1990-03-16

Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing debate, I would like to give a ruling which I undertook to do some days ago.
During the course of the sitting, Thursday, February 22, 1990, three different members raised questions relating to the Estimates and the traditional lock-up preceding their presentation by the President of the Treasury Board.
The first question was raised as a point of order by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who noted that while 87 Parts I and II of the Estimates were being tabled, only 73 Part III reports were available and complained about the 14 missing Part III reports.
Later in the day, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby rose on a question of privilege to object to a lack of information respecting certain specific programs during the lock-up allowing members an advanced look at the Estimates prior to their tabling.
The third complaint came from the hon. member for Mackenzie who challenged the accuracy or credibility of data printed in the Part III report for Agriculture Canada.

I have had an opportunity to consider all three cases and am now prepared to rule on them.
With respect to the first matter, the Hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell argued that the government breached a rule of the House in not tabling all of the Part III reports at the time Parts I and II of the Estimates were presented. The Hon. Member recalled that in 1982 the House had concurred in the Twelfth
Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which supported major reforms to the preparation of the Estimates. The Hon. Member further argued that in not presenting all of the Part III reports, the Government had failed to respect the expressed wish of the House with regard to Estimates.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan intervened to support the complaint made by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. On behalf of the government, the parliamentary secretary to the Government House Leader explained two points. He maintained that the government had complied with the rules of the House, in that Part II of the Estimates, known as the Main Estimates, are all that are explicitly required to be tabled according to the Standing Orders, and that the Main Estimates were presented in advance of the March 1 deadline.
Moreover, the parliamentary secretary indicated that the government fully intended to provide the 14 missing Part III reports on or before March 12. This statement elicited an objection from the hon. member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair, who pointed out that the Standing Orders set March 1 as the date by which the Estimates are to be referred to the standing committee.
I want all members to know that I have considered this issue very carefully. I have reviewed the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and statements made by the President of the Treasury Board when the present format of the Estimates was introduced over a span of years, beginning, I believe, in 1981.

I can understand the sense of frustration expressed by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, but I must point out that technically, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is correct in claiming that the rules, that is the Standing Orders, require simply that the Main Estimates be referred to standing committees by March 1. In the present format of the Estimates, Part II constitutes the Main Estimates, the document that directly relates to the votes that will

March 16, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
lead to an Appropriation Act to be adopted by the House usually no later than the end of June.

That said, however, I must also state that when the House concurred in the Twelfth Report of the Public Accounts Committee in 1982, the House endorsed the committee's support for the new style of presenting the Estimates devised by the government in response to a recommendation put forward by the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.
This new format makes up the complete estimates and all three parts are necessary for the standing committees to do their work effectively. Part I provides an overview of the government's spending plan while Part III gives details for the expenditure proposals and expectations of each department.
Part III, therefore, is necessary to the standing committees if they are to adequately understand the votes they must consider that are presented in Part II, the Main Estimates. In this particular case the frustration is all the greater because the 14 missing reports, I understand, constitute approximately 75 per cent of the government's proposed spending for the fiscal year 1990-91. Were these documents to remain unavailable, the work of the standing committees would be seriously handicapped.
However, the parliamentary secretary indicated at the time that the government fully intended to present those documents on or before March 12. Indeed, they were tabled on March 5. There remains, I believe, a sufficient opportunity for the standing committees to do their work in the time they have available up to the end of May.
The second objection raised concerning the Estimates was brought up by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby who complained about the inadequate information she had received from Treasury Board
officials during the lock-up prior to the presentation of the Estimates in the House Thursday, February 22.
The member explained that she had asked specific questions about the impact of the budget on women's programs, multiculturalism, native affairs and programs assisting visible minorities. Despite the fact that officials told her that the information she sought would not be available for a week or so, the hon. member learned from some women's groups of the effects of the budget on their organizations shortly after returning to her office after the lock-up. This, she contended, proved that the information was available but that it had been withheld from members of Parliament. In consequence, the hon. member raised this issue because she felt it constituted a breach of privilege.

After having examined the question both in terms of privilege and in terms of comtempt of the House, I cannot conclude that the question raised by the hon. member meets the very narrow criteria of privilege, which concerns certain very specific rights deemed necessary for hon. members to carry out their duties and assume their responsibilities.

The lock-up is provided by the government in order to give members information on the Estimates in advance of their presentation in the House. The fact that the government has undertaken to provide the lock-up suggests, on the face of it anyway, that the government understands the needs of members to have this kind of information. At the same time, however, the lock-up is not a procedure of the House and there is no guarantee the government will furnish absolutely all the information that might be requested.
Moreover, there was nothing in the hon. member's presentations to suggest that Treasury Board officials sought wilfully to deprive her of the information. Such a situation, while it may indeed be a grievance, does not, in this context at least, constitute a question of privilege or contempt.

March 16, 1990

Finally, the hon. member for Mackenzie raised a point of order concerning certain data presented in the Part III report prepared for the Department of Agriculture. Specifically, the hon. member complained of the way the appropriation or possible appropriation is given for the Farm Credit Corporation listed as a non-budgetary item.
At the time I suggested to the hon. member that I did not think the Chair could address this question as a point of order. I have subsequently had an opportunity to review this matter and have noted that the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented last October offered certain criticisms of the way the Department of Agriculture has presented some information in the Part III reports in previous years. As I originally suggested February 22, one avenue open to the hon. member to obtain redress of his complaint is to raise it in the Standing Committee on Agriculture or in the Public Accounts Committee. It is not an issue which the Chair has the authority to resolve.
I thank all hon. members who raised these important issues related to the Estimates process and all those who contributed to the discussion and assisted the Chair in the consideration of the matter. I certainly feel that while certain members may indeed have a grievance in this area, it is not a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South) moved:: That this House condemn the Government for its failure to support the National Research Council as Canada's premier research institution and its failure to promote basic scientific research in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House this morning on the subject of the National Research Council of Canada. I would like to start by putting our subject in a context that directly concerns the government: that of the federal deficit.

I participated in a debate last evening in Kitchener on the subject of the goods and services tax. On attempting to return to Ottawa late last night, or early this morning, we could not land because of the fog. It struck me that the good people of Kitchener, before I left there, were convinced, having listened to a discussion on the goods
Supply
and services tax, that Ottawa was definitely enshrouded in fog.
What we heard from the supporters of the GST last night was very much an explanation-


Some hon. members:: Supporters?


John Paul Manley: Well, there were supporters there. There was the hon. member for Cambridge, who acquitted himself very well, I might add.
The explanation for the infliction of the pain of the goods and services tax on Canada was primarily that it was a solution to our deficit. It struck me that this was ironic in the context of a week in which we have become increasingly aware of Canada's failure and the government's failure to make a real commitment to the needs of science and technology in this country.
You see, Mr. Speaker, there are three ways to address the national deficit. There are expenditure cuts, and we have heard lots about those. There are tax increases, and that is what the goods and services tax is really all about. The third way is that if we can increase Canada's productivity as a nation, if we can grow, if our economy can expand, if our people can be made more productive, then we have the opportunity to do the kinds of things we want to do as a generous nation, we can maintain the programs that we have and reduce our deficit.
It is not just a matter of cutting expenditures or raising taxes. If we lose sight of the importance of building our economic strength as a nation, then we are doomed to failure at deficit reduction; we are doomed to a generation of tax increases.
We have had some fairly significant new information come forward this week in the area of science and technology. We have learned that the Minister for Science does not believe in the matching grants program for the university granting councils. We know, from evidence given to the Industry, Science and Technology Committee yesterday by the president of the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, that the failure to replace the matching funding, which is scheduled to end in the upcoming fiscal year, will be devastating-and that word is his-devastating to the granting council.
On top of that, there was a memorandum made public on Monday from the president of the National Research Council which contains some startling comments by that individual. Among other things it says that NRC intends to limit its involvement in basic research to that required to maintain a minimal scientific insurance policy for the nation. Not only that, he says the next five-year plan for NRC will propose a clear policy statement and strategy on privatization and divestiture. He says that there are

Supply
planned reductions in permanent employees at NRC which will produce an organization with a significantly different balance of permanent and term employees.
Is it any wonder the people of Canada think that Ottawa is in a fog? At a time when they are being called upon to sacrifice by expenditure cuts, when they are being called upon to pay more in taxes, the very core of what we need to do to improve our productivity as a nation is on the chopping block as well.
We need to look at the importance of scientific research as part of this effort to make Canada globally competitive. That is what we heard last night in Kitchener as well. We need the GST to make us globally competitive is what we were told.
What we need is a firm, continuing and definite commitment to science and technology, to science-based innovation to make us globally competitive. That does not mean just getting the industrial sector to do more. That does not mean that we advance our cause a bit by having government spokesmen, including the Prime Minister, going around saying: "Well, the problem with research and development in Canada is that the industrial sector does not do its share."
Just this week the science and technology committee was told: "What do you expect in Canada?" We have a very large resource- based industry and everywhere else in the world it is governments that do research and development in the resource sector. It is our weakness in the other manufacturing sectors that exposes our inability to compete unless we can learn how to do science-based innovation and move forward on that basis.
One of the most startling presentations that our committee received was that by Dr. Fraser Mustard who came before our committee some months ago and talked to us about the importance of innovation. He said, for example, that innovation is the key to economic growth and sustaining and enhancing our prosperity. He pointed out to us that innovation is increasingly science based. He said that innovation in the context of economic growth has two components, institutional innovation and
the innovation that leads to the creation and production of goods and services that are sold in world markets.
What we are witnessing today, Dr. Mustard told us, is a rapid change in the relative position of nations in the global economy as a result of institutional innovation, the creation of new technologies, new production techniques and effective capture of market share. Regions that are able to innovate in terms of developing new institutions and producing tradeable goods and services will remain strong trading regions. Regions that are not able to innovate will be fading regions.
In the context of what has happened this week, I ask myself, where is this government attempting to lead us with its policy of cutbacks and spending cuts on science and, at the same time, tax increases? Where is the government attempting to lead us?
Let us look at the National Research Council itself. This is a venerable Canadian institution. It has really been the jewel in the Crown of Canada's commitment to science over many years. It has been an inspiration to our youth. It has been an opportunity for our graduates in science and engineering to find employment. In many areas it has led the world in scientific achievement. Even as recently as December, 1987, NRC's Atlantic Research Laboratory found what might be called a needle in the haystack, according to NRC, when researchers identified domoic acid as the toxin responsible for the mussel poisonings in Prince Edward Island.
We have had so many examples of achievement by NRC and its scientists.
In 1988, NRC scientists found a new method to render high levels of PCBs safe for disposal. The discovery was made possible through the NRC's Division of Chemistry which was doing basic research on reactive intermediates.
This aspect of NRC performing basic research is very important because what we have in Canada is a very thinly spread scientific community. We have the building blocks of NRC, our universities and the private, industrial sector. In the main, our industrial sector has research facilities which are too small and inadequate for
March 16, 1990

