FERGUSON, DENYSE BELANGER-ROCHON, BERENICE SISLER AND HELEN YEO
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery today of Elizabeth Carr, the Hon. Muriel McQueen Ferguson, Denyse Belanger-Rochon, Berenice Sisler and Helen Yeo.

These women have received the 1986 Persons Awards for their outstanding contributions toward improving the status of women in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will want to know that they are accompanied by two recipients of the 1979 Persons Awards: Mary Two-Axe Early and Sophie Dixon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. Pardon me, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


Mr. McCurdy:: I know it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between my colleague and me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: He doesn't dress as well as I do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member should be grateful that I see him at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR CANADA
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is a serious one and it is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What action does he intend to take in response to the effrontery of our national airline not only in ignoring our own Canadian sanctions but deliberately undermining U.S. sanctions by providing transportation for a tour to South Africa, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has condemned himself quite vigorously?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I understand its seriousness and I share the concern of the Hon. Member. The matter has only recently come to my attention. It does appear that Air Canada, a Crown agency, is in effect acting in a way that would undermine sanctions introduced by another country against South Africa. This is a very difficult matter to monitor in terms of the final destination of passengers which Air Canada might be carrying. Nonetheless, I intend to have a very early meeting with officials of Air Canada to express my concern, and I assume the concern of the House on that matter, to see if there is some way we can resolve the problem.


Mr. Benjamin:: Phone them and tell them to quit.


REQUEST THAT CROWN CORPORATIONS BE DIRECTED NOT TO DEAL WITH SOUTH AFRICA
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Since, Mr. Speaker, this is one of a number of instances in which Crown corporations or government agencies have been dealing with the South African Government or its agencies, is it not about time, consistent with our sanctions, that the Government issued clear directives to all Crown corporations and government agencies not to have any truck or trade with South Africa, clearly and unequivocably?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been in touch with the Crown corporations. To my knowledge there are perhaps three which have some kind of association with South Africa. The Air Canada link is new, and I have indicated what I hope to do about that. The CN matter was raised in the House the other day. I indicated that I had to make a decision with regard to participation in a conference. Eldorado is involved in a particular contract which was in place before our actions were introduced. We decided to respect the sanctity of the contract but to prevent any new contracts being entered into.
If any Member of the House has information about activities by any other Crown corporation, which are inconsistent with the policy of the Government respecting South Africa,
I would certainly welcome hearing the details of that information.


WOMEN IN WORKFORCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin was reported by some of our large newspapers as stating that senior ministers in the
October 22, 1986

Conservative Government were poisoning the Prime Minister with feminist ideas. Can the Prime Minister tell us how his Government intends to help women on the labour market when most Tory back-benchers favour sending women back to housework?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things which is quite evident in this House is where women sit on the front benches.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: In 25 years of Liberal Government in this country there was nothing done either for the deficit or for women. In this Government we have reduced the deficit. We have done things for women, like amend the Indian Act, improve the pension system, and provide employment equity. That is because of our Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONCEPTION OF WOMEN'S ROLE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Does he not believe that this medieval concept of women's role that is described and shared by most Members in the Tory caucus-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lucie Pépin: -would explain the Government's chronic weakness when it comes to establishing a decently funded daycare service network?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, let me first correct what is no doubt an error made inadvertently by the Hon. Member. It is a fact that we have an impressing number of women in senior Cabinet positions. It was my privilege to double-my figures are not recent but I think that is the ratio-the number of women deputy ministers in the Public Service. We have doubled the number of women appointed to senior positions within the Public Service. We have undertaken a number of initiatives to favour women in Canada, and it is my view that the status of women in Canada is much healthier since this Conservative Government was elected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Government's job strategy has placed clear responsibility on the business sector of Canada to work with government in creating jobs. I am happy to say that the private sector has responded in a very positive way. Could the Minister tell the House what the response of the private sector has been to the Government's initiative of matching dollar for dollar, up to a total of $1 billion, the contribution of those companies willing to invest in university research in Canada?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question provides me with an opportunity to point out that the program we initiated earlier this year was designed to forge important linkages between in-house and university research in the private sector. It is over-subscribed. The first three years of private sector contribution have already been secured.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the London agricultural facility. The matter is not whether the Premier of Ontario is in some way connected, nor is it the fact that the seller of the land donated over $10,000 to the Conservative Party. I want to give the Minister a chance to answer my question. Why did Treasury Board approve the purchase of 67 acres of land before the four points raised in the Treasury Board memo were answered? Why was the decision made before it had that information?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member put a clear and specific question. I hope he would not feel that he has to repeat it.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of saving time of the House, I believe I have fully and completely answered that question on three previous occasions in this particular Question Period.


TREASURY BOARD APPROVAL
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, for four times or five times in a row the President of the Treasury Board has attempted to rise to answer my question. I should like to give him that opportunity. Will he explain why this decision was taken without having the full information before Treasury Board?

October 22, 1986
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated at the very outset of this line of questioning that I would look into it in detail and report back. Second, the Minister of Agriculture has already answered the question. Third, allegations have been made that somehow there was some wasteful spending of public funds. I should like to refer the Hon. Member to paragraph 1.9 of the Report of the Auditor General which reads in part:
Another sign of hope that those responsible for spending taxpayers' dollars are doing so more carefully lies in the increased emphasis on a need for restraint in public expenditure.
It went on to talk about the very remarkable record of the Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister in constraining expenditures and ensuring that money is well spent.

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
According to the General Auditor's Report, the Minister of National Revenue, on November 14, 1984, authorized income tax remittals for up to $225 million, a figure which exceeds Canada Post's total deficit.
Why such generosity, when the Government is asking Canadians to tighten their belts, is slashing pensions, and reducing home delivery of the mails and other services essential to Canadians?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken and if I heard correctly the question of my hon. colleague, he referred to November, 1984. Under the circumstances I can undertake that I will check into it, because I was not Minister at that time, and endeavour to give him a satisfactory answer.


APPARENT INEQUITIES CONCERNING POSTAL SERVICES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I referred to Note 4.44 of the General Auditor's Report and I would like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance.
How can the Minister ask Canada Post to cut down on services in order to reduce the deficit, when Revenue Canada is giving away millions of dollars?
Will he instruct Canada Post not to increase rates and to have door-to-door mail delivery?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is referring to the whole question of tax expenditures, which I addressed very carefully and clearly in the House yesterday. We have taken steps to reduce and eliminate a number of the tax expenditures which were brought in over the past number of years by the previous Government, including limited partnerships, the scandalous scientific research tax credits, and the financing of yachts and hotels through tax gimmicks. We have reduced all these things in the interest of fairness and in the interest of utilizing taxpayers' dollars more effectively.


EMPLOYMENT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the proper use of scarce job-creation funds. According to the Auditor General, the federal Government signed an agreement in March, 1985, to create an industrial park in a Conservative riding. Will the Prime Minister explain why the contract was signed, given that according to the Auditor General "the project met none of the three eligibility criteria necessary, nor was there any justification of the need for the project"? This is case No. 1 in the Auditor General's report. Is this the kind of job-creation project he supports?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, this project was initially approved in December, 1983. The assessment was carried out with the provincial and municipal Governments. It was on that basis that the decision was taken to proceed with the purchase of the land and preparation of a site plan. Since then we now have the Canadian Jobs Strategy which has eliminated capital expenditures like this and replaced them with training programs that address more directly the needs of the unemployed.


REPLACEMENT OF COMMERCIAL SIGNS PROJECT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister explain why the Government proceeded with a modified agreement in another Conservative riding for the replacement of commercial signs? It was not demonstrated that any jobs would be created, and the companies in question were well able to replace their own signs. What assurance can he give us that scarce job-creation funds will not continue to be misused in this fashion? Should the unemployed not count in these job-creation schemes?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the former Minister of



October 22, 1986

Oral Questions
Employment and Immigration for creating the Canadian Jobs Strategy. She took over at a time when there were some 35 to 40 makeshift, constituency-oriented programs. We put into effect a program which provides real job training with real work experience.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will know that the Minister of Supply and Services has confirmed that her Conservative predecessor intervened and changed the bidding process regarding the awarding of the CF-18 maintenance contract. Did the Prime Minister order this intervention? Was it the President of the Treasury Board? If so, why was this intervention ordered?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the decision is now before the Treasury Board. It would perhaps be improper to add to the comments already made in this House. However, I can assure the Hon. Members that my predecessor and myself have acted with complete integrity and in full respect of democratic principles.
I should perhaps remind the House that Ministers and Members of Parliament are not here on an honorary basis. We are here to defend the interests of the Canadian Government, and that is what we are doing.


COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the refusal of the Minister to provide details raises serious questions about the bidding process.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The refusal or otherwise by a Minister even to answer a question is not a proper subject for comment in a supplementary. I ask that Hon. Members get to their supplementaries as quickly and directly as possible.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister explain what she and the Government mean by the competitive bidding process? Will she comment on the various considerations being evaluated regarding this contract? The principle of merit and the integrity of the bidding process are in question.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to repeat that, whatever the decision is, it will be in the interest of Canada as a whole.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He, together with the President of the Treasury Board, recently assured this House that the Government is living up to its signed agreements with Indian people. Between Section 11.104 and Section 11.113 of the Auditor General's Report he specifically indicts this Government and its Liberal predecessors with failure to file reports demanded by the Act, and obviously a failure to live up to the spirit if not the letter of the treaties as enshrined in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreements.
Given that, will the Minister recommend to the Government that an agency or Ministry with the clout to ensure that the Government complies with its agreements takes over responsibility from his Department which, the Auditor General clearly states, cannot exert that much influence?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the statements by the Auditor General and we take them very seriously. We have taken action, indeed my predecessor had taken actions, to examine the workings of the Department prior to the Auditor General's Report. I will continue to build on those.
Specifically referring to the James Bay Agreement, I draw to the Hon. Member's attention that the 1982, 1983 and 1984 annual reports have not been filed. However, I can assure him, and he well knows the circumstances, that I will be tabling reports for those years when this Government was not in power.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River on a short supplementary.


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENTS TO NATIVE PEOPLES
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's willingness to clear up the mess left by his Liberal predecessors. What action will this Government take to ensure that its commitments to the native people of Canada are kept?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that this Government has taken every action to meet its commitments under the treaties. We have gone to great lengths, as both he and the Indian leadership in Canada know, to discuss with the Indian leadership how we can better serve their goals and the goals of this Government.
October 22, 1986

Oral Questions FINANCE


PENSION PLAN TAX RULES-PAYROLL PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On October 10, the day after he announced the new tax rules for pension plans including the immediate suspension of all additional voluntary contributions, I raised with him the undue hardship this would impose on tens of thousands of Canadians who save between $10 and $20 a week through payroll deductions. Will he now reinstate the right of employees to make additional voluntary current service pension contributions for at least the rest of this year, and preferably until the end of next year when the new pension tax system is fully operational?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member very much for his continuing interest in the question of pension reform. I want to confirm that the current contributions, not the past service contributions, can be made to these types of plans up to the end of next year, at which time the new rules will come into effect.


AIR CANADA
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the complicity of Air Canada in aiding and abetting the apartheid regime of South Africa. In response to a question from the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walker-ville the Minister said that "The matter only recently came to my attention". Can he then explain how, almost a year ago, the Chairman of Air Canada wrote a letter to the union which had been seeking tougher sanctions against doing business with South African airlines and said he was waiting for a directive? He had contacted the Department of External Affairs and was told there was no specific directive from that Department to cut this truck and trade with the South Africans.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that and see if the Hon. Member has her facts right.


IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have further facts from Statistics Canada if the Minister does not
believe the Chairman of Air Canada. They show that imports to Canada from South Africa during the first six months of 1986, the time when the Minister was speaking so strongly about this issue, increased over 20 per cent. Can he explain how in the first six months of 1986, supposedly during his Government's fight against apartheid, imports to this country from South Africa increased by over 20 per cent?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): The Hon. Member may believe she can fool some of the people some of the time, but she cannot get away with this sort of thing consistently. She knows full well that the figures she cites referred to import and export performance before the imposition on November 1 of this year of the measures we have been talking about. Of course they would not show up in the statistics gathered before those measures took effect. Of course they would not.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Can the Minister tell the House when she intends to explain the position of the Government on the Caplan-Sauvageau Report?

