1990-03-26

['Madam Speaker, my concern is with the Sydney Tar Ponds clean-up project in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. The Ministry of the Environment initiated the formation of a citizens\' monitoring committee, following widely expressed concerns by both Sysco workers and the community that the preliminary environmental screening report was not detailed enough to be accurate.\nThese concerns grew out of the deep familiarity of the workers for the substances to be uncovered in the Muggah Creek site and the inexplicably high incidence of cancer mortality rates in the area. In fact, the committee has presented a recommendation to the minister that the\nsurvey was not sufficiently detailed and has requested a full panel review under the EARP guidelines.\nThe over-riding concern is that the dredging plans remain vague and do not allow for the hazard of the exposure of emissions of carcinogenic gasses like naphthalene. The committee report recognizes that "excavation will allow for the release of such gasses into the air".\nA second major concern is that proposals for the dispersal of contaminated waste are inadequate and will result in the leaching of toxic substances such as lead, mercury, and zinc into the groundwater and into Sydney harbour.\nThe urgent nature of the committee\'s recommendations deserve a prompt response by the minister. The health and environment of the Sydney are at stake. Act now!']
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before putting the motion in the name of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 1990, the House will go through the usual procedure to consider and dispose of supply bills.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my honourable colleague, as I am looking forward to his remarks.
The Speaker will know, and the House will know, Madam Speaker, that last Friday at three o'clock in this Chamber a confidence vote took place. It was called for by the New Democratic Party. Members will also know that only 14 members of that party were present.
In normal circumstances Friday votes, and especially confidence votes, would be deferred until Monday. We are facing confidence votes today at seven o'clock. It would have been for the convenience of members of all parties and everyone in this chamber.
There were additional costs incurred for members of all parties but certainly the government party and I suspect the Official Opposition where members came back. They spent money on airline tickets, helping the
bottom line for Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International perhaps and taxi firms, but at some cost in a direct sense to the taxpayers of this country. There would be some additional cost in the withdrawal of services of members who spent many hours returning from Vancouver and elsewhere. They cannot be in touch with their constituents. They cannot be doing the kind of work that they planned on doing and would like to do.
Because of the useless nature of the demonstration of that exercise and its lack of utility, its cost and lack of purpose, I wonder, Madam Speaker, if you might get unanimous consent in the spirit of hard work which generally characterizes this place, before we begin our work, to simply eliminate Standing Order 81(12)(b) which puts all of us under the gun for any opposition day on a Friday from now until doomsday when, in fact, the New Democratic Party has told this Chamber that through their desire to be obstructive rather than constructive, that they are going to hassle members on a Friday into the foreseeable future.
I wonder if you could put that question to the whole Chamber. I would seek unanimous consent for the elimination of Standing Order 81(12)(b).


Some hon. members:: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If members are shouting "no", I would like to hear their reason, why they think it is sane to waste taxpayers' money, to waste the time of members of this Chamber, to be present on a Friday, when those who caused that activity to occur have no intention of showing up.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, the government will go to no ends to try to prevent a good, solid debate from occurring on research and development. Knowing my friend from Calgary, I know that he would not be one of those who would want to waste the time of the House.
If the hon. member wants to give notice to the House that the government is proposing an amendment to the Standing Order 81(12)(b), we will take that under advisement. Right now we cannot give an answer to that because we have an important debate today concerning

March 26, 1990
Supply
research and development and we would like to proceed with that as soon as possible.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, in view of the important debate that the Liberals have before us today and because we would like to have the opportunity to see just what the government Whip is planning to put forward, we too would like to see the House move forward with the opposition motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Obviously, the hon. member does not have unanimous consent to move his motion at this time.


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 82-RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That this House recognize that research and development, and the resulting innovation, are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country and that Canada must increase its level of research and development in order to ensure economic growth in an increasingly competitive and technologically literate global community.
He said: Madam Speaker, the words of the motion we have put before the House today with regard to the level of commitment by the government to research and development in the country have been chosen very carefully.
The objective of our motion is to elicit support from members on all sides of the House to enlarge Canada's commitment to the goal of increasing, rather than decreasing, the level of research and development carried out in the country.

Madam Speaker, the House will note that the motion has taken some terms from the Prime Minister's vocabulary. Liberal Members agree with the goal the Prime Minister set himself before he became Prime Minister, and that was to increase substantially the budget for research and development. The reason why we present this motion is that the goal set by the Prime Minister did not materialize.

Before he became Prime Minister, the right hon. member made several very positive commitments. In 1983 he said with regard to research and development, and I quote:
Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league or we become a nation that will, during our entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit.
In 1984 the Prime Minister said the following:
We have to double our research and development commitment and triple our resolve to reach it.
In the same year he said:
The production, application, and diffusion of modem technology is not going to help us if Canadians are not trained and educated in its use.
Also in 1984 he said, and I quote again:
We are going to double our collective national commitment to research and development within the life of our first government mandate.
What has happened since those commitments were made? Did we double our spending on research and development?


Some hon. members:: No.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, we did not. In 1983 Canada spent 1.35 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product on research and development. In 1988 that figure was 1.32 per cent. In other words, far from double. In fact, it was slightly less when expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, a percentage of our economy.
Have we moved up in comparison to our major competitors? No, we have not. Japan, the United States, West Germany and France are at roughly double in spending on research and development as a per cent of Gross Domestic Product. To use the Prime Minister's term, we are in the Junior B league when it comes to research and development, despite his commitment that his government would put us in the major leagues before his first mandate expired.
Another commitment made by the Prime Minister was, and I quote:
We are going to close that gap by making biotechnology and genetic research a top priority.
Did we close the gap on biotechnology and genetic research?


Some hon. members:: No.
March 26, 1990


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, the government and the Prime Minister did not close the gap on research. They closed the research laboratories.

After claiming loudly how important research and development was and after some eloquent campaign speeches on the subject, the day after the government was sworn in it aimed its guns at the National Research Council. In November 1984, the Conservative government slashed 60 million from the NRC's budget. Some of the sections and projects that were eliminated were the energy section, the Environment Secretariat, the Manufacturing Technology Institute, the Institute for Electrochemistry and the cold Regions Research Institute. It also fired 80 scientists and officers. This was only the beginning, however.

In 1986 it cut another $29 million from the National Research Council budget, closing down electromagnetic and mechanical engineering programs, closing down environmental toxicology programs, closing down aeronautics construction and physics programs, announcing the elimination of another 200 NRC jobs and shutting down the photochemistry and kinetics section. This was the section of the National Research Council where Canada's Nobel prize winning scientist, Dr. John Pola-nyi, began his research career.
It is no small wonder that when Dr. Polanyi was asked after learning of this shutdown what advice he would give to young scientists in Canada, he replied: "I think I would go to the United States."
My predecessor, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, at the time Dr. Polanyi said this, asked the Prime Minister if he could "conceive of a more damning indictment of his governmental policy than to have one of the leading scientists of our country recommend to the young people of Canada who are interested in scientific research that their only recourse is to go south of the border to the United States". That is what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra asked at the time and at that time, in 1986, the Prime Minister had no answer.
In the latest budget his government continued to reduce its commitment to research and development with a further cut of $39 million from its research and technology programs.
Supply
Now that situation is becoming even more critical because while the Canadian government is firing scientists and reducing budgets for research and development, the United States government is doing exactly the opposite. President Bush of the United States has just announced a 14.4 per cent increase in the budget of the National Science Foundation, their equivalent to our National Research Council.

Meanwhile, Madam Speaker, the President of the National Research Council has announced that because of budgetary constraints, the NRC will have to reduce research on High Energy Physics; eliminate the Prairie research station, in Saskatchewan; do away with the avalanche research centre in British Columbia; lease out the Algonquin Park Radio Observatory; eventually close down the wind tunnel at Uplands; and possibly move the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics.

Madam Speaker, I do not think it could be argued that these are the actions of a government committed to tripling its resolve to double research and development output. Far from it!
What about the need to educate and train more young Canadians to take up the challenge of scientific research? Since 1984 the government opposite has moved deliberately to reduce its commitment to the funding of education in this country. In its last budget the government slashed another $2.1 billion in post-secondary education transfer payments to the provinces.
How is that going to help fill our research laboratories with bright young scientists, scientists who will carry out the innovative research which is necessary to make Canada competitive? It will not do that at all. We already have a shortage of individuals with the necessary skills, and the government's attitude toward spending on education is short-sighted, to say the least. It is more than short-sighted, it is dangerous for the future of this country.
In one of the most research and development intensive sectors in our economy, the high technology sector in Canada is lagging behind. According to an innovation consultant in that sector, the federal government "does not know how to spell high technology, let alone develop policies to encourage it". The president of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, Mr. Roy Woodbridge, has stated that the problem is becoming more and more critical and that:

March 26, 1990
Supply
There is a growing sense that the window of opportunity for
Canada to become a substantive player in research and development
is closing. There is a growing malaise within the technology
community in this country.
Mr. Woodbridge went on to say that unique among industrialized nations Canada now has a negative balance and a growing trade deficit in every single sector of the advanced technology industry.
Members should also consider the fact that this country, which invented the telephone, which has led the world in telecommunications technology, which in fact devotes nearly 40 per cent of all its R and D to telecommunications, and which for years has had a healthy trade surplus in telecommunications equipment, last year for the first time imported more telecommunications equipment than it exported.
Combine that with the impact of the trade deal signed by this government with the United States, a trade deal which will encourage more and more takeovers of Canadian business and the transfer of research and development to head offices outside Canada.
What is also happening is that the government is just standing by and letting our high tech sector become more and more of a branch plant economy. Yet, as the government House leader said a year ago when he was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: "Branch plants just don't do research".
However the trade deal and this government's laissez-faire attitude to foreign takeovers are only two of the many impediments this government has thrown in the way of increasing our ability to perform the levels of research and development necessary for economic growth and prosperity.
The imposition of the new goods and services tax will also have a negative impact. The government has imposed this new tax on all books-essential tools of knowledge and education. Equally important, the new tax will also be applied to university expenditures. This means that even though rebates are to be given of this goods and services tax, and these rebates are supposed to leave them no worse off than under the old manufacturers' sales tax, this has not yet been proven. It is not yet clear that universities will be in the same position as they
were and as they are under the present tax regime. Many fear, and I think for good reason, that universities will be worse off.
Furthermore, there will be a heavier administrative burden for universities in applying for these rebates. This means that less money will actually be available for research and development because a portion of it will have to be used for the extra administrative burden imposed on our universities as a result of the government's proposed goods and services tax.
Also, our research granting bodies are facing the possibility that the government will cancel the university-industry matching grants programs under which the councils' budgets were increased by $1 for every $1 contributed by industry to university research. This single change in policy could mean a reduction of 20 per cent of the entire operating budget of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, a cut of 26 per cent of the operating budget of the Medical Research Council, and a $13.1 million cut in the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
I am sure members will agree that such a change in policy would not help encourage more research and development. It would do exactly the opposite.
The decisions we make on research and development today will have an enormous impact on our economy tomorrow.
We in Canada cannot rely on our present resource based economy alone to provide the level of growth and development we need to be a leading industrial power into the next century.
If we look around the world at other industrialized countries, it is not difficult to understand why they have greatly increased their competitive position compared to Canada. Two good examples are West Germany and Japan in which governments have taken a leadership role, in partnership with industry and educational institutions, in devoting money and resources for research and development.
If we compare our efforts to seven other leading industrialized countries, using ten different tests for R and D performance, we find that Canada ranks lowest on five of those tests, second lowest on three, and is about average on the remaining two. That is not a very good record.
March 26, 1990

These comparisons show that in the Prime Minister's own words we are still very much at the junior b level despite all the claims by the Prime Minister and the government to the contrary.
All of us in this place know or should know that research and development are crucial not only to our economic well-being but also to the development of solutions to some of our most pressing environmental problems. Canada and indeed the world are in desperate need of new technologies to combat the despoiling of our planet. Governments should be looking for ways to stimulate and encourage the development of these new technologies, not retreating in the face of a global challenge.
I believe we must reverse this disturbing trend. I believe if members on all sides of this House offer their support for the motion we have put forward, we will have accomplished a very positive step in that direction.
We have to do what all students in this country know is necessary in order to graduate and move ahead. We have again to start doing our homework. We have again to start putting our efforts into producing more and better technologies which will put us in the forefront of global development, and not allow ourselves to become a technological backwater.
That is why we are urging every member of this House to support this motion. After all, it includes the Prime Minister's own words as he said and as our motion says:
Research and Development and the resulting innovation are the
life blood of a successful economy and country.
That is why I say in concluding my remarks and opening the debate on this motion: let us join together in support of it. Let us help Canada succeed. Let us help Canada graduate and move ahead to become a more innovative and competitive economy. We need this for ourselves. We need this for our children. We need this for the future of our country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Milliken:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are discussing today the Business of Supply, the principal financial business of the Government of Canada. The government is responsible to this House of Commons. It has an obligation to maintain the confidence of this House. It is introducing two bills later
Supply
today, based on the debate in part that will take place today.
I find it frankly appalling, a complete indication of Tory arrogance, and an abuse of the practices of this House that during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at the opening of this debate there was not a single member of the cabinet present in this House. There are 39 members of cabinet who sit in this House and one of them walked in one minute before the end of that speech. I object vigorously to this disgraceful contempt of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is quite aware of the rules of this House. Making a point of order to say precisely whether a person is or is not in the House is not the way things are done here, and he knows it quite well.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Madam Speaker, I would want my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House to know that I sat enthralled in the lobby listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I saw once again the difficulty we continue to have in terms of this subject and certainly some members of the opposition. It is easy to raise these spectres about things that probably will never happen.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the matching grants policy and what a dreadful thing this was going to be, that millions and millions of dollars would be lopped off the budget for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the other things. That makes a big assumption that the matching grant policy will not be continued or, what may be even more likely, would be replaced by a policy that was even more beneficial to the universities than the one we have now.
It is not a plea for a different kind of policy. It is not a plea for continuation of the thrust. It is a comment that this is going to disappear. Therefore all the scientists and the universities in Canada should be quite upset because this government has made decisions.
I could say that same with respect to the comments about the National Research Council. This government has every intention of ensuring that the National Research Council is a major contributor to science and technology in the years ahead. We have every intention of ensuring that the National Research Council will be

March 26, 1990
Supply
one of the main thrusts in terms of promoting that liaison between industry, universities and government laboratories which is so important.
I heard them talk about high quality manpower and how this government was doing nothing about that. It was this government that brought in the Canada Scholarships Program whereby 10,000 young men and women, at least 50 per cent of whom will be women, will be involved in promoting science and technology and getting young men and women into science and technology so that we can begin to resolve the high quality person power requirements that will be down the road. We know that.
However that is done by taking the resources we have and putting them in the right directions. That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to do it without frightening Canadians that all is going to the dogs. We are going to do these things and we are going to place our money in the right directions; not just throw money at every conceivable program there could be.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. minister whose words on the surface are very encouraging, but we have to listen as well to a repetition of the words of the Prime Minister who stated in 1984: "We are going to double our collective national commitment to research and development within the life of our first government mandate."
What actually happened, even if we give the Prime Minister a few extra years to achieve his objective and even if we do not look at simply the period between 1984 and the election itself in 1988? But if we look at the period from 1983 to 1988 we see that in the year 1983 Canada spent 1.35 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product on research and development. I ask you, Madam Speaker, and members of the House: Did the figure increase over the ensuing five years? Did it at least stay the same? It did not even stay the same. It dropped from 1.35 per cent to 1.32 per cent.
I do not see why the Prime Minister, with all the levers of government at his command, could not at least keep the level of expenditure in research and development as
a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product equal to what it was in 1983. He could not even do that; it fell.
Furthermore, if we look further at the action of the government with respect to the National Research Council and the research and development programs of the government, what we saw was cut, cut, cut; slash, slash, slash: laboratories, programs, scientists and technicians. What is the point of maintaining a better liaison through the National Research Council with the private sector and government laboratories if the government is closing down its laboratories?
This is veiy serious in any country. It is very serious, however, in Canada because so little research and development is being done in the private sector in spite of the words of the government about having more done there. Our research laboratories in government are especially important in this country to maintain our high technology base.
If we look at what this government actually did and if we look at what has actually happened since this government came into office, we cannot have the confidence the hon. minister would like us to have in what he just said about the future intentions of this government.
I wish it were otherwise, because the motion we have offered is one built on the words of the Prime Minister himself. Our purpose is to try and get the whole House, including the supporters of the government, to join with us in sending not just to the government but to the country the sense of Parliament in support of more activity in research and development. Yet, instead of a supportive comment by the minister-and I hope it will come later in the debate-we see simply an attempt to justify what until now has been a record that this government should not be proud of in any way, shape or form.
We are giving members of this House including the minister a chance to begin doing better by supporting our motion later today. I hope they will do it. As my colleague has said, it will also give them a chance to support and show that they agree with the words of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, I really quite enjoyed and doubtless will support the position that has been the subject of the discourse by the hon. member for Windsor West. I note that members of the Official Opposition has chosen to use the words of the Prime Minister at a time before he
March 26, 1990

was Prime Minister. I am truly curious why they did not choose to use the words of the previous Prime Minister and whether the fact that they did not reflects the absence of any real policy for research and development during the time the party of the Official Opposition held office.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has chosen to select the words of his motion from the book Where I Stand by the Prime Minister and related utterances by the Prime Minister. I would have suggested that he might have looked a little further from the source and he would have found this: "In 1968, however, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau became Prime Minister, we were spending 1.4 per cent of the Gross National Product in this vital job productive area of research and development. For a decade we spent only .9 per cent. In the last two years we have spent 1.13 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product for research and development".
My question is why was Pierre Elliott Trudeau not quoted on the subject of research and development? Given the record of the investment of the previous governments between 1968 and 1984, leaving out that brief period of Conservative government, would he tell us whether what we have heard now is a policy change as compared to the previous occasion in which the Official Opposition had the opportunity really to do something about research and development?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We chose the words of the present Prime Minister on which to build our motion because it is that Prime Minister and his party who are presently in office, who hold the levers of government in their hands, and who are today in a position to do something about the problem which I sense is one on which there is a consensus in this House and in this country.
I think it very important that we deal with the situation as it is today, and equally or more important, as we want it to be tomorrow. We want to call upon all members of this House to send a message, not just to the government but to the private sector, to the entire country and to the world that we have to do better and that we are going to do better.
Supply
Let us be frank about it. This motion will not carry unless we have the support of, if not all, a substantial number of members on the government side of the House. We thought that we would draft the motion in a way designed to put the supporters of the government to the test and give them a chance to support their own Prime Minister.
I see, Madam Speaker, you are giving me a signal that the time for comment is ending. We recognize who happens to be the Prime Minister of the country for the time being and who has the responsibility of government. We want to give him and his colleagues a chance to join with us in sending the right message in support of research and development to this entire country and to the world as to what Canada needs in order for us to achieve our objectives for it now and in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I did not want to interrupt the hon. Leader of the Opposition but time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate with the hon. minister.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I do enjoy the opportunity today to speak to the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning research development and innovation.
At the outset, I would like to say that I agree with the hon. member in terms of the importance of research and development to a nation's economy. It is unfortunate, however, that the opposition has chosen to trivialize this subject by making it a confidence motion which they know that, in accordance with all the rules and traditions of this House, the government will vote against.
As well, I would like to comment about how incomplete I believe this motion is in terms of what makes a country, particularly this one, competitive. In the race to stay competitive in this world market, Canada's advantage in natural resources and our geographic position next to the great trading markets will no longer be enough. In today's world, innovation has become the key to economic strength.
What gives a country a particular edge in innovation that is necessary to make that country internationally competitive? Certainly the level of research and development is important. There are other factors equally important, and sometimes in the growth of a country the economy rests more on other matters than on R and D.