the task of performing basic research on a very broad scale.
The Fields Institute for Research in Mathematics pointed out this week to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development: "The longer-term goals of pure research will not be funded at all if not by government".
Pure, basic and fundamental research is difficult to perform in the industrial sector. The costs are large. The results are always questionable. That is why it is basic research. One never knows for sure that one will find something that is usable or that can be exploited for commercial purposes.
In the context in Canada in which much of our industrial sector must look to the bottom line of profit results in the short-term cycle, be it quarterly if not annually, and in the context in which the cost of capital is enormous for the performance of basic research, or any research at all, we need the help of government and well-funded universities to ensure that fundamental research is being done. It is not enough for us to say that we can get the best research results from other countries and incorporate them in Canada. If we do not have the highly trained and skilled people here in Canada capable of knowing what it is we need, we will not be able to go around the world to shop for the results of other people's research. We need those people.
In Canada, we need a commitment to the development and retention of people. That commitment involves, necessarily, government. It involves the federal government making its commitment in various ways, but including the maintenance of a world-class scientific facility such as the National Research Council. Without that, Canada fails to have the focus of excellence that will be required if we are going to compete in this new global economy that is based so much on science and technological innovation.
Those of us who are concerned about this issue on all sides of the House, I am sure, can only share the feelings of anxiety, concern and despair of the scientists at the National Research Council who have now experienced
Supply
over the last five and a half years a series of cuts and cutbacks that leaves them dispirited and anxious.
I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of some of the cuts which have occurred at the National Research Council. In November, 1984, $60 million was cut from the NRC budget. As a result of that, major divisions or projects were closed or cancelled, including the energy division, the Environment Secretariat, the Manufacturing Technology Institute, the Institute for Electrochemistry and the Cold Regions Research Institute.
On October 1,1986, we had a Speech from the Throne with a four-point science policy. Within that very month an additional $29 million was cut from the NRC budget, which cuts included the photochemistry and kinetics section, the very section where the Nobel Prize-winner, John Polanyi, commenced his work; the electromagnetic and mechanical engineering program; the environmental toxicology program; and aeronautics, construction, and physics programs. Two hundred jobs were to be eliminated as a result of those cuts.
Earlier this year we learned that the high energy physics research performed by NRC would be gone by 1995, possibly farmed out to Queen's and Carleton universities. The prairie research station will be cut. The avalanche research group in British Columbia, the only one in North America of its kind, is going to be cut.
Is it any wonder that scientists at the National Research Council are dispirited, anxious and wondering if they have any future at all in that institution? This was the crown jewel of Canada's research establishment.
This is the council which, in 1916, when Canada was a fledgling country, engaged in a world war, which demonstrated Canada's commitment to science by establishing a world class observatory in Victoria, British Columbia, at the farthest extreme of the young Dominion and at great expense. However, it showed two things. It showed that Canada was committed to performing world class science. It also showed that Canada was willing to spend the money necessary to do so, not where it was politically expedient but where the interests of science dictated. If you have ever visited that facility, Mr. Speaker, you marvel at the fact that that giant lens was hauled up the

March 16, 1990
Supply
hill in Victoria, I gather by animal power, at a time when Canada was so young, so new and engaged in a world war.
Where is that commitment now? Why is it that this government is not saying to Canada's young people: "We are committed to making Canada a leader in science based innovation"? Why is it that I drive in from the airport with a taxi driver who has a Ph.D. in engineering who says that he has not been able to find a job in engineering for three years, which is why he is driving a taxi.
I received a call from a young woman science student in my constituency, a student funded under the Canada Scholarships Program. This program is supposed to especially encourage women to pursue careers in science. She tells me that because of some technicality in the McGill program, after being told that her scholarship had been renewed, it has been eliminated by a government that does not really care. This is after she has already embarked on her studies. Why do these things happen?
Why is it that the president of NSERC has to tell a Elouse of Commons committee that if he does not find out soon whether or not his budget is going to be maintained stable next year, he does not know how much time is going to be wasted by university scientists who are preparing applications for grants?
Why is it that we are not going forward to the people of Canada, as President Kennedy did in the United States in 1961 with the space program, saying to them: "By the year 2000 Canada will be the world leader in environmental technologies"? Why are we not opening our doors to scientists from all over the world, telling them that if they want to make a contribution in environmental technologies, Canada is the place to do it, that Canada will fund and welcome them? Why not? I do not understand it?
Why is it that we are so preoccupied with today's deficit that we cannot see that by investing in science and technology, especially in those people oriented to preserving and enhancing the environment, that we will ensure that tomorrow we will have the solution to the deficit, that tomorrow we will sell our products to the world, a world that is anxious to receive them.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Elouse should express its discontent with the government because of its lack of commitment to the National Research Council
and its lack of commitment to basic research in Canada because these are the crucial issues of today.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to compliment my colleague for a passionate and very substantive address on this issue. Before I address my question to him, I want to say that I have been noticing in the last few days that this government has been retreating from its responsibilities. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that if the word "national" or the word "Canada" is in the name of an institution that it denotes an immediate decentralization process, whether it is Air Canada or Petro-Canada? The philosophy is: "Let's sell it off". The government will even change the names of the museums. It is an incredible thing.


Mr. Beatty:: There is still Health and Welfare Canada.


Dennis Joseph Mills: They have not got to you yet, minister.
Here we are with the National Research Council and the process of decentralization has begun. This government is a maitre d' to the provinces. It is really becoming quite serious.
My specific question to my colleague is this. The Canadian Space Agency which had its foundations in the national capital region was moved to Montreal some few months ago. This is where labs, families and institutions had begun the process of galvanizing. Does my colleague think that the move of the Canadian Space Agency to Montreal was in the national interest?


John Paul Manley: We debated the bill to create the Canadian Space Agency in this House last spring. At that time I talked about Canada's commitment to the space program and the value that Canada's contribution in space technology has made to the world. In fact, Canada is one of the few countries which actually exports more in space technology than the government spends on it. That is a pretty good recommendation for the fact that early on in the space program we committed ourselves to being part of that program. Other countries, such as Japan and the United Kingdom have been trying to catch up to us. We moved ahead. We were early and we have achieved a lot on it. That commitment needs to continue.
What the government did with the establishment of the Canadian Space Agency was to turn it from being a symbol of national pride in our achievement in space technologies into a political football. We had rival municipalities arguing whether they or another place should be the new headquarters of the Canadian Space Agency. You will notice it is called the "Canadian" Space Agency, not the "National" Space Agency. That rivalry, those arguments, detracted so badly from the establishment of what should have been a source of
March 16, 1990

national pride that it became a source of national disunity.
I say this cautiously. As a representative of the national capital region, I do not want to be seen to be engaging in the same kind of parochial politics that gave rise to the problem in the first place. In 1916, when Canada spent all that money to put an observatory on the top of a mountain in Victoria, British Columbia, when hardly anybody lived out there, it did it for one reason. That was the place in Canada where the science of observation was best served. It was not because there were great electoral results to be earned by doing it.
When Canada makes a commitment to do something like the space agency, the issue should be this. Where can the interests of science be best served? I think that the decision-making process on items like the Canadian Space Agency's location should not be done at the political level, but done much as we administer the National Centres of Excellence program or the granting councils, let us have the scientists concerned do it on the basis of what is in the best interests of science.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member wondered where this government is taking us, I would like to inform him that our government's goal is to put this country on the road to prosperity. We want Canada to be a first-class country by the year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall, for the hon. member's benefit, some policies that have been fundamental to the government's purpose, and not necessarily in terms of dollars and cents. We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that we took these steps in order to have a country that is able to adjust more readily. I may therefore remind the hon. member that we established a science and technology policy for Canada, under which each province was asked to do its share to help workers and students adjust and make them better trained so that they can meet industry needs. We had the conference on
Supply
innovation in Toronto, where Canadian industries were asked to upgrade the quality of their products. They were asked to increase productivity and enhance the value of their products. They were also asked to incorporate advanced technologies in their processes.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention, for the hon. member's benefit, a series of measures that were taken to make our country more flexible. We set up InnovAction and Strategic Technologies. We identified the areas in which Canada could excel, such as artificial intelligence, biomaterials and telecommunications. For the universities, we set up a program called Matching Grants, because we found that although the research being done in the universities was excellent, often researchers were cut off from what was going on in the rest of the country. Through the Matching Grants Program, industry will do a lot more research and it will need more and more of the type of research being done by these very competent people. And in the end, Mr. Speaker, we will get students that are far better trained to respond to the needs of industry.
We also developed the well-known Network of Centres of Excellence Program which promotes basic research across the country. This is a tremendous program, Mr. Speaker, because it allows universities, participating industries and our various research councils-especially the National Research Council of Canada which is a participant in 10 proposals-to do research and make their findings known across the country, thus enabling other researchers to use the information to best advantage.
To increase substantially the number of researchers in this country by the year 2000 and to enable our country to meet this objective, we set up the Canada Scholarships Program, which is intended to encourage more young people to continue their education and go on to university, where we hope they will want to continue their studies and go on to become better researchers.
Mr. Speaker, I have the following question for the hon. member: regarding the National Research Council and preparations for the five-year plan, I wonder why he cannot understand that the council executive might want

March 16, 1990
Supply
to identify new avenues instead of simply maintaining existing ones.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Ottawa South. I will allow him a couple of minutes to answer the question.