In particular, can the Minister comment on the principal objections of the Canadian Cable Television Association that all cable companies must carry an omnibus Canadian channel but Canadians are not seriously worried about U.S. domination of cultural industries such as television?
[DOT] (UOO)


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is studying all the recommendations of the Caplan-Sauvageau report. It is my understanding that, as we are doing so, the Parliamentary Committee on Communications and Culture will be holding hearings to allow all the players in the industry, that is the private and public sectors, the broadcasters and the cable industry, to make their representations before the committee to provide their analyses of the Caplan-Sauvageau report. I am sure that it is in the interests of all of us here in Parliament and in the industry to do what we can to improve and strengthen all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system.
October 22, 1986


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and is with regard to the comments of the Auditor General yesterday on the activities of the Research Branch of Agriculture Canada. According to the Auditor General, Agriculture Canada did not implement his recommendations with respect to hazardous wastes in 1982. Could the Minister tell us why the Department did not take care to implement those recommendatiions? What do the Minister and the Government intend to do to ensure that this kind of carelessness with respect to hazardous wastes stops here in the Ottawa region?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, because the impact of the observations relates to the environment, perhaps I could answer the question. Some of the observations made by the Auditor General are valid and have been well taken by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and myself. Both Departments are in the businesss of health and are committed to setting a good example for the private sector.
For that reason, in the last year in particular we have cooperated by improving our inventory control, by building storage facilities, by recruiting personnel for this and related purposes and, more generally, by ensuring that the storage of hazardous chemicals by the federal Government meets the highest and most rigorous environmental standards.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I beg the patience of the House. The Member who is supposed to speak is coming. I know he is on his way.


Mr. Speaker:: I want the Hon. Member to know that I have sent for the Hon. Member and I am very pleased to hear that he is coming.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the Chair that I am ready to speak.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I respectfully request that you take into account that there are still many Members leaving the House and carrying on conversations which seem to have arisen out of Question Period.


Mr. Jelinek:: Not any more. They have all left.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Perhaps we can have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to suspend the sitting if necessary until the Member who is going to move our Opposition Day motion comes into the House and takes his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that at times Hon. Members ought to be considerate of each other. I am sure that Hon. Members would generously support me in allowing a moment or two to allow the Member who wishes to move the motion to come into the Chamber, which he has now done. I am sure that the generosity extended to the Hon. Member and his colleagues by Members in the Chamber will be reciprocated at an appropriate occasion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. David Berger (Laurier) moved:: That this House condemns the government for breaking its promise to double Canada's research and development effort to 2.5 per cent of GNP, and for the measures announced since September, 1984, which are undermining research and development, long term economic growth and the competitiveness of Canadian businesses in world markets, measures such as budget cuts made to the National Research Council, the funding freeze on university research, the reduction of federal transfers for post-secondary education, and cuts to government research programs in the areas of energy, environment, fisheries and agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members of the House for extending to me the courtesy of waiting a moment or so as I made my way to the House.
Often statements made and questions asked by members of the Opposition are suspect. We are expected to criticize the Government. I imagine that people who hear members of the

October 22, 1986
Supply
Opposition make statements or speak about failures of the Government are often inclined to discount what we have to say. In the minutes which I have here this afternoon I will try to do something a bit different. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to think of this House as a court room for the next few minutes. On trial is the Government's science and technology policy. More precisely, I submit that the Conservative Government is charged with breaking its promise to double Canada's research and development efforts to 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product. To borrow a phrase from a court room, I submit that the government's record since taking office borders on criminal negligence. I will be the Crown prosecutor and I plan to call witnesses today to provide the court with independent testimony. You will not be hearing what I have to say. You will be hearing what a number of independent witnesses have to say about this Government's record. The jury is looking through the television cameras and sitting in the public gallery. They will pronounce the verdict. They will determine the sentence. Perhaps, as a result of this exercise, we can fill the new prison in Baie-Comeau. There are a number of basic facts which are so widely known that they do not have to be proved. I would ask the court to take notice of these facts.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the total investment of Canada in research and development is much less than that of our trading competitors. Indeed, in 1979, Canada was last of all major OECD countries. The former Liberal Government had set as its target for 1985 a proportion of 1.5 per cent of the Gross National Product for research and development expenditures. Substantial progress was made between 1979 and 1985; real investment doubled and increased from $2.7 billion to $5.3 billion, which, in real terms based on the inflation rate, represents an increase of about 31 per cent.
The first pieces of evidence which I would like to introduce are documentary. First of all, I have an excerpt from a speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made to the Ottawa-Carleton Progressive Conservative Association on February 9, 1984 when he was Leader of the Opposition. I would like to quote what the Right Hon. gentleman said at that time. He said:
The way to improve our dismal trade performance lies in increased Research and Development. We have to double our Research and Development commitment and triple our resolve to reach it.
I would ask that this statement be identified as Exhibit "A".
I also wish to read into the record a statement from the Prime Minister's book entitled Where I Stand which was published in 1983. The Prime Minister, who was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party at that time, said:
The National Research Council, which acts as Canada's main research laboratory, needs a funding increase of at least 20 per cent-
I would ask that that excerpt from the Prime Minister's book be identified as Exhibit "B".


An Hon. Member:: Carry on with the quote. Finish the sentence. Be fair. There is such a thing as perjury in court.


David Berger: The Progressive Conservative campaign handbook said the following:
A Progressive Conservative Government will make up the ground Canada has lost in technological research and development through:
Doubling our national commitment to R & D from 1.3 per cent of Gross National Product (GNP) to 2.5 per cent of GNP within the first four years we are in office.
That is from the Progressive Conservative campaign handbook. I would ask that the court identify this excerpt as Exhibit "C".
You will agree, ladies and gentleman of the jury, that these pieces of evidence prove conclusively that the Conservative Government campaigned on a promise to increase research and development spending. Canadians were not imagining things.
What has happened since the Progressive Conservatives took office?


An Hon. Member:: The country has gone down the tubes.


David Berger: Preliminary figures from Statistics Canada show that research and development spending as a percentage of Gross National Product declined in the first part of 1986 to 1.3 per cent from the 1985 level of 1.34 per cent. This is the first time in 15 years, with the exception of the recession year of 1983, that Canada's R and D effort has declined. I would ask that these statistics which come from the "Science Statistics Service Bulletin" of Statistics Canada be identified as Exhibit "D".
As a final piece of documentary evidence, I would like to table an excerpt from the current issue of The Financial Post dated October 25, 1986. This is their special report on research and development, entitled "Industrial R & D Spending Slows". I would like to quote from the first two paragraphs of this special report. The writer states:
After substantial increases in research and development budgets in 1985, Canadian companies will barely boost their spending this year.
The Financial Post's exclusive annual survey shows total expenditure on industrial R & D is expected to rise by little more than 3 per cent, vs 14 per cent last year.
I would ask that that report from The Financial Post be identified as Exhibit "E".

Mr. Speaker, as my first witness, I would ask that the Quebec Minister of Finance step into the box. I would ask him a few questions about the effect of Bill C-96 introduced by the Conservative Government to reduce transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care.
I would ask the Quebec Minister of Finance to tell the court what the effect was of Bill C-96 introduced by the Conservative Government to reduce funds allocated to post-secondary education and health care.
October 22, 1986

What was the effect of this legislation, Mr. Minister? The reply of the Quebec Finance Minister appeared in The Globe and Mail on May 2, 1986, and was as follows: "Under the circumstances, the Government has no choice. It is obliged to resort to taxation to compensate for the shortfall resulting from federal cutbacks."
As my second witness, I would ask the President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to take the stand and to comment on the statements of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to the effect that a Government initiative will provide $1 billion in new money for university research. First, I would ask the president if he would provide the court and the jury with details of the financial situation of his council during 1985-1986. The president, if he were here today, would answer in the following fashion, and I am quoting from his report of 1985-86 to the Minister of State for Science and Technology:
The financial situation for NSERC during much of 1985-86 can be described as uncertain and difficult. Council was forced to operate during most of the year with a budget... almost 10 per cent less in real spending power-
That is, less than in the previous year. Never before had the Council been required to operate with a reduced funding level.
Second, I would like to ask the president of the Council to tell us the effect of the Government's funding decision which was announced in the Budget of February, 1986. Again, the answer may be found in the words of the President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council:
The decision is far from the funding levels called for in the second five-year plan. The increased base level of support-will, by 1990, only hold NSERCs budget at a spending power equal to that of 1984-85-
The Budget, in other words, has been frozen, assuming a 4 per cent inflation rate.
I would Finally like to ask the President how the members of Council feel about this decision. Again, the President of the Council, if he were here, would state the following, which may be read in his report:
The federal Government's response to the second five-year plan is naturally a disappointment to the Council. After eight years of effort to improve the R&D environment in Canada, Council has developed some very innovative, flexible and productive programs to strengthen Canadian graduate schools ... However, Council is now having to stop the upward momentum that was premised on increasing real budgets and on an increasing percentage of the nation's Gross National Product.
I would now like to briefly deal with the recent cuts at the National Research Council. I would like to ask the President of the National Research Council to take the stand. My question is: Dr. Kerwin, what is the effect of the recent cuts at the National Research Council? Dr. Kerwin would answer, and I quote again from a recent news report:
I think we have to admit that it will weaken us further. The NRC has been very successful in helping high technology companies to get started. And we have helped to create tens and tens of thousands of jobs at a very reasonable cost and our ability to do this will obviously be impaired.
Supply

Mr. Speaker, another question, would be: If you want to describe the effect of these cutbacks in a few words, what would you say? Once more, Dr. Kerwin has already replied to this question. At his press conference a week ago, he said that these cutbacks are regrettable, tragic and even worse.

During the course of these few minutes I have tried to present to this House, this imaginary court, irrefutable evidence of the guilt of the accused, the guilt of the Government. If we in this courtroom open our ears we will all clearly hear the verdict from the jury, from those listening in the gallery, from those watching on television, from all Canadians because they recognize that without research and development we are jeopardizing our future, our children's future and Canada's position as a leading western democracy.
I hope the sentence which will be pronounced by the Canadian people in their communications with Members of the Government, in their letters to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of State for Science and Technology, and in their visits to the offices of their Members of Parliament, will shake the Government into recognizing the importance of the commitments made during the last election campaign so that it will change direction before our future is too seriously mortgaged.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The trial will continue with another lawyer, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis).


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


An Hon. Member:: Cross examination.


Philip Derek Lewis: That was back in the days when I made real money.
I would first suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that no competent lawyer would ever suggest in court that a number of facts are so well known that they do not have to be proved. But that is not why I have risen today. I rise to suggest that there has been a contempt of court.
An. Hon. Member: Right on.


Philip Derek Lewis: The Hon. Member introduced as evidence part of a sentence in the Prime Minister's book Where I Stand. He quoted this much: "The National Research Council, which acts as Canada's main research laboratory, needs a funding increase of at least 20 per cent-". If you check the "blues", Mr. Speaker, you will find he stopped there. He failed to complete the sentence which reads: "-to bring it up to approximately $400 million". I suggest to you, Sir, the Hon. Member misled the court. I suggest that in a real courtroom that would be contempt of court and would bring about a severe chastisement from the judge and the law society.

October 22, 1986
Supply
In fact, I can give the real figures for that period. In 198586, an expenditure of $434 million; in 1986-87, an estimated expenditure of $417 million; in 1987-88, an expenditure of $431 million. I suggest that the jury will wonder if my hon. colleague in fact knew those figures, and whether that is the reason he did not complete the sentence.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I really think the Hon. Member is once again trying to confuse the issue.


Philip Derek Lewis: I didn't misread the quote.


David Berger: With respect to the figure of $400 million mentioned in the Prime Minister's book in 1983,1 presume the candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party at that time was referring to 1983 dollars. I invite the Hon. Member to look at the current estimates for 1986-87 of the National Research Council which is in 1986 dollars, taking into consideration the inflation which has occurred in the past few years. That will demonstrate that the Government's own estimates of the Council's budget for this fiscal year is $398 million. I would suggest to the Hon. Member, if he is not capable of understanding this basic arithmetic, to talk to any economist about the effects of inflation and about the difference between 1986 dollars and 1983 dollars, because I submit the point I made is essentially accurate. That is to say the Prime Minister promised an increase in the budget of the National Research Council of some 20 per cent, and we have seen the opposite since he took office. The budget of the Council has dropped from $530 million, which it was in 1984, to $400 million today, a decrease of 28 per cent.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the House. I do not talk in lawyers' jargon. I will try to make myself understood without resting my case on a lot of facts and figures.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member why it is that over a decade or more under the Government of which he was a part the national performance of science and technology did not increase by one nickel. In fact, it declined severely. Before the Minister rises to answer the question, I would point out that the whole purpose and thrust of the initiatives taken by my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberie), has been to improve the efficiency of our in-house scientific effort; to focus our research resources more effectively on the emerging areas of challenge in the new frontier world of science; to strengthen linkages with the private sector since we have never received a significant payoff or return on our investment in government science in the market-place; and to accelerate and enhance the transfer of technology into the private sector where it creates permanent real employment. These initiatives are very much along the lines of the important report submitted by Dr. Doug Wright and his colleagues.
I suggest that the Hon. Member is not being honest with the House-not intentionally-when he says that the budget of
the National Research Council was $530 million in 1984. He is giving the impression that somehow it is being reduced when, in fact, the Government of which he was a part built a number of brick and stone monstrosities around the country without ever budgeting for their capital operating requirements, or even setting aside the scientists and person-years to put in them. That is the problem which my colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, wrestles with today.
The Minister did not point out-


Frank Oberle: The "Member".