Supply
What we are trying to do, I regret with little help from the opposition, is to make Canada competitive across the board. That is why when we looked at the free trade agreement with the United States we said here is another way in which we will make Canada competitive in the world. That is why we are going ahead with the goods and services tax to ensure that our exporters and manufacturers have their prices decreased so that we cannot only buy Canadian made goods cheaper here in Canada, but we can export those same goods.
Those are factors equally as important as the amount of R and D that we are likely to do. The technology inflow that is so desperately required in this country is another very important factor, to which the motion that is placed before this House pays absolutely no attention. We are dealing with a motion that touches one part of the issue and completely ignores the rest, and that is not a motion that most of us can accept.
This government, in terms of R and D, science and technology and its relationship with industry, created the Department of Industry, Science and Technology so that we would have a continuum between the basic science that is done in this country and the necessary ability to have our industries competitive at the other end. That continuum and all the inputs to it are what are going to make Canada a competitive nation. Not only does the new department place a very heavy emphasis on research and development, but it places those R and D efforts in a proper context which, until now, has been lacking in this country.
In the course of our deliberations today, I hope members from both sides of the House will take the opportunity to examine this in a larger perspective than the motion that we have in front of us. R and D, while important, is not enough in terms of making this country competitive. It is simply not enough for the Government of Canada to assume responsibility for all of Canada's R and D efforts. The government cannot do it alone.
I believe that the eminent Canadian scientist, Dr. Fraser Mustard, captured what I am referring to in a recent interview. Dr. Mustard spoke about Canada's "ingrained business philosophy", noting that it focuses on "short-term, quick profits", and that it views government as having the sole responsibility for funding scientific innovation.
What is required is a major emphasis on science and technology throughout the whole economy in industry, in universities, in the provincial governments, as well as in the Government of Canada.
Certainly, the federal government has a major responsibility. However, in tabling this motion today, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is already aware of the high level of funding that the Government of Canada now provides for science and technology.
Federal government expenditures take many forms. They include support for the university research granting councils, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Hon. members will recall that in May, 1988 this government announced a $200 million increase in funding for those granting councils. Members will also recall that in the recent budget of the Minister of Finance the granting councils received special treatment. Their increases in this coming year will be something like 8.6 per cent. That shows a commitment to the development of high quality manpower and to the promotion of research and development in our universities.
This House also knows, because we have spoken about it many times, about the National Networks of Excellence Program, $240 million to promote the networks that are so required in Canada in terms of the pre-competitive research that Canada has not done very well in the past and that no government until this one has been able to tackle, trying to bring the universities and industry together to promote the networks so that we can have a critical size in terms of research and development that the country needs.
We have also spoken in this House about the Strategic Technologies Program, where in this instance we have asked industry to come and take the lead, to join forces one with another, join up with universities and with government laboratories to try to promote the technologies which we have chosen to be critical in terms of this country's future; namely, information technologies, the biotechnologies and the advanced industrial materials technologies. We have done those things and the money is set aside.
The federal government spent $5.1 billion on science and technology in 1989 and 1990. That is 4.9 per cent of the government's total program expenditures. That is a
March 26, 1990

lot of money. The federal government's expenditures, in research and development alone, are estimated at $3 billion. That is an increase of 6 per cent over the previous year.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition who proposed this motion may not be aware that the Government of Canada spends more on civilian research and development as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product than the United States and the United Kingdom. We spend about the same on civilian research and development as does the Japanese government. We spend somewhat less than France and West Germany. In other words, compared to the government investment in civilian R and D of our principal trading partners, we are in the middle of the pack.
The fact remains, and no one knows this better than members of the government side, that industry has been slow to respond to the R and D challenge. Canadian industry invests far less than our major trading partners in research and development. It invests about 0.75 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product in R and D, while the private sector in Germany, the United States, Japan and Sweden spends close to 2 per cent. Therein lies the problem about what we have to do in Canada.
It is quite illogical for the opposition to suggest that the Government of Canada should shoulder this whole weight. What we have to do is devise programs to ensure that our industrial partners come in with us and try to promote the appropriate research and development.
The role of government should be to co-ordinate, to facilitate and, where appropriate, to lead. It should not be the function of the federal government to replace private sector research with research paid for by the taxpayer. That is too easy. We know that does not work. We know that the research that is going to count in terms of promoting economic growth, in terms of promoting wealth in Canada, must be industry-driven, industry-lead, and industry-financed. We can help, but we know after 20 some odd years of throwing money at it that that is not going to be the answer.
That is why we have tried in our new programs to have so much of our R and D thrust as a co-operative effort between the Government of Canada and our industrial
Supply
partners. I mentioned earlier the Strategic Technologies Program and the National Networks of Excellence Program, specifically designed to bring those partners together to promote the kind of industry R and D that we need. One of our problems, as I said, is the lack in Canada of directed basic research or the pre-competitive research which is so prominent in other countries. That we are going to tackle through some of these programs.
I think the House would agree that by implementing generous tax incentives, by fostering these networks, by fostering these alliances, that we are investing in the R and D climate of Canada, and that is what has to be done.
Of course, Madam Speaker, there is much we would all like to do. One has to ask the question: What is it appropriate for the Government of Canada to do as opposed to others? That question cannot be answered today. Perhaps some can, but I cannot. I cannot answer that question today without looking at the over-all financial picture of the Government of Canada.
When we spend 35 cents of every dollar to pay the interest on our national debt, our ability to spend on science and technology is curtailed like everything else. There is no question that we all would like to do more.
Let me come back to some of the things I talked about earlier. The question is not only the amount of research and development that this country has to do. The question is, what do we do to make the country competitive? There are many in the country now who believe that R and D is one component, but technology in-flow will be equally important. That is why we have to promote these alliances and Canadian companies looking out to see what other countries are doing and bringing that technology back. That is one of the things we are trying to do. We think it is critical that we bring the industry with us in these areas. Otherwise, we will not reach the kind of R and D that we need.
When talking about Gross Domestic Product and the amount of R and D that is being done, if one is low on that scale I do not think that is the disease, contrary to my colleagues on the other side, I believe that is a symptom of a disease and we had better go to the root of the disease, not just look at some number which in itself

does not help us in terms of looking at how to make the country competitive. Those are the issues.
In developing a national agenda-and let me stress the word "national"-it is up to all of us, all levels of government and industry in Canada, to look at the national agenda. It is not just a Government of Canada responsibility. It is everyone's responsibility to look at what we can do to make our various sectors more competitive. In many instances, that is promotion of R and D. But we are a country with a particular set of industries and a good deal of natural resource industries. For years, those industries have not been terribly prominent in terms of the amount of research and development they do, except to promote their extraction techniques. In fact, in that area they have been extraordinarily good.
What we need are more industries to look at value-added products. They need to look at adding value to the raw resources so that we can move up the scale. That may require R and D. It may also require a good deal of looking at what happens elsewhere.
Let me talk a little about the Prime Minister's National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. That is one of the most important instruments that the Prime Minister has established in his discussions. It is comprised of eminent Canadians from university, labour and business communities and represents both pure and applied research. The board has submitted a series of reports to the Prime Minister dealing with how science and technology can be expanded and exploited more effectively in Canada.
For example, it was the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology and the report of the university committee of that Board that recommended a national merit scholarship program for undergraduate students entering science and engineering. The Canada Scholarship Program, the $80 million program, is a direct result of the Prime Minister's advisory body. We responded to that.
The public awareness committee of NABS, as we call it, recommended a campaign to make Canadians aware of the need to be informed of the latest developments in science and technology and to understand the ways science affects us in our homes, in our schools, and on our jobs. The government responded with a $10 million program to increase public awareness, including a Science Culture Canada Program to develop a better understanding. Under that program, we sponsor science fairs and educational programs right across the country and the provinces are with us on that. The provinces like that program so much that they have joined with us to extend the time limit within which some of the programs are operating. It is a national program in that sense.
All of these are excellent examples of the manner in which the government has built its science and technology policy through collaboration and consultation. We will continue to consult.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member may continue his intervention after Question Period.
It being two o'clock the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian International Tirade Tribunal has recommended that Canadian tariffs on textile imports be gradually reduced so they will be comparable to, although slightly higher than, those in other industrialized countries.
The government will have to take a very close look at the tribunal's recommendations before making a prudent and considered decision.
This decision must be integrated with the Free Trade Agreement which provides for eliminating customs tariffs on 50 per cent of textile imports within seven years. The future decision on tariff reductions in the Uruguay Round the results of these negotiations will not be known until the end of the year. I am referring to a future decision concerning the Multi-Fibre Arrangement which, under GATT article XIX, expires on July 31, 1991, and subsequent transition mechanisms.
It is absolutely vital for the Canadian textile industry to be in a position to attract investors interested in this sector.
March 26, 1990

It is also vital for the government to avoid any hasty decisions that might cause investors to turn to the United States.


WOMEN'S WORLD ICE HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIPS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in the House today in extending very warm congratulations to members of Team Canada for becoming the first women's world hockey champions.
In winning the title our national women's team has made history. I congratulate the women on the team for their hard work, excellence and fair play and their dedication. The team played brilliantly throughout the series and has demonstrated to all of us that women's ice hockey deserves to be a full medal sport in the Olympics.
There is also a place for women in the sport of politics. I hope more young women will become involved so we may gain another first-gender parity in Parliament by the year 2000. I am sure you agree with me, Madam Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, on November 28, 1989, Canadian citizen Mr. Yih-Sheh Leo travelled to the country of his origin, Taiwan. Even though he carried his Canadian passport, upon his entry was arrested without warrant, jailed and violently beaten.
In December, 1989, the guilty verdict of illegal entry was handed down. On January 12, 1990, he was charged with preparing or conspiring to commit sedition which is punishable by a minimum term of ten years imprisonment.
One would assume that the Canadian government would take swift measures to protest the violations against and to secure the freedom of Mr. Leo, a Canadian citizen. To date, the only request to the trade office by the Department of External Affairs is to monitor the case. Those close to Mr. Leo believe that
the low key approach of the Canadian government has been seen by the KMT government as a green light to further prosecute Mr. Leo.
The new charge is more serious; it is a case of freedom of speech and of a Canadian citizen and taxpayer's rights being seriously violated. It is more than time for this government to take action and to stick up for one of our fellow Canadian citizens.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, residents in six communities on the Lower North Shore, in the riding of Manicouagan, voted in municipal elections for the first time in their history.
The residents of Blanc-Sablon, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon and Bradore, communities that have now been amalgamated to form the new municipality of Blanc-Sablon, elected Remi Beaudoin from Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon as mayor, and Vincent Joncas and Odette Beaudoin-Dobbin from Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Paul Lavallee and Normand Letemplier from Blanc-Sablon, and Russell Hobbs and Charles Hart of Bradore, as municipal councillors.

The residents of Middle Bay, St. Paul's River and Old Fort have elected Mr. Scott Buckle as the first mayor of the new municipality of Bonne Esperance and Mr. Andrew Fequet and Mrs. Florance Poland from Old Fort, Mrs. Alvina Leblanc-Lavallee and Mrs. Gladys Buckle from Middle Bay, Mrs. Mary Spingle and Mrs. Karen Nadeau-Thomas from St. Paul's River, to the position of municipal counsellors.
I wish to invite members of the House of Commons to join me in wishing them success and satisfaction in their new municipal functions.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, the environment committee has passed an all-party unanimous resolution calling for a moratorium on the development of the Carmanah Valley in British Colum-

March 26, 1990
bia. The committee seems to believe that it has some interest in what is entirely a provincial matter.
Sustainable development has become the catch phrase of the day. Nowhere is sustainable development more appropriate than in the Carmanah Valley in British Columbia. Despite the cries of pending doom, Carmanah is being managed in a responsible manner, consistent with sustainable development. An initial reserve 25 per cent larger than Stanley Park has been established to preserve the unique old growth Sitka spruce. The balance of the timber will be harvested over a 70 year period. Reforestation plays an important role in the management of this renewable resource.
British Columbia and MacMillan Bloedel are developing a management plan that shares the Carmanah Valley. This agreement has been reached without federal help. As such, I would suggest that the House of Commons environment committee not interfere in provincial jurisdiction, mind its own business and kindly butt out.


NATIVE PROGRAMS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, the federal government has chosen to slash nearly $10 million from native programs which will have a detrimental effect for natives in my riding and across Canada.
In the last five years the native population has swelled as a result of federal legislation which allowed many native people to regain their rightful native status and return to the reserves. However, the government has now cut the funding necessary to deal with increased growth and has cut the ability of native people to lobby the government.
This year's budget has put a 5 per cent limit on expenditure growth in the areas of housing, public works, band management and economic development. The impact is felt on Alderville Reserve in my riding which has 60 families now on a waiting list for homes on the reserve, forced in the interim to pay exorbitant rents off reserve, some living with two families per unit. The 5 per cent cap on growth in funding will not keep pace with the population growth on reserves.
As well, Secretary of State funding cutbacks have attacked the core funding of such native groups as the
Assembly of First Nations and the Union of Ontario Indians, organizations which are the communication links between the native people and Ottawa.
The government must live up to its commitments and reinstate communications and social funding for native programs.


GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, on March 24, Le Journal de Montreal printed the following, and I quote:
"Decision made before Wilson Budget-"
On November 6, 1989, well before the Wilson Budget, the Bourassa government had decided to transfer part of its obligations and its deficit to the municipalities.
Furthermore, the Bourassa government decided that in 1990-91, it would reduce spending in all departments and agencies by 10 per cent and cut spending on education, postsecondary education, health and social services, and income security (housing assistance).
This was revealed in an order in council, adopted on that date by the Bourassa cabinet and now released.
Madam Speaker, I hope the Liberals, and especially the NDP, read this article in Le Journal de Montreal.


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, the Hamilton, Ontario chapter of Science for Peace, along with many other Canadians, oppose the continued support by the Conservative government for cruise missile testing over Canadian soil. The over 300 scientists and other members of Science for Peace say to the government that cruise missile testing completely negates any efforts Canada may be making in the cause for global peace and security.
While other countries in the world are sheathing their swords, Canada is keeping remnants of the cold war alive by participating in the testing of these destructive weapons.
As Science for Peace members correctly pointed out in their second letter of protest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, there are many ways in which Canada can honour commitments to NATO, instead of participating in cruise missile testing. Canada can start by
March 26, 1990

distancing itself from such destabilizing activities and by promoting its traditional role as the honest broker in peacekeeping.
Science for Peace and all Canadians, including the Liberal party, call upon the Conservative government to discontinue testing of the cruise missile over Canadian soil.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, recently a documentary film was made in the United States that attacked the president of General Motors. The name of the film was Roger and Me. Canadians who saw the satirical documentary felt chagrin and anger with American workers who suffered under Roger Smith's arbitrary closure of Flint, Michigan.
Now we discover that the same Roger Smith is pulling the same stunt here in Canada with the Boisbriand closure and 1,700 jobs down the tube. In the film we saw the slogan: "What's good for General Motors is good for the U.S. government". We are getting the supplementary here in Canada: "What's good for General Motors is good for the Mulroney administration.".
The government loaned $220 million to General Motors and now it is closing down this plant. If it is a bunch of what you say it is, why does the government not do something about it? It is caving in to General Motors again.


GLOBE 90
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, from March 19 to March 23,1 had the honour and privilege of attending Globe 90 in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Globe 90 conference and trade fair provided a forum and focus for global opportunities for business and the environment.
Close to 4,000 persons were in attendance, and some 60 countries exhibited in the trade fair. There were many
outstanding presentations made by experts from every conceivable field of the environment.
All levels of government were represented with about 20 members of Parliament and senators in attendance. Premier Vander Zalm of British Columbia and his Minister of the Environment, the Hon. John Reynolds, were keynote speakers at the opening, together with Maurice Strong, an outstanding environmentalist.
I also wish to acknowledge His Honour, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. John Fraser, who was also a keynote speaker and honorary chairman of Globe 90.
Madam Speaker, I left Globe 90 with a great feeling of optimism about the future of the environment. Between the creative approaches of the private sector and the commitment by all levels of government to make the environment a high priority, we may all yet look forward to a brighter future.


WOMEN'S WORLD ICE HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, a historic event took place in the nation's capital last week, demonstrating once again that Canada can welcome the world with flair and style, that Canadian women can compete with the best in the world and, further, that Canadian women are ready to take their place in any job, any profession, any role the world has to offer.
I want to congratulate Team Canada on winning the gold medal yesterday at the first ever International Women's World Championships in hockey.
With strength, speed and style, our hockey players skated to a five to two victory and came out of their five game tournament undefeated while competing against the best from around the world.
Organizers and sponsors of this world class event, held right in this city, can be commended for their excellent efforts. We are well-known around the world for our love of hockey, and this landmark victory for our women's team proves that Canada is determined to make hockey history. If we ever needed proof we have it now that women's hockey is ready for the Olympics.

March 26, 1990
Oral Questions


THE FRENCH FACT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to what Troy Davidson, a young anglophone 16 year-old from Toronto, Ontario, Troy Davidson, from Toronto, did to promote the French fact in Canada. He got 140 students at his school to sign a petition defending the French fact in this country.


Guy St-Julien: Hear, hear!


Gabriel Desjardins: Troy explained that he was concerned about the unity of this country and that he sincerely believes French culture is an asset to Canada.
In the midst of the current language controversy, I think it is edifying and encouraging to see young Canadians stand up and speak out to defend this country's identity. It is unfortunate that certain leaders and individuals have abdicated their responsibility to work to support the unity of this country, but it is also both comforting and stimulating to see and hear young people who are prepared to stand up for the rights of minorities.


Guy St-Julien: Three cheers for Canada's youth!


Gabriel Desjardins: Bravo, Troy, for this show of leadership!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my concern is with the Sydney Tar Ponds clean-up project in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. The Ministry of the Environment initiated the formation of a citizens' monitoring committee, following widely expressed concerns by both Sysco workers and the community that the preliminary environmental screening report was not detailed enough to be accurate.
These concerns grew out of the deep familiarity of the workers for the substances to be uncovered in the Muggah Creek site and the inexplicably high incidence of cancer mortality rates in the area. In fact, the committee has presented a recommendation to the minister that the
survey was not sufficiently detailed and has requested a full panel review under the EARP guidelines.
The over-riding concern is that the dredging plans remain vague and do not allow for the hazard of the exposure of emissions of carcinogenic gasses like naphthalene. The committee report recognizes that "excavation will allow for the release of such gasses into the air".
A second major concern is that proposals for the dispersal of contaminated waste are inadequate and will result in the leaching of toxic substances such as lead, mercury, and zinc into the groundwater and into Sydney harbour.
The urgent nature of the committee's recommendations deserve a prompt response by the minister. The health and environment of the Sydney are at stake. Act now!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Many Canadians got the impression from listening to the Prime Minister's speech on television last week that he agreed with the concerns Premier McKenna had expressed, concerns which Premier McKenna felt should be contained in a companion resolution to the 1987 constitutional amendment.
Speaking in Toronto on Friday, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "I didn't endorse McKenna's proposals. I've been trying to tell you that. The reference to a committee does not mean the acceptance of each of the items in the resolution".
Can the Prime Minister clarify for Canadians just what his views are on the items contained in Premier McKenna's proposal?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my hon. friend needs any clarification because I had sent him, prior to delivering the speech on television, a copy of my remarks in which I said:
March 26, 1990

Accordingly, I have decided to introduce Premier McKenna's companion resolution in the House of Commons next week and immediately refer it to a special committee of the House.
Had I wanted to say "endorse", or "support", I would have said that, but I said introduce in the House for consideration by a committee, which committee would then hear from Canadians across the country and report back to the House for a vote. That strikes me as being an appropriate and democratic procedure.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister does not support the items in Premier McKenna's proposal, could he tell the House and Canadians where he expects the exercise reflected by the motion on today's Order Paper to lead?

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Prime Minister whether the McKenna proposal, attached to the government motion appearing in today's Order Paper, will change the Constitution if the provisions it contains are adopted. In that case we will need the consent of the Senate and the provincial legislatures. Has the government asked the provinces to table the same resolutions before their respective legislatures?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Premier McKenna introduced into his legislature a companion accord, in response to which I, on behalf of the government, said:
Last Friday Premier McKenna wrote to inform me of his intention to improve on Meech Lake through a companion resolution that would add to, but not subtract from the Accord, and would address a number of concerns that have been raised.
I went on to say:
This is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposition-but a number of amendments that all Canadians should examine seriously-without undermining the Accord and the consensus it represents.
This was because Premier McKenna, in introducing his resolution into the New Brunswick Legislature, concluded by saying: "Now, therefore, the legislative assembly resolves that amendments to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation-", et cetera, "-but only after the Constitution Amendment, 1987 comes into force".
Oral Questions
Premier McKenna was saying in this resolution what he has said publicly many times since, that he has put this forward for consideration by Canadian legislatures in the hope that it can lead to further discussion among all provinces which, in turn, can lead to a resolution of the Meech Lake impasse.
It was in that spirit that I undertook to introduce it into the House of Commons.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am asking these questions because I think Canadians want to have a greater understanding of the process that the Prime Minister wants to follow and where the Prime Minister expects it to lead, especially in connection with the specific items raised by Premier McKenna.
I again repeat the point of my second question, which is whether or not the Prime Minister would like to see each of the provincial legislatures consider the same annex that is attached to the resolution to set up the special committee which is before the House. In particular, what role does the Prime Minister see for the Senate in consideration of the McKenna proposals and other proposals to break the constitutional impasse?
I ask this because if the Senate and provincial legislatures are not involved in dealing with the companion resolution, how does the Prime Minister ever expect the contents of that resolution to become part of the Constitution of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the other legislatures can speak for themselves and make up their own minds as to how they want to entertain what has been a positive approach by Premier McKenna, which is designed to try to break a log jam.
I speak for my government and we have introduced it into the House of Commons for consideration by a special committee of the House. It has been agreed that at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon the three party leaders will speak in respect of the procedures that they hope to have followed. At that time I will spell out, as will my hon. friend no doubt, my views in respect of the most expeditious and appropriate manner in which a committee of the House of Commons might proceed.

March 26, 1990
Oral Questions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The question to be referred for consideration to the Special Committee of the House concerns the companion resolution, better known as the McKenna proposal. This proposal is aimed at amending the 1987 Constitutional Accord or Meech Lake Accord. Does the Prime Minister think the mandate of this committee could be expanded to include any other amendment concerning Canada's Constitution?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered this question in my speech Thursday evening, when I said this was not a final offer, take it or leave it, but a number of changes that all Canadians should examine very seriously. I think there is a way to reach out to Canadians who feel left out by Meech Lake-aboriginal people, northern residents, certain women's groups-without compromising the Accord itself and the consensus it creates. I think that answers the hon. member's question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, Premier McKenna has said, and I quote from his own document: "The companion resolution would require public hearings be held by Parliament and all effective provincial legislatures before the adoption of any constitutional amendments."
How does the Prime Minister of this countiy intend to involve all of Parliament, that is the House of Commons and the Senate, in this process to make it really a constitutional process?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it has already been agreed that the leader of the Liberals and the NDP and myself will speak to this issue tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock, precisely on that point.
As my hon. friend knows, it is up to each legislature to be seized of a constitutional motion that initiates the process.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Senate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is asking about the Senate. He may want to ask his Liberal caucus colleagues in the Senate in order to have a better idea as to what the Liberals in the Senate are planning.
We will act on behalf of the House of Commons. Other legislators will act on behalf of their legislatures. We will act on behalf of the House of Commons, and I hope that my hon. friend will continue to maintain the supremacy of the elected House of Commons over an appointed Senate.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. During the 1988 election campaign, Canadians heard time and time again how many jobs were going to be created by the trade deal. The Prime Minister himself, during the 1988 campaign, said that the trade deal was going to create
250,000	new jobs in Canada.
Over the weekend, former deputy chief negotiator Gordon Ritchie told a conference attended by the Prime Minister and the deal's co-signer Ronald Reagan: "The free trade agreement will not be a major creator of jobs. This is a specious claim made in the heat of an election campaign."
Thousands of jobs are being lost as a result of the trade deal. I ask the Prime Minister to admit today that in fact he was wrong when he said that the trade deal would create jobs in Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the claim to which my hon. friend apparently refers is a claim that was made by the Economic Council of Canada through its distinguished chairperson Judith Maxwell who said that the free trade agreement would create 250,000 new jobs. I believed Ms. Maxwell then and I believe her guilty today only of having underestimated her case.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend refers to a comment made by an individual at a conference. The popularity of free trade is such that there are conferences going on all over the place.
May I refer her to a report in The Gazette of another conference that took place at Bishop's University in Lennoxville over the weekend at which the conclusions were the following:
Several of the country's leading economic researchers believe free trade has paid a surprisingly strong and early dividend in the form of robust business investment, made up partly of Canadian companies modernizing or expanding and partly of foreign firms investing in Canada. That helps explain why Canada has avoided a recession and why unemployment, contrary to expectations, has not gone up much



Oral Questions
at all despite the high interest rates said economists Ronald
Wonnacott of the University of Western Ontario and Douglas Purvis
of Queen's University.
These are two outstanding people who are saying that the free trade agreement has brought great benefits to Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister is so convinced of his facts I ask that today he table a list of those jobs that have been created in Canada since the trade deal has been signed.
He might also want to speak to the 60 head office employees and the 280 plant workers at Catelli Limited who are being asked to take wage cuts and accept a wage freeze until the end of 1993 if they want to keep their jobs from being shifted to the U.S. plants. The U.S. president of the Catelli firm said that the decision was part of the company's North American strategy under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Can the Prime Minister still maintain that the trade deal will bring more jobs and a higher standard of living when the trade deal is being used to intimidate workers into lower wages and to accept poorer standards of living?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on doing this but I would be happy to table a document which indicates that since the free trade agreement came into effect on January 1, 1989, 257,000 new jobs have been created.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: List them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in regard to an important component of them-


Mr. Allmand:: Selling hamburgers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The member for NDG says selling hamburgers. Of the 257,000 jobs, 231,000 or 90 per cent have been full-time jobs, reversing the trend under the Liberals completely.
[Translation\


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The question for the people of Sainte-Therese, Quebec, might be: "Where are the jobs?" We learned this weekend that 1,700 jobs would be lost in Sainte-Therese, Quebec. The General Motors plant is shutting down half its production line. Now this plant is more competitive than the General Motors plant in the United States: its production cost per employee is between $8 and $9 an hour less than in the United States.
The Prime Minister said that with the Free Trade Agreement, all decisions would be based on competitiveness. Is the Prime Minister prepared to admit that this decision is political, not economic, that jobs are at stake and that free trade does not protect our people?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the layoffs in Sainte-Therese are temporary. They are due to short-term market conditions. The Sainte-Therese plant is very modem and very competitive; General Motors has already invested $450 million in it. The facilities at Sainte-Therese, like the new paint department, are high quality. We are confident that the plant is in a good position to make the new products successful, which will make it viable in the long run.