John Paul Manley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a great deal I could say in response to these comments. However, I will probably have an opportunity to do so later on. I would like to start by answering the last part of the question, about the National Research Council. I will answer in English, since that is easier for me.

I would like to try out an analogy on the parliamentary secretary. I think what we have in the NRC is something like an orchard.
What the government needs at the NRC is a good horticulturalist. Perhaps some cultivation is necessary. Maybe we need to do a little bit of pruning and spraying. Maybe the odd tree is unproductive and should be cut down, but maybe there are new varieties of fruit required and we should do a little bit of grafting to get some new varieties of fruit.
What the the government has done is it has decided to make a cut. Instead of sending in the horticulturalist it sent in the local wood cutter. He chopped down a bunch of trees. He chopped down the ones closest to the road because they were easiest to haul away. Worse than that, there was no attempt to choose the trees that were unproductive, he just cut down trees. It was a chain-saw massacre at the orchard.
In this analogy, just to stretch it a little more, these trees know what is going on. The good and productive ones are scared out of their minds. They can uproot themselves, leave the orchard and go to another orchard. A lot of them are doing that. The ones that are not that productive are the ones staying there. They are scared and more unproductive than ever.
I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that she consult a horticulturalist in dealing with the National Research Council.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I can now respond more specifically to the hon. member's comments on the National Research Council.
Perhaps I may repeat, for the hon. member's benefit, that traditionally, the National Research Council has been Canada's foremost research institute, and it continues to be the cornerstone of the government's science and technology strategy.
During the past five years, we have relied on the NRC's well established resources to enhance its impact in a number of ways, as I will explain in a moment.
Its role will become even more important in the future. By insinuating that the NRC's role has recently been diminished, opposition members show they are ignorant of the real situation and the dynamic nature of the National Research Council of Canada.
The NRC has a broad mandate to initiate, support and promote scientific and industrial research projects. It has carried out this mandate in many fields since it was created 75 years ago, and it continues to do so with great vigour.
Today, as when the NRC was first established, its work is characterized by the ability to evolve with Canada's changing needs. Today, thanks to the government's support, the NRC has an annual budget of over $400 million and about 3,000 employees in programs and facilities across the country.
It is one of the most flexible and powerful instruments the Government of Canada has to support science and technology in Canada.
One could also say that the government supports the NRC in various ways so that it can act as the cornerstone of Canadian science and technology.
We must not forget that the NRC spends about $215 million annually on supporting our national scientific and technological infrastructure.
The NRC's programs and facilities make it possible for engineers and scientists in industry, government and universities across Canada to carry out R and D in many important sectors.
This contribution to the Canadian science and technology infrastructure includes maintaining large federal facilities for science and engineering, such as basins for testing ship's models and all the very sophisticated
March 16, 1990

instruments researchers need to work on a broad range of projects ranging from routine tests to advanced research.
The NRC also provides scientific and technological services, including on-line data base and document delivery and lending services through its Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information.
Thanks to this structure, the NRC has the ability to answer every year some 400,000 requests for information.
The support which the NRC provides to the national scientific and technological infrastructure also includes IRAP, the Industrial Research Assistance Program. This is a highly regarded government program which provides every year financial and technological assistance to thousands of Canadian businesses.
The NRC also carries out and supports research in a number of areas which can be classified as public or national interest-oriented.
This activity, which involves yearly expenditures of over $100 million, includes the operation and administration of the federal observatories, the national scientific library, the national measuring standards, as well as the development of the national building and fire codes.
The NRC's scientific and technical skills and facilities also contribute to national priorities within the framework of formal and co-operation agreements with the various federal departments and organizations which must assume a leadership role in some specific areas.
These organizations include the Department of National Defence which works in close co-operation with NRC's air space scientists, Transport Canada which co-operates with the NRC on a number of transport security related issues, as well as Environment Canada which the NRC is helping to identify government priorities in the area of environmental protection.
The NRC also carries out long-term research activities as a sort of insurance policy to help Canada face such crises as the tainted mussels in 1987.
Supply
These oriented long-term generic skills will make it possible for Canada to take advantage of new developments and opportunities, the same way the research and development laboratories of a major corporation meet the needs of its production departments.
The NRC also does economic research in co-operation with industrial partners. These joint efforts may involve major companies which work with the NRC to carry out strategic research and development projects and to develop and market new products. Or again they may involve groups of companies, each of which may eventually benefit directly from these joint endeavours.
The NRC sponsors major technological programs in such fields as industrial materials, biotechnology and information technologies from which many companies and industrial sectors benefit.
The NRC's major research programs are a source of general reference for leading industrial sectors. For instance, the Institute for Research in Construction is the main pool of expertise for Canada's building industry whose activities run into billions of dollars every year. Through the National Aeronautical Establishment, the Institute for Marine Dynamics and other engineering divisions, the NRC provides similar support for many sectors of the transport and transport equipment industries.
In all these roles the NRC makes a major contribution to train the highly skilled human resources needed by our nation. The NRC gives industry, governments and educational institutions access to major facilities, equipment and direct financial support to help them train the scientists and engineers they need.
The NRC also trains personnel on training assignments within its own programs and provides other means for trainees to learn at the NRC before going on to a career elsewhere. More than 20 per cent of the professional staff of the NRC holds such trainee positions, particularly under the research assistant program for scientists and engineers with graduate degrees. The NRC also offers an important student summer employment program and actively seeks to involve research trainees funded by its clients and associate agencies.

March 16, 1990
Supply
In view of all these well-established activities, programs and roles, it is hard to see how the opposition can claim that the NRC no longer plays an essential role in science and technology.
Since taking power, the present government has helped the NRC strengthen all its activities in various ways, especially as regards the essential support the NRC provides for the Canadian economy.
For several years, the NRC has pursued its traditional activities meeting the great scientific and technological challenge by creating new programs and new initiatives.
When this government was elected five and a half years ago, Canada was just getting out of a serious economic recession. Canada was running an ever-increasing trade deficit in technology. There was an obvious need to rely more on technology in both traditional and emerging industries.
With that in mind, the NRC redefined its key role as "encouraging and helping Canadian industrial enterprises to adopt technological solutions" by means of a long-term plan supported by the government and published in 1985. Under this plan, the NRC undertook to place its facilities and capabilities at the service of Canadian industry, to develop its activities and to increase its ability to meet the country's needs, taking account of the necessity for budget austerity because of the large public debt which the previous government left us.
Among the achievements of the past five years, we should include steps taken by the NRC's research division to regroup their sections within the larger laboratories dedicated to a broad range of research; upgrading certain programs by creating important new research facilities such as the Biotechnology Research Institute in Montreal, the Institute for Marine Dynamics in St. John's, Newfoundland, and through participation in the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii; the creation of advisory boards and committees headed by industry to guide the NRC's activities and research programs; the implementation of projects on the basis of joint initiatives, memoranda of agreement and various
other measures taken to reinforce interaction between the NRC and its clients industries, government, the scientific community and foreign governments.
Industry's demand for the services of the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information has increased considerably, Mr. Speaker.
The Industrial Research Assistance Program has broadened its range of services for Canadian businesses in order to give better access to foreign technology and provide specialized services to the Canadian building industry.
We also wish to point to a major development consisting of the creation of several major multidisciplinary initiatives, making good use of the established resources of the NRC's laboratory divisions. This approach promotes of co-operation between the NRC and its partners by making the latter more aware of the full range of facilities and resources available at the NRC.
Considering the need for attracting collaborators and covering areas that are of strategic importance to Canada, the NRC promotes programs involving technologies that respond to the needs of various industrial users and sectors.
As I mentioned earlier, these very promising areas include activities related to biotechnology, materials, standards and precision measurement, industrial systems and manufacturing technologies of interest to major industrial sectors such as the construction and transportation industry.
During the past five years, the NRC made an effort to increase its participation in joint research agreements, provided NRC partners would invest as much-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member shall have six minutes remaining in her speech, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.

It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.
March 16, 1990


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, during the break, I had the honour to participate as a member of a Canadian delegation in a portion of this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
The work of the United Nations in the field of human rights has been unduly neglected. Too many Canadians are not yet aware of the importance of the universal struggle for human rights or the important role played by Canada internationally in this quest.
At this year's session, there have been resolutions on a number of countries where the human rights situations are preoccupying. Canada has co-sponsored many of these texts, and has been active in ensuring that the commission treats each situation in a balanced, considered manner. The Canadian delegation has been one of the strongest teams in Geneva and due tribute should be paid to the Department of External Affairs and the minister. At another meeting, Canada was also complimented on its leadership with regard to refugee programs.
I want to emphasize today the importance of the breakthrough made this year at the commission, which has important ramifications for future work in the international human rights field. This breakthrough is the strengthening of bonds between countries of the western group, of which Canada is a member, and countries of the eastern group. Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary have played important roles this year at the commission, in some cases voting alongside western delegations on many resolutions.
I view this as a promising sign. Human rights issues should not be considered ideological or political matters. As the barriers hindering co-operation between west and east come down, I hope that greater co-operation can be effected among all countries, in order to ensure that the high standards-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


&quot;WE'RE AKIN TO IRELAND''
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, for 200 years, Irish immigrants and their descendants have played a vital role in shaping the culture, economy and character of Prince Edward Island.
In recognition of this great contribution, the Government of Prince Edward Island has proclaimed that in 1990 islanders will honour our Irish heritage by celebrating the theme "We're akin to Ireland".
The year-long celebration will affirm P.E.I. as the most Irish of Canadian provinces. "We're Akin to Ireland" will be marked by festivities and heritage events, with the central theme being that of music. Plans include concerts with P.E.I. talented Celtic musicians, theatrical performances, an Irish film festival and much more.
I congratulate the various Irish associations, the P.E.I. Museum and Heritage Foundation, and the public and private sector individuals who are working to make "We're Akin to Ireland" a great success.
I invite all of you, and all Canadians, to visit this beautiful island this summer, enjoy some wonderful Irish music and culture and do your share to keep P.E.I. green-spend money!