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Member did not point out that there is a new bio-technology centre in his own city of Montreal which will require over 200 new person-years. The Hon. Member did not mention the new research institute in optics in Ste-Foy, Quebec. Nor did he mention the new research institute in Winnipeg. All of these institutions were built by the former Government with no provisions to operate them. That is the dilemma with which my colleague is faced.
I have one question in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Hon. Member who is responsible for the motion before us to tell me very concisely what cuts were made to government research programs in the area of fisheries. What cuts were made? I would like some specific evidence of cuts that were made.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the Minister for referring to me as a Minister. His colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, has made the same mistake. I think they are thinking ahead a few years.
The Minister referred to the Liberal record. I touched on that subject in my speech. Our Government did not set a goal which was unattainable. The Conservative Party set a goal of 2.5 per cent, a doubling of our spending on research and development. Countless experts, such as Gordon MacNabb, the former President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, has said time and time again that we do not have the people, the students in high schools and universities in science courses today to reach that goal.
The second five-year plan of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council was designed to build upon the efforts of the Liberal Government, to get more young people into science and to have the infrastructure necessary to increase the scientific capability of Canada. That plan was rejected by the Conservative Government.
As far as our record is concerned, we set a goal of 1.5 per cent of Gross National Product in spending on research and development by 1985. There was a steady increase from the end of the 1970s to the mid-1980s in terms of reaching that goal. As I pointed out in my remarks, what we have seen in the first part of 1986 is that Canada is starting to fall away from that goal, thanks to the efforts of the Government.
October 22, 1986

As far as my assessment of what has taken place at the National Research Council and its funding levels is concerned,
I will be happy to go into a detailed discussion of the figures at any time. The Government's Estimates clearly demonstrate the case. I have other figures which supplement the information that is contained in the Estimates, since the Estimates were tabled last February.
In assessing what has happened at the National Research Council, I would put my money any day of the week on the word of people such as Dr. Basinski or Dr. Larkin Kerwin, the President of the Council, who has said that these cuts are weakening an already frail structure and that they are regrettable and tragic. Even worse than that, I would put my money any day of the week on the assessment of Dr. Larkin Kerwin rather than on the word of these day-wonder Ministers who last in their portfolios about six seconds.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. In the years that we had a Liberal Government, and in the years in which the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) was a part of the Liberal caucus, all the organizations which take in the various scientific disciplines, such as the chemical, physics and biological institutes, made repeated representations to the then Government pointing out the fact that Canada was expending, as a percentage of the GNP, about one-half of what all other countries in the OECD, and Japan, were spending. In fact, it was pointed out that we were second from last, and that only Italy made less of an effort than Canada. In all those years their protestations were ignored and rejected by the Liberal Government.
The Hon. Member says that we were climbing. We never got anywhere near to 1.75 per cent when all other countries were spending from 2.25 per cent to 2.5 per cent and more of GNP. That is typical of the Liberals, the difference between Liberals when they form the Government and Liberals when they are in opposition.
What right does the Hon. Member have to expect the Canadian people to believe that a Liberal Government in the future-and God forbid that we ever have one again-would do any more, would make any greater efforts in the field of scientific research and development than it did in the past when it was in office for so many years?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous remarks, we were headed in the right direction. We were going up. The Hon. Member will recognize that we were heading in the right direction, which was up. That should be contrasted to the way we are going under the policies of this Government, which is down. Any examination of the reports of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the National Research Council will demonstrate the truth of what I have just said.
As far as the future is concerned, I can only say to the Hon. Member that in due course we will present our ideas. The
Supply
Canadian people will determine whether or not they have any merit.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by thanking the Hon. Member for providing the House with a rare opportunity to discuss what I consider to be the most important and critical issue that will face us as a society in the next 10 to 15 years. What we do collectively as a people in the field of science and technology over the next 10 to 15 years will certainly determine the role we will play in the next century among the community of nations.
It is within our grasp to position ourselves to be among the leaders in the world. It is within our grasp to respond to the challenges that are thrust upon us at such a relentless pace, brought about by this new technological revolution, and to respond to them in a positive, enthusiastic and confident fashion. As well, it is perhaps possible to be pushed out of the fast current that takes humankind into a new age, to be resigned to the backwaters of mediocrity, to be resigned to obscurity and insignificance.
This place never ceases to amaze me. It is interesting to hear how many different aspects of the truth some Hon. Members manage to put on the record. They defend their aspects of the truth with such conviction, sometimes even against their better judgment. If the Hon. Member who just spoke were in a courtroom, there would be no doubt in my mind at all that someone would charge him with perjury.
This debate is most timely because Hon. Members have, during the last two or three weeks, put so many different aspects of the truth on the record that it is extremely urgent for me to familiarize the House with some of the real facts today. Perhaps I should begin by setting the record straight regarding the aspersions that were cast in connection with the NRC.
There is no doubt that the National Research Council has been, is and will remain Canada's principal research establishment. However, the institute must continue as it has in the past to stay in tune with the times, to respond quickly and very effectively to new situations and new realities. One of these new realities is that much more research of the basic kind is today being performed in the private sector, and much more than ever before, research is being performed in universities. That shift has not occurred as a result of any deliberate policy of any Government. The reason for that shift is that it is becoming ever more critical that fundamental research be combined with the training of a future generation of scientists. That teaching happens to be best performed in universities.
In the period before World War II, there were 51 universities of which 19 were doing research that qualified for grants that the National Research Council gave to universities for research and training. In 1986, there are 82 universities in Canada of which 50 are receiving NSERC grants for the purpose of research and the training of future scientists. It is because of that that we have put an emphasis on university

October 22, 1986
Supply
funding. The statement made by the Member that there is not a significant increase in university funding is literally untrue.
We have put in place a program which will deliver, over a five-year period, $1 billion of additional new money for university research and the training of future scientists. I make no apologies at all for the fact that some of this funding is tied to a matching formula which requires the private sector to respond. As a result, 50 cents of private sector investment will trigger a $2 world class research effort in our universities. That is not a bad record at all.
We need to boost our international competitiveness and we need to forge important linkages between the science community, our in-house government laboratories and the private sector. The deficit gap which is much too wide was created by a former Government. This gap must be closed.
However, let us look for a moment at these so-called cuts the Hon. Member said have occurred to the NRC over the last three or four years. The NRC breaks down its budgetary calculations into three different categories. The first category is the operating budget, the budget that pays for research, for management and for the operation of those things under the Council's responsibility. Then there is the so-called transfer budget. That is used to finance extramural laboratories such as TRIUMF in British Columbia and other outside research laboratories which are operating at arm's length but are partners with the Research Council.
This budget includes the IRAP program which the Hon. Member, over the last three weeks, consistently proclaimed had been drastically cut. Has he had the grace to apologize and to say that there were no cuts to the IRAP program? No. Again, perjury would be the charge in a courtroom.
Finally, there is the capital budget. This is the budget that the NRC uses to build buildings, to buy equipment and to do things which are normally done. It is in the capital budget where some of the cuts have occurred and I will tell the House why that is.
Unlike the former Government, we do not believe that the cause of science and technology is dramatically advanced by bricks and mortar, by building edifices, palaces and monuments all over the country. However, the former Government did believe that. It thought that the way to increase the government effort was to build buildings all over the place. There are three such buildings which the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) had mentioned. There is the Ocean Dynamics Laboratory in Newfoundland, the Biotechnology Centre in Montreal and the Industrial Technology Centre in Winnipeg. The cost of these three structures is $157 million. These buildings were built over the last four years; and a couple of them are already in operation and the other one will be commissioned in February. Obviously the budget of the NRC had to be increased by $157 million to pay for these buildings. Obviously, as these buildings are completed and are being commissioned, the budget of the NRC decreases in accordance with the completion of these buildings.
Let me just tell the House what actually happened to the budget of the NRC.
Incidentally, the NRC budget was never at $520 million. Again, the Hon. Member has a selective memory. When he mentioned the peak figure of the NRC's budget, he conveniently added the supplementary income the NRC receives aside from government funding, income earned through charges for services and so on. In 1984-85, this income amounted to $40 million. The budget of the NRC in that year, the peak year, was not $520 million but $480 million. Then when the Hon. Member mentioned the low figure, this year's figure, he conveniently said that the budget is now $398 million, but he did not add the extra income. These are the kinds of dishonest games these people play when they make their points.
The fact is that the operating budget of the NRC has stayed consistent and level. I have a chart here. Perhaps the Hon. Member cannot read very well. I will send it over to him. It is a picture. Perhaps the Hon. Member could get a better assessment of it.
The operations budget of the NRC, which is the highest component, stays reasonably level. There has been no decrease. The transfer budget, of which I spoke, again is the green line. It stays level. There has been no decrease. When I look at the equipment and the building budget, of course, there is a sharp incline into 1984-85, and then a decrease as the construction programs were completed.
Please, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Member, let us have a little more honesty and integrity when one speaks about these important things. It has not been very helpful to the management of the NRC to maintain any kind of morale with this kind of gamesmanship. Incidentally, the Hon. Member is no stranger to the truth. He has been invited consistently to attend briefing meetings. He knows the truth. He plays games in the House of Commons. While he may have had a weekend headline and while he may have even succeeded in embarrassing the Government slightly with his stretching of the truth, he has destroyed to a great extent and has been personally responsible to a great extent for the destruction of the morale at the National Research Council, which has always been very high and which has now been severely damaged.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: I have consistently said that there would not be any pink slips this year at the NRC and that every effort will be made to ensure that the impact on individuals affected by this re-organization to new realities would be brought to a minimum and that positions would be found in other departments of government, perhaps in universities or even in the private sector. I have offered to intervene personally for the employees wherever I can, but I cannot give the same kind of assurance to some of the senior management who have fed the
October 22, 1986

Hon. Member some of this information which is less than truthful.
Having set the record straight, permit me now to take us back just two short years ago to tell you what we found concerning a national strategy on science and technology when we arrived here and assumed the mantle of power.
Let me identify what we discovered about a national strategy which was shaped by 20 years of Liberal administration. We were asked in two years to undo the damage the Liberals have caused in 20 years. The Hon. Member said that there was a consistent increase in the over-all spending in terms of the Gross National Product. If you destroy the economy and the Gross National Product declines, you have a consistent increase in percentages in your R and D expenditures, and that is what happened.
We were as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, two years ago a nation in search of a modern image governed by a group of social engineers without any sense of fiscal responsibility or constraints. The previous administration was also looking for a modern industrial image for our country, an image which identified our traditional industries like agriculture, mining, forestry and fishing as unsophisticated rural occupations, something from which a nation in search of a modern industrial image must get away. Give that to the developing countries. Let us shape our image after perhaps Japan and Germany. Those were the models that were held out as a nation seeking a modern industrial image. That is what we were to emulate.
All we had to do to achieve that image was to spend as much in terms of the Gross National Product as Germany and Japan does, and everything would fall into place. It is true that we cannot fault the former Government for the sense of urgency that it brought to the mission. Money was absolutely no object. Using the indicators which were established by these other countries with which we were making comparisons, the former Government deducted accurately that the private sector was not doing its share. It was doing roughly half of what it normally should in research and development. To prove our inhouse situation-about which I have already spoken-all we had to do was build modern world-class buildings, which we have. My compliments to the architects. But nobody thought of designing any programs to fit into these buildings. They called them world-class buildings and it is now my job to provide the programs. That is all that had to be done to improve the internal performance.
The former Government knew that action was required because we were chalking up a deficit in high-tech trade with other countries that was growing at a rate of 15 per cent a cent a year and had reached $10 billion a year by 1984. What did the former Liberal Government do, Mr. Speaker? It acted swiftly and with conviction to bring in the so-called scientific research tax credit. That was to stimulate private sector activity quickly. Indeed, it did. Did it ever stimulate private sector activity. There was a lot of activity in innovative tax accounting, but there was no innovative technology created.
Supply


David Orlikow: Tell us how yours is going to work better.