We should boost this plant, not disparage it. It has a very strong success rate and a good future.
I should also tell the hon. member that when she talks about food processing, in the past year this industry has seen 21 new plants, 23 expansions and 18 improvements to plants. This was in the last 12 months.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As was already mentioned on Friday, General Motors announced that 1,700 workers at its plant in Sainte-Therese would be laid off. Since the government has subsidized this company in Sainte-Therese in the past and, with the Free Trade Agreement, the government promised to maintain and even increase the number of

March 26, 1990
Oral Questions
jobs in that province, what is the government prepared to do to protect these industrial jobs that are very important for the province of Quebec?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we are confident that the plant is in a good position to make its new products successful, which will make it viable in the long run. We have a problem with the market in the short term, not the long term.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the government is great at giving general statistics with respect to job creation, but when it comes to answering about a loss of jobs or plant closures, it has nothing to say.
The workers at Ste. Therese want to know exactly what the government is going to do to protect those 1,700 jobs. Tell us directly what you are going to do.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I should tell the House that the Minister for External Relations, who is at St. Therese in her riding, has been in constant touch with management and the unions in the past three days. She is hopeful that they will see that the intelligent course is a long term course of new products. They have one of the best operating environments in the world. Some of the most modem technical improvements in the world are in that plant. They have a good long term future. We should be optimistic, not pessimistic.


LITHUANIA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It pertains to the increased Soviet Union military presence in Lithuania. The forced intervention and the intimidation observed in Lithuania over the weekend is clearly counter-productive.
Has the minister made further representations to Mr. Shevardnadze, urging the two sides to come together in dialogue and negotiate a peaceful acceptable resolution? I repeat, Mr. Speaker, to negotiate a peaceful and acceptable resolution. Is he still receiving consistent
messages from the Soviet Union that there will be no crackdown?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am in regular touch with Mr. Shevardnadze, although I have not been in touch with him since the events of the weekend. As the hon. member will know, there have in fact been some developments in Lithuania that may give some cause for encouragement. There was a meeting earlier today between Lithuanian officials and Soviet military officers and it appears that the Soviet army has now agreed to notify Vilnius of any troop movements on Lithuanian territory. That may indicate that there is now a movement toward some of the kinds of discussions and negotiations that both sides had been signalling would come to pass and certainly that members of this House unanimously hope will be the means by which this situation is resolved.
I am keeping it under very close review. I had the opportunity to consult on Friday with other members of the House who have been in Lithuania. I look forward to the opportunity to consult directly with the hon. member and will keep the House advised.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the minister for the non-partisan way in which he is handling this very important situation.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. On March 19 the Canadian Lithuanian community asked for an emergency meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the Lithuanian crisis. This weekend the Lithuanian Canadians have open a crisis centre in my riding to monitor the events in Lithuania and to see if they can provide humanitarian aid. Members from the Canadian Lithuanian Youth Federation are on their way to Parliament Hill to hold a peaceful vigil urging Canada's support for Lithuania's independence.
As of 2 p.m. today neither the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State nor his parliamentary secretary have had time to meet with the Canadian Lithuanian community. I say that with no criticism. Mr. Speaker, you know how busy we are in this House. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet with the Canadian Lithuanian leaders today or, at the latest, tomorrow?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the House and the member will know that on the date mentioned the Prime Minister was on an official visit to Mexico and was therefore out of the
March 26, 1990

country. The Prime Minister and I have kept in regular touch on developments in Lithuania and he is being kept up to date on a daily basis as to developments there.
I know that the group is coming to town. Before coming to Question Period this afternoon, I instructed my officials to be sure that they took the opportunity of their presence in Ottawa to meet with them, and that certainly will be done.
The hon. member will know that I have also been in touch by telephone with some of the leaders of the Lithuanian Canadian community, particularly from Toronto, to discuss particular matters that were of concern to them. We discussed one matter with regard to a visa problem that had been encountered in Moscow and some other particular matters. We will continue to respond in that precise way. The Prime Minister will continue to maintain his active personal interest in the developments in Lithuania.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.
What is the minister doing to restore the $1.6 million that has been cut from the operation of some 75 women's centres across Canada, on top of $2 million that was cut last year? She knows very well, of course, that this is forcing the closure of essential support services for women.
In particular, has she been in touch with Newfoundland women who today are occupying the Secretary of State offices in St. John's, Newfoundland, and who, along with many allies from all political parties and all walks of life, are determined to stay there night and day until funding for women's centres is restored?
Will the minister meet with these women and will she take along the senior member from Newfoundland and the Secretary of State? Also, will she discuss their concerns and find ways to restore funding?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and the member for St. John's East have been meeting very actively with me on a daily basis. We have
Oral Questions
established a plan and there is a process in place to bring more funding and more help to Newfoundland. We are encouraging the groups to complete applications for the project funding we have made available. We are waiting for those applications to come in. We have indicated that we will even help them fill in their applications and will fast-track them as quickly as possible.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am sure the women of Canada love to be patronized in that way.
Why is the minister only meeting with his colleagues? Will he meet directly with the women of Newfoundland? Will he, along with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, meet with the women in British Columbia, where 28 centres have had funding cut and 23 are having to cut their funding. Will he persuade the Minister of Finance that instead of increasing the defence budget by $665 million and increasing funding to CSIS by 20 per cent, some of that money should go to restore funding for women's centres right across Canada?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have had budget cuts in our ministry. We have tried to apply them in a very fair and consistent manner. We know the difficulties this may create for some groups. I have been meeting as actively as I can since the budget came out with the Native Aboriginal Communications Society and with groups involved with heritage cultures and languages. I am prepared to meet with as many groups as I can and as quickly as possible.
I might add that senior officials of my department will be in Newfoundland in the next few days. We are hopeful they will have a chance to meet with the group. I know there is an indication they want to meet with me and the two other ministers who were named. We will look at every proposal and meet with as many groups as possible.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Two years ago, the government started cutting funding for women' programs while subsidizing the reactionary group REAL Women. Today, all women's groups are barely surviving as a result of these budget cuts. Can the minister give the House the assurance that this anti-equality group which still calls itself REAL
March 26, 1990

Oral Questions
Women will have no further grants from this government?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, this year we will support at least 600 projects or programs totalling at least $6 million. All programs will be subject to the same criteria which include promoting equality and social justice for all women in this country. I realize there are areas where far more should be done, including Native women, women who belong to visible minorities, immigrant women and, of course, women living in isolated rural areas. We will keep on doing as much as we can. As the hon. member is no doubt aware, during the Liberal government's last term, $12 million was earmarked for women's programs. During this term, we quadrupled that amount, bringing it up to a total of $48 million.


Shirley Maheu: The minister never answers questions when they concern women. I wonder what he thinks of REAL Women.
My supplementary question is addressed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. The minister recently promised to convince her colleagues of the importance of funding for women's programs. The women's centre in Antigonish is facing probable closure because of this year's budget cuts. Has the minister really discussed the problem with all of her colleagues, and does she have good news for the women of northern Nova Scotia and similar groups nation-wide?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm to the hon. member that indeed I have been discussing this issue with my colleagues on a continuing basis, as well as with a number of representatives of women's organizations and a number of the provinces to see how we can deal with these situations.
I believe we are working out a solution, as the Secretary of State has indicated. He is prepared to make project funding available on an emergency basis and to assist those organizations in applying for project funding. I know that we are going to be able to assist a number of the groups that I have met with in continuing their work of advocacy and education in compliance with the Secretary of State women's programs.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The minister says he is meeting with women and women's groups across Canada, but of the $1.6 million cut in the last budget, women's groups in Newfoundland are losing $250,000 in funding.
Will the Minister restore funding so that women across Canada will not be denied the help they need and the means to be heard?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that a process is under way; a process to bring more program funding to Newfoundland pro rata than they had before. The core funding does not exist for the women's centres because that program has been cut in keeping with the announcement made in this year's budget.
What I have said is that we have programmed funding. I am going to be as flexible as I can. My officials have already been indicating the kind of flexibility that can be shown to make sure that we are of help in those areas where we can be helpful.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars have been loaned to strip bars where women are exploited and demeaned while organizations which work to improve the status of women are being stifled in a stranglehold by the government.
How can the minister justify cuts that will shut down women's counselling centres, rape crisis centres and centres that help battered women and their children? Will the minister admit that this heartless move against Canadian women is a mistake and restore full funding immediately?
March 26, 1990


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, that claim is outrageous. The government brought forward a $40 million program to help women in that difficult situation which I described as a crime against humanity. There are specific programs and those programs are not affected by this budget.
Let us not forget that there are a lot of other program areas that particularly help women. Almost $1 million of the new funding for multiculturalism has been applied to immigrant women and visible minority women. Funding for the disabled persons program has been increased this year again. Sixty-two per cent of the disabled people in the country are women. It is another way in which we are helping. The Aboriginal Women's Program will receive the same amount of money as last year, a very important amount of money, over $2 million. Within the existing program of the Department of the Secretary of State, there are significant funds still available which will be helpful in promoting equality and social justice.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Eurasian milfoil, an aquatic weed species, has infested many of the lakes in the interior of British Columbia. This rapidly-growing weed has choked off many of the recreational areas. It is also seriously affecting the tourism potential throughout the Okanagan and Shuswap lakes basins.
Is the minister prepared at this time to initiate a federal program to help eradicate this nuisance weed which now threatens to invade many of our salmon-bearing streams and rivers?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with this specific situation. I am awaiting a report to learn more about the solutions that can be found and who would be responsible for those solutions.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that both the provincial and regional governments have in fact been fighting this battle-a losing battle, I might add-for some time. Does the minister know that his ministry's 1988 federal water policy actually commits the govem-
Oral Questions
ment to promote co-operative federal-provincial endeavours to protect and enhance the quality of our water resources on issues such as this?
Can he explain in light of this policy why the government has not at this point provided financial assistance in British Columbia's fight against Eurasian milfoil infestation?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada knows that we are in the process of setting up an environmental plan for the next five years for Canada.
This week I will have the pleasure and honour to release the consultation documents wherein the main parameters of the plan will be unveiled. There will be a very intensive consultative process in the next few weeks, during which all of Canada will be visited by ministers and people from all levels of government.
In the fall there will be a set of solutions in the plan which will address the main issues of environment. I trust my colleague will be satisfied with what we have proposed.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The textile industry, the clothing industry and the Quebec government spokesman condemned the conclusions of the report of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on textile tariffs, which advise reducing customs tariffs and overlook the fact that the industry is governed by the regulations of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement under Article XIX of GATT and also by a free trade agreement with the United States. Could the minister give them the assurance that he will give them enough time to present their views and recommendations before the government decides whether to implement these proposals?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the tribunal has already met 500 companies and several associations representing the textile and clothing industry. It has also visited about 40 companies to try and understand the problems facing these two industries. The tribunal's report was sent to me only a few days ago,

March 26, 1990
Oral Questions
so that the government will respond to this report in a few weeks' time.

I want to say that we have listened very carefully to the industry through the CITE I would expect that representatives of both the clothing and textile industries, which in fact take two quite different points of view on this particular proposal, will be making their views known to us during the course of the next few weeks.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday's edition of the Winnipeg Free Press carried the headline: "Hospitals Fear Wilson's GST: A Nightmare to Administer".
The Manitoba Health Organization estimates that four Manitoba hospitals will spend close to half a million more in sales tax under the GST and more due to increased administrative costs than they would under the present tax system.
Would the minister now agree that it would be best to cancel the proposed GST or, if he insists on imposing it, at least to exempt health care institutions? Or, does the government want to bleed the hospitals for revenue?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member did not do it intentionally, but does distort in a very substantial way the commitment this government has made to hospitals, as well as to universities, schools and municipalities, that we will not increase the tax burden of these organizations.


An hon. member:: Yes, you are.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says: "Yes, you are". If he would read the paper he would understand quite clearly that what he has just said is quite untrue.
The facts are that we are meeting with the provinces. We have had extensive discussions with hospitals, universities, schools and municipalities to see whether there is a simpler way of meeting the commitment we have made. Those meetings have been taking place quite
recently. In fact there was a meeting with the provinces as recently as last Friday.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the figures are not mine. The figures come from a financial institution that prepared the report for the Manitoba Health Organization.
Labour unions in health care institutions will likely demand GST related wage increases, which will further aggravate hospital expenditures, and cut-backs in health care services will then become inevitable unless the province is able to step in.
Since this government has already cut transfer payments to the provinces for health, how can the minister insist on imposing onerous financial burdens on hospitals and still expect them to provide excellent health care to all Canadians?
Would he admit that it would be silly to force hospitals to absorb the heavy administrative costs that the GST would impose if in fact no revenue is intended to be obtained from the hospitals?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member does acknowledge that we do not intend to collect additional revenues from those organizations.
As I indicated in my first answer we have had discussions with the provinces, the schools, the universities and the hospitals to find a means whereby we can simplify the administration of this. Those discussions are ongoing. If we can get agreement from the provinces to do so, then we should be able to meet the needs of the hospitals I should underscore the point that there will be no need for them to increase their wage rates along the line the hon. member has just suggested.
He *	*


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. His department is now carrying out a review of defence policy.
In view of the fact we have heard today that other ministers including the Prime Minister are having the people of Canada participate in the public policy review process, is he now prepared to open up his review of defence policy to the people of Canada, to consult them

March 26, 1990

and let them have their say on future defence policy, before his departmental review is finalized?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, through the committee that the hon. member serves on, there is opportunity for the Canadian public to express its views and concern on the security of its own nation.
However if a suggestion were made that the security of Canada would be emphasized by a Gallup poll and directed that way, I suggest to the hon. member that that is not adequate security for any country.


Bill Rompkey: Let me build on the minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, ask him now, specifically, if he would be prepared to go so far as to make a reference to the standing committee of the House of Commons to engage it in the review of defence policy and to allow Parliament, which speaks for all Canadians, to participate in his review of defence policy. Would he go that far as to make a reference to the standing committee?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member being a long serving member of the House knows that if the standing committee wishes to take this action it would take it on its own initiative. I would fully support that action taken by the standing committee if that were its wish.


TAXATION
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Senior citizens in my riding who are now filling in their 1989 income tax returns are asking me why they are required to pay the clawback on their old age security when there is no law requiring them to do so.
Can the minister explain why any senior should pay a tax that is not the law of this land?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this legislation has passed the House of Commons. It is in the Senate now.
The effective date of the taxback to which the hon. member refers is the last fiscal year. If someone does not
Oral Questions
want to pay it right now, it is perfectly within their right not to pay it, but once the law is passed it will be effective for last year and they will have to pay it at that time.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the minister's answer. I challenge him to rise in his place and give any authority for a tax that has not been passed by all parts of this Parliament.
Since seniors are not required to pay it, will he stand and assure them that they are at liberty to fill in their tax this year without paying the clawback on their income tax, and that there will be no penalty or interest added if and when it is passed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I responded to that part of his question in my first answer.
The practice that is affecting this particular aspect of the Income Tax Act is something the country has been following for many, many years now. Thxes become effective on certain days as long as there is a Ways and Means motion that initiates the legislative process. That Ways and Means motion was put in place last April, and it is on that basis that the tax is liable to be paid.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the plight of the refusnik family, Leonid and Natalia Stonov.
As the minister knows, they first applied to leave the Soviet Union in 1979. They were last turned down in 1988 and told not to reapply for four more years.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs intervene in this case?
I met the wife, Natalia, yesterday in Toronto. She is in Canada on a visitor's visa. We phoned Leonid in Moscow and I promised him that the government would try to intervene to get special cases like his rectified just as soon as possible so that they can start a new life in Israel.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

March 26, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
As a result of his intervention, Natalia Stonov is meeting now with a senior official of the Department of External Affairs. We will see what action we can take. We will naturally pursue this case vigorously, as we have pursued other cases vigorously and with success.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On March 21, 1990 the Chair received several notices of questions of privilege relating to an action of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance on March 20, 1990.
The hon. members complained that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Mississauga South, had exceeded his authority by putting an end to a debate on a motion declaring the said motion withdrawn and introducing a new order for allocation of time for the consideration in committee of the goods and services tax bill. The chairman also declared that this action on his part was in essence a ruling that there was to be no debate or points of order. The action of the chairman was formally challenged by a member and the chairman was subsequently sustained on a recorded vote of 7 yeas and 4 nays. The chairman then declared the meeting adjourned without question put until March 26, 1990 at 3.30 p.m.
The Speaker has often informed the House that matters and procedural issues that arise in committee ought to be settled in committee unless the committee reports them first to the House. I have, however, said to the House that this practice was not an absolute one and that in very serious and special circumstances the Speaker may have to pronounce on a committee matter without the committee having reported to the House.

The matter that has been raised with the Chair is a serious one. Evidence of that is that eight hon. members filed notices of questions of privilege and the Chair heard submissions for almost two hours on Wednesday last.

Because the matter is serious the Chair will respond in some detail. For clarity's sake, I will begin by listing the points that I will cover.
First, there are the points raised by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's who was supported in argument by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and the hon. member for Edmonton East:
Did the chairman exceed his authority in (a) declaring a motion withdrawn, (b) disallowing points of order, or (c) adjourning the committee arbitrarily?
Second, there is the point raised by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville which relates to a similar case that occurred on June 6,1984 in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Is that a valid precedent which should be followed?
Third, the hon. member for Nickel Belt invoked the principle of English parliamentary law that the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. He asked that I review Standing Order 1 and seek guidance and other jurisdictions. The question is therefore: should the Speaker overrule a majority decision made in committee?
Fourth, finally the hon. member for Burnaby-Kings-way referred the Chair to Standing Order 78(3) relating to time allocation. The question is: Does this Standing Order apply in committees?
Let me now address each point.
First, did the chairman of the finance committee exceed his authority? A committee chairman is elected by the committee. Like the Speaker, he is the servant of the body that elected him or her. The chairman is accountable to the committee, and that committee should be the usual venue where his or her conduct is pronounced upon, unless and until the committee chooses to report to the House, which this committee has not yet opted to do.
That is the tradition of the Canadian House of Commons. If I am to respect that tradition, I should therefore avoid comment on the conduct of the hon. member for Mississauga South and let the committee deal further with the matter if it so desires. There are also other means by which the members may bring such an issue forward for debate on the floor of the House. In this case, as Speaker, I have decided to resist both the urgings of members and my own temptation to comment at this time on the conduct of the chairman.
March 26, 1990

Next, does the 1984 incident in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs constitute a valid precedent?
Let me summarize that particular event. The bill was before the committee and no progress was being made. The chairman took it upon himself to break the impasse. The committee, by majority vote, supported his decision with the opposition voting against it. The chairman acknowledged the parliamentary significance of his action by resigning immediately after the bill was reported back to the House. The matter was raised in the House on June 8, 1984, and Madam Speaker Sauve refused to hear a question of privilege citing citation 76 of Beau-chesne's fifth edition.
The story does not end there however and what subsequently occurred is very interesting. At the next meeting of the committee the same individual was re-elected to the chair of the committee on a motion made by a member of the Official Opposition, seconded by a New Democrat. All this can be found in the minutes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of June 6 and June 19, 1984. The outcome of that particular case was determined by the committee, as it should be, and not by the Speaker. I would caution members, however, in referring to this as a precedent. What occurred was merely a series of events and decisions made by the majority in a committee. Neither this House nor the Speaker gave the incidents any value whatsoever in procedural terms. One must exercise caution in attaching guiding procedural flags to such incidents and happenings.
Let me next deal with the points of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway relating to time allocation. Standing Order 78(3) reads as follows:

A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee, and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion during proceedings under Government Orders, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this section of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions
Speaker's Ruling
of Standing Order 76(10). During the consideration of any such motion, no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this section of this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned.

That standing order can be made to apply to the committee stage, but it must be moved in the House by a minister. Once such a motion is adopted, it becomes a mandatory instruction to a committee considering a bill to deal with the legislation according to the wish expressed by the whole House.
Finally, the point raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is the one that gives the Chair the most concern for it is an extremely valid one. The question is: When does the Speaker step in and judge that there has been an abuse by the majority?
I should like to remind hon. members of comments I made in the House on April 14, 1987, at page 5119 of Hansard. I said:
It is essential to our democratic system. The controversial issue should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and the reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the majority. They are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They provide the Opposition with a means to delay a decision. They also provide the majority with a means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to the procedure of a democratic assembly. Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the total frustration of one side or the other, the total stagnation of debate, or the total paralysis of the system.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt suggested I look to other jurisdictions but I have found a comment of Speaker Lamoureux which is on point. On July 24, 1969, he said:
What hon. members would like the Chair to do under the provisions of Standing Order 51 is to substitute his judgment for the judgment of certain hon. members. Can I do this in accordance with the traditions of Canada, of Britain, and in all parliamentary systems where the Speaker is not the master of the House in spite of what Standing Order 51 says. The Speaker is the servant of the House. Hon. members may want me to be the master of the House today but tomorrow, when, perhaps in other circumstances I might claim this privilege, they might have a different opinion. It would make me a hero, I suppose, if I were

March 26, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
to adopt the attitude that I could judge political situations such as this and substitute my judgment for that of certain hon. members, either a majority or, perhaps, sometimes a minority. I do not believe that this is the role of a Speaker under our system. I am not prepared at this time to take this responsibility on my shoulders. I think it is my duty to rule on such matters in accordance with the rules, regulations and standing orders which hon. members themselves have turned over to the Speaker to administer.
That is the end of Speaker Lamoureux' quote. [Translation]
In the light of our long-standing practice and the wisdom of Speaker Lamoureux, I have chosen not to substitute my judgment for that expressed by a majority on the Finance Committee, unless that majority decides to report its dilemma to the House.