ROYAL PARDON
Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this House the tragic case of a woman in my riding. Since 1979, Mrs. Annette Proulx, who will soon turn 75, is serving a life sentence in the Maison Gomin of Quebec City for a murder she presumably committed in 1979. Although admitting to the crime and expressing sincere regret would help her obtain royal clemency, 11 years later, Mrs. Proulx still claims she is innocent.
Considering she has spent many years in prison and that Justice Yvan Migneault, who presided at her trial, as well as the Crown attorney assigned to her case and the Correctional Service of Canada feel that Mrs. Proulx is not a threat to society, I urge the Solicitor General and

March 16, 1990
the 12 Members of Parliament studying Mrs. Proulx's request to grant her the royal clemency.
It seems to me that, after 11 years of incarceration, Mrs. Proulx deserves to live in peace and serenity her final years and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that she will be given that chance. It is really a humanitarian case.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this week has been declared a national week of protest against the goods and services tax, better described as the grief and suffering tax. Liberals from coast to coast in this big country have given all Canadians the opportunity to voice their opposition to the GST. They have done it in overwhelming numbers by simply picking up the phone and phoning 1-900-720-6052 or 1-900-720-6051. All week this number 1-900-720-6052 has been overloaded by phone calls from thousands and thousands of Canadians from one coast to another saying to this Tory government that this is a rotten tax.
In fact, these phone lines have been so popular two things have happened. One is we added a second line on Wednesday to accommodate the rush-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Sault-Ste. Marie.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, after having decimated the rail transportation system in this country, the government continues its mishandling of the issue. The government's complaint was that taxpayers could no longer spend hundreds of millions of their tax dollars subsidizing the system. Now there are 300 excess cars of rolling stock in various states of disrepair, but some that could be put into immediate use by Canadian interests to the benefit of Canadian taxpayers. Rather than offering any assistance, VIA Rail has contracted out the disposition of this stock to Canadian and American interests. In other words, the government is asking Canadians to pay again for what is already theirs.
In my community, the single most important tourist attraction is the Algoma Central Tour Train which
requires $30 million to $40 million for refurbishing of cars. This would be a golden opportunity for the government to offer one community a tremendous economic lift. I am sure there are others in like need.
I ask the minister to intervene, establish Canadian priorities and distribute this rolling stock to Canadian interests at nominal cost.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, when people are asked if they have read the Meech Lake Accord, almost 90 per cent of the population have never read it. It is sad to say that many who think negatively about the important unifying accord have not read it.
I hope everyone will have the opportunity to read the article written in The Globe and Mail by Gordon Robertson, former Clerk of the Privy Council, entitled: "Dispelling the Myths that surround Meech". He wrote: "Many confident critics appear not to have read the legal documents. They have uncritically accepted the myths and produced a chorus of unverified assertions about the potential disasters the accord will bring".
Mr. Robertson, who was involved in every constitutional conference from 1968 to 1978 shoots down every myth presented. He ends his dissertation with this statement: "The challenge for Canadians is to refuse to be panicked by the myth-makers. There is no injury of any consequence in the accord. There is rather the prospect of great benefits: the end of constitutional deadlock, the lessening of tensions and the chance to return Canada to effective co-operation in the pursuit of real goals of concern to all Canadians-and to the generous acceptance of diversity upon which our national unity depends".


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, this is a call to all veterans. Canada, once again, needs you. You have already given much to your country. You have fought for our freedom. You have seen comrades die. Many of you still bear the scars of battle, wounds and disabilities which you will carry to your grave.
March 16, 1990
[Stage Direction]
How does this government show its gratitude? How does this Tory government repay you for your sacrifices? They raise your lodging charges for long-term hospital care to save $17.3 million. They withdraw services to you under the Veterans Independence Program to save another $18 million. You too will have to pay the dreaded goods and services tax, if this government is not stopped now.
Yes, veterans, we are in another battle, a battle to save Canadians from the GST. We need your help one more time. This is how you may join the fight, the Liberal anti-GST fight on behalf of all Canadians. Your weapon is the telephone. Pick it up and call 1-900-720-6051 or 1-900-720-6052. Tell your friends to call and mobilize your-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Charles  De@: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the government for its excellent science and technology policies and its efforts to promote co-operation between the government, the industry and Canadian universities.
The National Research Council's new focused-ion beam facility is a case in point. This laboratory is the only one of its kind in Canada and one of five in North America.
For the NRC, this facility is the key to research on electronic and optoelectronic devices of the year 2000. These devices will be about 100 nanometers, or 100 billionths of a meter, thick, which is 10 times smaller than current equipment.
This new technology is so precise that researchers were able to illustrate its amazing possibilities by drawing on the point of a pin-not the head but the point-no less than 1,711 tiny angels.
This facility is jointly managed by seven agencies: the NRC, Northern Telecom Electronics, Bell Northern Research, the Department of Communications Research Centre, Carleton University and Queen's University.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree with me that what I want to do this morning is rather rare: I want to commend four members of the Conservative party who sit opposite us for the courage of their convictions and for being so outspoken on behalf of their constituents.
The first award of excellence comes from what is headlined in the Edmonton Journal:
Wilson must go, Kindy says Dump GST too, Tory says
I commend that member of Parliament for the courage of his convictions.
The second award, according to the Toronto Star, goes to David Kilgour who will vote against the GST. Congratulations to the other member from the Conservative party in Alberta.
The third award, according to the Toronto Star, goes to Willie Littlechild who stated that he will vote according to the wishes of his constituents. Congratulations to that Member of Parliament.
The fourth award goes to another Albertan. According to the Toronto Star, Louise Feltham stated that she will abstain or stay away from the Commons when we vote on the bill.
Let us congratulate those four Conservative members of Parliament for the courage of their convictions, and encourage the other Conservatives who are now revolting against this tax quietly in the back-benches to speak up and vote against that tax here in the House of Commons.



Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough- Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this government's ill-conceived goods and services tax grows by leaps and bounds even as we speak.
The telephone hotline set up by the Liberal party has garnered such a large response that a second line has been added, and the project extended until Sunday, March 18, at 11 p.m. central time. Tens of thousands of Canadians have made their opposition to this tax known,

March 16, 1990
and I am sure that thousands more will do the same over the next few days.
I wonder if the member opposite will put his phone number so people can call him and see what he will do. They do not have to pay 50 cents when they call you. However, I am going to give them the number.
I call on all concerned Canadians to call 1-900-720-6051 or 1-900-720-6052. Let this uncaring government know that the people of Canada will not let this tax pass without a fight.
If any of you have any guts, put your phone numbers up and see how the constituents are going to call you.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian companies can count on the National Research Council for many kinds of help. One is relatively new, but it is working well. It involves a group of companies willing to work together with NRC to conduct what is termed "pre-competitive research".
The NRC has signed an agreement with a consortium of loudspeaker designers and manufacturers to do the pre-competitive research necessary to develop the next generation of smart loudspeakers.
It is very rewarding to see Canadian companies, many of them competitors, working together with NRC at a pre-competitive level. Increasingly, this collaborative approach is necessary to remain competitive in world markets. This would not be possible without the help of the NRC.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, the government has again attempted to undermine research and development, long term economic growth and the competitiveness of Canadian business in world markets with the recent decision in the 1990 budget to cut science and
technology spending by $39 million, to reduce transfers to the provinces for education, and most recently the cut-back on research staff. Further, a letter written by the president of the council indicates that steps to privatize the National Research Council are being taken.
In an area in which technological preparedness is a key determinant of strength of the Canadian economy, the National Consortium of Scientific and Educational Societies recently recommended that the government increase investments in research performed by federal laboratories. It is imperative that the development of scientific research and technology be encouraged and funded publicly, as well as privately.
While research activity in the private sector has increased in recent years, current forecasters predict a decline in R and D spending over the next five years in anticipation of an economic downturn. The government must increase investment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Yesterday the State of Iraq executed Farzad Bazoft, in violation of international law. Mr. Bazoft was aged 31. For what cause, Mr. Speaker? Because he was a journalist in search of a story.
This was a barbaric act and deserves the condemnation of civilized people everywhere in the world. I call upon the Canadian Government to recall the Canadian Ambassador from Iraq and for the nations of the world to take economic sanctions against this barbaric regime.
I call on the House of Commons to pause for a few seconds in solidarity with the journalists from the London Observer who had a silent vigil in front of the Embassy of Iraq in London.
This was a barbaric and tragic act and a blow to freedom of expression and to journalists everywhere in the world.

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
In the discussions leading up to the free trade deal, Americans said they did not like our system of unemployment insurance and they wanted it brought down to American levels. They will get that if Bill C-21 goes through.
They also said they did not like our system of regional development grants. They will get that if the budget goes through.
Furthermore, they said that they did not like our approach to giving Canadians priority access to Canada's own natural gas. They are going to get that with the decision of the National Energy Board yesterday that it will no longer apply a cost benefit test in deciding whether to permit exports of Canada's natural gas to the United States.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, will he not admit that there is an emerging pattern here, a disturbing pattern of Canada caving in, in every instance when it comes to protecting the rights of Canadians about their future and the future of this country, or will this government give a direction to the National Energy Board that it must continue applying the cost benefit tests when it comes to exports of natural gas and making decisions about such exports?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board's decision takes account of the market's ability to balance supply and demand. It also takes account of Canada's environmental and energy supply requirements. Its approach takes account of these two aspects that are fundamental for Canada. On one hand, we have a free market, of which Canada is part. On the other, we have our environmental and security interests. I believe that the board has come up with a balanced proposal.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer flies in the face of the history and experience of this country which says that leaving everything to the market, important as it is, does not necessarily always result in the Canadian public interest being respected.
Foreign ownership of our upstream petroleum and natural gas sector has increased to 62 per cent. What the decision of the National Energy Board is saying is that not only will foreign subsidiaries be sending back dividends to the United States, but also that they will be getting cheap natural gas and contracts lasting for 100 years.
I want to ask this government if it is going to give a mandate to the National Energy Board to protect the interests of all Canadians, stop caving in and start standing up for this country, all of this country? When is it going to do that?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague represents a party that does not trust the laws of the market. But they are the laws that apply in the western world at this time. I believe that they can assure and support trade in energy. However, in some areas there are environmental priorities. It is essential to protect the environment, it is essential to protect Canadians' security of supply. When these are at stake, the board will make the appropriate decisions. Meanwhile, the laws of the market favour both producers and consumers, whether they are in Canada or in other countries, but the Liberal party has still not realized this aspect of its policy.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned a matter of trust. Canadians don't trust this government, which is obvious from the fact that the Province of Ontario said that without a cost-benefit test, the National Energy Board could no longer excercise its mandate, which is to protect the interests of the public, and Quebec noted that a cost-benefit test was the only way to reconcile public and private interests.