Frank Oberle: I will tell the Hon. Member what we did better.
I will read something a little later on to show the Hon. Member. It was no coincidence that the CBC, our great friend, last night on The Fifth Estate program pointed out what some of these scientific tax credits paid for. There was a ship in Chile some place that was being refitted with $25 million of scientific tax credits which, incidentally, was counted in to R and D expenditures. It was $25 million for that project alone. The ship is still sitting in Chile. The Liberal Government recruited a number of young people. They all wore uniforms. The first task was to develop a universal language for the world.


John Napier Turner: It was a disgrace.


Frank Oberle: I was surprised that the cadet on the other side of the Chamber did not arrive here today with his uniform. I would have thought he would have had one of them. Those are the kinds of things the Liberals were doing.
Now, Sir, what have we done? First, it was very clear that even the Government with its potent instruments of power, the Tax Act, the Patent Act and all the potent instruments, would not be in a position alone to turn this ship around and to set the country off on a new course. That is why we set out on a process of consultation. We have federal-provincial meetings. We have a concept of co-operative federalism. We have round table discussions. We had a national forum in Winnipeg which produced a consensus of where we ought to go and a consensus on a new national strategy which has as its pillar the procurement of highly qualified personnel-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Outside of the country.


Frank Oberle: -the development of the necessary strategic technologies needed to revitalize our resource industries to build on our national strength. The only thing we discovered that we have in common with Germany and Japan is we, like them, have our own strengths and weaknesses. We need to develop a program of science and technology to help us build on our inherent strength, to revitalize our resource industry. We need to use space technology, the bottom of the mines and the floor of our oceans and develop the regions in so doing.
What is it going to cost? What are the targets? Is 2.5 per cent enough? I do not know. Perhaps it needs to be 4 per cent. Whatever it takes, Mr. Speaker, it will be spent. I will guarantee that. Whatever it takes to set the country off on a new course will be done. We intend to have our youth on the new frontier and we will not have them shut out, as the former Government would have done, from the opportunities that lie ahead.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I must say I think it is unfortunate that the Minister engaged in the kind of personal attack in which he engaged during the course of his remarks. I even

October 22, 1986
Supply
wonder whether a question of privilege could be raised as a result of those remarks. However, I will let them pass. As far as I am concerned, I can only say that the comments during the course of my speech were directed solely toward the policies and the record of the Government. You will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I perhaps engage in a treatment of the subject which is somewhat whimsical. However, there are times when one has to do that kind of thing to make one's point.
In my treatment of the matter, I continuously quoted from statements by people-and I think most Canadians would agree-who are authorities in their own right. I could talk about a person like Dr. Larkin Kerwin, the President of the National Research Council. If the Government is doing such good things for the NRC, I would expect its president to be a happy man today. I would expect him to be standing up and applauding the Government. However, the President of the NRC had to contain himself to try to avoid criticizing the Government. Despite his best efforts, he could not help but term what is taking place today as a tragedy, namely, the destruction of an important national institution by the Minister and by the Government. He could not help but term it as regrettable and very dangerous for the economic future of the country. I would be more apt to put my money, any day, on the assessment of a distinguished person like Dr. Larkin Kerwin than on the assessment coming out of the mouth of the Minister.
He accused me of destroying the morale of the National Research Council with some of the charges I have made. It is laughable. There are no words to describe how ridiculous is that suggestion. I cannot say that I would wish for that kind of ability. On the contrary, I do not pretend to have that ability. All I want to say to the Minister is that it is not speaking in the House of Commons of charges in a public forum-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but he has taken over five minutes of the question and comment period, and I have two other Members who wish to participate.


David Berger: I would like to put a question to the Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Fontaine:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: As Mr. Kerwin is a Liberal, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it would be normal not to name him. I should ask, therefore, the Hon. Member who has the floor to abstain from referring to Liberals-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret, this is not a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is serious-I find totally unacceptable that an Hon. Member should rise and accuse a senior official of showing partisanship in his job. I suggest that the position taken by the Hon. Member for Levis is absolutely reprehensible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It had been ruled that it was not a point of order anyway. I ask the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) to please direct his question to the Minister immediately.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Besides, he is a Quebecer.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister. Under what guise can he stand in the House and threaten senior management of the National Research Council? Under what authority can he use that kind of language to speak about people who work for an independent agency which does not report to the Government but to Parliament? I should also like to ask him-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle).


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond briefly to the Hon. Member. He chose to refer to things uttered by other people to sustain his argument. Let me refer to a letter dated October 14, 1986. It was directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister from CATA, the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, and was signed by its Chairman, Mr. Gordon W. Gow. In part it read:
The efforts of your Ministers, together with your decision to become personally involved in the formation of national science and technology policy as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, are extremely encouraging initiatives to the advanced technology community across the country.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, I have not threatened anyone. I simply said that if the Hon. Member relates the evidence, which he adduced in debate in the House over the last two to three weeks, back to senior management at the NRC, and if he is factual about the interpretation he has received from them, I have no other choice but to say that he was misinformed by them. Senior management people should not misinform Members of Parliament.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to answer the Minister by saying that all the information-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


David Berger: It is a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member explain to the Chair how it is a point of order?
October 22, 1986


David Berger: The Minister raised a question about the source of my information. He seemed to allege that I received my information, perhaps on a confidential basis, from certain officers of the National Research Council. I simply want to correct that and state that all the information I used during the course of my remarks came from the public record- newspaper articles and public documents to which all Hon. Members of the House have access.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the "blues" before me, but 1 think I heard and noted correctly what the Minister said a few moments ago. I think he said that senior management of the National Research Council had not been telling the truth about what had been happening at the NRC. That is a very serious charge, and I think it is one the Minister should substantiate today. If he cannot substantiate it today, he owes it, not only to Members of the House but to senior management of the NRC, to agree to a very early meeting of the standing committee. In that event senior management of the NRC could appear before the committee and tell how they assess the kinds of decisions and policies upon which the Government decided and what they believe will be the effects upon the NRC. Would the Minister agree to that proposal?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly not my intention to cast aspersions on the senior management of the NRC. All I said was that if the evidence adduced by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) over the last two weeks or three weeks in the House was evidence which he received from senior management of the NRC, the evidence is wrong.
As far as the NRC management appearing before the standing committee is concerned, a standing committee can call before it at any time, without my consent or the consent of our House Leader, officials of the NRC or anyone else who acts as a responsible agent of the Government. I would asume that the committee would take this liberty.


John Napier Turner: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have a background in biology and therefore recognize the importance of research in our institutions, particularly the NRC and our universities. I have never witnessed since I have been in Parliament such falsehoods and hypocrisy from the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) concerning the issue we are debating today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to rephrase what he just said.


John Napier Turner: I will rephrase it by saying we have been confused by facts from the Hon. Member who moved this motion for debate.


David Berger: How can you be confused by facts?


John Napier Turner: The Minister referred to charts, operating budgets, the capital budget, and I am concerned about job cuts because some of them affect my
Supply
constituents. Does the Minister feel that the NRC should have cut more from its capital budget and less from the professional scientific job categories and made the reductions more equitable so as not to affect the professional quality and work being done at the NRC?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the reason for appointing a council to assist senior management of the NRC is to make certain that the money allocated by taxpayers is spent consistent with both national priorities and those of the research community. I would not wish to make an assessment of the reallocations, except to point out that the net person-year complement at the NRC will of course not decline. In this reorganization a number of new tasks have been assigned to the NRC. I would mention just one, the new biotechnology centre in Montreal. It will have a complement of 257 new positions. They will be allocated to the NRC. In addition to that there are new positions in the centre in Winnipeg, and quite a number of new positions which will permit the NRC to fulfil the mandate assigned to it as a result of the space users program. There is a reallocation and reorganization of the NRC personnel, but there is not a net decline. Rather, there is a significant increase in person-years at the NRC.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, perhaps no subject to reach the House in recent days is more topical and more important than this motion on the federal Government's role in research and development. The continuing cuts to the federal research effort, the ending of careers and programs at the NRC, which has been documented, not by Members of Parliament but by the press and radio and television, and the irony of the awarding of the Nobel prize for chemistry to Dr. Polanyi are all subjects which I will deal with shortly. However, in my view and that of many others I should begin at the beginning in order to contrast what this Government says it intends to do and what it actually does.
Let me begin with the year 1983 when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), not yet the Leader of the Conservative Party, wanted to tell the Canadian public of his intense concern over research and development. On page seven of his book Where I Stand he said "Research and development are the keys to our national well-being." He had an entire chapter on the subject of research and development and had scorn for the record of the Liberal Government. There is yet more irony in reading these words today, and I will cite just a few examples.
On page 39 of that book the Prime Minister castigated the Liberals for having "the nerve to set an R and D target of 1.5 per cent of the GNP." That was, in the Prime Minister's words, "playing the junior B circuit". He was not interested in such a token effort in 1983. Instead he wrote, again on page 39, "We must make a firm commitment to double the public and private funds allocated to research and development before 1985". He did not say that before we can do that we

October 22, 1986
Supply
will have to cut the deficit. He said we have to double our effort. That was the goal and it was duly incorporated into the campaign material of the Conservative Party in 1984 in the form of a 2.5 per cent target for R and D.
What has happened since then? Do we have a goal of 2.5 per cent or even 2.2 per cent or 1.8 per cent, to give the Prime Minister every possible benefit of the doubt in setting a target? No, we have a spending level of about 1.3 per cent, or an amount, to again use the Prime Minister's words, which will ensure that Canada will, "during its entire lifetime play in the junior B circuit".


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Junior B Government.


David Orlikow: My colleague gives the Government too high a grade.
Then we have the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) saying during the Throne Speech debate, in answer to me, that he "chose to ask the science council to help me establish realistic funding targets by examining each sector of our industry and by comparing what they are doing with what their competitors are doing in other parts of the world. We will establish realistic targets." More bafflegab and of course more delay. The reason we have not doubled our R and D expenditure to meet the Prime Minister's most insistent demand is that we must now find, to use the Minister's words, "realistic targets". In other words, we have to reduce the deficit and that is more important and comes before everything else.
The Prime Minister also insisted in 1983 that research and development must not be sacrificed to financial restraint. He knew then that there is no point in eating the seed corn which will produce a larger and more bountiful harvest ahead. He has forgotten about that. We are now back to cutting the deficit before we can invest in scientific research and development. He criticized the Liberals for applying the six and five restraints to public R and D. On page 40 of his book he said "The National Research Council, which acts as Canada's main research laboratory, needs a funding increase of at least 20 per cent to bring it up to $400 million." That was in 1983. On Friday we had the president of the NRC reported in The Ottawa Citizen as saying that his budget four years later was just $400 million, having been $520 million the year before.
As we know, the NRC is now wrestling with the tragic loss of programs, research teams, low staff morale and administrative chaos, all of which were caused by the further $20 million cut announced last week after the cuts made last year. I will return to that, and particularly to the inept and deceiving performance of the Minister throughout this most grevious of injuries to one of our most useful research institutions.
Let us now return to the Prime Minister. In his book he was so certain that he had found the way ahead for Canada that he described the chairman of the NRC as a "public servant who understands the problems of the real world and the frustrations that go with it". He quoted him as follows:
If Canada implements something like this plan it will still have problems in the years ahead, but these will be the problems of excellence, the worries of the rich. They will probably include a scarcity of workers rather than unemployment, a surplus of affordable energy, much of it renewable, and so low a national debt that we may be pressured as Japan is now to limit our exports.
What was the plan that was to increase our national wealth and provide this passport to easy street from mean street? It was a long-range plan for research and development in Canada which has been rejected and, further, systematically undermined by the Government since it took office. If the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the successive Ministers of Science and Technology and the entire Cabinet wish to know why we have not attained the R and D target and the problems of wealth which go with it, they need only look in the mirror. Research has been a target for cuts by the Government rather than a national goal. Line departments, granting councils and research organizations such as the NRC have all been cut back.
Throughout these cuts from public bodies we have heard the Government's refrain that private sector research will increase and fill the gaps. We have some pretty realistic evidence on this today in this week's Financial Post which has a special section on R and D in the private sector. They say, "Industrial R and D spending slows, researchers will be on a stricter diet". They go on to analyse what was reported to them by the private sector and forecast a 3 per cent increase in R and D from sample companies compared to a 14 per cent increase last year. Only 9 of 80 of the largest R and D firms in the country said they were planning substantial increases in R and D budgets over the next three years.
The Government's rhetoric insists that private R and D play an increasing role in our entire research effort. That is a laudible goal, especially since only 3 per cent of Canadian companies of any size do any research, but it is not happening. In particular, it is not happening on anywhere near the scale the Prime Minister indicated it would when he wrote his book and the Conservatives were campaigning for office in 1984. That is probably not happening because so many of our largest companies are multinational corporations which prefer to do their R and D at home base rather than in Canada.
Just to emphasize that point, I want to compare our R and D figure of 1.3 per cent Gross National Product, which has not varied much under Liberal and Conservative Governments since 1983, with the 2.7 per cent invested in the United States, 2.61 per cent in Japan, 2.58 per cent in Germany, and 2.47 per cent in Sweden, a country much smaller in population than Canada. All these countries have research efforts of close to 100 per cent higher than Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We are a Junior B team.