The Chair has been unable to find the basis upon which to act at this time. That is not to say that under different circumstances the Speaker would not intervene. If I am cautious in not acting now it is simply because the Chair does not supervise the standing committee chairmen. That function belongs to the members of each committee and they have obvious avenues to pursue other than invoking privilege in the House.
At the same time, chairmen ought to be mindful of their responsibilities and make their decisions and rulings within the bounds of the fine balance provided by our rules.
I am grateful for the patience of the House and grateful to members for their submissions.
I would urge all chairmen and members of committees to try and strive mightily to ensure that the general rules of this place are followed as far as is sensible and helpful in those committees. I remind hon. members that endless points of privilege on what goes on in committee, when they fall short of that extreme situation where a Speaker might have to intervene, take up a great deal of time in this House. I would ask all hon. members to consider carefully what I have said in this ruling and also, perhaps, some of the things I have not said.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Last Thursday, March 22, the House heard extensive arguments bought forward by various members relating to the complex and sometimes perplexing subject of supply, specifically the allotment of days for opposition motions, the notice required for these motions and the calculation of the number of these motions that can be votable.
Other questions raised touched not so much on our rules but rather on our general practice regarding the embargo of any motion by the member who submits it to the Table or to the Journals branch, whether that member is from the government or the opposition side.

I wish to thank all members who made contributions to the debate on these points. Such discussions help us to clarify the meaning of our rules which can sometimes appear somewhat ambiguous.
Shortly after I heard members' arguments, I stated to the House my decision that last Friday and today would be opposition days and that the opposition had fulfilled the requirements of the Standing Orders in designating a vote on Friday's motion to be non-deferrable. At the same time, I indicated my intention to return with a more detailed ruling. I am now prepared to offer members my assessment of the contending points raised last Thursday.

In his presentation, the government whip maintained that two elements were required in order to have a non-deferrable votable opposition supply motion on a Friday. The obvious element was that the opposition had to give 48 hours' notice of its intention to demand such as vote.
Equally necessary he contended was the designation of an allotted day on a Friday by the government before the opposition can give notice that a vote on a supply motion be non-deferrable.
With respect to the first element I certainly agree. The rules clearly spell out this requirement. Standing Order 81(12)(b) states:
March 26, 1990

If an opposition motion pursuant to section (14) of this Standing
Order is to be proposed on a Friday, forty-eight hours' written notice
shall be given that the recorded division on the motion, if demanded, is
not to be deferred;
As I ruled on Friday last, it was my view that the opposition had fulfilled the requirements of the Standing Orders in relation to this, and could demand a vote on the Friday.
About the second element raised by the chief government whip, the Chair has serious doubts that the government has any direct role in determining when an opposition motion should be votable. The normal procedure is for the government to designate the day as being an allotted day, and the opposition then decides what the motion to be debated on that day will be and decides also whether or not that motion is one that will come to a vote.
The Standing Orders list the number of allotted days there will be in each Supply period and where the government has failed to designate sufficient days to meet the requirements of the Standing Orders, by attrition those days left in the period must become allotted days, when no other alternative is possible in order to comply with the Standing Orders. That is what happened in this instance. When the House was discussing this matter on Thursday, only two sitting days remained in the period ending March 26, and two days remained in the total to be allotted to the opposition, hence Friday and today had to become opposition days, whether specifically designated by the government or not.
The NDP, anticipating that Friday might be an allotted day, submitted a motion, on notice, on Wednesday before the 6 p.m. close of the Notice Paper, and indicated it wished such motion to be designated a votable motion. This was what subsequently transpired. Friday was an allotted day with an NDP motion debated and voted upon.
In normal circumstances, the government, if it did not wish to vote on a Friday, could undesignate an allotted day and proceed to other business. That was not possible because the calendar ran out and Friday and today became automatically Supply days.
In the arguments presented last Thursday, the government whip raised another interesting point, one that has to do with our embargo practices. The government whip stated that, as a consequence of the embargo placed on the notice of the opposition motion filed last Wednesday by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt and on
Speaker's Ruling
the votable status of that motion, the government was deprived on the 48 hours' notice.
In light of the seriousness of this allegation, I think it is useful to review our long-standing practice with regard to embargoes. An embargo is a well established practice which entitles anyone who is giving notice of a motion to instruct the Table to withhold explicit information about the content of a motion until the actual release of the parliamentary documents containing the notice, that is, the Order Paper and Notice Paper and the Projected Order of Business paper, documents normally available early the next morning. In the case of an opposition Supply motion, the embargo can include information on whether the motion is votable or not. The embargo is placed exclusively at the request of the sponsor of the motion.
It is completely beyond the authority of the Table to determine whether the notice of a motion should be embargoed. Indeed, the Thble makes every effort to follow any instructions given by a member filing a motion. Whether information about a filed motion is to be made public immediately or at the hour when the filing of motions closes, this would be seven o'clock on Monday, five o'clock on Friday and six o'clock on other days of the week, or in a full embargo when the published parliamentary documents become available early the next morning, is entirely in the hands of the sponsoring member. This is true, whether the member is from the opposition or from the government. As I have said, this is a practice of long standing and is adhered to scrupulously by the Table and the Journals office in all cases, for obvious reasons of fairness and impartiality. In view of this fact, I could not find that the complaint of the government whip was of sufficient merit to have forestalled or affected my decision of last Friday to allow the opposition their non-deferrable, votable motion.
That being said, however, the consequences which might arise from such a full embargo are serious and the House may wish to consider whether this practice should be modified. In the meantime, the Chair and the Table are bound to abide by the normal practice which I have just outlined.
Notices printed in the Notice Paper which is attached to the Order Paper, are intended to give the members prior knowledge of future matters to be raised in the House. Some matters require 24 hours' notice, others require 48 hours'. If some members feel that more notice is necessary than is provided in the Standing Orders, then I suggest the matter be raised in the proper committee. As the Notice Paper is published under the

Speaker's Ruling
authority of the House, only the whole House could alter our rules and give the Speaker new direction.

The second part of last Thursday's discussion concerned issues raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader with respect to the counting of allotted days and those that can be votable. Under normal circumstances, as the Standing Orders explain, the supply cycle is divided into three periods ending on December 10, March 26 and June 30. Within each period, a specified number of allotted days are assigned to the opposition. The total throughout the three periods is 25, of which a maximum of eight are to be designated votable and, of these, no more than four motions can be votable within any one period of the cycle.
A special order of last spring took into account the short session in the fall of 1988 and the commencement of the spring sitting only in April of 1989, which was later than usual. This special order provided a different arrangement for the allotment of supply days, and the number of them which would be votable. That special order extended into December, 1989, and took precedence over the Standing Orders and the usual calculation of the supply days for that period. I take the point of the parliamentary secretary that the supply cycle is normally calculated in the way he suggested, that is, that the period which ends December 10, is the first period of the cycle. Normally in the period ending December 10, Standing Order 81(8) stipulates that six days be allotted to supply of which a maximum of four could be votable. As it happened, the special order provided for 11 allotted days and of these, six came to a vote, two more than is usually permissible under the Standing Orders but which were allowed by the special order.
From this, I believe it is logical and fair to calculate from the period that ended December 10, the opposition would normally be allowed four motions to come to a vote and therefore has exercised its option fully by
designating four votable supply motions. Therefore, within the two periods that remain in the supply cycle ending June 30, four more motions can come to a vote. As it has happened, the opposition in the period ending March 26 has designated four of the motions allotted to them as votable. In consequence, there remains no more votable motions in the supply cycle which ends on June 30,1990. As of today, the opposition will have used all of the eight votable motions available to them in the annual supply calendar.
I fully understand and appreciate how difficult the issue of supply can be. I also want the House to understand that my decision last Friday was not made lightly. The Chair is also very much aware of the consequences of a vote on Friday. My only guide however is fair play. The rules apply to both sides of the House in all circumstances. I want to thank the hon. members who contributed to the discussions of these matters last week and I hope this ruling has clarified the circumstances that now pertain to the final supply period which begins tomorrow.
The hon. member on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification in light of your very last comment, "both sides of the House in all circumstances". We are now left in the position as a House that any notice can be embargoed by any member, whoever gives notice, whether it is a government member or an opposition member. Anything in our rules requiring notice, we can indeed embargo it. I think that is what I heard.
I would really like clarification on that point, that members on both sides of the House wherever notice is required can embargo it and wait till the notice paper comes out, whether we are talking about closure, or whatever.


Mr. Speaker:: It may not be satisfactory to members to have this rule, but I tried to set out in quite a long judgment the fact that that has been the practice. It has been done again and again. It happens on both sides of the House. Hon. members on both sides of the House know that that is so. That is the situation.
The hon. member will also know, as other hon. member will that I made a specific reference to the fact
March 26, 1990

that if this is creating hardship or seems to be an abuse, then it is up to the House to make a change in the rules.
But I point out, that what was done the other night is not something that has not done before by both sides. At the same time, it is not for the Chair to tell the House what to do. Perhaps under the circumstances it is for the Chair to observe that a notice embargoed-it may be a notice procedurally-is not much information to the other side.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), to table the annual report of the Bank of Canada in both official languages. I do so on behalf of the Minister of Finance who had to leave.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 33 petitions being numbers 342-4545 to 4549 inclusive, 4551 to 4557 inclusive, 4559 to 4564 inclusive, 4569 to 4574 inclusive, 4578 to 4580 inclusive, 4583 to 4585 inclusive, and 5094, 5107 and 5116.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by 8,000 people calling
Routine Proceedings
for the release of Mrs. Annette Proulx who has requested the royal clemency. Other petitions will follow soon.
I remind you that Mrs. Proulx, who will soon turn 75, has been in prison for 11 years. Without a royal pardon, she won't be released until the year 2004 when she will be 89.
The judge, the police, the Crown attorney and even our new archbishop, Monsignor Couture, all support her request for royal clemency and feel she is not a threat to society.
I, too, support this humanitarian process initiated by Mr. Simon Bedard and humbly call up on Parliament to urge the Privy Council to grant the royal pardon to Mrs. Annette Proulx, who is currently in the Gomin jail.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure in presenting a couple of petitions. First, one from 388 people in the community of Gaultois which has a total population of about 600. So I submit that just about every adult in that community has signed his or her name, and with good reason, because it addresses the situation with respect to the fish plant which is slated to close, the one employer in that community.
The prayer of the petition is that Parliament takes steps to prevent the plant from being closed by Fishery Products International. It is a matter that I have raised on a number of occasions both private and in this House with the Minister of Fisheries and his predecessor. I would hope it would be referred to him for the appropriate action.
My second item is a number of other petitions on a related subject which has to to again with the fisheries and it is signed by 3,150 people in many, many communities, many in my riding of Grand Banks, Marystown, English Harbour, and many others, but also some in the riding of the gentleman from St. John's West, particularly the community of Trepassey where a fish plant is being closed by FPI.
The prayer of the petition is twofold. First, that Parliament would take steps to see that the fishermen and plant workers who were adversely affected by those plant closures be provided for in terms of an emergency relief program. Second, that the Parliament would urge the Government of Canada to take more energetic steps
March 26, 1990

Supply
to put an end to the overfishing by Spain and Portugal and by other countries.
These two petitions I have much pleasure in supporting. They are issues that I have talked about on many occasions in this House and I would ask the government to give heed to what the petitioners here in their thousands have said.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, in Quebec, concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Tkx Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Lebel-sur-Quevillon is without question an isolated area, and that is why your petitioners consider the Brunelle recommendation to be discriminatory, unfair and inefficient with regard to the purpose of the Northern tax benefit system. It does not encourage settlement in the North and offers no incentive to develop northern resources.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, question no 239 will be answered today.


Mr. Harvard: Is it the intention of the government to introduce a Safe Drinking Water Act into the House and, if so (a) what is the probable date of introduction (b) will this Act ensure that there is zero discharge of known carcinogens into pristine drinking water supplies?


Hon. Henry Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes.
(a) There is, as yet, no projected date for its introduction to the House of Commons.
(b) It is intended that the proposed "Drinking Water Safety Act" will establish standards for the provision of drinking water under federal jurisdiction, and will provide leadership for the enactment of similar laws by other jurisdictions. The Act will not regulate the discharge of carcinogens, which would come under the scrutiny of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.


Harvie Andre: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question as enumerated by the Hon. Minister has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (Windsor West):
That this House recognize that Research and Development, and the resulting innovation, are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country and that Canada must increase its level of Research and Development in order to ensure economic growth in an increasingly competitive and technologically literate global community.
William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I would just like to conclude the discussion I began earlier in the day by saying that we know from the figures available to us that public sector spending in terms of research and development is comparable to that of our other OECD partners. What is lacking is a comparable degree of spending with respect to the private sector. The question then is; what do we do about it?
We have been trying to meet with the various sectors. We have been talking to them about exactly where they are in terms of competition with their sectors in other countries, what they need and what we can do to help them in promoting R and D and being competitive. We are looking at what they need. That is the kind of solution and the kind of program we need; an understanding of the whole problem facing the country in
March 26, 1990

terms of being competitive and a plan to address it. That is exactly what we are doing.
I do not think we need a series of simple resolutions, important in themselves as they are. I think those resolutions do not tackle the real and important issues in a thoughtful and deliberate way. That is what we have to do in this House, ask the right questions and seek the right answers.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I am a little bit discouraged by the minister's comments about the motion today. He said we had trivialized the subject of research and development in the motion.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Those are the Prime Minister's own words.


John Paul Manley: He also said the government will vote against the motion in accordance with the rules and traditions of the House.
There are two things I would like to note about that. First, the words in the motion are words taken from the Prime Minister himself. Contrary to trivializing it, the hope today is that we will be able to raise multi-partisan debate on issues on which we are all in fundamental agreement.
The importance of research and development, in the Prime Minister's words, are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country, and saying that Canada-and I am quoting from the motion now-
- must increase its level of Research and Development in order to ensure economic growth in an increasingly competitive and technologically literate global community.
The motion is not meant to solve all of the problems of the nation. But it is meant to afford an opportunity to the House to raise, not only for the benefit of our colleagues but for the benefit of the people of Canada, this very important issue.
I would like to call the minister's attention to the supply proceedings of November 24, 1989 in the House where a motion was put under supply by the then hon. member for Oshawa on which the government gave its unanimous support.
I am astonished that the minister would come today and criticize an opportunity to put forward such impor-
Supply
tant matters and that his government would not avail itself of the occasion to indicate that it too agrees with how important these matters are, much as it did last November. The government did not fall nor did the words of the Leader of the Opposition in introducing his motion indicate that the government would fall.
The minister in his substantive remarks made much of the government's contribution to research and development and suggested the problem really lies with the private sector.
I think there have been a number of analyses done which show that industry-funded research and development in Canada is lower than that of our competitors. According to OECD statistics in 1987 we were right down there in industry funded R and D behind Japan, Germany, Sweden, United States, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and France.
I would like to call to the attention of the minister that from the same source 1987 government funded R and D was well below the U.S., France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and the U.K. Even government funded R and D does not make Canada look terrific.
I would like to conclude my observations by asking the minister that since he has been critical of a motion containing the Prime Minister's own words, would he now indicate to the House and to the scientific community if the government has abandoned the criterion of gross expenditures on research and development as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product? Has the government abandoned that indicator of R and D performance in Canada and, in doing so, has the government abandoned the target of 2.5 per cent set by the Prime Minister in favour of other criteria? If so, what are they?


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I think the Gross Domestic Product ratio is only one thing at which any country must look. I think the government would make a great mistake if that was the only figure it was going to use to answer the real question of whether this country is competitive and if not, how to make it competitive.
The government is looking at a broad range of figures that it hopes will give a good picture of what needs to be done in the industrial sector particularly, in order to make Canada more competitive.

March 26, 1990
Supply
My hon. colleague talked about the OECD figures in terms of government expenditures. If defence is included, then one should not be surprised if Canada does not rate very high on that list because we do not have a major defence industry in terms of R and D. If defence expenditures are taken out, then Canada's spending on its government supported R and D is in the middle of the pack of all the OECD countries. That is the figure that I gave earlier in my address. With respect to trivializing the motion and trivializing R and D, the difficulty is with the motion itself. It does not place this in a context in which the people of Canada will understand what we are trying to do. Second, the opposition moved a votable motion on a day that my hon. colleague knows that in the traditions of the House it means the government will vote against that motion even if it was a motion within the complete context about which we are speaking.
The hon. member spoke about November 24, 1989. I think I should remind him that that was a non-votable motion. Also that there was agreement between all three parties beforehand as to what exactly was going to happen with that particular motion. We have had no such agreement. It is a votable motion that my hon. colleagues have placed before the House and tradition demands that we vote against that and we will. Let me reiterate once again that what bothers me as much as anything is that the opposition will not place this motion, as significant as it may be, in a total context so that Canadians can really understand where we have to go.


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I believe the general idea behind the motion is valid, but consideration must also be given to the size of this country and the importance, as recognized by the Prime Minister, to link our research and development commitment to industry. If we are to do that, it is my understanding that we have to make some choices. We must enter into alliances with industry and reach agreements on strategic choices for Canada.
Can Canada be competitive in every area of research and development? Is it not self-evident that a country the size of Canada must choose areas and technologies,
in co-operation with industry to ensure that based on our size we can make a significant contribution to that area? Now if I remember correctly, the programs this Government made a fiscal decision to do without were programs that allowed all-round, across-the-board activities that were more or less R & D-oriented, including a lot of management consultation, to put it more specifically. Now, if we are to be competitive some years down the road, I think that choices have to be made as a country, in partnership with industry of course, and this in my view is what this Government is trying to do through strategic alliances and the choice of strategic technologies. I suggest that nobody has all the answers, and I do not think this Government claims to have all the answers in every area of research and development. Indeed, as I understand the programs, they are open to government and industry in partnership identifying areas for research, choices that this country must make in order to allot available resources to areas where we believe Canadians have the best chance of success. For this reason I think it is important to make people aware of our strategy. Of course we should do more, but how should we go about doing that based on our size as a country, based on our existing strengths, based on our industries' willingness to co-operate with universities and government? This is a very important aspect in my view.
It seems to me that this motion could be acceptable if it is specifically recognized that attempt to make strategic choices we have been making for some years in co-operation with industry.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, allocating funds for strategic technologies calls for planning, but it is impossible to plan to allocate funds for all strategic technologies. We have opted for three technologies.

-advanced industrial materials, biotechnology and information technology. As my colleague has said, the government has spread funds from one end of the spectrum to the other without regard to the most critical things. It has made the choices. I hope they are the right choices. The government has made them and that is where the funding will be going.
March 26, 1990


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, this debate has been rather interesting until now. I do not know whether-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. member:: Do your best, Howard.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It has been interesting in the absence of any new light being shed on the issue of research and development and technology and its importance to Canadians.
I do not know how we could have any significant difference of opinion on what is not trivial but certainly beginning to be trite. The motion states:
That this House recognize that Research and Development, the resulting innovation, are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country and that Canada must increase its level of Research and Development in order to ensure economic growth in an increasingly competitive and technologically literate global community.
My God, we all must have heard this a thousand times in a thousand speeches given by a thousand politicians right across the land, not one of whom contributed one thing to the advancement of research and development or science in the country, including the Prime Minister.
I was tremendously enthralled by the speech by my hon. colleague for Windsor West, the Leader of the Official Opposition. He quoted and elaborated upon the quote from the present Prime Minister. As you will recall, Madam Speaker, in questioning him I wondered why the hon. member did not reflect on other contents of the 1983 book entitled Where I Stand. The Prime Minister said the following, and I did not hear the Leader of the Official Opposition dispute this: "In 1968, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau became Prime Minister, we were spending 1.4 per cent of the Gross National Product in this vital job-productive area of research and development."
It turns out that in 1985, the first full year of this government's existence, it was 1.4 per cent as well. Subsequently, for a decade we spent only 0.9 per cent. That is 0.9 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product on research. In the last two years, we have spent 1.13 per cent.
I raise that because, until I came into this place, I was a scientist who struggled as other scientists in the country did to keep together our laboratories and to pursue
Supply
research that could be by any measure considered significant or world class, at a time when we were constantly faced with the prospect that next year would mean there would be no funding. At no stage were we given the opportunity to know that five years down the pike we would still have money to fund the research in the universities. I understand that that is a restricted area. The fact is that we have had something like three decades of the most horrifically stupid absence of any kind of research and development science support policy in the country, on the part of the previous government as well as the present. But I am prepared to concede more to this government than to the previous government in terms of the directions it has chosen to enhance science and research and development in the country.
The Leader of the Official Opposition said: "We are not interested in all that history. We are interested in the here and now." One of the most significant problems in enhancing research and development and science in the country is that we have developed a culture which has not been improved by politicians. It says that science and research and development are not nearly as important as a whole lot of other things in our society and that somehow we are always going to manage to survive on the basis of exploitation of our resources and so on.
Maybe it would be useful, rather than reiterating the usual stuff, to begin by describing in just a little detail what it is we are talking about and what is at stake, not in terms of what may appear to be some kind of arcane debate on an arcane subject, but relating this to the ordinary people out there who are presumably listening to this debate.
The reality is that our economy must undergo a substantial change, a very significant change, and a historic change. This country has been proud of its forests, its fisheries, its minerals, and all of the resources which we have been able to sell, and sell at a good price. Through those sales we have sustained a good economy and a country in which social democracy and social justice have been funded by the earnings of that exchange of goods, based on resources.
The reality now is that with respect to energy resources we are going to have to find some other alternatives besides those products, for example, that are