March 16, 1990
Oral Questions
I therefore want to ask the minister what action the government intends to take to give due consideraton to the concerns of Ontario and Quebec and protect the public interest?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the government wants its policy to be balanced. We have the producers who own the resources, Mr. Speaker, and who want to sell them. We also have the general concern of Canadians about two priority areas, namely, protecting the environment and protecting security of supply. The government and its agency look at both aspects.
I believe the laws of the market will achieve a balance between supply and demand, Mr. Speaker.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The National Energy Board's decision marks a radical departure from its position a little more than two years ago when it introduced the cost-benefit test. Yesterday, the board scrapped the test, the most important tool it had, to measure public interest of an energy export.
I want to know what the government's position is on this decision, and what is it willing to do to ensure that the public interest is protected?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to an economy that is based on free markets, free enterprise and free entrepreneurship. The result is that the economic situation in our country is improving and that responsible producers who own their resources are able to sell them, while two priorities of Canadians are also protected: the environment and security of supply. That is the thrust of the regulatory agency's policy, Mr. Speaker.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, in submissions to the National Energy Board, this cost benefit analysis was called the most important tool to protect the public interest.
Yesterday's decision to drop this test was made in the context of the government's trade deal with the United States. I want to ask the minister if he will admit that the
free trade agreement is really to blame for the loss of this very important public tool.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, with or without the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, this government is committed to an economic system based on the laws of the market, on an economic system that allows us to move our goods. The Liberal Party is committed to reintroducing in Western Canada a national energy policy that was a disaster, both for western provinces and central Canada, and which cost the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia billions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, we will not turn the clock back.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my question to the same minister on the same subject. Once we cut through the gobblede-gook of yesterday's decision, what we find is that four huge export contracts of natural gas will be permitted to go to the United States at costs which are much lower than the costs that consumers in Canada will have to pay in the future to replace those exports.
In 1988, the NEB itself stated: "Canada's current gas supply is from conventionally producible resources. Over time the nation will become increasingly dependent on higher cost resources".
Will this government finally stand up for Canada's interests, for Canadian consumers, and tell the National Energy Board to defend the public interest as it should be doing?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, NEB officials follow current policies and set prices in accordance with the market. Intervention on the part of the regulatory agency is justified because they have concluded that the market is not operating efficiently and that public interest is not properly served.

What happened yesterday with the National Energy Board is very good news for people living in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. They do not want this government, pushed by the Liberal party or the NDP, to return to the national energy policy. We think
March 16, 1990

that the market is the best way to regulate the markets, not the national energy policy.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact, this decision is veiy, very good for the producers and very good for the companies which are selling natural gas to the United States. It is not good for the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, and I think the government should realize that.
The social cost benefit analysis approach, which is an approach used by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, all sorts of institutions-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Steven W. Langdon: I ask this government to stand up and say to the National Energy Board that this test of the public interest, the social cost benefit test, is something which should be protected, something which is used throughout the world, something which protects not just consumers but producers, too.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, we should keep in mind that the social cost benefit test was just one of the many tools used by the NEB to decide whether the proposed exports are in the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted as well- I pointed out that our colleague-

-that this policy is in favour of companies. First, this policy is favourable to those who work for those companies. There are more people in Alberta who work in the energy field for companies than there are companies. This is not just for the companies as investors, it is first of all for those who have jobs in the energy field.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that it is companies that will gain short term profits at the expense of long term jobs.
Is the government prepared to stand up and protect the consumers of Canada right across this country, because this is an approach which will damage consumers, not just now but in the future. Is this government
Oral Questions
prepared to stand up and protect the consumers of this country?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that the government is quite confident that the National Energy Board gives due consideration to the market forces as well as to the short-, medium- and long-term interests of Canadians with respect to the environment and the energy supply. These regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with the free trade agreement. First and foremost they apply in a free world where the market is the rule which makes it possible to balance the needs of consumers and producers alike.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. He has just said that this decision had nothing to do with the free trade agreement. We know that it was occasioned or caused by the cases which were being brought by the U.S. companies and that the U.S. government was going to challenge under the FTA. The pressure was on and once again the government caved in.
I want to put this question: Does the government not understand that there is a difference between the interests of Shell and the interests of the public of Canada? Does the government not understand that the responsibility of the National Energy Board is to use powers to protect the long-term security and pricing of a resource that the Canadian taxpayer has been subsidizing for the last 20 years or 30 years?
Why has he given up those powers? What kind of powers is the government now going to give back to the NEB so he can protect Canada again?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I know that for a good many years now the Liberal Party has rejected the notion that Albertans own their natural resources and ought to benefit from them. I know full well that in recent years, within or because of the national energy policy, the Liberal Party has sought to compel Albertans to share their resources with the rest of Canada. However I would suggest that Albertans

Oral Questions
own these resources and have the right to use them to develop their province and promote the well-being of the local population.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this is hardly the minister to tell me what is good for western Canada. I can tell him what is good for western Canada, because I have been fighting for it-


Mr. Hawkes:: You gave in.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. member:: We'll see after the next election, Jim.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have a very basic question for the minister. He says that he has to balance between the rights of the market-place and the rights to defend the public interest. We know that the government has been giving all kinds of power to the market-place. What powers are possibly remaining under the National Energy Board to protect the public interest? Who is going to have any authority to exercise judgment about what is the long-term interest of Canada? I remind him that it is Canada we are talking about, not a bunch of provinces.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I think the National Energy Board, first, has all the confidence of the government to make that judgment, and it has all the tools to make sure that its judgment will be based on something good for Canadians. It has all it needs to protect the environment of the country and to protect the national security for energy. The National Energy Board has all of that and it knows one thing for sure-


Lloyd Axworthy: You've taken its tools away.


Marcel Masse: -which the member does not seem to remember, that is that natural resources are owned by provinces. People who want to develop those natural resources have a right to do so. I think that people who live in Alberta have a right to develop their province and their own well-being based on the natural resources. They want to trade, not just for you but for them too.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance was in Montreal yesterday and kept up his mean-minded attack against Canadians who object to his GST legislation. He said seniors are behaving like children. He asked Canadian workers to be less greedy. Here is my question: Will the government ask the Minister of Finance to apologize to Quebec seniors and to Canadian workers whom he accused of being too greedy?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is in Montreal for two days of meetings with various groups.
There was a request that seniors meet with the Minister of Finance in Montreal. That meeting was arranged. The seniors arrived at the meeting, made a statement and left. They did not stay to listen to the Minister of Finance discuss the various positions on the goods and services tax.
The positions include the fact that 84 per cent of seniors will receive some form of tax credit rebate from the goods and services tax and that in fact a very large portion of them will be far better off after the goods and services tax comes into place.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of National Revenue told us that small business supported the tax when every indication in the country is that a vast majority of small business people oppose the tax.
The Minister of Finance went to Montreal and insulted senior citizens of the country by refusing to listen to them. He told them that they were behaving in a childish way. The Minister of Finance told workers in the country that they were too greedy.
My question is very simple. Is the Minister of Finance going to be asked by the Prime Minister and by the government to apologize to Canadians whom he attacks if they oppose his favourite hobby-horse, the goods and services tax?
March 16, 1990


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the hon. member, who has been attacking the Minister of Finance, apologize to him. We all watched the debate between him and the Minister of Finance with great interest and we know very well who clearly won that one-the Minister of Finance, hands down. The Liberals do not have any alternative to the goods and services tax.
The only thing they have done is to open a phone line and have people from across Canada pick it up and say: "I am against it." The Liberals do not say what they are for. They have no ideas. They are bankrupt. They are living back 20 years ago.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
It is a poor situation in the country when decisions about what crops will be planted and the future of tens of thousands of farm families depend upon what happens in a meeting between bankers and politicians.
Nevertheless, since that is the situation in the country, can the minister tell us what it was that the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier of Saskatchewan told bankers yesterday in Toronto?
What form of assistance can farmers expect? Will it be loan guarantees? Will it be cash payments? Will it be a targeted program? Will it be universal? How much money are we talking about? Most of all, when can farmers expect to know how much money they will be getting, and when will they get the money?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult situation in a good part of the prairies. There are areas that are not nearly as difficult as some of the areas of southern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba.
I was at the meeting last night in Toronto with the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture, and our Minister of Agriculture. It was a very good meeting.
Oral Questions
We are looking for ways to work together with the industry. We believe that all of us are part of it: the federal government, the provincial governments, the banking institutions, the chemical companies, the machine companies-everybody. We are looking for ways to get through this difficult period because we believe that there are going to be some better times ahead. We believe we are going to make progress at the GATT and see an improvement in prices.
Our record in terms of supporting farmers I think is pretty significant as far as the government is concerned. The Minister of Agriculture has been saying, as have many of the rest of us, that we are there to work with the provinces in this case to have some support as quickly as we can. We are well aware that spring seeding is just around the corner.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. He knows very well that farmers cannot plant consultations and that you cannot use press releases as collateral.
The Minister of Agriculture clearly promised that money would be in the hands of farmers before spring seeding and the minister knows that seeding starts by the end of April in many areas in the south. Farmers are making their planting decisions now.
Therefore, can the minister say precisely when the government will announce its program and when farmers will get their money? Can he give farmers an answer? They need to know right now.
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and
Oilseeds)): Mr. Speaker, I know exactly what the member is talking about. I have farmed all my life. I have had a permit book for something like 35 years. He does not need to tell me when farmers need money.
The record of the government in terms of getting money to producers is very impressive. One of the first things we did as a new government in 1984 was to amend the Western Grains Stabilization Act in order to get cash into the producers' hands. We are aware of that, and we are working with the farm community, the provinces and the industry to develop a plan that is going to work and be of significant benefit to those areas that need it the most.