David Orlikow: As my colleague points out, we are a Junior B team which the Prime Minister deplored when he was in Opposition.
October 22, 1986

In making this contrast I will relate it to what is happening to those persons who are charged with carrying out research in Canada. For them this R and D percentage is no abstract figure. It represents laboratories, equipment, research personnel and support and grants to carry out research and find its application. Those are lacking in Canada to a large extent because of the lack of adequate funding.
Canada has been fortunate in the awarding of the Nobel prize for distinguished achievement in chemistry to Dr. John Polanyi. Dr. Polanyi has brought considerable honour to Canada for his achievement and he has been extremely gracious in thanking this country for providing the means by which his discoveries in chemistry were made.
In one article Dr. Polanyi paid tribute to the NRC, the place where he began his post-doctoral research. He said it exuded "-an amazing spirit of liberality. It endeared the NRC and Canada to me. The spirit of co-operation was splendid. It was a great place to do science". You will note the past tense, Mr. Speaker. It is very important.
In another more recent interview Dr. Polanyi was asked this question: "Do you think if you were a graduate student today and in similar situations to the time when you actually were a graduate student that you would come to Canada? Do you think there's the same kind of opportunities for scientists in Canada today"? In response Dr. Polanyi said: "Well, honestly, no I don't think so. I think I would go to the U.S. And I think we have it in us not only to compete in every other way of comparable quality and excitement here. But we haven't chosen to do so".
Compare those observations by the Nobel prize winner, Dr. Polanyi, with the nonsense we hear from the Minister of Stae for Science and Technology. Out of such thoughtful assessment by persons who know is the brain-drain born and accelerated. Dr. Polanyi has not lost hope for Canada. Indeed, he wonders why we have not done better. He put it this way: "In a country where the rhetoric about science is so splendid, you know it's getting better all the time. In fact what is done is not really remotely commensurate". He went on to question why Canadians are not more science-minded and he hopes that we will develop "the taste and pride in that endeavour". He then adds the clincher: "Because it's important to us, not just as a nation, which is of course absolutely vital, but in addition it's very important to us, as everybody keeps saying in their marvelous speeches, as a base on which to rest the technology that we have to have".
It sounds as if he has been listening to the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Science and Technology, but they don't seem to be listening to Dr. Polanyi. He means what he says but they just talk about it. They worry more about the deficit than they do about research and development.
According to the Minister, Dr. Polanyi did his work at the University of Toronto, not at the NRC. Therefore, I assume that according to the Minister we should not pay too much attention to what Dr. Polanyi says. All this conveniently
Supply
forgets that if the NRC had not offered him a position when he was preparing to move from Great Britain he would have gone elsewhere rather than to Canada. People that good are never short of offers.
We can conclude from all this what might happen to the future of other scientists like Dr. Polanyi. They are being told by the Government that there is no place for them in Canada. Dr. Polanyi's lab at the NRC is being shut down. The NRC is being systematically gutted through funding cuts. No wonder distinguished professors are reluctantly concluding that their brightest students will do better by going elsewhere.
Perhaps the Government opposite believes that it is fooling Canadians with its talk of increased funding for research, but it really is not. Those who analyze the policies and those who have to live with the end results know that the dollars are not there. The companies surveyed by the Financial Post certainly know what is really happening. They know that the spending cap placed on transfers to the provinces for federal contributions to post-secondary education means hundreds of millions of dollars less to the year 1991. They know that the so-called billion dollars for the three granting councils of the federal Government, the NSERC, the SSHRC, and the MRC really means that their base funding has been frozen until 1991 and that any increase is entirely contingent on contributions from the private sector. They know that the so-called billion dollars for university research is not a billion dollars at all, but more like $300 million and will be only encouraging research which the private sector wants rather than what we really need.
They know that government research is in fact contracting. The NRC is on the ropes, its purposes distorted for the public relations gesture which the Government wants in space. Its own research, which has already been examined and approved by international panels, is simply ignored by the Government and shunted aside.
They know that line departments with significant research capabilities including agriculture, fisheries, the environment, forestry and mining, where most of the people who have jobs in the country are working and where most people will work in the next generation, have been substantially cut back. They know that Canada's is probably the only government in the western world with a forestry ministry which has no forestry research capability because the former Conservative Government, headed by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sold the forestry labs. They know all this and they discount what the Government opposite is saying. Many persons who are knowledgeable in the science policy field are now speaking out about the shortcomings of this Government's policy. Gordon MacNabb, the retired President of NSERC said this about the failure of the Government to fund adequately a five-year research program:
My greatest frustration was having worked so long and hard on the logic of the plan. I don't mind losing a battle, but I've never had a chance to fight. No one really argued against our manpower projections, and what we said about the shortage of talented people we're going to have.

October 22, 1986
Supply
Surely that shows that this Government's mind is made up. It does not want to know about research, particularly about basic research, which the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) quaintly and mistakenly calls "curiosity research". It does not want anyone with ideas that may differ from its own. This is clearly a recipe for disaster. One aspect of that disaster is being played out this week with the Minister of State insisting that there were "no cuts" and "no programs lost" at the NRC as the evidence came out that whole divisions and programs were being wound up and there were more than 100 persons who could not be fitted into the various retraining and early retirement schemes. No wonder this Government has another credibility problem to add to all the others. It is regrettable, to say the least, that their statements about research and development do not match their actions. But it is far more serious than that. Progress is nowhere at the level that everyone recommends, including the Government. The research community is progressively more disheartened. Canada, a supposedly young country open to new ideas, is in reality lagging behind in every vital research area.
The conclusion is inescapable and despite the efforts of the Government to say the opposite, the reality is increasingly obvious to anyone who cares to look.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) earlier made reference to the new funding formula for universities as a formula that would have the result of freezing the university research funding budget. The program is designed not to be a ceiling but to be a floor and to give a clear indication to the universities what they will have in their A-base-unlike the way it used to be before, as the Hon. Member will recall-where there were certain amounts of money put into the Main Estimates and in September there would be a Supplementary Estimate and perhaps another one in February. When I assumed the portfolio, my first task was to add another $16 million to university research in the last year. I do not know what kind of planning had gone into spending that money from February until the end of March. There were three principles: Number one was to stabilize the funding and put the money in the A-base up front, so there could be forward and intelligent planning. Number two was to increase university funding significantly, which we did. Number three was to forge these industrial linkages.
1 know that the Hon. Member is sincere in not being informed. But I would like him to know that there is nothing to stop the Minister or the Government from coming forward in March or the fall of any year and identifying new priorities and adding additional funding to the A-base. That has always been the case. This was not a freeze, but merely an attempt to stabilize university funding, which everyone recognized as a major priority.


David Orlikow: It is not me or other Members of Parliament that the Hon. Minister has to convince that research funding at the universities has not and will not be cut further. It is the universities. I asked the Minister to stop reading his own press releases and to read the submissions made by the Association of Canadian Universities and Colleges and the Canadian Association of University Teachers. They document clearly the fact that cuts have been made and are being made by this Government, not just to research and development work at the university, but to all university funding. The reductions in the established finance programs automatically mean reductions for the universities. So much of what the Minister and the Government have promised in the way of increases for research and development depends upon increases in funding by the private sector.
The Minister and I do not agree on many things, but I am sure he will agree with me that The Financial Post is not some wild-eyed, woolly, socialist, impractical rag. The current issue of The Financial Post contains a special report regarding research and development with a headline reading "Industrial R & D spending slows". The sub-heading is "Researchers will be on a stricter diet". I would like to quote the following couple of sentences:
After substantial increases in Research and Development budgets in 1985, Canadian companies will barely boost their spending this year. The Financial Post's exclusive annual survey shows total expenditure on industrial R & D is expected to rise by a little more than 3 per cent-
The 76 private-sector firms that provided complete figures have allocated $1.43 billion to R & D in Canada this year, up 3.5 per cent from 1985's, $1.39 billion.
The 10 Crown agencies providing complete data proposed to spend $327 million in Canada, up 2 per cent from 1985.
There are the facts as given to The Financial Post by the major companies that do research. They are talking about increases of 2 and 3 per cent on their research which was inadequate until now. Where is the tremendous increase in the private sector research on which the whole plan of the Minister and the Government is based, which is absolutely necessary and which is a corner-stone of the so-called plan and strategy of the Government? It is not there. The whole thing will collapse like a house of cards in the very near future.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) attended the press conference given by Dr. Kerwin last week. He heard what Dr. Kerwin had to say about lay-offs at the National Research Council. Dr. Kerwin said that in the past two years the NRC has had to deal with the loss of 400 positions. It used all the tools at its disposal to avoid lay-offs. It imposed a hiring freeze, did not fill vacancies, used early retirements, shifts within the National Research Council, and it was able to minimize the number of lay-offs so there were very few lay-offs. As I recall, he said that with the 200 positions that the Council will lose as a result of this government cut imposed last week, it will be difficult to avoid lay-offs because the fat has been cut out.
In the light of what Dr. Kerwin said last week, what does the Hon. Member have to say about the Minister's argument?
October 22, 1986

The Minister first said in this Elouse: "There will be no layoffs at the NRC". That was unequivocal. He now has said that there will be no lay-offs at the NRC this year. Then he has gone on to say that he will do everything in his power to place these people in the private sector or in universities. The question to the Hon. Member is: When people have to leave the NRC as a result of this budget cut but find employment at universities or in the private sector, does this constitute a layoff in his mind, or the mind of the average Canadian?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as a loyal and competent senior public servant, Dr. Kerwin was very careful, walking on eggshells, in order not to have to criticize the Government publicly. However, if one had listened to Dr. Kerwin and if one had read The Ottawa Citizen since Dr. Kerwin had his press conference, one would know of actual cases such as that of the physicist with a world famous reputation who, at age 62, is taking early retirement because the Government said to him: "We will sweeten your retirement fund if you retire now so we will have a vacancy for a younger scientist whom we will not have to lay off'. There is a similar story with respect to a senior chemist. There are dozens of stories like that. In no way can the NRC not make substantial reductions in its staff if it has to accept the budget which is being forced on it.
I hope the Chairman of the standing committee which is meeting tonight will agree that the committee should in the very near future invite senior officals of the NRC, and probably senior officials of the other granting councils, to come before committee and let them say what is really happening and what will happen. Let them answer with facts the kind of nonsense we have heard again and again from the Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A short question from the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper).


Mr. Tupper:: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), spent a great part of his presentation dealing with Dr. Polanyi. I think Dr. Polanyi, our great Nobel prizewinner, is proud to be a Canadian. He said that to me personally a few years ago. He appreciated the opportunity of being a professor at the University of Toronto. What is more important, we should note that, over the three years with which we are dealing now, Dr. Polanyi and his associates at the University of Toronto received $1.2 million through NSERC for the support of their research program. I think that tells us something about how well our university granting system is working.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: You can't be serious.


William Tupper: It tells us that it can recognize excellence in the system and identify people who are doing good work. That is the quality of what we are doing.
Supply
If the New Democratic Party had in this House this afternoon an opportunity to tell us what Canada should have as a science policy, what would it be?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, of course, no Government in Canada could move all at once from the miserable 1.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent of GNP devoted to research and development over the past number of years to the 2.5 per cent which all people who are knowledgeable say we should have. But I say to the Hon. Member that a New Democratic Party Government would have a target. We would not say we cannot do anything until we reduce the deficit. It would be our target that in three, four or five years we would be approaching 2.5 per cent.
I would also like to tell the Hon. Member that we have always been told in the past by the experts that a country should concentrate on those areas in which it has natural advantages. The natural advantages we have, and where the people of this country work, are forestry, the fisheries, agriculture and mining.


Frank Oberle: That is what I said.