March 26, 1990
Supply
going to contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming.
First, we know that mined materials face competition from Third World nations that can produce them more cheaply. We also know that new materials are being invented day by day that are going to replace those minerals and metals. Soon, we are going to be talking about ceramic motors in our cars and we are going to be driving cars which have ceramic engines. That is symbolic of the kind of future we face with respect to a dependency on resources. What has surely become evident is that no nation can continue to be a resource based economy, produce decent jobs for its people and maintain the kind of social structures that Canada has become proudly used to.
The minister talked about the free trade agreement as being one of those very significant contributors to competitiveness, even more important than research and development. That is one of the silliest things I have heard for a long time. Free trade is about markets and markets are not going to mean a damned thing if we do not have something to sell. We are not going to be able to make enough money to sustain the nation on the basis of the sale of our resources, as I have already indicated.
It is very interesting to see what underlies this free trade agreement, as seen from another perspective and that is a perspective of the President of Mexico. He had it right. We should have a North American trading block in which Mexico would provide cheap labour, the United States would provide the technology, and Canada would provide the resources. If ever there was a prescription for the kind of competitiveness that we would have to pursue in order to sustain our nation in that context, it is one which would have to be devoted to a low wage economy. The trouble with the free trade agreement is that it will prohibit us from doing those things we will need to do in order to produce what others have been trying to produce and that is a high wage economy. Enter research and development and what that means.
It is very simple. The minister mentioned it in passing. We are going to have to produce more value-added and higher value-added goods and services. Those high value-added goods and services are going to have to be saleable outside our nation, that is to say, tradeable outside our nation, so that our nation can be a net earner
in international trade, or at least have a balance between what we buy and what we sell.
What is value-added? Quite simply, value-added is investment of knowledge and skill that one puts into that which one is going to sell and which really adds its worth and creates wealth. If that is true, then it is clear, and it will be clear to every voter out there listening to me now, that we are not going to succeed unless we prepare our people with the skills, knowledge, and the new knowledge that will create that value-added and which will result in products and services that we can sell.
It is not just research and development in industry or the universities or any other place that is important. If the minister and I are talking about the same things with respect to those things involved in competitiveness, besides scientific research and developmental research, then it is okay. But he did not mention it specifically. We need as well, as the innovators at the upper level, the skilled workers who are given the opportunity to gain that technological knowledge and those skills that will enable them to be, not just cogs in a factory or assembly line, but themselves capable of making of investment in new knowledge. New knowledge does not come just from high faluting scientists. It comes from every level of an educated people. And what is happening?
In that context, what has the government done? Well, it is inevitable, as it is appropriate, to look at the record, not only with respect to research and development, but with respect to those other components of a value-added economy, to show where the government has failed in spite of its promises.
I would pause to say this with respect to certain aspects of the leadership that the government has provided, in contrast to the efforts of the previous Liberal government. I will give a couple of examples. In 1979, when the government of the Secretary of State for External Affairs came in, the granting councils had five-year plans for the first time in years. A five-year plan meant that a scientist in a university research laboratory had the assurance that at least for five years there would be money to do the research.
It is very interesting to look at the trend line of funding of the granting councils during that period. It goes up until the Liberals come in and then it drops. As a former president of the CAUT and an officer in one or two scientific societies in the country, I had adequate opportunity to know the importance of research and develop-
March 26, 1990

ment manifested by the last prime minister: virtually none.
If I was among those out there looking for some promise for the future, by God I would hesitate before I would look to the Liberals to fulfil a promise of greater contributions to research and development as it is necessary to increase our economic growth.
I will concede to it that this government did form the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. It did form the national Networks of Excellence. It has provided scholarships for students in science. It has introduced the new strategic arrangements. But, when it comes down to the core of it and the Prime Minister said we must double our rate of expenditures in research and development, my God, what a failure.
In 1985, 1.4 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product was spent on research and development and in 1989,1.32 per cent. As a matter of fact, it frightens me to note that that is exactly the kind of trend that began in 1968 with Mr. Trudeau. Will it be the same? We have been told that there is new moneys being spent here in and there on some of those new programs that I just mentioned. I have also indicated that we must understand that no strategy of increased scientific or developmental research will go anywhere in the absence of the people who are necessary to pursue that research and the people who are necessary to produce the products that will develop out of that research. What has happened?
I want to take note of this in the context of what the Prime Minister said in this oft-quoted article. You have to understand that the Established Program Financing funds not only health but post-secondary education. That program has been victimized by the Liberals and the Conservatives. In 1983 the government attacked it by cutting the revenue guarantee. Also, in 1983, 1984, and 1985, it limited funding through the 6 and 5 per cent caps that were introduced at that time. This is what the Prime Minister said. This is what the Prime Minister, the then leader of the party to become the government, had to say: "It is important that the federal restraint program of six and five not be applied to research and development. The National Research Council-". What did the government do? It made its own cut in 1985. In three consecutive budgets, up to and including this budget, it
Supply
has attacked the EPF to an extent of almost $9 billion in accumulated cuts between 1984 and 1995.
The minister has complained, as well he might he might complain, about the lack of adequate expenditures by industry for research and development in comparison to other nations. But the fact of the matter is, since 1985 industry has increased its rate of expenditures for research and development by 5 per cent, while the government has cut its share by 4 per cent.
Let's examine the record to see what substantial change has occurred in the situation. Gross research and development expenditures as a percentage of GDP among eight comparable countries in the OECD comparison-lowest; industry-funded R and D as a percentage of GDP-lowest; government-funded R and D as a percentage of GDP-second lowest; government performed R and D as a percentage of GDP-middle. In every other area, we are the lowest or the near lowest, and this government has done nothing to change that very substantially.
It has not only failed to enhance the amount of research it has done, it has failed to give adequate support to our universities.
One thing it did do with respect to research and development in the universities is the matching program, but now that is at risk. I only hope that it will finally listen to the recommendations of the Lortie report from the National Advisory Board in Science and Technology which said that over a three-year period, the amount provided to the granting councils should be doubled, and that thereafter the amount provided should be increased by 1.5 times the increase in the GDP. But you are not going to sustain this R and D, whether it is basic research or industrial research, if you do not have the troops.
Right now we have the silly situation of our high tech industry getting permission from immigration to bring in more highly trained people, while we fail to train them in Canada, while we cut the amount of expenditures available to the universities.
While we talk about training, we have 20 per cent illiteracy in this country. You cannot sustain a high R and D, high-valued national economy on the basis of a 20 per cent illiteracy rate. The government's solution is to make those people who are unemployed pay for the training of those who are working, instead of having a sustainable,

Supply
productive, retraining and literacy program that is national and will underpin an appropriate R and D economy.
We have heard resolutions like this many times. We have heard it from all sides of the House. There is not a person in this place who has not given a speech that we must do more in R and D or our future is at stake.
If we do not stop "b.s." ing the Canadian people and really do something to enhance that, then it will not be a question of the future of the nation at stake. I suspect that politicians will be burned at the stake.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not think the hon. member is at a loss for words. He might choose them a little more carefully. Question and comments. The hon. minister.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague will forgive a somewhat personal remark. I think I liked his comments better when he was a professor of biology. I have a feeling that my hon. colleague implies in his comments that the Government of Canada should be the one to spend all the extra money we need to bring this up to some figure like 2.5 GERD over GNR
My colleague knows that that is neither feasible nor responsible. I thought he was quite good when he talked about industrial research and how we needed to upgrade our resource industries. He is correct. There is no question that we need them to be more value-added than they are now, and that is why we are laying the plans to try and tackle some of the issues that my hon. colleague spoke about. We must consult with the various sectors, and that is what we are trying to do.
It is simply not good enough to say that it is up to the Government of Canada to respond to some national target when all the actors have to try and reach that particular target. We have done quite well. In terms of the granting councils, we have maintained the matching grant policy'. Their funding for next year in terms of per cent increase is probably larger than any other program in the Government of Canada. It is 8.6 per cent.
I do wish they would not continue to kind of raise the flag of despair. We are making progress. We are at last beginning to understand what the problems are, and my hon. colleague referred to some of those. After hearing how he understands where we have to go as a country, I am somewhat distressed that he would then come back on the sort of GERD-GNP ratio as having a particular significance. I do not think it does and I think he knows in his heart that that is not the issue as such. It is much broader than that.
We have heard again about the matching grant policy. We said over and over again, Madam Speaker, that we know the matching grant policy finishes in the following year and we will make sure that we take care of that issue when the time is correct.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, did I sense that you were disturbed by the use of the term "b.s."? You have just heard an example of it. It is called basic simplicities. We heard this from the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As I said, the hon. member is really never at a loss for words.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: As I said, it is always a pleasure to engage in debate with the Minister for Science but I did not mean to nor do I imply or support the thesis that government is the only one responsible for funding research. Industry must do better. But the government must take some responsibility for those things that it has done which, in my view, do not enhance industry's contribution to research and development.
One of the things the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology notes is the fact that part of our problem in terms of industrial research and development is that we have a branch plant economy in which foreign owned companies just simply do not do research and development.
We have entered into a free trade deal that limits our efforts with respect to foreign acquisitions of those industries that do become research and development intensive, often as a result of government investment. That was the case with Connaught and with Lumonics. There is a leadership role that the government can undertake which can enhance industrial R and D without itself being directly responsible for funding that research."
March 26, 1990

While it is true that we must find ways of making industry do its job better, it is not helpful to find that the government is getting ready to cut 500 people from NRC. How is it helpful to our scientific and research and development effort to place under attack the National Research Council and to demoralize hundreds of scientists without revealing clearly what directions are to be pursued?
How does it enhance our research and development effort if our university sector, our basic research sector, still suffers substantially because money is being taken out of the university EPF area, and for all intents and purposes being transferred to other areas, such as scholarships and so on, about which the government is prepared to brag. Those are good programs, but for the over-all envelope those things which constitute a research and development area remain unchanged.
By the way, he says I put too much stock in doubling GERD. It was not I who promised back in 1983 to double GERD, it was the Prime Minister. It was not I or provincial branches of the NDP, it was the federal government, in consultation with the ministers of the provinces, who said they would aim at doubling the GERD, the percentage of GDP spent on research and development. If that 2.5 per cent is not this government's goal, tell us what it is and let us hitch up our bootstraps and get there. Let us have a goal.
The National Advisory Board on Science and Technology which the Prime Minister himself formed and for which we congratulate him says that we should have a specific commitment. If it is not 2.5 per cent, what is it and by when? We cannot keep on going as we are now.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, in light of the large number of members who wish to speak, I want to advise the Chair that, on this side of the House when we next have an opportunity to speak, members will have 10 minutes to speak and five minutes for questions and comments at the end of each speech, if that is satisfactory to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are three minutes left in the questions and comments period.
Supply


William C. Winegard: It may be that we will want to have another 20-minute speech and use up double our time, if necessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the hon. member and the hon. minister for their comments. What the Chair would appreciate very much is if, at the start of a 20-minute block, the person involved would advise the Chair. It is easier to keep time and easier for the Chair to advise the hon. member that there is a minute left and he or she might want to come to the conclusion of his or her speech.
Resuming debate.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I hope you might give me one moment to respond to my hon. colleague, under questions and comments.
My hon. colleague said that government spending on R and D was cut. I would just like to give him the figure. In 1984-85, it was $2.45 billion and in 1989-90, it was $2.9 billion. In terms of government funding of industrial R and D, Japan funds 1.7 per cent of industrial R and D, Canada funds 11.8 per cent and Germany funds roughly around 12 per cent. So, we do our fair share of funding the industrial R and D, wherever industry is prepared to undertake it.
One other comment. I know there are many multinational corporations in Canada which do not do a significant amount of research, but I think it would be unwise for us to simply lump them all together. If one looks at Pratt & Whitney, IBM Canada, or some of the others such as Imperial Oil, they are among the leaders of R and D in the country. You cannot make that kind of blanket statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I see that the hon. member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair would like to respond but the time for questions and comments has expired. Do I have unanimous consent of the House to allow the member to answer?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The figures are clear. The percentage contribution by government has dropped by 4 per cent since this government has been in office. The part paid for by universities or contributed by universities has dropped 1 per cent. The percentage carried out by industry has gone up by 5 per cent. By God, over-all in the global estimate of who spends what, the govern-

March 26, 1990
Supply
merit's share has gone down since this government has been in office.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Windsor- St. Clair was able to keep his reply so brief. I will be taking 10 minutes because of the number of members on our side who wish to participate in this debate that we consider important, and I will therefore try to focus my comments fairly quickly.
As I have already said, we believe that the motion is one that should be supported by members from all sides, including the government side, on a vote because the wording of the motion very carefully acknowledges the contribution by the Prime Minister to this debate.
Notwithstanding the comments that the hon. minister made a few minutes ago, I would suggest to him that it is time to consider whether the state of our effort in science and technology and research and development in Canada has not gone beyond the point of partisan bickering and reached the point where we need to strive to find common ground where we can work together and where we can encourage our young Canadians, as well as all of the players in science and technology to work together to solve the problems, which are very significant problems indeed.
In very simple terms, I guess our problem in Canada is that we are buying more than we produce and we are doing it regularly, consistently and we are doing it in products that contain technology. Our wealth, which is considerable, has been based throughout our history on our very substantial natural resources. What we cut down and what we dig out of the ground and what we harvest from our soil and from our waters is what has made us one of the richest nations on earth.
But as the world changes, as the global economy becomes more increasingly based upon science-based innovation, upon value-added goods and services, we find that we are going to be facing a decrease in our wealth and in our standard of living, and we are going to have more and more difficulty meeting the expectations of our population.
We have not succeeded in being as adept as many other countries have been at adding value to the products that they produce and at innovating in ways that ensure their continued wealth.
I think the statistics, some of which have been referred to earlier today, are a very good indication of just exactly where we stand in terms of the performance of research and development in Canada and, therefore, our ability to produce science based innovation at all levels in the future.
I am citing a report of the Premier's Council of Ontario in which the performance of France, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada is considered. In terms of gross expenditure on R and D as a percentage of GDP we are the lowest.
Industry funded R and D as a percentage of GDP, again we are the lowest. Government funded R and D as a percentage of GDP, we are the second lowest. Government performed R and D as a percentage of GDP, we are in the middle. Higher education R and D as a percentage of GDP, we are the second lowest.
Domestic patents per 100,000 inhabitants, we are the second lowest. International patents granted by population, we are the lowest. Scientists and engineers in the labour force by population, we are the lowest. Number of technology intensive industries with positive trade balance, we are the lowest.
I think a very great indicator of how we are lagging behind on these important issues is the very substantial trade deficit we have in advanced technology goods in Canada. Where do we go from here? What happens? I know the minister raised the question about the government's role. The implication was that we on this side are suggesting that the government alone should spend enough money in order to increase the GERD ratio, the Gross Expenditures on Research and Development ratio, to a higher number, perhaps 2.5 per cent. I do not think that is what we are saying at all. What we are looking to the government for is leadership on this issue.
What we have in Canada is a bad state of affairs that has been getting worse. I hasten to say there has been a lot of consultation, a lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric, rhetoric such as we have included in the motion. I agree that the establishment of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, chaired by the Prime Minister, is a
March 26, 1990

good thing. The recommendations, many of them made by that board, have been very positive and useful. Most of them have not been applied.
The Science Council has been producing very worthwhile reports. Many of their recommendations have been ignored.
We have had a lot of consultation, a lot of conferences, and those are good. We need to begin seeing some action. We are distressed by things like the announcement of an additional $1.3 billion for science and technology, announced by the Prime Minister about two years ago, and we are still trying to figure out where that $1.3 billion is supposed to go.
We are distressed that $240 million would be put into the networks of Centres of Excellence Program, which is a good program, only to realize that what is being done with it is nothing more than a public relations exercise to expand the mandate of the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council. All of that money could have been allocated by NSERC without the glossy brochures and all of the trumpet blowing that occurred. We need to see money spent in a useful and practical way, not just public relations exercises in science and technology.
The same is true with respect to the debate about the granting councils. The minister has repeated the numbers a couple of times about how much is being increased in the budget of the granting councils this year. Yet, never once in his remarks today has he made reference to his own comment that he does not believe in the matching grants policy, which he made in the House a couple of weeks ago.
When the president of NSERC comes before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as he did very recently, and says that he really needs to know by September what is happening to the matching grants policy in order to be able to initiate the process for spending the next year's money, we are left in the dark. What does the government think about funding for the granting councils? Is the matching grants policy abandoned? Apparently so. If so, what is replacing it? How much money is there going to be there? We have all of these unanswered questions in the context of a lot of rhetoric, a lot of conferences and a lot of boards to discuss things.
Supply
Then we have the National Research Council. What a sad few weeks it has been for the National Research Council, where for many months now, in fact several years, morale has been low. People have been worried about their jobs. This jewel in the crown of Canada's scientific establishment has been under attack by a government that professes belief in science and technology and yet does not do a thing to address the concerns of people who have devoted their lives as Canadians to serving this country in endeavours related to science and technology, and who wonder where their future lies. They will not be consulted.
Then we have the funding of industrial research and development. Again, what we have had with the performance of the government has fallen short of its rhetoric. We have the continuing spectre of Revenue Canada going into the premises of small and medium size high technology firms in this country, sending in hired guns to rip through the research projects and try to decide whether the money that is being claimed is actual research and development or not.
Again and again we get the complaints of people going in to examine projects without the slightest idea of the nature of the science that is being performed. Reassessments cost tens of thousands of dollars to challenge and take years to resolve. That is simply in the administration of the income tax rules.
We also had the cut-back in the percentage of R and D that could be claimed by large companies. So we have this inconsistency. We have lots of fine rhetoric about the need for industrial and government and university partnerships, but we continue to have difficult income tax rules with respect to industrial consortia and how they are to be taxed. Those changes, in spite of the fact that they were promised in the finance committee a year ago now, when the Minister of Finance appeared there, have not yet appeared in the Income Tax Act of Canada.
I am afraid in spite of the importance to this issue that I believe all of us prescribe in this House, we have had a continual failure in terms of activity on the part of the government in meeting the needs of Canada both now and for the future.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to make a few observations on the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa South, the opposition critic. He is a fairly new member in the House and is liked by us all, but I think we should

March 26, 1990
Supply
just reflect on some of the history in the House over the last number of years that he may not be familiar with.
I was a little surprised when I saw the motion on the table for today, that it came from the Liberal Party, of all people. Their tradition made me think that probably they had their tongue in their cheek when they presented this as an opposition day motion today. I was also surprised when the member for Ottawa South, who is the critic, took umbrage when the minister made reference to the trivialization of this issue of research and development, science and technology.
I would like to refer to some of the trivial attitudes and approaches that were taken by his government in the last 15 years. There were four people sitting in the front benches of the Liberal Party today in Question Period who were colleagues of the Minister of State for Science and Technology at the time I was first elected to the House. The position of that minister in the government at that time was that we should not spend excessive amounts of money on research and development because we could buy what we needed to buy from other countries like the U.S.A., Germany, Great Britain, and so on. I suggest that type of attitude for a political party is trivializing the whole issue of science and technology.
My second point is that during those years after 1974 we tried desperately to have the then Liberal government establish a standing committee on science and technology. The estimates for spending on science and technology were passed through the standing committee on miscellaneous estimates. With all the other trivial matters that we spend money on, the issue of science and technology was included under that umbrella of miscellaneous estimates.
We tried and tried to get a standing committee and we were turned down regularly. It was not until this present government came in during its first mandate that we got a standing committee on science and technology. It met for the first time four years ago today, and that was under the aegis of the Conservative government.
Finally, the third point is that the Liberals were in power for about 20 years then and they never once made any effort to produce an advisory board such as the one we now have with the present government: the National
Advisory Board on Science and Technology which the Prime Minister chairs. The attitude of the former Liberals is indeed very trivial as it applies to science and technology. I cannot for the life of me see any evidence to suggest they have changed that. Perhaps the opposition critic would like to indicate why there has been a sudden change of heart on the part of the opposition.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I must say I am disappointed that a debate on such an important issue would raise the kind of response I have just heard from the hon. member for Oxford.
We are here to talk about science and technology being an essential part of our economic development as a nation, especially in the context of a changing global situation. Instead, the hon. member seems to prefer a debate on history. I would like to refer him to the standing committee on history, if there is one, where that debate can be carried on with some usefulness.
At the moment we have before us a very critical situation in Canada that is gaining in its significance virtually daily. When the government came into office in 1984, I was practising law in this city. We had an accounting computer in our office and that was about it. Now, as I stand here, in that law office a few blocks from here there are approximately 100 computers.
The change that has happened since 1984 alone is drastic. We need to be looking at that changing situation and asking what are the policies that we need for the 1990s? Where do we go from here? If we go back to a situation that existed in a previous decade and try to compare apples and oranges, we are not exactly on a continuum in that respect. Many other problems have become more critical, for example, environmental ones.
In 1984 we were beginning to know about the significance of acid rain. At the time the President of the United States thought it was caused by trees, but on this side of the border we were concerned about it. Since that time, in these last few years we have become acutely aware of problems of environmental degradation which are global in nature. This has presented among other things an opportunity for Canada, by making its commitment to research and development a real one, to move forward on the world stage of environmental technologies. That is an opportunity which lies before us. Why do
March 26, 1990

we not talk about those opportunities that are out there in the future rather than argue about the past?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, the motion being debated today and introduced by the Official Opposition reads:
That this House recognize that Research and Development, and the resulting innovation, are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country and that Canada must increase its level of Research and Development in order to ensure economic growth in an increasingly competitive and technologically literate global community.
It reflects the commitment of this side of the House to research and development. It also reflects the importance to every Canadian of science and technology and how we look at it for our economic prosperity and the well-being of Canadians of the future depend on adequate research and development to prepare our country for the high tech era that is upon us.
I would first like to address briefly the need for a comprehensive national science policy. It has been obvious from the illogical actions of this government with regard to science and technology, including its cuts to funding for research and development, that it lacks a coherent plan of action in this area.
The failure of this government to develop a clear and comprehensive long-term science and technology policy has been a recurrent theme mentioned by several witnesses who have now appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development.
Because of the complexity of science and technology issues, because of the increasing importance of research and development to our economic ability to compete on a global scale, and because of the need for more money to be devoted to research and development at both the academic and industry levels, the need for a focused, well researched, sophisticated plan to guide government action in this area is vital. Yet, this government has failed to come up with such a plan, and this is evidence of the short-sighted, inefficient nature of this government.
How do we know that? One only need look at the record of this government. I would just like to cite some figures. Canada, compared to the United States, Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Japan, ranks lowest in the number of technology intensive industries with a positive trade balance, lowest in the number of scientists and engineers
Supply
in the labour force, lowest in international patents granted, lowest in industry funded research and development, and lowest in the gross research and development expenditures as a per cent of Gross Domestic Product. Canada cannot be proud if we allow ourselves to remain lowest in these areas.
My leader, earlier this morning when he spoke, spoke of the breach of commitment of this government. He also spoke of allowing our country to remain in the junior league. Instead of closing the gap between promises and action, this government has closed scientific laboratories. Instead of firing the enthusiasm of our scientists and engineers, this government has fired them from their jobs. Instead of allowing for education and training, this government has cut funding for post-secondary education. It is not a record that our country can be proud of.
I would like to speak of science and technology as a tool for regional development. As the member for Winnipeg North and from that great part of the country west of Ontario, it is often thought that in the high tech economy which is rapidly developing, only the large urban areas and centres have the necessary skilled labour, management and infrastructures to sustain growth. The rest of the country will be limited to playing minor roles such as providing raw materials or serving as consumer outlets to a few high tech production centres.
While it is true that activities such as genetic engineering, telecommunications and computer science will fare better in large urban centres, there are other good components that are more suited to small and medium sized centres located in the periphery.
We must make a concerted effort to understand the processes of technological change that are occurring because such change has an impact on the labour force, the growth of the outlying regions, and the urban system in our country.
In the last decade the agents of change that have had the most impact have been innovations in telecommunications and computer technologies.
Because some regions are unable to keep abreast of economic change, we have the problem of regional development. Outlying areas are becoming progressively more isolated in terms of information networks and are also becoming more dependent on central Canada. Measures must be taken to propel outlying areas into the