Oral Questions
We are well aware that seeding is coming, and we are going to do our very best to have assistance announced prior to spring seeding so that farmers will know what they are likely to get and when they are going to get it.


SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In 1979, Mrs. Annette Proulx was sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder she has always denied committing.
For the past 11 years, she has been serving her sentence at the Maison Gomin in Quebec City. Under normal circumstances, this woman, who will celebrate her 75th birthday on May 3rd, will be 89 years old when she comes out of prison.
Mrs. Proulx is seeking a royal pardon, because this is the only way she would be allowed out of prison before she is 89 years old.
All the people involved in this affair, including the Crown, the police, even the presiding judge, agree that Mrs. Proulx would not put society at risk because she is not likely to commit a similar crime again.
In view of this really pathetic situation and on strictly compassionate grounds, I should like to ask the hon. minister if it is true he is about to sign a letter denying her a royal pardon.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have been informed of this case and I have every intention to review it before signing anything.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. This has been quite a week for Connaught. In the latest chapter in the "book of revelations", Institut Merieux confirmed today that it will not nor does it have any obligation to the people of Canada to fill the jobs of five top Canadian executives that were taken away. This is in direct
contradiction to what the minister of industry promised this House last Wednesday. I quote:
-all, or least most, of the jobs-will be filled again by Canadians.
Who is in charge? The government or Institut Merieux?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my hon. friend that this is a holding company which is being affected. There were five management personnel in the holding company and, with the takeover by Merieux, one does not need the holding company.
What the opposition, the hon. member and the government are concerned about is the operating company, the actual medical company that does the research and the sales in the field. It turns out that the holding company disappears with the takeover. Those are the only jobs affected.
All the Canadian jobs that are in the operating company, Institut Merieux has made it clear that those jobs will continue and be filled by Canadians.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the minister promised the House on Wednesday.
One more revelation is that today the French firm announced that it would be closing the head office because it will not be needed any more. There will be no Canadian head office to protect Canada's interest and to ensure that Connaught remains a major key player in the world market-place. Overnight, Connaught has become just one more branch plant.
My question is this: Now that the French government has control of Connaught, what will the Canadian government do to protect Canada's vital economic interest for the future?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not understand that the plant closure of those executive offices on University Avenue in Toronto reflects the fact that they will no longer be required once Connaught's interest in certain related companies have been sold. The takeover itself means one does not need to have the holding company. It is just a small company of management people.
March 16, 1990


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The top management people, the chief financial officer.


Thomas Hockin: Ninety-nine per cent of the operations is the operating company.
In the sale of Bioresearch and its share in Nordic Laboratories Merieux is committed to giving preference to any competitive bid by a Canadian purchaser. As I have said before, the main business of Connaught Laboratories, which develops, produces and markets vaccines, will continue to be operated and managed out of Willowdale.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance or to the acting minister. The minister stated in the GST technical paper and I quote:
- an inflationary response to the sales tax reform would damage the prospect for sustained economic growth.
Does the minister not accept that workers in Canada must protect themselves against the effects of the GST? Why should the workers bear the brunt of the effects of this unfair tax?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, most responsible economists in the country have said that the inflationary impact of the GST will be minimum, around 1.25 per cent to 1.5 per cent. In fact what the government and the Minister of Finance have been saying is that it is not necessary to have large pay increases blamed on the GST and the inflation that will follow. It is a very small amount of inflation and will be only a one-time blip in the inflationary factor. The workers are concerned about something that they should not be concerned about. In fact there is not going to be a large inflationary increase because of the GST.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the new contract settlement for members of the Canadian Auto Workers at Pratt and Whitney provides, and I quote, "an unlimited cost of living allowance to protect themselves from the price effects of the GST". They have every right to seek this protection.
Oral Questions
The inflation rate of 1.23 per cent that the minister promised does not take into account the inflationary effect of wage pressures generated by fear of the GST.
What does the minister plan to do? Revise the inflation figures, deny workers the right to protect themselves, or scrap this tax?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, no, we would not deny the rights of workers to collective bargaining and whatever they can bargain with their unions and with their employers. That is entirely up to them and that is the system that they work under in the country. The latter option of scrapping the tax is not an option as far as this government is concerned.


An hon. member:: Why not, John?


John Horton McDermid: The Liberals want to tear up the free trade agreement and scrap the tax. They want to go back to the old, old ways which do not work. We are not prepared to do that.


SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, last week at the Kingston Penitentiary, a 40 year old man named Gordon Taylor died. The Ontario Provincial Police is presently investigating very serious allegations that the death was murder by a group of guards at the pen.
I met yesterday in Kingston with a number of witnesses and had discussions with senior officials who, I may add, gave every co-operation to me and to my associates.
There is very substantial evidence supporting the allegations. My question to the minister is this. The Correction Service of Canada has ordered an inquiry. Will the minister outline to the House the terms of reference of the inquiry? Will he indicate whether he has given any special instructions to the board of inquiry and, if so, what those instructions would be?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the terms of reference, they are the terms of reference of the commissioner, of course, in these circumstances. I am prepared to tell the House what those terms of reference are, but it might take a few minutes. If my hon. colleague would be satisfied with my sending him a copy of the terms of

March 16, 1990
Oral Questions
reference, I am prepared to do that. Otherwise, I can read them, Mr. Speaker, but it will take a little while.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member in his supplementary question could ask a more specific question. I think the hon. minister is right. If it is a lengthy reply, it should be done in another way, but I will hear the hon. member's supplementary question.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite content if the minister would table the terms of reference to which he has referred, and perhaps in answer to my supplementary question he may wish to summarize it.
I would like to ask him, in addition to that, whether he has ever visited Kingston Pen, in his professional capacity, I may add. The prison was built in 1837. As the minister will know, the staff and inmates are trying to survive in really impossible medieval conditions.
Would the minister agree to go to Kingston to meet with the inmates, the staff and the officials? Would he be prepared to ask his officials to finally launch a plan to close this institution, which is such a disgrace to the country?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, I have been Solicitor General for just about three weeks now. I have not had time to visit all those institutions. As part of my responsibilities, I intend to visit as many as possible.
I did visit the women's prison in Kingston last week. Unfortunately time did not permit me to visit that particular institution. If it is possible, I surely will. It is an important institution, as my hon. colleague knows, and when time permits I will be there.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Today we heard from a Public Works lawyer that the government could lose $2 billion a month if a dispute over a home for the unwanted GST data centre continues.
The dispute involves claims that Public Works is in fact violating government policy for awarding contracts to the lowest qualified bidder.
Can the minister tell the House exactly what he intends to do about this dispute and how he plans to prevent this from happening in the future?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, today I am representing the Minister of Public Works who is meeting in Atlantic Canada.
My understanding is that the issue raised by my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre is before the Federal Court at the present time. It would be inappropriate for us to comment on it at this time.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I respect the statement of the minister.
If the Canadian people have their way we will never see or need a home for the GST anyway.
My supplementary question is also directed to the same minister. With millions of square feet of office space in the national capital region occupied by the federal government, with downsizing, and with thousands of public servants being laid off, can the minister give the assurance to the House that every effort was made in order to accommodate the GST centre in existing buildings rather than going out and spending millions of dollars renting a new one?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government has set up an expenditure review committee which examines every dollar that can be saved and that every dollar spent by the government is wisely spent.
I can also assure the hon. member that the procedures followed by the government are those to assure that the taxpayers of the country get the best value for the dollar spent. I can assure him of that.


CANADIAN EXPLORATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The termination of CEIP will have a crippling impact on the Canadian exploration industry. Without CEIP, capital spent by exploration firms on exploration will fall drastically and dramatically in 1990 and will fall even further in 1991. That is a period in which even the energy
March 16, 1990

department has stated categorically that at least $500 million must be spent on base metal exploration alone.
How does the government expect to discover the new mineral deposits of tomorrow if exploration is not encouraged today?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the measures which the hon. member has referred to are part of a package which the government has developed to assist the mining industry by providing it with geological analyses, material research and development, as well as means to improve plant productivity. I do not think that just because a program had to be cut for whatever reason, in this case in an effort to help Canada fight its deficit, the whole geological policy and effort of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources comes tumbling down. This is only one aspect of a package. I will refer the question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is very active in all his areas of responsibility, including the mining industry.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
If the minister has any intention of maintaining a healthy mineral sector in Canada, that is maintaining a healthy sector in the northern provinces and northern portions of our country because that is where a lot of the mineral reserves are, he must recognize that mineral exploration today is essential.
Does the minister recognize the importance of replacing depleting mineral reserves and, if so, is he committed to finding some type of alternative measure as a replacement to the CEIP?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind my hon. colleague that one of the best ways to help in the development of the mining industry is through flow-through shares. The reason the government has fully maintained the flow-
Oral Questions
through shares is to assist in the development of the mining industry.


NATIVE PROGRAMS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, every week seems to bring another cut to aboriginal programs. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development last fall boasted that the fur industry in Canada out of a total employment of 100,000 supported
50,000	to 60,000 natives and contributed almost $800 million to the GNP.
Just when Canada is now making headway in convincing the European Economic Community to support the marketing of Canadian furs in Europe, why has the minister's department cut core funding to the Aboriginal Trappers Association by 100 per cent, from $120,000 to nothing, and to the Indigenous Survival Institute by $30,000?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, considering the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is away on business today, I will tiy to answer the question from my best recollection.
If I recall correctly, there was a program created through the initiatives of various departments, including Indian Affairs, but also External Affairs and another department, for a number of millions of dollars. Indian Affairs had committed some funds up until this year. The funds, therefore, are not reflected with respect to this year in the Estimates, but I understand that there will be some funds from Indian Affairs.
I am sure that my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs will make the appropriate announcement at the appropriate time.