David Orlikow: And that is where we should be concentrating our efforts. If we are going into space research, that should be on top of the efforts we make in those basic areas, not instead of, and that is what is happening.


Frank Oberle: He is listening and he is learning.


David Orlikow: We are going into space research instead of going into those areas. When we get the Estimates before the committee we will see that what I am saying is correct and what the Minister is saying is nonsense.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, I would like to comment on the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).
Mr. Speaker, I think that every Member in this House would like to apologize to Mr. Larkin Kerwin for these offensive remarks on the part of a Conservative Member. As former Chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and having met Mr. Kerwin, I can assure you, and I know the Minister agrees with me, that Mr. Kerwin cannot be accused of political partisanship. Not a man of his calibre, a President of Laval University. I asked for the "Who's Who", and what I found there, Mr. Speaker, is impressive. He is a man of integrity who does not deserve to have his name dragged through the mud as the Hon. Member for Levis just did when he accused him of being partisan or favouring one political faction over another. I just want to say that I regret these comments made by the Hon. Member for Levis, and I think Hon. Members will feel the same way. I hope the Minister will rise in the House and advise the Hon. Member for Levis to refrain from such comments and to stick to the facts. The Minister has not done so, but I hope he will before the end of the day.

October 22, 1986
Supply
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to the Opposition motion condemning the Government's present policy on research and development, and I am taking part in this debate because something very important is at stake.
First of all, this is a matter of particular concern to me. For many years I have taken an active part in the work of the committee that examines the appropriations for various federal agencies involved in research and development. I am equally concerned about the Government's policy or desire to cut back on research in our universities, because in my riding, Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa-Vanier, we have the University of Ottawa, a university that is internationally known for the quality of its research. I am therefore distressed about the lack of concern for this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I need hardly recall that the riding of Ottawa-Vanier also includes the headquarters of the National Research Council's Science and Engineering Centre.
I say this because this particular building is in my riding, there are many people who work there, and from the telephone calls I have been receiving in the past two or three days, these people are concerned, and they have good reason to be concerned, because their future, the future of this country and the future of our young people is at stake.
I say this with considerable emphasis because I have also received phone calls from university students and professors which were often about the need for increasing research and development in this country. Last Sunday, Mr. Speaker, I was attending a convocation ceremony at the University of Ottawa. It was held Sunday morning-one of my sons was receiving his diploma-and I was very, very impressed by the calibre of the students who were receiving their Master's degrees and Ph.D.s.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the people of my riding have a direct interest in research and development; I am personally interested because it affects at least 13,000 university students, because it affects the residents of my riding who work in this field, and as I said earlier because it also affects the science and engineering research centre about which my constituents are concerned since it has to do with their career.
Mr. Speaker, the Government's approach to this issue is deplorable and, unfortunately, we will have to live with the consequences for years to come. I am not unduly alarmed, far from it, but all one need do is read the press comments of the last few days to see to what extent public opinion is concerned about this issue. Indeed the Prime Minister himself said so in his many statements, and perhaps I might repeat the words of the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) who quoted straight from the Prime Minister's book, the Prime Minister's political credo. I quote:

"The National Research Council which acts as Canada's main research laboratory needs a funding increase of at least 20 per cent to bring it up to approximately $400 million".

Mr. Speaker, he said that in 1983, and we are now in 1986; if the level had been maintained in constant dollars, there would clearly have been a reduction, which would have been unfortunate. In his election platform, the Prime Minister had promised to double the funds available for research and development. What is he doing today? Exactly the opposite. He is slashing the budget of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada by forcing it to cut over $20 million, which could result in over 200 positions being lost, and he is reducing nearly by half, to only 1.3 per cent, his stated goal of increasing the funds available to 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product. In a way, we are getting used to seeing this Government cutting staffs, budgets, and funds available for research. It makes you wonder, the way this Government behaves; it is truly conservative and not very progressive.
We are now told about $20 million being cut and 200 jobs being lost. But Hon. Members should not forget that since the Progressive Conservative Party came to power, it is $120 million which have been cut and over 600 jobs which have been lost at the National Research Council alone.
The situation of research in universities is not any better. They are also severely affected by budget cuts. For instance, the authorities at Ottawa U. this year have seriously considered the possibility of eliminating research funds completely. Fortunately, they have managed to avoid making such a deplorable decision, but what will happen next year? When we know that 17,000 Canadians are getting funds from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and that most Canadian universities are dependent on it for their necessary equipment, equipment they cannot do without, this is indeed disturbing. What does the Conservative Government want to do with our universities, if it cuts off their resources? Mr. Speaker, a university is not a secondary school. It is a centre for research. Canada's economic development depends on our ability to train competent researchers, engineers and technicians.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our economy depends largely on our exports. In fact, among the OECD countries, only the Federal Republic of Germany ranks higher than Canada in its dependence on exports. Expressed in terms of a percentage of the Gross National Product, exports account for 30 per cent of the GNP in Germany and 28 per cent in our country.
In fact, yesterday the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) said, I believe, at a press conference at the Development Centre of the Montreal School of Business Administration: "We must not forget that a loss of only 10 per cent of the jobs connected with our exports to the United States may mean that 250,000 Canadian jobs will disappear."
Mr. Speaker, if we look at how the present Government is behaving, we get the impression it is not conscious of these facts. They talk but they do not act. However, when the Minister compared Canada's rate of investment in research
October 22, 1986

and development with that of our trading partners, the Prime Minister himself stated:
The governments of these other countries have understood-that the jobs of tomorrow, the pursuit of their high standard of living, the health of their economy, depend on the success or failure of their technologies.
[ Translation]
And what does he do now, Mr. Speaker, now that he is in power? He introduces legislation, introduces Government measures that will sabotage the progress of technology and science in this country. In yesterday's Toronto Star, Mr. Speaker, we find an article in which the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) is reported as saying, and I quote the Toronto Star:

The minister, who has repeatedly said publicly that Canada is nearing a crisis because of its $12.5 billion trade deficit in high-tech products, said Canada is on its way to becoming a "banana republic by the year 2000" if it does not start adapting technology much more quickly in its traditional industries.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Transduction Ltd., Mr. Stan Tyminski, who was offended by the Minister's remarks, said the following, and I quote:

"I was grossly insulted by that," Tyminski said in an interview.

Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to say was that the solution which this Government has found to this problem has been to reduce the funds allocated to research and development and to weaken an institution which had a reputation as a world leader, with the result that Canada will have to rely even more on foreign input to meet its needs in the future.
However, Mr. Speaker, we should not be suprised by what the Conservative Government is doing about research. The Conservatives acted in a similar manner in the famous case of the Arrow, a scientific research and development program of the aeronautical industry which was abandoned and destroyed by a Conservative Government.
The Conservatives were also saying at the time that this program was too costly and that it was the result of an irresponsible decision. Afterwards, there was a serious outflow of human resources as scientists were forced to move to the United States, where they contributed to the creation of a modern and sophisticated industry. The exodus of these researchers, engineers and highly specialized workers ... I was told this morning that it takes from 10 to 15 years to train one scientist with world-recognized qualifications and that it is very difficult to replace these people when there is no more work for them and they are forced to move to other countries.
Mr. Speaker, I was reminded this morning of a discussion I had with someone in applied research who works at the
Supply
National Research Council. This person called me to say how irritated and angry he was at the reluctance of this Government to provide financial support for research. He gave me a list of names which I could repeat to the Hon. Member, but it would not serve much purpose.
I simply wanted to say that we have lost some important people, such as an expert in television and radio antennas and another one in the very important field of microscopy. We have lost researchers with years of training in many areas and it will take us more years to recover their potential.
Mr. Speaker, should this research sector ever disappear it would be because its foundation has been undermined. Again I want to get back to my main point which is to try to make Hon. Members understand that research, training, researchers' development and the capability of those universities and centres in development and scientific endeavours can only make Canada an acknowledged competitor on the international scene. I think this is the point I wanted to emphasize.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government does not seem to appreciate that these young Canadians, these university students must have faith in the future and be able to look forward to challenging careers, to the day when they will be able to work at home, here in Canada, in fields in which they are interested such as technology or contemporary sciences.
As I see it, this Government is about to make the same mistake as was made in the case of the Arrow, the unfortunate decision to let the Canadian aeronautical industry come crashing down. I think the only difference is that this time they want to act on a much wider scale: at stake is the research and development capability of Canada as a whole, not that of only one industry.
Let us examine the figures to illustrate the point and focus on the dangers we are facing as a result of this Government's policy of indifference.
As I just said, Mr. Speaker, research and development programs would be useless if it were not for researchers themselves. In light of the Conservative commitments, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council had prepared a five-year plan designed to support and boost research throughout Canada. That plan would have enabled Canada to train the researchers who will be needed to meet the challenges of the future.
A study by the Canadian Association of University Teachers shows that when Tory promises are matched with the facts, two kinds of projections can be made. The five-year plan can be seen against this Government's promises either in an optimistic light, expecting the maximum impact of such promises, or in a slightly less optimistic or perhaps in a pessimistic light, assuming a minimum impact. In both cases the result is a net decrease in actual terms of research funding. Again, the result is a net decrease in actual terms of research funding. For instance, for the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the 1984-85 five-year plan, based on

October 22, 1986
Supply
Conservative promises, forecast investments of $729.6 million for the year 1989-90.
With an optimistic view of the Government's plan, it will be receiving $321.1 million at that point, a net loss of $410 million in constant dollars.
Given the pessimistic assumption, there would be a $266 million budget, a $463 million loss.
Mr. Speaker, those are not my figures. Those figures come from the Association of University Teachers, which sent me a paper which I have read and which I consider to be to the point. It gives us all those figures and shows the serious impact of the reduction in actual dollars of credit funding.
Mr. Speaker, those figures are frightening. But the situation is no better where other agencies are concerned. The Medical Research Council of Canada will experience cuts of $44.9 million or $35.5 million from its intended 1987-88 budget, according to the assumption used, either optimistic or pessimistic. This represents a $194 million budget, plus 28 per cent of revenue loss. However, the situation is worse with respect to the social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Of a budgeted $121.6 million for 1989-90, it will receive at best $65.6 million, and in the worst assumption $54.5 million. That, Mr. Speaker, is a 66 per cent budget cut. Imagine, 66 per cent!
Finally, when you examine those figures more thoroughly, you realize that what the Minister is proclaiming as huge investments in research and development is effectively a government exercise which will allow them in 1989 to reduce the budgets of the National Research Council and associated councils to less than the 1985-86 budget threshold. Four years from now, Mr. Speaker, we will be poorer than today as far as research is concerned. This is the progress that is being made by this Conservative Government. It's no big deal.
The Conservative Government is regressive and finds it difficult to be progressive. It is easy for them to fall back. Those figures hide a more disheartening fact, that the destruction of the research structure will jeopardize the future of our country. As I have just stated, jobs will be lost, industries as well as small- and medium-sized businesses will never see the light of day. There is another factor which I would like to point out to the House. It is the human factor. Researchers will lose their jobs. All those young people who are now getting post-secondary education and who have worked hard for years will see their career expectations in their own country dissolve into thin air. Such is the situation in Canada at this moment.
It is senseless. It is the opposite of what is being done by our trading partners who are members of the OECD. Meanwhile, in the United States, industry, as we know, is looking for more graduates, more Ph.D.s; there are more jobs available than applicants. In Canada, the opposite is true. The Conservative Government is doing away with existing jobs and is taking steps which will prevent the creation of new ones.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose the situation is rather difficult for post-graduate students in Canadian universities-they are not exactly living in the lap of luxury, and they find it very
difficult to make ends meet and find jobs. I know, because I have met several people with PhDs who are looking for jobs. Because they are unable to find them in Canada, they are planning to move abroad, and we are going to lose forever these human resources we have spent a lot of money developing; education today, I reckon, is very expensive. Mr. Speaker, we must see to it that these people have a rewarding career in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude my remarks with the following comments: Students generally, at least in my riding, are not rich. They are not rolling in money. They need and seek help, and should get it. Universities have dated equipment. They need to be listened to attentively and sympathetically by the Government. They need money to update their equipment. Mr. Speaker, they need it to continue this research which is absolutely essential for the development of the healthy, progressive and modern economy which will make Canada a fine place to live in and the envy of almost every country in the world.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is this: The motion moved by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) condemns the Government for the cuts to research programs in the area of fisheries. What is the extent of these cuts to research programs in the area of fisheries? Please, explain.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the Minister to The Globe and Mail of October 18, 1986. In it, the Minister is taken to task for disbanding the Marine Ecology Laboratory at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. I am sure he has read this letter to the editor signed by Sandy McCrea in which she said:
Mr. Siddon's supposed saving of jobs by shifting staff from basic research sections to his "new priority" areas of policing fisheries only disguises the fact that he is transmuting Fisheries and Oceans from a functional research division of the Government into a decerebrate monster-all twitching limbs and no brain.
According to this news item, the federal Government has indeed succeeded in effectively crippling research and development. The Minister laughs, but he should take this seriously because Fisheries Research is something which has been with Canadians since 1898. I could read the entire article to the Minister, but I am sure he has read it. Surely he will react to it. His own Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not at this time beyond reproach and is certainly to be blamed for cutting off this very important marine ecology laboratory.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that I do not take my task from The Globe and Mail. I am rather surprised that that is where he does his research.
In fact, it is irresponsible to present in the language of this motion a suggestion that the Government and the Ministry for which I am responsible has in any way cut support for oceans
October 22, 1986