March 26, 1990
Supply
information age, but this government has not made efforts to do this.
The importance of preparing every region for the new information age becomes clear when one considers that new information services will lead to increased productivity and market competitiveness.
With the massive amounts of information being generated world-wide each day and with increasing global integration, it is essential for all business services, traditional and innovative, to adopt telematic management processes. Once the business sector has been served, firms will extend their services to households which is still a major untapped market as a group.
The peripheral regions of our country, the provinces east of Quebec and west of Ontario, will benefit greatly from an integration of telecommunications firms in the regional planning process. The number of jobs created will help to alleviate unemployment, and these jobs will be more creative and more justified than the make work jobs of many existing programs.
Further, effective information systems will increase the over-all productivity of society and decrease the cost of services. For example, consumer information services will promote productivity gains in health care and educational sectors.
What is necessary now is for the government to provide leadership to help regions develop local science and technology bases, which will then lead to a much needed diversification of local economies. The regions will then be relieved of their overdependence on cyclical research based industries.
Applied research should be focused on development and the application of technology which is appropriate to economic development in each of the regions. The government could encourage private sector research through grant programs, contract based support and investment incentive programs. There would thus be an alleviation of the current imbalance caused by the emphasis on central Canadian models which are sometimes inappropriate to other regions.
This government proved its lack of concern for regional development when it cancelled the Unsolicited Proposals Program. I would like the Minister for Science to comment on that and to defend his position on why he cancelled it.
Witnesses before the Standing Committee on Science and Technology have told us that that program was very important because it provided a kind of contract based funding bridge that is vitally important to many early stage technology companies.
This government must provide flexible support for science and technology and customize its funding programs so that developing needs of a given sector in a given region can be met. The focus on central Canada is unsuitable. It will lead to the perpetuation of the tailoring of support programs to that part of the country. As I have pointed out previously, programs which are good for central Canada are often not appropriate for the regions.
This government must ensure that the regions will be able to play vital roles in the high tech era so that all regions of Canada will become more productive, as this is necessary to keep Canada competitive on the international scene.
In summary, I would like to challenge the government to come forward soon with a coherent and comprehensive science policy, which is still lacking; a policy that will define clearly the commitment and the action that it will take for basic and applied research and a policy that will take into account and have the sensitivity to consider all regions of our country. Last but never least, that policy must include a policy on education and training, for without the intellect that we need in science and technology we cannot progress.
I challenge the government to come forward soon with a coherent and comprehensive science policy if we are to compete in the global economy.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the comments that my colleague has made, particularly with respect to information and the information technologies.
There is no question that he is absolutely right when he talks about how information and information transmittal are going to be so critical to the country. That is why I would like to tell him about the National Research Council network, an across Canada network that is now
t

March 26, 1990

in the works. It will provide high speed transmission, the availability to transmit from one research unit to another right across the country, and it will ensure that those networks or those university research institutions which are not in central Canada will co-operate the same way as anyone else.
With respect to the networks of excellence, my colleague will be aware that those are spread across the country, not because of any action that we took but because the peer review committee found excellence across the country. The networks are a way to bring groups together wherever they are. They do not have to be in central Canada. There was certainly no bias toward central Canada in the way that was done. In fact it was probably just the opposite.
We are working on a major high speed network, a major study to see if it is feasible to put in Canada a significant network of very high speed that would transmit photographs and hook all of the research institutions together. That feasibility study is now going on.
My hon. colleague says we need to do more about education. Of course we need the people if we are to have a science and technology based country. I agree with him.
It is significant that last summer the Prime Minister said that we had to look at this problem as a national problem and not just as a provincial problem. So for the first time the Prime Minister took the lead in setting up a national task force on education which could look at the educational issue from the point of view of what we need to make this country competitive. That has never been done before.
With respect to science and technology policy, there is no question what the science and technology policy of this government is. It is very clear. My hon. colleague may not like what it is, but it has always been very clear. We are going to maintain and enhance where we possibly can the amount of curiosity driven research that we do in Canada. We are going to try to enhance the pre-competitive research that is done in co-operation with industry. We are going to try to promote industrial research and the alliances that are so necessary. Those are all on the record.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the comments of the minister. The absence of clarity is not so much that we cannot understand, but
Supply
because this government has said something and done just the opposite.
In terms of the centres of excellence which we have welcomed, the government laboratories have been asked to be involved, yet funding for the government laboratories has been decreased. Where is the beef, if I may say, as to the commitment of this government?
A task force on education to identify the needs for the country is excellent. However, the National Science Advisory Board, directly reporting to the Prime Minister, recommended doubling the funding for research and development, and the Prime Minister has ignored that recommendation. What guarantee do we have that after the task force has done its job, has made a series of recommendations, this government will not again ignore recommendations? Will the minister now commit to the House that the recommendations of the task force when it reports will be implemented and implemented promptly?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is in a difficult situation. I realize that the minister would like to answer the hon. member. There is a minute left in the period of questions and comments, yet it is turning into a conversation between whoever has the floor and the minister. I am quite prepared, if the House agrees, to have the hon. minister answer.


Some hon. members:: No.


Shirley Maheu: On a point of Order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Obviously, I understand that I do not have the consent of the member to have the minister answer the question posed by her colleague. We will resume debate.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the Liberal opposition for this opportunity to talk about what the department and the government have been doing to promote research and development. For openers I might say that I find the subject of the motion rather puzzling because I fail to see why the government should be criticized after having done so much for research and development.
One of our outstanding achievements has to be the trend towards unprecedented co-operation between the public and private sectors. I would suggest that this new approach is here to stay and, thanks to a few measures I

March 26, 1990
Supply
intend to mention in the course of my remarks, the private sector finally has the support and tools it needs to show leadership in research and development.
The whole government strategy is anchored in the newly established and full-fledged Department of Industry, Science and Technology which took over from the old Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. As the name indicates, the latter's main mandate was to deal with regional disparities. Although it did have something to do with scientific endeavours, DRIE could not really combine industrial policies with scientific and technological programs.
We, which includes the vast majority of experts and observers on the economic scene, are convinced that from now on, our country's progress will depend on its ability to compete successfully on the international scene. By creating the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, we simply reflected the almost unanimous position of the many individuals, interest groups, associations and companies we consulted constantly throughout the country. The message was clear, science and technology should be central to the government's activities. Hence, our commitment to urging all sectors to aim for excellence in scientific and technological development and to working with the sectors on a partnership basis.
We soon realized that market globalization and crumbling economic borders were a threat to our country. If Canada failed to plug into the major international currents of innovation, it ran the risk of becoming isolated, sooner or later. Furthermore, our expertise in certain areas was, in many ways, no longer up to contemporary standards.
It is something I truly deplore. The previous government failed to understand this. It preferred to intervene without a definite plan, mostly through grants allocated at random, in the hope that things would take a turn for the better.
To recover our status as one of the great industrialized nations, but we had to rethink our economic programs, get rid of those which had outlived their usefulness, expand those that could be effective-in a word, we had to seek a consensus and do some housecleaning in cases where policy had often been non-existent.
Instead of endless hesitation without a specific policy, we regrouped about 75 important programs under the aegis of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. Those in charge of these programs were given a mandate to strengthen links between basic research, applied research, product development, and production and marketing, both in this country and abroad.
The government has also made a consistent effort to persuade business and academics that major research and development initiatives should, as much as possible, be funded from their own resources, because asking for hand-outs is no longer an acceptable way of doing things in an industrialized world. Our department will be primarily responsible for co-ordinating activities by interested parties, more specifically by eliminating barriers to productivity and by encouraging companies to take the initiative, either by upgrading their research and development or taking risks to innovate.
Madam Speaker, some figures are self-explanatory but I think they bear repeating so that everyone understands the situation we are facing today.
Up until very recently, our statistics showed unequivocally that our private sector was lagging far behind in the area of research and development. Let us not forget that out of every 100 manufacturing companies, only three invest in research in this country. Our competitors, who became aware of this situation before we did, are spending twice as much as our own private sector in research and development.
In term of gross domestic product, Canada ranks twelfth among all OECD members involved in research and development.
Let us not delude ourselves: the least we can say about our competitors, which include West Germany, the United States, Japan and Sweden, is that they have very strong backs.
Why did the private sector in Canada wait so long before following suit? Of course, we cannot claim we have all the answers. Our intense consultations have shown that the various partners involved have a feeling of working in isolation and being unable to share as they would the experience acquired by the others, resulting for more than one in a certain feeling of discouragement and disillusion.
March 26, 1990

That is what convinced the Government to set up his strategic technology programs the purpose of which is to promote networks and alliances between researchers, the Government and the industry. This program is oriented towards three of the most promising technologies, namely biotechnology, information technology, and high-tech industrial material. But the Government is not satisfied with facilitating the liaison between competent scientists for research and development purposes.
Under the Strategic Technology Program, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology is prepared to foot up to 50 per cent of the eligible costs of a project. For instance, we help corporations pay the salaries of their specialized research staff and buy specialized materials and equipments. The Government has allocated $ 200 million to this program alone to encourage the setting up of networks which might include foreign corporations, universities and research centers. Preliminary R & D in which various players are involved are essential before projects with possible technological application can be marketed; their chances of success are therefore considerably enhanced.
On the other hand, as we can never lose sight of the competitive factor, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology is involved in promotional efforts dealing with initiatives and sectorial competitiveness in close co-operation with the businesses concerned. One of the purposes of this program is to improve the international competitiveness of certain Canadian industries by identifying new markets or facilitating the application of technical innovations.
So far, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology has launched sectoral competitiveness campaigns in auto parts, environmental industries, advanced manufacturing technology, medical equipment, manufactured wood products and the fashion industry.
Madam Speaker, that is what I call practical initiatives that take the concept of research and development itself much farther, in a highly concrete way.
The same goes for the government's approach which led to setting up a package of business services to help Canada's private sector develop new markets or, if necessary, acquire and apply new technologies. Our philosophy is supported by initiatives that can lead our business people to lasting prosperity, because we act on
Supply
the specific sources of the problems of growth or survival that they may encounter.
The government was equally logical, Madam Speaker, when it announced last year subsidies totaling $8.5 million to carry out the program to implement high technology in the manufacturing sector. Basically, this is a program under which eligible companies can hire consultants to modernize their facilities, with the help of our department.
During the fiscal year which is drawing to a close the federal government has spent over $4 billion in science and technology. Contrary to what official opposition spokesmen would have us believe, this is hardly a sure indication that research and development are not one of our priorities.
Better still, Madam Speaker, our contribution is in excess of the $4 billion-plus I just mentioned since this amount does not cover our government's science and technology tax incentives.
I would have a lot to say about that because in recent years we have been trying to make up for the neglect and injustices of previous administrations.
Among other things, the 1985 federal budget included measures under which Canadian small businesses involved in research and development could claim a full refund of the 35 per cent investment tax credit applicable to the first $2 million spent on research and development.
In addition, Income Tax section 37 enables taxpayers to deduct all allowable current expenses and capital expenditures for experimental research and development projects. I might add that in 1988 Revenue Canada set up a special task force to examine tax credit applications and, without undue delay, reimburse companies doing research and development work. Madam Speaker, I am on solid ground when I say that, compared with other industrialized nations, Canadians have a fiscal climate which is particularly conducive to research and development.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, established in 1986 and chaired by the Prime Minister himself. This board advises the government on the best way to co-ordinate initiatives by governments, universi-

March 26, 1990
Supply
ties and the private sector in order to compete at the international level.
It is made up of Canadians who have distinguished themselves in the business, university and labour sectors among others.
It has made many recommendations to the Prime Minister on how best to exploit science and technology in Canada. A good number of its suggestions have been followed. For instance, following an intervention by the Board; the government established the Canada Scholarship Program which gives up to $80 million to the best students to encourage them to pursue their studies in natural science, engineering and related fields.
As a woman, I am proud to point out that almost half of the 3,400 young people who received scholarships this year were women. It is time for everybody to recognize the enormous potential of women in scientific studies. The thousands of scholarship recipients for the current school year are in addition to the 1,600 already in the program. Its success is encouraging but it is not the only valid program.
Another recommendation from the National Science Advisory Board gave good results, Madam Speaker. The Board thought of launching a $10 million public awareness campaign to explain to the public in general the latest scientific and technological achievements. The aim of such a campaign is to show how science affects the life of Canadians, be it their personnal life, their academic life or their professional life.
Many Canadians had already come to realize the growing .importance of science and its many applications during the sometimes stormy debate that has taken place before the Free Trade Agreement was ratified. Considering Canada is dwarfed by the scale of research and technology transfers in the United States, there was no need to be a specialist to understand that we had every advantage to have closer ties with our neighbours to the South and benefit from their expertise.
Madam Speaker, that is how many of our companies have formed new types of partnership with the Americans.
The government for its part has taken another step to help us better position ourselves on the world markets of today by adopting the "Horizon: World" Strategy. This combines market development with technological growth and is based on the opportunities provided by the United States, the Pacific Rim and the European countries that will form an economic unit in 1992. The government is first of all trying to increase our exports and encourage investments and partnerships, but on an even larger scale. This strategy thus gives us a rational way to stimulate economic activity and thereby create jobs.
For that, the department is counting on the co-operation of External Affairs and Investment Canada to extend its commercial reach internationally and to promote its investments abroad.
As you see, Madam Speaker, the opposition's motion which deals exclusively with research and development in Canada is quite lacking in perspective. We simply cannot spew out some figures taken out of context to show what we have done in science and technology and hope to convince whoever wants to listen to me that we have done a wonderful job.
Madam Speaker, research and development is only one element of the ambitious and complex mosaic that is the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
To concentrate on research and development alone would be to ignore the government's innovative efforts with respect to technology tranfers and promoting this type of activity in Canada's industrial community. With a policy that includes technology centres that manage major federal laboratories and the Technology Outreach Program, the government wishes to ensure that the assistance it gives to industry is responsive to the needs of its customers. It also wants to increase the effectiveness of these technology centres and attract greater participation by industry.
However, we must not overlook the equally crucial component of human resources. It is the human dimension that is part and parcel of some very exciting but also very practical questions, such as acquiring advanced technology. If Canada is unable to train a labour force that is versatile and capable of responding to the needs of technology, science and engineering, our scientific structure will collapse because it does not have a sufficiently sound foundation.
March 26, 1990

Without wishing to be alarmist, I would like to point out that last year, 14 per cent of Canadian manufacturers complained about shortages of skilled workers. Whether for social or political reasons, the fact remains that many young people choose to go into law or business administration instead of considering a career in science and opting for research and development. Society, over the years, may have judged those professions to be more acceptable and more attractive, but it is not the kind of attitude that will encourage Canada's talented young people to opt for disciplines that are conducive to innovation, for instance.
What is needed, Madam Speaker, is a national science culture, despite the fact that education is a provincial responsibility. I agree it will not be easy, because we have a lot of catching up to do and we already have to go the extra mile to make Canadian industry both productive and competitive on international and domestic markets. The main thing is, however, that all parties concerned agree to discuss the problem and acknowledge that the need for training a labour force that can meet the scientific and technological challenges of the future requires a common strategy.
As was pointed out in the Grandpre report on manpower adjustment, the government showed an awareness of those challenges by providing adequate manpower training and adjustment program.
Considering our financial resources, the ball is now in the court of the industrial community. It is up to industry to do its share and help us on the road to prosperity.
Madam Speaker, so this is where a seemingly straightforward Liberal motion has brought us! I must admit this is not an exhaustive overview of achievements and challenges in the field of industry, science and technology-
These issues go well beyond the purview of today's debate. However, I hope I have convinced at least some of the members of this House that our government has for a number of years been committed to helping those concerned understand what is at stake. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: In his remarks, Madam Speaker, the Minister mentioned the private
Supply
sector to which he had asked for more funding in research and development. I shall, therefore, ask the Hon. Member whether she agrees with the Minister, when the President of Northern Telecom made a statement to the effect that the Government should not ask the private sector to invest in research and development without showing some leadership. He said that the private sector needed a good economic environment. He explained that here, in Canada, to set up a company with assets of one billion dollar, one needed to borrow $ 275 million. This amount is equivalent to nearly $ 400 million when compared with the United States and $ 675 million when compared with Japan, which implies that it would be much more easy to set up a company in Japan than here.
It is also easier to set up a company in the United States than in Canada. Therfore with much higher interest rates much higher here in Canada than they are in both the United States and Japan, the so-called level playing field just does not exist, for Japanese are in a much better position to invest in research and development than Americans and Canadians are. How could we ask the private sector to invest more when we, as the Government, are responsible for interest rates which increase every day? That is not the right environment for the private sector. I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether she agrees with the Minister when he says that the private sector should do all these things on its own without the assistance or leadership of the Federal Government.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking me whether I agree with the minister when he says that the private sector should do more. Yes I do. He mentioned the benefits an industry might gain if it were to move to the United States and deal with Japan. He referred to interest rates and pointed out that they are lower in the United States. Our situation is different. Our country carries a heavy debt load and we have been trying very hard to check inflation to prevent Canadian products from losing most of their value. It is very difficult to trace all our woes back to rising interest rates. We are now attempting to introduce a goods and services tax which will be a big plus for all industries. At long last they will no longer have to cope with the famous 13.5 per cent hidden tax

March 26, 1990
Supply
which made it that much more difficult for them to sell competitive products on world markets.
Madam Speaker, we have every reason to say that the Canadian industrial sector should get directly involved because, as I pointed out earlier in my remarks, only 3 per cent of Canadian companies are doing research.
I think that more companies should do their share. I would suggest that the hon. member is wrong when he claims that our government has failed to implement measures designed to help companies get involved. I can only repeat what I said on the Friday ten days ago when we were debating another opposition motion, that no other government has done so much to bring prosperity to Canadians. This is not necessarily expressed in dollars and cents, but we did establish new guidelines and new measures to make Canadians change their approach. Perhaps I should go over them briefly since the hon. member was not there at the time. I will start with the policy on science and technology we put in place to ensure that throughout Canada, students in every province are trained to meet the needs of industry and have adequate training to meet the needs. Under that policy-as you know, there were differences in Canada and some provinces were much more aware of the need for adequate training-under that policy, this is what we have asked from each province.
We also ensured industry awareness. We organized that famous Conference on Innovation that was held in Toronto in 1988, if I remember correctly, where industry was asked to increase productivity. We also urged them to enhance their products, and asked them how high technology firms could be encouraged.
Madam Speaker, we then introduced the Strategic Technologies Program, to which a number of my colleagues refered in their speeches. Under that important program we identified the areas where Canada could be a leader, even internationnaly. As there already was good expertise in the area of information techniques, information technologies were identified. Then there is bio-technology. We also mentioned state-of-the-art industrial materials.
As far as helping universities is concerned, we put forward the matching funding program because it also allows industries to use that fantastic resource, researchers working in universities while training students. The effect of this is to train an increasing number of young engineers and researchers who really meet the needs of industry. At the same time, it enables industries to look at what is going on in our universities and realize how important that expertise is. Of course we also encourage industry to use the services of industrial research centres, Canadian research centres. We introduce the Canada Scholarship Program to which a number of my colleagues referred, because our goal is to have by 2000 all the researchers needed to meet Canadian needs.
Therefore, that scholarship program that recognizes our best students in Canada, Madam Speaker, will allow us to have the best minds, people in a position to meet our needs.
We also introduced the network of centres of excellence in which from now on researchers no longer working in isolation in their respective labs. We must not forget that there used to be duplication of the research effort. Now, there is networking. Scientists work together; they immediately share the results of their research. Giant strides will be made, and those centres of excellence are absolutely fantastic for our country because we will be at the forefront in the fields that have been identified.
I would like to tell my honorable colleague that this government is providing its continued support and encouraging major projects. I could mention, for instance, the RADARSAT Program which has for a side effect to allow high technology small businesses to emerge, Madam Speaker.
I think very few governments have put in place so many measures. It may not be obvious at this time, but I know that in the long run we will see deep changes occur in Canada and that, eventually, the industry will certainly be happy with what the government has done.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartier-ville.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, "The National Research Council intends to restrict its work on basic research during the next few years, reducing permanent staff and handing
March 26, 1990

over some of its centres to the private sector", as we read in La Presse on March 13.
Is this how Canada intends to be competitive on international markets? Isn't it time to invest? To invest in our richest and often most neglected resource, our own people? It is high time Canada realized how important science, engineering and postsecondary education are and seriously reconsidered many of its objectives concerning education. If it wants to provide scientific and technical companies with the resources they need to be competitive in the twenty-first century, it must act now.
The government must make our young people understand the importance of jobs that require specialized training, both scientific and technical. It has a duty to support community colleges, in order to provide training early on instead of providing retraining later through skills upgrading when people are unemployed. Perhaps the government should actually launch an advertising campaign across Canada to correct people's perception of blue collar workers.
If the government was able to reverse cigarette and tobacco acceptance through advertising, it should be able to sell technical and professional training! If we do not train a skilled labour force now, and there are already shortages in some areas, it will be our own fault if we are unable to keep up with the rest of the world.
The government will have a lot of breast-beating to do, and it will only have itself to blame. The percentage of the federal budget earmarked for education has dropped from 7.3 in 1985 to 6.7 in 1988-89. Is this what the government calls preparing for the future?

Many years ago the Prime Minister told this nation he believed that research and development are the basis of a successful country, and I quote him: "The starting line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league, or we become a nation that will, during its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit. Research and development and the resulting innovation are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country".
Supply
That is beautiful, isn't it? I did say that was many years ago-in 1983 to be exact. What has really been happening since?
I think we should look closely at the government's commitment since 1984. Let us take the National Research Council for instance. In 1984, approximately $60 million was cut from NRC's budget. The following are some of the major divisions or projects that were closed or cancelled: the energy division, the Environment Secretariat, the Manufacturing Technology Institute, the Institute for Electro-Chemistry, the Cold Regions Research Institute and, as of February, 1985, 80 lay-off notices were issued as a result of the cutback.
In 1986, an additional $29 million was cut from the NRC budget. The following projects or divisions were cut: photochemistry and kinetics, electromagnetic and mechanical engineering programs, environmental toxicology programs, aeronautics, construction and physics.
At this point it was announced that over 200 jobs would be eliminated. In February, 1990, NRC President Pierre Perron told The Citizen that the following programs and projects would be cut: high-energy physics research to be gone by 1995; the prairie research station; the avalanche research group in B.C.; the Algonquin Park radio observatory to be leased out; tentatively, the low-speed wind tunnel at CFB Uplands; and the move of the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics to Victoria.