science and research in the fishery. In fact, in February we announced the consolidation of all science programs under a new ADM Science.
We have launched at least two new hydrographic and scientific research vessels. We have continued support for the development of underseas submersible technologies by funding robotic development. The new Maurice Lamontagne Institute in Rimouski, a $45 million institute, is to be opened next June. There is a new aquaculture research institute in West Vancouver and technology transfer centres in Nanaimo and Dartmouth. The Atlantic Stock Assessment Centre represents the first time ever that we have had a proper and comprehensive scientific research capability in St. John's, Newfoundland. There has been the establishment of centres of disciplinary expertise in all of the regional laboratories across Canada. We are embarking on an expanded Arctic research program and have held an important oceans forum with a view to establishing a national policy on oceans science and research.
1 suggest that the Hon. Member and his colleague, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), are way out in left field with their friends to their left. Once again, they are misleading the House by suggesting that cuts have occurred when indeed they have not.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my only reply to the Minister is that indeed he does not understand the magnitude of the problem. I was addressing the problem of a lack of funding for university training. I was addressing the problem of proper funding for the purposes of training and developing the human capacity to man those so-called projects that the Minister has announced. Funds are being cut and are being threatened. As for support by this Government for research and development at the university level, some of the projects are being dismantled completely. There is no sense in the Minister giving me a long litany of labs. The Conservatives are good at talking but they are very poor at acting.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). He doubtless heard me pose the question to the Minister yesterday, I believe, about who exactly it was among the scientific community, on the board of the NRC, among the industrial researchers, among universities, among the student organizations, what organization or what group of people with any familiarity with the problem of science and technology in Canada recommended that NRC or any other existing agency be savaged in order to fund the space program. Perhaps he knows, as the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) did not. From where did that sort of recommendation come? Did it come from NRC, which indicated clearly that it would not have approved the space program if it had realized that that money was to be taken from NRC or any other agency, particularly when the board advised the Minister that in all probability the space program would not require $800 million
Supply
by 1990 but closer to double that amount if the pattern of such expenditures were mirrored in that project?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you permit me to pass to the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) a quote I have here of the Hon. Member when he spoke on March 27, 1985 in the standing committee in support of the space program?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister could always send a note. He does not have a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He can bootleg his remarks in and send them over by plane, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to add to what the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) just said by quoting from the 1985-86 report of the President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, which is the granting council as we all know. It states clearly on page 37:
The federal government's response to the second Five-Year Plan is naturally a disappointment to the Council.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is plain English.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They cannot have everything.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The quote continues:
However, Council is now having to stop an upward momentum that was premised on increasing real budgets and on an increasing percentage of the nation's gross national product.
That is what I meant when I told the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) that his Government was insensitive to training and development. Here we have the granting council, which is there to assist in new equipment needs of universities, trying to promote training and development in the scientific field, and on the same page the same council says:
The decision is far from the funding levels called for in the second Five-Year Plan. The increased base level of support, plus the possible 6 per cent increment from the Government, will, by 1990, only hold NSERC's budget at a spending power equal to that of 1984-85, assuming a 4 per cent inflation rate.
That is the status quo. That is what Conservatives are all about. They remain in one spot. They never move. It is much too strong for them to understand. As I said in my speech, Mr. Speaker, we need action. We need it now. We need a 2.5 per cent increase in our research and development to reach that level in a few years.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You never gave NSERC any security.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries since he brought up the question of fisheries research.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question should be addressed to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


David Berger: In reply to a comment, Mr. Speaker, made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 22, 1986
Supply
Gauthier), the Minister listed a series of initiatives designed to prove that the Government has done great things for fisheries. All the new initiatives had already been announced by the Liberal Government. I also understand that a Professor Mills of Dalhousie University, according to The Globe and Mail of September 12, accused the Government of decimating research in the fisheries area. What is the Minister so proud of? Is he proud that he has not cut these labs? Is he proud of Liberal initiatives that he is pursuing? How long does the Hon. Member think it will take the Minister to destroy anything good that we created? Will it take the Conservatives another year to get to it or will they get to it inside of the next year?
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member can answer for the Minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot speak for the Minister and I would not dare, but I can tell the House that I very often sat with the the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), who was a member of the committee. The point I was trying to make with the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) is that those laboratories need not only modern equipment, but also scientists, men and women capable of staying abreast of new developments in their scientific field.
What concerns me is, and I mentioned it in my speech, if we get at the base, by which I mean all the scientists, we will discourage them, take them out of the scientific field, and we are going to prevent Canada from playing its full role in scientific research. No one can expect the laboratories we Liberals built everywhere in the country, in Montreal, in Winnipeg and several in Ottawa, to be productive without experts, without male and female scientists whose future would be protected by a Government fully aware that pure and applied research requires financial assistance from the Governement.
Mr. Speaker, the minister informed us today that the private sector had already committed its support to his university research incentive program. This is news to me. We have seen no figures, no documents to show that the private sector had made any sort of contribution so far. He even said that there was a three-year committment. But I am expecting the minister to table these documents in this House-


David Berger: It is less than what he had asked for.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, precisely-and to prove to us that this program is in fact operational. If it is, Mr. Speaker, so much the better, but I have serious doubts.


David Berger: It is still less.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I now recognize the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) for debate.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in my capacity of Deputy Chairman of the
Committee on Science and Technology, and I must say I totally disagree with the comments of the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). Nor do I agree with his motion condemning the Government for its policy on science and technology. I do not agree, because the Hon. Member has confused the issue, both for the industry, the researchers and the universities.
Personally, I can inform the Hon. Member that I have some lingering doubts and a great many questions about the goodwill of Dr. Kerwin, since last week, when he gave his press conference, he did not bother to invite the Minister or the Government Members sitting on the Standing Committee on Science and Technology. On the other hand, the Hon. Member for Laurier and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) were both present.
Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising in the House today is to inform the House of the performance and positive achievements of this Government since it was elected. When my colleagues and I were elected two years ago, we announced our support for a broad movement towards national reconciliation. We wanted to create a new climate for this country, a climate of consultation, co-operation and solidarity, while focussing on common goals, a climate that would put an end to confrontation and the lack of openness that for too long had cast a shadow over federal-provincial relations. Our goal was to create a true partnership between the provinces and the territories and the federal Government, a partnership whose goal would be the economic and regional development of our country, the creation of new jobs and thus the well-being of all Canadians.
This Government has achieved some significant results and the progress made in science and technology is a concrete example. Our accomplishments cannot be denied. We realize that science and technology will make it possible for us to compete on an equal footing on international markets, which, together with economic growth, will bring about job security and help maintain our standard of living. We want to use the various applications of science and technology to meet the specific needs of the regions, not just by taking advantage of existing skills and expertise but also by helping to expand the industrial bases of specific regions.
Our provincial and territorial counterparts are committed to working together with the federal Government to ensure that Canada will have a strong economic future. Since it came to power, our Government has negotiated and concluded subsidiary agreements on regional economic development with three provinces: Quebec, British Columbia and, more recently, New Brunswick. These subsidiary agreements enable the provinces and the federal Government to finance jointly certain initiatives by enhancing the development of science and technology in the provinces, and they illustrate our desire to make the applications of science and technology available to industry and to the public.
October 22, 1986

The Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement signed on June 10, 1985 provides a $ 100-million fund over five years and features three main components. The first has to do with research centres and includes the construction of Sainte-Foy's $34 million national optics institute, in my Quebec riding, a project of which I am very proud indeed. Considered as a nonprofit corporation, the institute will be in a position to work closely with the private sector, and it will be administered by a board of directors selected from various sectors of activities and various regions of Canada. Construction will begin within a few weeks and the opening is scheduled for late 1987.
The agreement also provides for the construction of an electrochemical laboratory designed for state-of-the-art research and development in electrochemistry and electrotechnology in Shawinigan, in co-operation with Quebec Hydro, as well as funding for research projects in co-operation with the private sector. The total cost of this project is $26 million.
The second component is a technological development support program to finance feasibility studies, purchase scientific equipment, and stimulate private sector research and development initiatives.
Private business in Quebec has already reacted very enthusiastically to this $38 million program.
As a matter of fact, so far 85-odd projects have been submitted in such sectors as biotechnology, data processing, microelectronics and manufacturing processes.
Until now, about 15 projects estimated at $4 million have been funded.
The last component has to do with the coordination and integration of federal and provincial government science and technology policies and programs.
The July 8, 1985 Canada-British Columbia subsidiary agreement provides a $20 million funding over five years and meets British Columbia's priority objectives.
Under the terms of this agreement, funds are available for three projects.
The first one is aimed at strenghtening capabilities in computer science, applied mathematics, micro-electronics and robotics. In this context, we have announced recently the joint financing of the British Columbia Advanced Systems Institute, which is a first class research and education center in these areas.
The second initiative aims at promoting advances and commercial applications in the field of biotechnology. Under this program, we are financing the creation of a biotreatment centre to complement the British Columbia Biomedical Research Centre.
The purpose of the third initiative is to establish a liaison network between the industry and the universities. Under the terms of the agreement, the creation of three liaison offices has
Supply
been financed in each of the three British Columbia universities and the technological transfer results have been very encouraging to date.
As for the Canada-New Brunswick subsidiary agreement on industrial innovations and technological development signed on May 28, 1986, and involving an outlay of $28.5 million over five years, it represents a crucial stage in the industrial development of that province. This agreement is designed to support and strenghten the high technology capacity of the province, to stimulate innovation and to propose support for private businesses, individuals and manufacturer's associations with activities in technological fields or problems which could be solved by technological means.
This agreement will be implemented at a Convention on Technology in New Brunswick which will be held in Saint John on October 29 and 30, 1986.
In addition, the Federal Government has made other nonfinancial bilateral agreements with eight provinces, namely Quebec, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
These memoranda of agreement promote official co-operation between the Federal Government and the provinces to harmonize policies and programs and define strategies to take advantage of the opportunities available.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) is convinced that bilateral agreements in science and technology are a major tool for co-operation with the provinces to stimulate regional economic development through research and development.
He therefore intends to continue his discussions with his counterparts, which will probably lead to additional subsidiary agreements in science and technology with other provinces.
I also feel compelled to mention some of our other major initiatives which illustrate the priority given to science and technology by this Government.
For the first time since 1978, the Federal and Provincial Ministers responsible for Science and Technology met in Calgary in February, 1985, to discuss matters of mutual interest.
All the Ministers stressed the important part to be played by science and technology in our economic renewal, and pledged to develop an over-all national policy on science and technology based on the economic capabilities and priorities of our provinces and territories.
Three basic priorities were identified to provide investment incentives, encourage technology transfers and applications, and support fundamental research that is important in the longer term in order to build up the scientific expertise and technical control of our country.
In September 1985, at Meech Lake, those same Ministers got further involved in preparing a national conference on

October 22, 1986
Supply
science and technology in order to make sure that everyone involved, that is, Governments, universities, unions, the industry and related organizations be given an opportunity to discuss the urgent problems to be addressed by Canada.
The first national Conference on science and technology which was held in Winnipeg last June turned out to be a consultation exercise that brought us closer to our objective, that is to achieve a national consensus on science and technology policies. The conference emphasized the need for supervision and leadership from all government levels in science and technology. That meeting brought to the fore the need to develop a national policy that would allow Canada to remain competitive from an economic viewpoint and our industries to have a capability to break new ground in areas where science and technology are essential to Canada's economic strength.
The throne speech also brought to light the federal government's interest in playing a leading and counselling role in science and technology.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government, with full co-operation of the provinces, will aim at enhancing the level of excellence and expertise in technical training, development and innovations.
On the basis of discussions held at the national Conference and national policy developments between the provinces and the federal government, the latter intends to organize a national conference on technological innovations to help setting new goals for Canadian technology in the context of a federal strategy and a rational policy.
Several of our trading partners have undertaken concerted and coordinated efforts with a view to revitalizing existing industries and creating new high tech companies. We are actively pursuing this goal through national strategies and programs involving the technological, scientific and industrial infrastructures of those countries.
Canada cannot afford to take a back seat and be satisfied with an 11th, 12th, or 13th position. Canada needs to take the lead. Scientific and technological infrastructures must be better coordinated, more efficient, more up to date, and better adapted to the social consequences of technology. Therefore, we must enhance Canada's capabilities, Mr. Speaker, while focusing on regional disparities to make sure that all regions will benefit from this new challenge.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a point that was raised by the Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis), who once again made disparaging remarks concerning the President of the National Research Council. She wondered why or how I could have attended last week's press conference, as the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) also did, while she did not attend because she did not know about it, having received no invitation from the President of the National Research Council.
I would like to tell her that to the best on my knowledge, I had no invitation either. I had no invitation either to that press conference given by the President of the National Research Council. But I heard about the press conference, and I very well recall it was the day before, through a reporter with whom I was discussing well-known events. For four or five days there had been references to a meeting on the coming Tuesday of the Executive Committee of the National Research Council. On that Tuesday, the day before the press conference, there were reports in almost every paper about that meeting of the NRC Executive Committee. There had been press reports the week before. So it was common knowledge that important decisions were to be taken at that meeting, and eventually there would be some public announcement.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, that press conference was announced on our closed-circuit TV system, that is available to every Member of this House. That the Hon. Member today has the gall to blame the President of the National Research Council, to imply that other Members were invited, and to ask why she was not, is beyond me. She should be embarrassed that she was not aware of the meeting and did not attend as she should have. I would ask her to withdraw her disparaging remarks concerning the President of the National Research Council of Canada.
I have another question for her before I sit down. She may be aware of a telegram that was sent by the Canadian Chemical Society to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Canadian Chemical Society was telling this to the Prime Minister of Canada, and I quote:
"We believe that if you"-the Prime Minister of Canada- "proceed with the dismantling of scientific foundations that were laid over decades, there will never again be Nobel Prizes in Canada."
And this Canadian Chemical Society asked the Prime Minister to save the scientific agency that helped train our Nobel Prize winner, Mr. John Polanyi. My question is very simple: Does the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert intend to fight in order to save the National Research Council of Canada, as requested by the Canadian Chemical Society, or will she remain silent, like the majority of Members over there, the majority of Government Members with the exception of one single Conservative Member who opposed the cuts within the National Research Council?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: In view of the critics formulated by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), Mr. Speaker, I want to tell him first of all that we do not administer this country on the basis of the stupidities one can read in the papers. In Quebec City, whenever there is a press conference, we always get a proper invitation, something we did not receive. We are not going to start watching the TV networks to know when press conferences are scheduled. If and when people want to have us, they are certainly able to write and send us invitations.
October 22, 1986

There is something I should like to tell Canadians concerning the famous five-year plan this Government granted to the National Research Council, something the previous Liberal Government had failed to do, because it preferred to pay out small ad hoc amounts now and then, not always regularly. For a long time the National Research Council had been seeking a five-year plan. We have granted them what they had been seeking. I am certainly pleased to refer to a statement made by the Council's Executive Board in 1985, and I quote: " Over the past 70 years, the NRC has consistently sought to meet the needs of its era. Over the years, it has been called upon to play various roles which it has assumed brilliantly. Today, the problems facing us are obvious. The Canadian economy is going through a difficult period. Practically all Canadian industries must rise to the challenge of technological change if they are to compete internationally. These requirements occur at a time when the federal deficit is increasing dramatically."
This infamous deficit which we have inherited from our predecessors and compels us to make cuts in all Government Departments and Agencies. Well, we have had enough of that. Since you are attacking us, Sir, I have not finished yet; you had better not rush standing up, because I still have much to say. When the President of the National Research Council mentions that cuts have been made, it is not because the funds-now that the facilities have been built, the money has been spent, there is no reduction. It is just the end of the construction stage.
The Canadian people must understand that. We have made no cut. There will be a reallocation of positions. Mr. Speaker, I think that should answer my friend, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).


Mr.   La Salle@: Bravo, Suzanne!


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert can quote a statement from the National Research Council, but I ask her once more, as elected representative of Quebec City, to apologize to the former Dean of Laval University, Mr. Larkin Kerwin, a distinguished scholar born in Quebec City who is now head of the National Research Council of Canada. When will she apologize for the offending comments she made today in this House?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: I will apologize when Mr. Kerwin has himself apologized for not inviting me. Moreover, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) should all the more apologize for belonging to a party which has misled the people of Quebec. As for me, Sir, I have always risen in public forums to defend the interests of Quebec, and when the time comes I will rise again, you may be sure of that.
Supply


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I attach quite heavy significance to the debate this afternoon. While it is inevitable in this political Chamber that the debate be political, I thought we might have heard debate of a slightly higher level, both in terms of reasonableness and logic and of the temper of that debate. Instead, we heard an outburst of sound and fury moments ago which signified nothing. We heard the claim that for many people reallocation has not meant the loss of jobs. We heard the curious implication, by virtue of an assertion, that the recent Nobel prize winner, by virtue of $1.2 million over three years, has been extraordinarily heavily subsidized in his research by an effective government program in support of research.
The Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) knows, as do I, that if a Nobel prize winner in the United States got as little as $50 million for three years of research he or she would probably be blushing. The most junior scientist in the United States would receive $1.2 million for a three-year grant.


Mr. McDermid:: That's nonsense.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That's an exaggeration.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Let us not kid ourselves. The absurdity of this debate is manifested by members of the Party in power.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What about your own distortion?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Every Member knows that I am not saying that the United States is a superior country. I am saying that Canada has the necessary creativity and resources and ought to have the guts, foresight and intelligence to use that creativity in a way which will benefit our citizens, in terms of both economic pay-off and the ability to pay for our programs of social justice and the security of equality for the people of our country.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That is exactly what we are doing.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: As the Hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) knows, the problem in this country is that we have until now been a resource-based nation. We have been fairly successful in that. By virtue of our exports we have been able to sustain a level of social justice which is unchallenged by most countries in the world. I think members of most political Parties would support that. The fact is that those resources are falling in price and are subject to increased competition from around the world and to substitution. They are, therefore, endangered.
We are faced with competition in a knowledge-based world. In such a world Canada will not be able to compete unless it does something about its ability to produce as a result of and on the basis of what we know. If our resources are to profit us they will do so only on the basis of an absolute national commitment to use research, science and technology to convert
638

October 22, 1986
Supply
our resources to products available to nations around the world. We need a science and technology policy not directed to the enhancement of defence-linked expenditures, but rather to expenditures which will produce products demanded by a peaceful world.
We quite evidently have a need to take some bold initiatives to ensure the economic survival of this country. We need a strategy of linking research and science technology to industrial development plans. Instead of placing the kind of emphasis on that thrust which I think rational people would demand of an independent country run by a Government with a notion of how to secure that independence, we have a thrust for a free trade arrangement which could threaten the development of research and science technology in this country.


John Horton McDermid: What a crock.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: As the Science Council pointed out, we are talking about competing, on a free trade basis, with a nation which spends huge amounts of money. The federal Government of that country spends 77 per cent of its research funds on defence. Comparable government expenditures in Canada run around 9 per cent. To open ourselves up without considerable preparation is going to put a great deal of our scientific and research community at risk. Indeed, it could be fairly argued that we should not even be talking about it until we have addressed the need.
There has been a great deal of comparison this afternoon between what the Liberals have done and what the Conservatives have done on science and research. We have heard vague allegations that those of us committed to social justice are somehow opposed to reasonable choices and decisions with respect to science. Let us be perfectly clear that we are in a sorry state. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recognized this in the book he wrote before becoming Prime Minister. To paraphrase, he said that we are in danger of becoming a Junior B team in the league of science. Of course, that is true. One point three per cent of the GNP is devoted to research, compared to 2.5 per cent in all the other leading industrial nations of the world. Among OECD countries we rank about tenth.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology has said, in justifying some of the changes with respect to government and scientific establishments, that our Government spends disproportionately on science as compared to industry. The fact is that we rank tenth among OECD countries in the amount of government expenditures on science. In the industrial sector we rank thirteenth. If we look at any of the other criteria for scientific and technological performance, we are in trouble. A $20 billion deficit in technological exports has already been cited. There was reason for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to say that we had better get on the starting line for the technological revolution.
We have heard members of the Liberal Party criticize this present Government. The Liberals have produced a sorry record regarding their policies with respect to science and technology. That is undoubtedly clear. It has already been pointed out that they failed to commit themselves to proper five-year funding plans for the granting agencies. Indeed, they interrupted the five-year plan that the Clark Government introduced in 1979. We all know about the scientific tax credit boondoggle. It is difficult to argue that any of the politicians in power in the last hundred years have had the commitment to research, science and technology that is appropriate to our future economic development. There is no doubt that the Liberals were bad.
When the Prime Minister said that we must become "major league" in the scientific enterprise, we had much to hope for. Some recent initiatives have been helpful. Some focus has been brought to bear on the issue of research, science and technology-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I would submit that there has been more public discussion and debate about the issue in recent weeks than there has been in my memory. There have been some initiatives that in context have to be praised. The creation of a National Advisory Board with the Prime Minister as chairman has the potential to be a significant initiative.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The promise of a national science and technology strategy is helpful in that it has been repeated, although it is slow in coming. But promises made in other forums, vague promises of more co-operative talking together, the other two parts of that four part program, are not helpful at all. At least there has been a salutary focus. The exaggerated rhetoric and the dangerous misleading of the public about what is being done is not helpful.
We have been told that there will be $800 million in new money for space-based research. That is not new money. There has been no net addition. We are having a debate now about reallocation from NRC in order to fund that. Why not at least be truthful? Why not present the facts to permit a reasonable informed analysis of what the Government is doing?
I would like to read the so-called contradiction identified by the Minister of State for Science and Technology in the question I asked him, which was: Who among the scientific community suggested that the NRC be savaged to support a space program. With respect to the space program, Howard McCurdy said on March 27, 1985 that I do support and would support scientifically and politically the involvement of Canada in a space station used for peaceful purposes. But not by savaging the NRC. Remember Pinocchio, Mr. Speaker. Early in the spring, we were all shocked, including the Minister, about the announcement that RRAP was to be cut by some $60 million. It has not been cut. There has been some scurrying around and instead we are going to have some

BHHHHHHBHHRHi
October 22, 1986

reallocation within NRC. This reallocation is going to put people out of jobs. There is a certain accuracy but a certain lack of precision in the message being communicated about what this Government is doing. We are told that $1 billion is going into university research.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The implication is that this is new money. If you look at the Minister's own figures, at the very best, $730 million of additional money will go into university research, if the industrial community contributes to the three granting councils 500 per cent more than it ever has in the last few years. Still there is a considerable gap of more than $250 million in what the Minister says he is going to do and what is actually being done. We have to remind ourselves of Pinocchio. In measuring the value of that exaggerated increase, we must remember that $738 million is exactly half of what NSERC alone indicated was required to meet the need-never mind MRC, never mind SSHRC. We were misled. What that will mean is that there will be under the most optimistic predictions a 2.9 per cent real increase in the amount of money going to the granting agencies.
What we need is honesty. We do need a rational science, research and technology policy. We do not expect the changes to occur overnight. We do not expect them to occur by virtue of the irrational attack on programs already existing to feed pie-in-the-sky notions of what is politically convenient.
There are some suggestions that could be made. The very essence of all of this is that one of the problems that this nation
Supply
has must be addressed, that is, its orientation towards a resource based versus a knowledge-based society. That suggests that there should be some serious initiatives taken by the Government in the reform of university and secondary education generally in terms of our arrangements for funding the universities. In this commitment to science and technology, $2 billion has been cut from the expected increases in funding at the university level over the next five years. That is another action this Government has taken that could not possibly be consistent with a rational science and technology policy. There need to be some reforms in post-secondary, secondary, and primary eduction commensurate with our new thrust in science and technology. That should include more technical training. We have to recognize the basic importance of science, research and technology by placing the Minister of State for Science and Technology in the Priorities and Planning Committee of the Cabinet where he belongs. If you refer to the CAUTNT bulletin you will find some other useful suggestions that would serve to advise this Government on a policy it is struggling to achieve and which is necessary for this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12) the proceedings on the motion have expired.

Accordingly this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, October 23, 1986