With this kind of support, Mr. Speaker, how can we expect a high level of performance? It is time to wake up before it is too late. We have allocated 1.23 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product to research and development. That is half as much as what Japan and Sweden are investing. We can really be proud of our performance! At this rate, Canada's chances to keep up with the pack seem rather slim.
Just now, Canada's record is rather bad. It invests half as much as its main competitors. It has half as many scientists and engineers as the average industrialized nation. Few Canadian businessman know what science and technology could do for their respective businesses.
Science teaching in our schools is mediocre, which explains Canada's poor performance in international competitions. And as the straw which broke the camel's

March 26, 1990
Supply
back, we prefer to hire foreign specialists instead of investing in Canadians by offering them adequate professional and scientific training. In your opinion is this enough for the Government to get a passmark?
Mr. Speaker, it is urgent to correct this situation and stop looking for instant results. As Professor John Polanyi, the Canadian Nobel Prize winner, so perfectly put it, and I quote: "Considering that technology needs science, the temptation is to demand that the people who initiate projects justify them in terms of their technological applications. By constantly seeking shortterm benefits, we dismiss scientific effort whose purpose is to answer fundamental questions which later on might lead to brand new applications."
Mr. Speaker, if Canada wants to remain at the forefront of technological changes, it just cannot afford to ignore basic research.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister has received the Weizmann Institute prestigious international award for scientific achievement after so many cuts since 1984. One wonders what prize he would have received had he increased the budget instead. The facts are, to give but a few examples, that there have been serious cuts in many departments. Let us look at a few changes from 1984 to 1985 and 1989 to 1990 in terms of millions of dollars.
Agriculture went from $347.9 million to $250.6 million. Atomic Energy went from $131.7 million to $112.3 million. Energy research and resources went from $144.9 million to $124.7 million. Communications went from $85.7 million to $48.3 million. Fisheries went from $138.8 million to $107.7 million. Transport went from $32.6 million to $27.6 million.

Mr. Speaker, when someone like Professor Polanyi who was awarded the 1986 Nobel Prize feels compelled to tell a young scientist who was seeking his advice about the planning of his own career, and I quote: "The best advice I could give a young Canadian scientist, full of talent and ambition, would be to leave Canada", I suggest we should ask ourselves some questions. If
Canada allows its most talented brains to leave this country, it will never be able to bring them back.
I urge the Government to seriously consider the negative effects of its cut-backs. Does it really want to face another crisis namely, the Canadian scientific brain drain?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member thinks it important to have technological jobs, which would answer the needs of the industry, I would ask her to put pressure on senators blocking Bill C-21.1 would also like to tell her that Canada ranks amongst the countries spending the most on education, we will spend an "active" amount of 29 per cent of $20 billion on education alone.
The hon. member said earlier that the government has cut transfer payments, but the situation there is completely different. Transfer payments have been frozen. For education, the growth rate per capita stays the same, but it is frozen for two years. So you see, there are no cuts, the situation is totally different. They will resume at the same rate as the Gross National Product, at 3 per cent. I also want to tell the hon. member that since the federal government does not control transfer payments-I certainly do not want this to come somewhat as a shock to the provinces, but many of these do not make an appropriate use of the funds since they do not use them for post-secondary education. And since education comes under provincial jurisdiction, the federal goveme-ment simply cannot interfere. The hon. member shoud remember that we are dealing with an enormous federal debt while the provinces are able to stay in the black. So we do what has to be done to ensure that young Canadians receive appropriate training and education.


Shirley Maheu: thank my colleague for her statement. First, I would like to point out with respect to transfers to the provinces and Bill C-21, which is being held up by the Senate, that New Brunswick, to take only one province, will lose $166 million a year because of C-21.


Mr. Robichaud:: Yes, that is terrible!
March 26, 1990


Shirley Maheu: If the amounts for education are not being cut but increased, how come all the provinces are screaming that they are being cut?
People like to talk about the debt with which the country is burdened. Is it not true that the United States probably has a larger per capita debt than ours?


Mr. Duhamel:: At the federal level, yes.


Shirley Maheu: At the federal level, they do not shout about it! I have nothing more to add, except that it is easy to play with words. We should look at the actual figures.
[English)


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments with reference to the hon. member's position and remind her of something for her response. It is pretty obvious from the amount of money that has been spent on science and technology, that the government considers it to be a cornerstone of Canada's economic policy, as has been pointed out by the minister.
In referring to New Brunswick, specifically, I think it is important to recognize that we all have a responsibility to research and development. Despite the tremendous effort of the federal government, we have to ensure that others are involved in the process. The federal government cannot do this alone. We must rely on industry, provincial governments, and the universities to do their part.
I want to remind the hon. member that, indeed, the federal government has devoted a substantial amount of money to research and development. In comparison to other countries, it is estimated that more than $500 million, or about 18 per cent of our total federal research and development expenditures, will be spent by the country, as compared with 17 per cent for France; 17 per cent for the Netherlands; and right down to the United States where it is a miserly 4 per cent. I think it is important that the hon. member understand that. Perhaps she might like to reassess the situation in view of these very significant figures that are available to us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ferland):: I will allow the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville (Mrs. Maheu) to give a short answer, because her time is not up.
Supply


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer as quickly as possible.
I am not quite sure where the hon. member obtained his figures. Gross research and development expenditures as percentage of GDP is 1.32 per cent. We are the lowest ranking of countries like the U.S., Germany, France, Sweden, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Japan. For government funded R and D for gross national product, we are the second lowest of all of these countries. For government performed R and D, we are in the middle. For industry funded, we are the lowest again. For higher education, we are the second lowest. I cannot understand from where the hon. member is getting his figures, but I think perhaps they should be modified.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ferland):: I am sorry, but the period for questions and comments is now over. The hon. member for St. Boniface.


Mr. Hopkins:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to put some balance into this debate, I wonder if the Speaker would arrange to recognize people from both sides of the House, instead of just those on the government benches, for questions and comments.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ferland):: Sorry. I think the time is fairly well divided between both sides of the House. The hon. member for St. Boniface.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, we are debating an extremely important issue. I hope the Opposition members present in this House are discussing with rather than insulting each other. I also hope that the Canadian people, particularly parents of young and not so young university and college students, are listening to this debate. My colleagues opposite could perhaps let me explain my ideas.
As you know, the Royal Society of Canada is having a conference today in Ottawa, which is dedicated to the growing interest in science in Canada.

March 26, 1990
Supply

Society is alarmed because public opinion surveys show that many Canadians do not appreciate sufficiently the importance of science to our nation. They do not understand as well as they might, what it might contribute to the well-being of our country. Their meeting is to promote scientific awareness by the media and to get scientists to go to the schools to explain to our youth, those young men and women who are in universities, what it is that science does for our country and what it does, in fact, for humankind.
The greatest concern that we should have today is asking the following question and attempting to answer it. How can research and development, science and technology contribute to the furthering of the economic, social, and cultural well-being of Canada, taking into consideration problems of intolerance, conflict, war, and pollution? What can research and development do to make us respond more meaningfully, more sensitively, and more sensibly to those particular issues? How bad is the situation right now with respect to research and development, science and technology and all of those other related fields?
In today's issue of Le Devoir we read the following: [Translation]
Last year local firms were authorized to import 473 experts to
hold high technology jobs and perform related duties.
It goes on to say:
At the same time enrolment in science, engineering and
information programs have fallen dramatically.
What is the government doing to change this course of action? Let us look at the record. This record, by the way, is taken from the Prime Minister's National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. I want to make that point clear.
In looking at gross research and development expenditures as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, we find that Canada is the lowest among Canada, the U.S., Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Japan. In industry funded research and development as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, it is the lowest. In government funded research and development as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, it is second lowest. In government performed research and development as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, it is in the middle. What is higher education research and development as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product? Second lowest. What are the number of domestic patents granted per 100,000 inhabitants? Second lowest. What are the international patents granted by population? The lowest. What about advanced degrees awarded by population? We are in the middle. When it comes to scientists and engineers in labour force by population, we are the lowest among those countries. What about the number of technology intensive industries with the positive trade balance? We are the lowest. I stress that this was taken from the Prime Minister's National Advisory Board on Science and Technology.
There has been a lot of reference already to the rhetoric of the government on research and development, but one of the things I need to repeat is this:
To keep abreast of technological change, Mulroney says Canada must double its spending on research and development by 1985-from the current 1.13 percent of GNP to at least 2.5 percent.
This was taken from The Gazette of March 19, 1983.
Here is another from Where I Stand by Brian Mulroney:
The Trudeau government has the nerve to announce a new objective: 1.5 percent. This illustrates how our national government is illogical and how it lacks an earnest commitment toward this cornerstone of our economy.
Do remember that spending slipped from 1.4 down to 1.32. I could go on and I shall just by sharing this final quotation:
The starting line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league, or we become a nation that will, during its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit.
That was Brian Mulroney in 1983. We are no longer in the Junior B circuit, we have slipped. We have slipped and we have slipped badly.
What has the Prime Minister and his government done to worsen the situation? You will all know, and I have quoted several times, that if we take the reductions that he had committed not to change-the minus 2 per cent in 1986, the minus 1 per cent in 1989-90, followed by the freeze-we are talking about a reduction for health and education of $39 billion fewer dollars. That is quite apart from the $39 million reduction for science and technolo-
March 26, 1990

gy, and I have not talked about the reductions of the National Research Council and those that are anticipated. In looking at those dollars that are going to be reduced, one must remember that it is not only for health and education, but that there are large components of those that were in fact directed to research and development. It is not just research and development per se.
The government is proud in saying that research and development should be part of a societal initiative and that government should be involved and so should the provinces and the private sector. Yes, so let us look at the negative impact that those reductions and transfer payments will have on research and development specifically.
The government has also cut training and retraining. Of course, the Prime Minister and his minister said that we would have the best training programs of the world. They are now on the shoulders of the worker and the employer. Elow has it helped the poor students? This is the logic of the Conservative government. It has tacked on a 3 per cent administrative fee to student aid.
[ Translation]
Only poor people borrow money. You do not need to borrow rf you already have money. What did the government do? It said: "Since you are poor and need to borrow money, we will ask you to pay an extra 3 per cent", even though it knew that the students' already heavy debt load is growing, that their tuition fees are going up every year.

That is quite apart from the goods and services tax's negative impact on education. We will talk about that in the next few weeks. It is quite apart from the postal subsidies that were supposed to have been absorbed. That was a promise made by a former government in the last administration that was not honoured. These have to be absorbed.
This is how the government goes about helping education, science and technology, and research and development. Well, it often brags about $240 million for the centres of excellence. We have acknowledged that it is a noble program. However, when almost $10 billion is cut, or when it is slated between 1985 and 1986, it is not very
Supply
difficult to give $250 million or $500 million. I have got to tell you, it is really, really quite easy.
The government is never really willing to say that in the $240 million for centres of excellence-quite apart from the $10 billion that it will cut unless it changes its ways-that there is not one humanities or social science project. There is no project that seeks to look at Canadian society and how you and I and the workers out there will change as a result of a changing technological society. I find that deplorable and I think it says a whole lot about the government's orientation in this area.

-if we want to become more competitive, to be leaders instead of followers, we have no choice but to review what the government is doing. We must make sure that our policy is very strong and sensitive to Canadian needs.
I am asking you to urge the government to examine its conscience and see what it can change to respond with honesty and accuracy to the needs of Canadians from all parts of the country.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of comments about the transfers from the government of Canada to the provinces.
As my hon. colleague knows, the transfers that he is talking about represent, in this year, about one-half of 1 per cent of the provincial budgets, and next year, something like 1 per cent of the provincial budgets. We are asking the provinces to spend at the same rate that we are. I would think that is a pretty responsible thing to do.
Let me take it further in terms of Established Program Financing. My colleague knows very well that these are unconditional transfers to the provinces and that there is no guarantee whatsoever that they are going to go, nor have they gone, to health care and particularly to post-secondary education. That has been one of the troubles. It is one of the difficulties with simple transfer without any strings attached.
It was not our government that did that. It was 1977 when the Liberal government made those transfers absolutely unconditional. Now the Liberals want to come back to try somehow to say: "Well, we would like to have those transfers hooked in in some way". One cannot do

Supply
that. Once it is made unconditional, then that is the way it is going to stay. There is no way now of turning the clock back.
My hon. colleague should put this funding in perspective, one-half of 1 per cent for this coming year and 1 per cent of their budgets for the following year. That is somehow going to destroy the educational and the post-secondary systems of the provinces? That is a bit far-fetched, Madam Speaker.
Let me also take the issue in terms of government spending. What my hon. colleague wants to do is to include all of the defence research spending of the other countries. There is a party that is so proud of the fact that Canada does not do anything in defence. If they are pleased with that, then at least they should take the defence expenditures out. When one does that, one finds that Canada fares very well indeed in terms of the amount of government support of R and D. The other countries stand very well, and they are on the list because they spend an enormous amount on R and D in the defence industries. We do not do that, nor do we wish to do that.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I appreciate enormously the Minister's comments and questions.

The issue is not one of fairness. Admit the fact that the government has doubled the debt during the last five years and it has mismanaged the economy, then I will feel much less sensitive about some of the points that have been made.
The issue is that the Prime Minister said before he became Prime Minister that he would not touch that transfer formula. He said that he was going to double spending on research and development. He touched the formula. He cut it by 2 per cent in 1986. He cut it by another per cent in 1989-90 and he has frozen it for the next two years. That represents $39 billion fewer from 1986 to 1995. That is what is wrong. It is misleading. He said he would double R and D. What happened? It was 1.40 and now it is 1.32.
With regard to this red herring about factoring out the defence research, if one asks the universities whether or not they would agree with him or with me, I bet 99 out of 100 will agree with me. In fact, the figures will agree with me. I resent that we should try to play those kinds of games because it is misleading. It is totally misleading.
If anyone doubts what I have said, let us have this debate that I challenged him to on October 13, 1989. I would love to discuss those questions across Canada, in every single province, in each of the two territories, in the small towns, in the big towns, and in the cities, anywhere, anytime, with this minister or any other minister. Then we will see whether or not Canadians agree with me or with him.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate today. Clearly, we are dealing with some issues of vital importance to the future of the country, issues which will determine the competitiveness of our industries in the new global economy, and which are obviously going to impact upon the social well-being and the lives of many Canadians.
However, it has become apparent that the Opposition has missed the point with the introduction of this particular motion. It is a motion which clearly does not go far enough in addressing the concerns and the challenges of Canada and, indeed, all nations of the world, as we face the twilight years of the 20th century.
In previous comments, I had mentioned that the government takes very seriously its concerns about research and development. I want to remind the House that the federal expenditures in this field take many different forms. The minister responsible has already stated that Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Medical Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council have taken a priority, as well as many other forms. Something that we have perhaps not touched upon enough at this particular juncture in the debate of the motion is the grants to university research councils. That is where I want to emphasize my comments today.
When we speak of research and development, of science and technology, we cannot afford to lose sight of the very vital ingredient that we must introduce into the equation. Of course, that ingredient is people, the highly
March 26, 1990

qualified women and men we need to drive the remarkable technological revolution forward.
It is the people who invent, innovate, produce, market, manage, and generate the wealth to sustain our standard of living and improve upon our quality of life. Research and development just does not happen. You have got to have people to make it happen.
We recognize, as a government, the training of our researchers, scientists, and engineers will underpin everything we do in science and technology. This is obviously where our greatest challenge exists.
Recent studies, including those done by our Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, indicate that Canada faces a crisis situation with a shortage of highly skilled and qualified scientists and engineers. We must recognize that to a great extent it is a problem of demographics. Both universities and industries have to replace their highly qualified personnel who are nearing the age of retirement. Unfortunately, the numbers needed to replace the researchers, engineers and professors, just simply are not there. At least that is the case in this country.
Many people would not recognize that we are second only to the United States in the number of post-secondary graduates as a percentage of the workforce. However, notwithstanding that, we do have a low rate of scientists and engineers. The proportion of students entering science and engineering has remained relatively constant at 20 per cent over the past decade. The Economic Council of Canada, among others, has indicated that the technological content of all jobs will increase. We are going to need a higher percentage of scientists and engineers in the workforce.
As the minister has indicated, as a government we do not want to waste our time pointing a finger at who is responsible. We are committed to resolving the problem. We want to build a world class supply of highly qualified personnel. That is what this is all about. We are committed to valuing scientific and engineering achievements and to providing appropriate rewards and recognitions to contributions in these fields.
It is a fact, a sad fact, perhaps, but nonetheless a fact, that the remuneration or rewards for science and technology and the engineering professions have never been on a par with of the other professions such as, the legal or medical professions. As a society, we must bear a
Supply
responsibility for that and we must act now to change it. The key is to reach our young people, the young women and men in our elementary and high schools whom we will search out. We will do what we can to encourage them to become aware of how science and technology affects their lives. We need to get them excited about science and technology and we need to encourage them to pursue the wide range of career opportunities in these fields.
I am proud to say today that the government is playing a leadership role in that fashion. It is a leadership role witnessed through a number of initiatives and the Canada Scholarships Program is just one excellent example. It is about recognizing, rewarding and encouraging some of the finest young women and men-the brightest minds- we have in Canada.
I remind the House of when the Prime Minister launched the Canada Scholarships Program two years ago. He spoke about these bright minds and the commitment of our government to ensuring that the talents of these young Canadians would be appropriately rewarded and recognized.
Our objectives for the program were twofold. Not only did we want to encourage more of our top students, particularly women to pursue their studies in these critical fields of sciences and engineering, but we wanted to promote further the development of a highly qualified work force-our most important natural resource which is so necessary for strengthening Canada's future economic competitiveness.
Two years later, I am pleased to advise that the success of the program has far exceeded the government's greatest expectations. Those responsible for promoting and maintaining the program, including the many groups and institutions that have contributed so much time to its administration, should be justifiably proud. Clearly, those most responsible for the success of the program have been the scholars themselves, the talented and dedicated women and men from across the country. I believe these young people deserve our congratulations.
Last October the Minister for Science, in conjunction with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, launched National Universities Week with the announcement of 3,400 Canada Scholarship winners for this current academic year. Since that time, the federal government has collaborated with individual universities

March 26, 1990
Supply
and colleges to recognize and celebrate these top students in over 70 events from coast to coast.
Anyone who has had an opportunity to participate in these ceremonies will know that it is much more than just a flashy opportunity for photo ops and other such frivolous things. They are a real occasion to celebrate the excellence and the achievements of these young students and to pay due recognition to them, their parents and to the people who have contributed so much to their education. The educators themselves and the contribution that they have made cannot be overstated. It all goes back to the recognition and reward factor.
It is interesting to note at this point that over the past two years we have awarded almost 5,000 scholarships worth $8,000 each over four years to Canada scholars in support of their studies. The vital aspect of these awards is that they strongly emphasize excellence and maintenance of a first class academic standing. We should all be proud of the 1988-89 scholarship holders who maintained their first class standing and qualified for the second year of the program. Our congratulations go out to them.
I want to remind you that this year there will be a significant addition to those scholarships. It is apparent now that at least one-half of the scholarships awarded are going to be awarded to women as part of our ongoing effort to address their traditional under-representation in the sciences and engineering. The Canada Scholarships Program stands as a glowing example of our government's ongoing commitment to foster excellence in science and education in Canada. Combined with initiatives such as increased support for the university research granting councils, the science and technology of public awareness campaign and the national network of centres of excellence it represents an unprecedented federal commitment. It is a commitment that I am proud to talk about, one that will ensure a competitive Canada and a prosperous and rewarding future for our young people.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his excellent presentation.
I keep hearing over and over again from the government side that we need to see more being done by the private sector. Is it not fair to say that the federal government has to do at least its fair share in what is happening out there by providing the proper environment for the private sector?
If you look at all the increases since 1984-85, taking inflation into consideration, the government commitment to research and development has only increased by 1 per cent. When you compare this to the private sector, even though the private sector has contributed over 10 per cent due to inflation and other factors in our society, it seems to be that the private sector is playing catch up. It does not matter what they are doing, it is an increase of 1 per cent in interest rates which has given a devastating blow to whatever they are planning.
Does the hon. member support the government's monetary policy when it comes to high interest rates in light of what has taken place in the high tech industry at this point in time?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I think it is a fair question and one in which I know business across the country has a great deal of interest.
I want to assure the hon. member that without the direction the present government is taking, without its determination to bring inflation under control, reduce and eventually eliminate the debt and bring down the deficit that we inherited from a previous administration, business will be more hampered because there will be less business coming to the country and less opportunity for the businesses of this nation to make the necessary profits to reinvest in such things as research and development.
I just want to remind the House, as I have done on past occasions, in fact just this afternoon, that we do not want to lose sight of the position we maintain, which is simply that we must all become involved in research and development and as a federal government we have a responsibility. We feel it is necessary for the provinces, universities and business to become involved. It is important for businesses to understand the importance

of the returns of research and development on their part because without their participation the business community will be on the outside looking in.
If they are not in a position to reap the rewards of this, then what good is it from our aspect as a country to encourage and promote research and development, to put into place technological innovations and development to sell to other nations in the future? This is vital to the country and falls very nicely into the program that we have embarked upon to this date.
The federal government spent $5.1 billion in science and technology in 1989 and 1990. I think it is important that we recognize in that figure that it is 4.9 per cent of the government's total 1989-90 expenditure.
The government has increased the percentage of expenditure directed toward science and technology since 1984-85 when it amounted to 4.7 per cent. That certainly underscores our determination and commitment to encourage others to participate at the same level and to ensure that the business climate is such that the profit factor will be significant and substantial. Business will recognize that it has a responsibility to invest, not only in its own future but in the future of the country that has made, particularly within the last few years, all of these opportunities open to them.
That is why we are involved in such programs as the Canada Student Program and the Canada Scholarships Program where we are encouraging thousands of students each year to come into the program.
Over the past two years alone we have awarded almost
5,000	scholarships worth $8,000 a piece. That is a significant amount of money to Canadian scholars. These are the people to whom we leave the future of this nation and these are the people we must support.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I am very honoured today to participate in this debate.
I find it extraordinary that hon. members opposite can stand in their places and complain about the level of research and development in this country.
Today they ring the clarion for more R and D spending. This House will recall that when it came time to implement measures to assist the research and development community in Canada, the obstructionist tactics of the NDP were exceeded only by the obstruction of Liberal members in the other place. I find it the height of
Supply
hypocrisy to hear hon. members opposite criticize the level of research and development funding in this country when only a few years ago they worked so diligently against measures to promote R and D.
A world class industrial base and a world class competitive economy requires world class intellectual property protection. Intellectual property protection is essential to encourage innovation, international competitiveness and a stronger R and D component in our economy.
Systematically and thoroughly, this government has set about to amend the intellectual property statutes of Canada in order to keep them abreast of contemporary needs. One example is Bill C-57, the Integrated Circuits Topography Act, tabled in this House last December and now awaits second reading. Another example is the amendments to the Copyright Act implemented by this government in the last session of Parliament as a result of BUI C-60.
The House will recall the lively debates which took place in this House and in the other place over changes in the copyright legislation that had long ago been overtaken by the demands of new technology. Perhaps the most notorious struggle for intellectual property rights arose in the last Parliament as a result of the efforts of this government to amend the Patent Act through BUI C-22.
Hon. members will recall that in exchange for this improved patent protection under BUI C-22, the Canadian pharmaceutical industry undertook to increase R and D from 4.9 per cent of sales revenue in 1987 to 8 per cent of sales by 1991 and 10 per cent by 1996. The government received commitments from the patented medicine industry to invest directly in research and development $1.4 billion and to create 3,000 jobs between now and 1995.
That is the kind of solid commitment to R and D spending this country needs in order to remain competitive in the global market-place.
Judging from what we have heard today, I would have expected that hon. members opposite would be overjoyed at the prospect of such an infusion into research and development. We know that is not the case. The Liberals and the New Democrats did everything in their power to stall and undermine BUI C-22. The Liberals even resorted to using them majority in the Senate, an

March 26, 1990
Supply
appointed body, in an attempt to counteract the will of the democratically elected members of this House.
In order to relieve opposition fears, the government created the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board. This board ensures that patentees do not charge excessive prices for their patented medicines. It reports to Parliament on the price trends of medicines in general and on the manner in which the pharmaceutical industry responds to its commitment to increase R and D.
The board tabled its first annual report last winter. We have an opportunity now to compare the dire predictions of the opposition parties to what has actually happened since the passage of Bill C-22.
The House will recall how hon. members opposite argued that amendments to the Patent Act would result in higher drug prices. They maintained the bill would encourage research by multinational drug companies at the expense of disadvantaged Canadians who would have to pay higher drug prices. That was the conjecture.
The first annual report of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board tells us that between last January when the board's guidelines for reviewing drugs currently on the market took effect and last August, price increases dropped 1.7 per cent below the change in the Consumer Price Index. Not only did the passage of Bill C-22 not lead to the explosion in the price of patented medicines as predicted by the Liberals and the NDP, but all medicines, both patented and non-patented, experienced a decrease in price relative to the Consumer Price Index.
The Liberals and the NDP argued that the pharmaceutical industry would never live up to the promises of R and D. Many members opposite had dire predictions that drug manufacturers would not double research and development as a proportion of sales. What does the report of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board tell us? It tells us that industry research and development to sales ratio was raised to 6.1 per cent in 1988 from its level of 4.9 per cent just one year earlier. A total of 57 companies reported a total investment of $164.5 million in R and D. That is a substantial investment. That is the
kind of R and D investment which will keep our country on the leading edge of technology and innovation.
According to the report, member companies of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada increased their R and D to sales ratio to 6.4 per cent. The pharmaceutical industry is well on target to meet its commitments. The amendments to the Patent Act have initiated a new era for the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. It is clear from the first report of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board that this era has not been at the expense of Canadian consumers.
We have seen encouraging signs that pharmaceutical companies in Canada are indeed rising to the challenge of securing both North American and world product mandates in research. For example, Merck-Frosst's new facility in Kirkland will be the centre of the company's research into pulmonary diseases. This arrangement guarantees both a promising future for the Canadian operation and helps the international company avoid duplication in its research efforts. This is the kind of solid commitment to R and D on the part of the private sector that will be essential if Canada is to maintain its global competitiveness. The opposition should bear this in mind when debating measures to increase R and D in this country. We have heard many times that to foster research and development we need more than just money. We need an educated and science literate workforce, technology transfer, a climate where foreign investment is welcome and we need networks, alliances and partnerships between business and research communities. We certainly need intellectual property rights that will assure innovators that they will be able to profit from their research and development.
This government knows the value of R and D to our economy. It knows the importance of intellectual property in fostering a climate for R and D. It has worked diligently to modernize and streamline Canada's intellectual property statutes. This House should recognize that work and support the government in its endeavours.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I want to make one observation to perhaps get a reaction. It seems to me as I have listened to a number of presentations that there is one particular approach prevailing. We are taking a large number and trying to suggest it does a whole lot, perhaps a lot more than it really does. We are taking one particular part of a
March 26, 1990

program that perhaps has worked quite well and we are trying to suggest that is the whole effort. Let me give a couple of examples. My hon. colleague previous to this speaker, and I want to link it to this one, pointed out the $5.1 billion expenditure. Compared to what? Of course, $5.1 billion is a lot of money.
When you look at the Prime Minister's advisory committee on science and technology, on 10 measures Canada is lowest on five. It is second-lowest on three and on two, it is in the middle. So, I ask $5.1 billion compared to what? If my hon. colleague who has just spoken really thinks that they have done particularly well, I would suggest that he does what I do. Talk to the universities, talk to the granting councils and ask them one simple question; do you prefer the generosity of the Liberals over the generosity of the Progressive Conservatives? Do you or don't you?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Ron J. Duhamel: While my New Democratic colleagues are laughing-be careful because I will trot out some statistics about your generosity in research and development if you like. If you like, I would be delighted.
I would like to make one final comment with respect to the successes on pharmaceuticals. You could ask the elderly and the sick if the prices have gone up. Ask them what they think. Just in case you have not spoken to them recently I will tell you what they have told me. It has gone out of sight. That is what they told me. Are they wrong? Are the elderly and the sick wrong?


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He talks about $5.1 billion which we spent compared to what? I would say that that is the amount of money this government spends on R D. We are comparing ourselves with other countries. We spend money on R D and industrial competitiveness in our universities to educate young students coming up. The figure is veiy good when you compare it with other countries and consider that a lot of other countries spend a lot of money on R D in defence.
Supply
Where does it go? We spend our money where it counts the most.
With respect to his questions and comments about granting councils, the granting councils have done a very good job. I would agree that they can do more. That is not the whole picture. The whole picture or a number of things we have talked about today is fostering industrial competitiveness. It is the private sector being involved. It is education and universities and so on.
The Patented Medicines Prices Review Board has done a comprehensive study which shows that drug prices have not increased as much as the Consumer Price Index. I think that is significant by any measure. The pharmaceutical industiy has been responsive in its endeavours to balance R and D and its need for profits to further invest. It has not gouged the consumer.
In terms of R and D there is always more that can be done and we will do more. We all want to do more and in the future that will come about.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I want to support the motion. The motion is that we have to recognize research and development in this country as being the lifeblood of a successful and prosperous economy. The motion also calls for Canada to increase its level of research and development in order to ensure economic growth.
I have listened to the debate today ad nauseam and I have to admit that we really have a pass-the-buck government here. It wants to pass the buck on research and development over to the private sector to the corporate agenda. It wants to pass the buck on funding for post-secondary education to the provinces.
The federal government is trying to withdraw from its statutory commitment to advance these kinds of programs in terms of a consistent and national presence in our scientific communities and our research and development. Instead, they want to pass the buck. Well, it will not work. It will not work for a number of reasons and I will get to those reasons very shortly. Before I do that, I want to say that we are living in a very complex society, an information-based society, a technology based society. We have seen the government in its attempts to deal

March 26, 1990
Supply
with what it calls the global market-place by merging Canada into a free trade agreement with the United States.


An hon. member:: What a joke.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: While it does that and states that we must be competitive in the global market, we must be competitive in terms of economic development initiatives and technological initiatives. At the same time it kneecaps our post-secondary education institutions across Canada by withdrawing the EPF funding and stating that the provinces have to bear responsibility for it. It pulls back on Canada's commitment to research and development by stating that the corporate sector has to bear the burden. Well, you cannot have it both ways. If we are going to compete in a global economy and in a technological market out there and advance in terms of research and development, then we need a consistent federal presence and the funding up front and centre in order to do that.
In the recent budget the Minister of Finance cut science and technology support by about $40 million. The Conference Board of Canada found in its survey of businesses that in terms of research and development, corporations plan below inflation growth in spending for R and D right through until 1994. While the government is stating that the private sector has to pick up the slack, the private sector is at the same time stating that it will cut back on research and development. One of the reasons it will cut back on research and development is because it cannot find enough trained people to take on the technologically sophisticated jobs and the tasks at hand. The private sector cannot find enough educated and professional people. One of the reasons it cannot find them is because they are moving south of the border and elsewhere, where job opportunities are better. I have worked in research out west in the universities. I spent some time in the scientific community. I will tell you very clearly as someone who has trained as a scientist before I got into education, the feeling out west in the scientific community is that if you want to go anywhere you have to either move to the States or back to Ontario, because there is not the funding and the commitment there in order to build a solid presence.
I would suggest that that feeling exists in other areas of our land such as the Atlantic provinces. That is why we
need a federal commitment, so we can apply funding across the country, province by province, region by region, and develop the kinds of research and development initiatives on a consistent basis that cannot be there if the federal government pulls back from its funding and allows a kind of educational balkanization of our scientific community.
We have ourselves in a catch-22 situation. The federal government wants to pull back and leave it to the private sector. The private sector wants to cut back on its commitment to research and development because it cannot find enough trained people. We do not have enough trained people because the government is cutting back more and more on educational funding.
The minister recognizes the fact that a recent study demonstrates that Canada is a scientifically illiterate country. That is amazing. The result of that study demonstrates illiteracy in terms of scientific awareness in this land. We have a long way to go. We have a lot to do to catch up in terms of Canada's position in the global scientific community and in terms of the appropriate funding mechanisms that we need in place to make sure we can become competitive and stay competitive.
If the government believes in building a bright future for Canada, it cannot do so by progressively reducing its support of our colleges and post-secondary institutions which provide the highly trained individuals that are necessary for increasing our competitiveness in a knowledge based economy. It is as simple as that.
A recent news release showed that up to 500 jobs at the National Research Council could be cut by 1995. Five hundred jobs, 500 highly trained individuals will be put out of work and looking elsewhere for work. I suggest there will be a migration of those trained individuals to our neighbour to the south, as well as other countries, that will welcome them and their expertise. Is that a commitment to research and development in this country? I suggest that it is not.
It will initiate an acceleration of the exodus of scientific talent from this land, an exodus that in my experience I have seen happen for 20 years in the scientific community.
When we look back to 1984 when the government first came to power, 486 jobs have disappeared since that time in the National Research Council. Now we find another 500 jobs are on the chopping block. That is not a
March 26, 1990

commitment to research and development. There is no future for our young scientists in Canada.
The withdrawal of the Established Programs Financing to the provinces and the regions is only going to exacerbate the regionalization and the disparities we see in research taking place in Canada.
Before the 1984 election, the Prime Minister promised-I always run for cover when the Prime Minister promises-


An hon. member:: That is right. You should.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: I know what is going to come next. The Prime Minister promised to increase research and development spending to 2.5 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product from the 1984 level of 1.38 per cent. In essence, he would double it. Where are we since that 1984 promise of almost doubling the commitment to research and development?
We are below where we were in 1984. We are now down to 1.3 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product in terms of Canada's commitment to research and development. Canada is the lowest of eight of the industrialized nations.
Sweden, for example, is at 2.76 per cent of the GDP. France is at 2.5 per cent. United States is at 2.6 per cent. Germany at 2.79 per cent, while Japan is at 2.87 per cent. But Canada, 1.3 per cent. It is appalling. It is inexcusable. I submit that it is internationally embarrassing what is happening to science and scientific research in Canada. We have come through a decade of reasonably good economic growth and yet when we look at our global science and tech indicators in terms of where we have gone from there, we have not improved in any of them.
The government blames the industry for not picking up its share of the load. The Minister for Science says that Canadian industry invests only about .75 per cent of the GDP on research and development. He is right. It does.
In Japan, West Germany, the United States and Sweden, spending by the industry in terms of its share of the commitment is about 2 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. But the problem here is very simple. It is that 37 per cent of our economy is foreign-owned. I want to say that when you are in a branch plant economy, you do not get the research and development commit-
Supply
ment from those industries, the head offices of which are thousands of miles away. They are not located in our own country.
As we become more and more foreign-dominated, and as the free trade agreement opens up this country to foreign investment, we are going to witness a decline in the percentage of investment that the corporate sector provides for research and development in this country, simply because the branch plants here in Canada will not do the research. That will take place in other areas.


Ron J. Duhamel: That is what Harvie Andre said.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: You are absolutely right, he did. I cannot remember exactly when he did, but I do recall the quotation. I am sure that my hon. friend, as time permits, will provide more details on it.


Mac Harb: March 9, 1989. It is in the Computer Dealer News.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Absolutely. Thank you for that clarification.
Here is another reason why we cannot rely on industry-based research and development. That has to do with the type of research that industry is involved with. Industry is concerned with commercial development of a scientific product. That is known as applied research. There is nothing wrong with it. There is reason for it and there is space for it in terms of the over-all commitment to research.
But applied research is conducted particularly for commercial purposes. If Canada is to become a leader in innovation and in research and development, it also requires a commitment to pure research which really is a commitment to extend and expand our frontiers of knowledge, not for commercial purposes necessarily, but that kind of frontiersman research that takes place in the laboratories and in the academic institutions of our country. It does not necessarily have a commercial application, but it is from that research that acts as a springboard for further technological, and I might add, commercial development, that the real essence of science is found.
Pure research is the essence of discovery. It is the vehicle that can provide for Canada a place on the world stage of technological advancement. It is that type of research, I submit, that is being severely hampered by a

March 26, 1990
Supply
rather myopic approach to R and D in this country, which is to leave it up to the private sector.
The National Consortium of Scientific and Educational Society has written a very cogent brief. It is entitled "Towards a Coherent Education in Scientific Research Policy for Canada". They are extremely concerned with the direction they see the government has been taking. They have made some very excellent recommendations.
First, they say that even in times of fiscal restraint spending on education and research is an investment. University and research funding must be assured, as well as student aid. If not, Canada will fall far behind its competitors. We have already seen that happening. Canada is losing ground in terms of its placement in the global scientific community.
The report makes four recommendations. One, there should be no further reductions to EPF transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education until First Ministers agree on alternate arrangements to adequately and reliably fund universities. The fact is that cutting back on those EPF transfers, cutting back on that funding to the provinces and regions leaves it to the provinces themselves to take up the slack.
In British Columbia we have a particular problem with that because for many years the provincial government has been using a lot of that funding and quite frankly, putting it into other areas of the economy. That should not be happening but the truth of the matter is that it has which will leave us dreadfully short unless they reorganize some of their priorities.
The second recommendation in the report states that funds of matching grants policy for 1990-91 should be incorporated into the base budgets and that those budgets be doubled. They make the point that the purpose of the matching grants policy which was established in 1986 was to foster university and industrial research collaboration and to increase funds for university research. They argue that the policy has been successful but it terminates in 1991. They are suggesting that that be continued.
The third recommendation is that the government increase investment in research done in federal labs. It should increase the commitment, rather than lay off 500 workers in the National Research Council. Research and
development has to be encouraged and it has to be funded both publicly and privately.
The fourth recommendation is that the federal government should ensure that barriers to higher education be eliminated. The student loans program should be re-evaluated and a national system of grants should be established.
The point they make here is that the current program for student loans is simply not meeting the needs of post-secondary students. The main problem, according to their argument, is that it is in fact a loan and brings about as a result of the loan structure a very heavy student debt load. Some of our students by the time they get out of university are burdened with debts of up to $20,000. It makes it exceedingly difficult for somebody who does not have the financial ability to do so, to in fact complete an education.
In conclusion, expenditures in post-secondary education, expenditures in scientific research are an essential investment and they have to be looked upon as an investment, not only in our future but in our children's future in Canada. It is absolutely imperative that this funding level be assured so that long-term research projects can continue.
Research does not happen in four-year cycles. When a scientist develops a project and requests funding after doing all the background research necessary to get something up and rolling, he does not look at whether there is an election four years down the line. We need long-term funding that does not pay attention to electoral priorities of a government in power. We need to give our scientific community the reassurance that that funding will be there in future years.
Until they have that reassurance we are going to have a piecemeal approach to research and development in this country that will simply leave us wallowing in the mud as other nations proceed beyond us. We need adequate funding and that funding has to be ensured even during times of fiscal restraint.
Finally, I submit that the direction taken by this government in passing the buck to the provinces, in passing the buck to the corporate sector, is leading to a false economy, an economy that will jeopardize Canada's future in the scientific market-place.
March 26, 1990


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I would just like to make some comments upon the speech that I have just heard and remind my hon. colleague that in terms of educational spending, Canada is second only to Sweden in the world. An amount of 6.76 per cent of the GDP goes into educational spending in this country. That is not a bad record.
In terms of funding university research, I think the hon. member need have no fear. It is our intention to continue to fund the research in universities. There is not going to be any sudden drop in the way we handle the granting councils. We are going to continue to put that money in there.
We will also ensure that there is more basic directed research and that we have more pre-competitive research in this country. That will and must involve the alliances between government and industry and the universities. I have used, on other occasions, the pretty simple example that apparently my colleague does not recognize. When it came to all of the fundamental research that needed to be done to develop the compact disc, Sony and Phillips did all of that pre-competitive research together. When they thought they were at the applied research level and they could actually see a product down the line they split and went about their own ways.
So pre-competitive research is basic directed research. A lot of that can be done in the universities. A lot of it can be done in industry. It is quite wrong to think that industry is not a place where you can do basic research. It certainly is. The General Electric laboratories and the Bell Telephone laboratories have always done directed basic research and some of the most fundamental developments over the last several years have been from those laboratories and from the research that they have done.
What this country has to do and what we are trying to do is to involve industry by asking it to join us in some of these things so we can try and form the alliances that are so critical. It is our intention to make this country competitive. We can do that by support in the right places and that is exactly what we are going to try and do.
As I said at the beginning of this debate, there is more to this than just spending money in terms of government
Supply
R and D. We have our partners. They have to help us and that is what we are asking them to do.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, the minister reflects upon Canada's commitment to educational spending and he floats some figures around. I believe he said 6.7 per cent, the highest level of commitment to education. But I think what the minister is referring to is over-all spending.
What we are talking about specifically here in terms of the research and development is the kind of commitment that is required for just that particular educational sector, the spending in terms of R and D in this country. The figures that he has given, I believe, will be verified as being misleading because they are referring to global spending.
I have no argument with the minister in terms of certain commercial or corporate interests carrying on basic research. I think he called it pre-competitive research. The fact is that the focus of research in terms of the corporate sector is on applied research, on the commercial application. I think the minister will agree with me.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, I must interrupt the hon. member.
It being 6.45 o'clock, p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(15), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply.
The question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.

March 26, 1990
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C)
Harvie Andre: That Supplementary Estimates (C), 1989-90, laid upon the table Wednesday, March 7, 1990, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Andre (for the President of the Treasury Board)
thereupon moved that Bill C-70, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1990, be read the first time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Andre thereupon moved that Bill C-70, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1990, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
On Clause 2-
March 26, 1990


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Chairperson, it is customary for the opposition to ask the government for assurances that the bill in question is in its usual form with no extraordinary additions or omissions. In the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, could the House Leader give me that assurance?


Harvie Andre: Yes, Madam Chairperson, the bill is in its usual form. There are no additions that I am aware of.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 6 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 7 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the schedule carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Supply
Clause 1 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble
carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Harvie Andre: that the bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harvie Andre: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


INTERIM SUPPLY
Harvie Andre: That a sum not exceeding $12,969,848,294.15 being composed of:
(1)	three-twelfths ($8,194,188,411.50) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, which were laid upon the Thble Thursday, February 22, 1990, except those items below:
(2)	eleven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Public Works Vote 15 and Transport Vote 25 and Treasury Board Vote 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $174,798,250.00;
(3)	ten-twelfths of the total of the amount of Secretary of State Vote 15 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $63,468,333.33;
(4)	nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $581,250,000.00;

March 26, 1990
Supply
(5)	six-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes L25 and 45 and Industry, Science and Technology Vote 40 and Solicitor General Vote 35 and Transport Vote 1 and Treasury Board Vote 20 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $404,255,500.00;
(6)	five-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Communications Vote 45 and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15, L20 and 50 and Justice Vote 20 and Transport Vote 75 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $1,269,512,513.33;
(7)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Communications Votes 30, 55 and 70 and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 1 and Employment and Immigration Vote 30 and Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 1, 30 and 35 and Environment Vote 1 and Justice Votes 1 and 15 and Labour Votes 1,10 and 15 and National Health and Welfare Votes 1,5,15 and 20 and National Revenue Vote 10 and Privy Council Vote 20 and Secretary of State Votes 25 and 35 and Solicitor General Vote 1 and Supply and Services Vote 1 and Transport Votes 40, 45,65 and 70 and Veteran Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 and Western Economic Diversification Vote 1 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates, $2,282,375,285.99,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Andre (for the President of the Treasury Board)
thereupon moved that Bill C-71, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1990, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Harvie Andre: that the bill be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, Bill C-71 does involve appropriations of $12 billion, and I should like to have
the minister's assurance that it does not contain any unusual formula, that there are no additions nor omissions, and that the bill is in keeping with tradition.


Harvie Andre: The portions requested in the bill are intended to provide all necessary requirements up to and including June 30, 1990. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by the bill. The form of the bill is the usual form, and the rights of members to criticize any item in the Estimates when it comes up for consideration remains unfettered by the particular bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Schedule A agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule B
cariy?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Schedule B agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule C
carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Schedule C agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule D carry?
March 26, 1990


Some hon. members:: On division.
Schedule D agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule E cany?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Schedule E agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule F carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Schedule F agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble cany?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Harvie Andre: that the bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Supply


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harvie Andre: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation\
Jean-Robert Gauthier: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to ask the government leader what is going to be the business of the House tomorrow?


Harvie Andre: My intention is to call Bill C-69 tomorrow morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 7.24 p.m., this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 27, 1990