Robert Evans Skelly: I have a short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Given that total government funding to support the fur industry has been cut by about 66 per cent this year, and given that the native lobbying program or native advocacy in Europe has been more successful in turning the situation around there than any other component of the fur industry, why is the minister singling out the native component for the deepest cuts-100 per cent to

March 16, 1990
Routine Proceedings
the Aboriginal Trappers Association and 17 per cent to the Indigenous Survival Institute?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Again, Mr. Speaker, as I said there was an initiative through three departments over a number of years. I think it was a three-year program or a five-year program. I am sure that my colleague will correct me in due course.
Nevertheless the funds were allocated for a number of years. They have been allocated. The Indian Affairs commitment was to terminate this year. Notwithstanding the fact that nothing is in the Estimates, I understand that my colleague will have some funds available for that particular program. He will announce them in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question from the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James.


JUSTICE
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Off the top, I should like to congratulate her on her recent appointment to the cabinet.
There is a young man serving time in the Stony Mountain Penitentiary in Manitoba for murder, a murder which he claims he did not commit. This is a matter that goes back 20 years. He has served time for 20 years.
There is some new evidence suggesting that it was not possible for this young man to commit the murder. This evidence is supported by a forensic scientist at an institution at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
I understand that the Justice Department is investigating this case. When can we expect a report on this matter?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes.
The case is under investigation by the Department of Justice, as the hon. member has said. It is not ready for presentation to me, and when it is and I am in a position to make a decision, I will advise the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications. I wonder if I could get the minister's attention. My question is this. What will the government of Canada do to protest the barbarous execution of Farzad Bazoft, the British journalist who was executed last night by the government of Iraq?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a serious question and I am sure the government would want to respond. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond on behalf of the government and say that the sentiments on this side of the House correspond exactly with those expressed by the hon. member.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has publicly issued a statement regretting this barbarous act. We see it as no hallmark of any country that would purport to comport with other civilized countries of this world.
In the past year, 53 journalists have been killed in the line of duty. This indicates how high the risks are, and in this particular instance the Government of Canada has expressed its outrage over this very tragic development.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, further to the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a proposed strategy concerning substance use in safety-sensitive positions in Canadian transportation.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to refer this document to the Standing Committee on Transport for consultation with inter-
March 16, 1990

ested parties. I would ask that the committee report back to this House within 90 days.


Jim Karygiannis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. My colleague wanted to respond and I just noticed that your eye was not on this side.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if I may respond to the hon. minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no response to tabling of documents.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the hon. minister is looking for unanimous consent of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the hon. minister asking for unanimous consent?


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, within the context of my remarks, I asked for unanimous consent to refer it to the Standing Committee on Transport, and my hon. friend may be wishing to respond to that request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to respond?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition gives its consent and expects the government to act with speed and sensitivity to the report of the Standing Committee on Transport when reported back to the House.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous consent on behalf of the New Democratic Party to have this report referred to the Standing Committee on Transport for a very thorough study.


1989 COMMISSION ON JUDGES' SALARIES AND BENEFITS


TABLING OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 26 of the Judges Act, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the report and recommendations of the 1989 commission on judges' salaries and benefits.
Routine Proceedings


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.] EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House regarding an individual, a Canadian citizen, who has travelled overseas and was detained. I hope that the government will act very quickly to rectify this situation.
The petitioners have approached many members of this House about Mr. Leo's case. I hope a resolution will come about quickly because when Canadian citizens travel abroad we should be able to protect them.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, I am delighted to present to the House a petition certified as correct under the standing orders in connection with the conviction and jailing of Mr. Columbus Leo in Taiwan as a result of a visit there.
Approximately 100 petitioners residing in my constituency and in surrounding constituencies ask the government to intervene and attempt to resolve the matter for Mr. Leo and bring him back to Canada.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a large number of petitions from many regions of Canada from Canadians who object to the clawback of old age security benefits contained in the legislation which is now before the Senate.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions from a variety of neighbourhoods in my riding.

March 16, 1990
Routine Proceedings
A condominium corporation is represented here, a high rise apartment building which is rented primarily to seniors, and the full population of one entire street. I think that is representative of the proportion of Canadians who feel that they want Parliament to reject the goods and services tax. They are concerned about its impact on their spending powers. As consumers they are concerned about its impact on the economy of the country and the future of their families.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the signatures of several hundred people from my riding of Nepean and some from outside the riding.
They are all opposed to the imposition of the goods and services tax. They feel it will be injurious to the economy, create higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadian citizens of the municipality of Gloucester, the Carleton-Gloucester region, the City of Ottawa, and of several municipalities of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario as well as of the Northwest Territories who are opposed to the federal government's proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens of the city of Edmonton-probably constituents of yours, Mr. Speaker-who are concerned about the goods and services tax.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax and request a reform of the taxation system be put in place so that there would be an effective tax which would be fair to all Canadians.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition signed by many residents in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency-

Mr. Speaker, they are residents of Riviere-du-Portage, Pont-Lafrance, Sheila, Leach, Pont-Landry, Ship-pegan and Caraquet who are strongly opposed to the goods and services tax. They urge the Conservative government to withdraw this tax which will have harmful consequences throughout Canada, particularly in the region of the Acadian peninsula.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to present petitions on behalf of my constituents and many others across Canada, most of them seniors who are totally demoralized by the current government's approach to the goods and services tax. They oppose it completely and want something that is more simple, fair and workable.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from people of Ontario and Quebec who totally reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax.
They ask that the government ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the MST, that this new tax not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab upon the people of this country. They also ask the government to desist in its proposal to shift the tax burden to ordinary Canadians through this regressive consumption tax and attempt a real tax reform.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a number of petitions from a series of communities across Canada including communities in that great constituency of Comox-Alberni.
The petitioners are calling on the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to reform the tax system so there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations. They note that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have presented an alternative to the goods and services tax.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and indeed a privilege to present four petitions from constituents in Sault Ste. Marie indicating that the government should scrap the tax. The petitioners are
March 16, 1990

wondering about democracy in this country, when 80 per cent of the population is against such tax.


Steve Butland: I also have one belated petition that I am very happy to present, although it is too late. VIA Rail has already been gutted. They are adding insult to injury by trying to sell the excess cars back to Canadians taxpayers who will have to pay for them again.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to table hundreds of petitions containing thousands of signatures signed by seniors across Canada.
They protest the cutback in the old age security system engendered by the government's introduction of the clawback provision to the Income 'lax Act. These senior citizens, the thousands and thousands who have signed these petitions from all across our country, are outraged that the government has chosen to tax away their pension rights to which they have contributed over the years.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the inequitable and unfair tax burden being placed on them to the exclusion of all other citizens as contained in the clawback provision to the Income Tax Act introduced by this mean-spirited government.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present petitions from hundreds of taxpayers across this country who are calling upon this government to reject the goods and services tax. They want reform of the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and on big corporations. They want to ensure that there is a broad public consensus of the sales tax measure to replace the MST, not to use this so-called reform as an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab on its citizens.
They call on this government to reject the goods and services tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Routine Proceedings
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 217 and 218.


Mr. Caccia: Is it the intention of the government (a) to include in the terms of reference of the OSLO Environmental Review Panel the impact of production from the OSLO oilsands on Canada's carbon dioxide balance (b) to withdraw its funding and support for the OSLO oilsands project if the Review Panel determines that such project would increase carbon dioxide pollution in Canada, using 1988 as a base year (c) to provide funding for intervenors in the Public Review and, if so (i) what amount (ii) in what manner will it be allocated?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: (a)	The terms of the agreement with Alberta governing a joint federal/provincial review of this project have not yet been finalized but the intent is to permit the panel to examine all environmental impacts of the project.
(b)	The federal government has announced its decision not to provide funding for this project other than for engineering studies.
(c)	No.
COSTS INCURRED BY GOVERNMENT FOR TRAVEL TO/IN EL SALVADOR


Mr. Blaikie: In (a) the month of December, 1989 (b) the entire calendar year 1989, were any costs incurred by the government for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and other expenses for government officials present in El Salvador and, if so, in total, what were they?


The Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The cost *(including transportation, accommodation, meals and other expenses) incurred by government officials present in El Salvador were:
a)	$6,444.63 in December 1989
b)	$54,352.55 in 1989
* Itemized costs not readily available [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 206 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 206 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Saint-Julien: In fiscal year (a) 1979-80 (b) 1980-81 (c) 1981-82 (d) 1982-83 (e) 1983-84, were fees paid to notaries and legal agents acting on behalf of the Federal Business Development Bank and, if so (i) what are the names of the recipients (ii) what were their dates of appointment (iii) what fees were paid to them?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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. Manley:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to support the National Research Council as Canada's premier research institution and its failure to promote basic scientific research in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member had six minutes remaining in her speech plus ten minutes for questions and comments.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue. The NRC has substantially increased its revenues, from $12.5 million in 1984-85 to $22.1 million in 1989-90.
This increase in revenue reflects an increasingly widespread perception of the usefulness and value of the NRC's services and helps guarantee that NRC programs are relevant to the needs of its clients.
I think it is becoming increasingly attractive for NRC laboratories to be active in research consortiums and other research activities involving several partners.
Participation in several collaborative ventures as set forth in the federal policy on technology centres has helped the NRC to enhance its image and obtain substantial bonuses.
The NRC has also entered into a number of scientific and technological agreements with partners in universities, government and industry. Since 1985, it has signed 40 memoranda of agreement with other government departments and agencies, industrial associations and Canadian and foreign research agencies.
Furthermore, the NRC will be associated as a partner with 10 of the 14 networks of centres of excellence financed by this government, as I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Speaker, now that we are entering the 1990's, Canadian industry must be able to contribute to the latest technological developments and incorporate them in its products, if it is to remain competitive at the highest levels on international markets. We must act now. If we hesitate and are left behind by our competitors, we can kiss our very comfortable standard of living good-bye.
The federal government is committed to deploying all available resources to support this national priority, and the NRC is one of the most powerful and effective resources it has today. The key to success, however, is to refine the priorities of the NRC.
The NRC must play a critical role that very few other Canadian institutions would be able to play. It must serve as a catalyst in the development of profitable co-operation between all the players involved in research and development in this country, namely the provinces, the industrial corporations and the universities. It must
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
provide a solid technological information and resource base. It must create job opportunities for young scientists, engineers and technicians and contribute to the training of a technically well-qualified labour force to meet the needs of all the sectors of our economy.
The NRC will continue to carry out world-class research as it has done in the past 75 years, well aware of the necessity to remain relevant and to satisfy the needs of the nation.
Such are the priorities which are being considered while the National Research Council is preparing its next long-term plan. This process aimed at defining the NRC's major development orientation over the next decade should be completed soon and will require consultation with the NRC's main customers and partners, as well as the users of its research abilities.
As the science minister mentioned in the House on many occasions, the National Research Council will continue to play a vital role in the future.
It is responsible for bringing together various research and development partners and for building some forms of co-operation conducive to a maximum utilization, an optimum use of Canada's research and development resources.
This is especially true of the long-term precompetitive-type research and development which the NRC is ideally suited to carry out and support. However, the NRC's whole range of activities may benefit from this approach.
The hon. members are well aware that the NRC is preparing a long-term plan which will define the strategies and initiatives which will give it the opportunity to assume this role, and the government is looking forward with great interest to reading it.
Mr. Speaker, the NRC can expect a brilliant future and an increasingly important role.
This opposition motion does not take sufficiently into account the NRC's current major achievements, and it overlooks very attractive opportunities which will be available in the future.
I, therefore, strongly urge the House to turn down this motion.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that in listening to her speech I felt she made a brilliant case not for a cut-back in the National Research Council but for an enhancement of its budget. She talked about-


Henry Perrin Beatty: You are even frightening the babies in the galleries.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Well, having four of my own, Mr. Minister, I did not mean to frighten the child.
It is precisely because of this child that we are here today. This government has lost its sense of vision.
My colleague said this morning that it was 1961 when John F. Kennedy said, "We are going to put a man on the moon". He was able to galvanize the will of Americans in science, educators and labour. Everybody pulled together.
This member has made that same case. This is one of the most powerful instruments which this national government has to galvanize this nation, galvanize it in a way that the productivity we need to be world class is there.
So my question to the hon. member who made such a brilliant case for the National Research Council is this. Why should we cut back on the funding of a national instrument that is so vital in terms of our ability to become world class competitors in science and technology?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that I talked as though we were improving the budget for the National Research Council.
I must remind the hon. member that if he looks at the budget figures, he will see that, excluding everything to do with the Space Agency, the funds for the National Research Council have increased.
But it is true that the management of the National Research Council wants to make the NRC much more efficient, to deal with what must be done in the fields of research that must be emphasized in the coming years.

March 16, 1990
So when the hon. member seems to be referring to the fact that our government-You always seem to be saying that we do nothing, that we do not want to have a competitive country. I just started after my colleague's speech to explain what the government was doing and how it went about it and why it all fits into a total picture. It is not just one thing we are doing.
So I must tell the hon. member that I was just explaining everything we had set up, the science and technology policy throughout the country, so that all the provinces in Canada train students and skilled workers to meet the new requirements of high-tech industries, because more and more, industries will be modernized and need this kind of personnel. So I had got to telling you about what we are doing for universities and also for basic research. I was talking about the centres of excellence that will enable us, Mr. Speaker, to continue doing first-class research and basic research, by establishing networks and choosing niches to make Canada a world leader in this field.
Also, another member earlier suggested, when presenting petitions, that the GST was wrong. But behind this initiative, the GST proposal, there is of course the need to reduce the deficit. Since we have to pay interest on the debt to the tune of $39 billion a year, can you imagine what we could do for research or social programs if we did not have to pay that kind of money each year? This is really disturbing. Also, under the over all plan which calls for efforts to be made to turn Canada into a first-rate country with a competitive industry, it should be noted that by changing the tax from the 13.5 per cent levied on manufactured goods produced here in Canada, we will end up being competitive and have a chance-Canadians will have a chance to buy Canadian products, because they will be comparable to foreign imports.
There is also the involvement of universities. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not here earlier, or he would have known that all this is part of the plan. All our policies are developed and designed, to make our economy more flexible so people can adjust. We called upon industries and universities. We introduced matching funding under which industries now can use top-notch scientists that are doing research within universities. Matching funding has a two fold benefit because Students can now be trained to really meet the needs of industry.
Government Orders
We are also keeping high priority on large projects such as the Space Agency, the RADARSAT program, and our involvement in the space platform project.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I answered briefly to the first question put by the hon. member, there has been no cuts to the NRC. The five year plan is being prepared, and this is something important for the future, Mr. Speaker. The Council is now reviewing all areas of research currently done in-house, Mr. Speaker, and they are looking at new avenues that could be extremely interesting.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am mystified by the parliamentary secretary's statement that there have not been cuts. From 1984-85, when this government came into office, the budget has been reduced for the NRC from $505 million down to, in the coming fiscal year, $433 million, with the space agency included. So there has been an absolute reduction.
The parliamentary secretary has made a very good case, as my colleague said, for the National Research Council. Having made that case, does she and the government agree with the views of the president of the National Research Council that the NRC should limit its involvement in basic research to that required to maintain a minimal scientific insurance policy for the nation? And does she agree that the NRC should pursue a policy of privatization and divestiture as indicated by the president of the NRC?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my honorable colleague for asking that question. I must point out to him that it is not the intent of this government to have the National Research Council of Canada privatize its staff. In our view, it is important to keep a strong National Research Council really responsive to the needs and expectations of Canadian scientists and industries, and that is one of our priorities.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP to support the motion made by the member for Ottawa South. We also would like to join in condemning the government for the lack of
March 16, 1990

support it has had for the National Research Council and also for research in general in Canada.
I was interested in listening to the comments of the parliamentary Secretary. The government always argues the deficit by saying that if it was not for a $30 billion deficit we would be doing so much more government research. I suspect that the deficit is simply an excuse to cover the government's ideological direction that it prefer that research be done in the private sector and that the government do no research at all. That is a completely ridiculous point.
It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary always justifies funding cuts as a method of increasing efficiency. When you cut funding to research or the National Research Council, you do not increase efficiency, you inhibit the council to do what it was set out to do in the first place and that is to conduct pure research that may not be a part of the system of priorities of the private sector in the country.
We have all read the statistics that indicate that Canada has one of the poorest records of the industrialized countries in terms of its support for research and development. A recent issue of Science Statistics that points out that the federal government's contribution to research and development in the country continues to decline, both as a performer, 17 per cent of total research and development, and as a funder, 31 per cent.
Even when the government was still talking about nuclear submarines and not deficits, it was still in the process of cutting support to research and development, both in terms of the amount of research it did and in terms of the amount of money they made available to it. So Canada has a poor record since 1984 with respect to its contribution to research and development in spite of the promises made over the years both by the Prime Minister and by other ministers in the cabinet.
We spend 1.23 per cent of our gross national product on research and development. That is half of what Japan spends and half of what countries like Sweden spend. I think it is reflected in the way our industry and economy are organized in this country.
Government Orders
In terms of employment in research and development we rank eleventh among the industrialized countries, that is in terms of employment in universities as well.
University research is an important part of the research and development capability of this country, part of it in connection with the National Research Council and part in connection with private industry through discovery parks, centres of excellence and all those things that have been set up. Centres of excellence have been set up over recent years by Conservative governments.
Yet the same government that talks about its priorities with respect to research and what it would do if it could only cut the deficit has, over the years, cut EPF funding to the provinces which in part goes to funding university research.
David Suzuki made an interesting statement a few years ago about how the employment of scientists is allocated in Canada. He pointed out that 99 per cent of the scientists who are working in Canada are working in undemocratic institutions. They are working either for the military or for corporations where decisions are made on the basis of one dollar, one vote.
That was an interesting comment because when that happens it means that the research is not directed by the needs of the people of this country but by the needs and priorities of undemocratic institutions. We are trying to improve and maintain the funding of the National Research Council which represents the resource priorities of the people of Canada and, therefore, we consider this an extremely important organization.
The National Research Council has some important facilities, some of them based here in Ottawa. It has wind tunnels that are used by private and public organizations around the country. For example, Toronto City Hall was designed with the assistance of the wind tunnel here owned by the National Research Council.
The wave pool facilities that are located here in Ottawa are used to develop ports on every coast of Canada. In fact, they were used as part of the investigation to determine what happened to the Ocean Ranger when that oil drilling rig capsized off the east coast of Canada. It was National Research Council facilities that were used to find out why that happened and in fact it

March 16, 1990
Government Orders
was National Research Council scientists who were able to find out exactly what the problem was.
So the NRC has provided great scientific service to Canada over the years. By cutting back the funding to the National Research Council, the Tories in this country are doing a great disservice to Canadians.
It is easier to understand this ideologically because the Conservatives essentially believe that research and development should be done by the private sector. However, there are a few horror stories that show that this should not always be the case, that there should always be the ability on the part of government, on the part of the representatives of the people, either to do pure research on behalf of the people or to audit the research that is done by private organizations.
One of the classic examples of this is the Industrial Biotest Laboratories scandal in the United States. This happened in the 1970s, so many people might not remember. IBT Labs were a subsidiary of a chemical company and at that time the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States, under a similar kind of privatization ideology to that enjoyed by this government, decided that they would not use government labs to test pesticides. Those chemical companies which were applying for the registration of pesticides would have private labs do the examinations, toxicology studies and all the other studies that were necessary in order to justify the registration of those pesticides through the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.
It was found out, after an examination by the office of management and budget in the United States, that 737 tests done by IBT Labs in the United States were faked in order to get those chemicals registered as pesticides in the United States. Over 200 pesticide chemicals were involved and, as a result, the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada were forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to go through all of IBT's scandalous pseudo tests to find out which ones were accurate and which ones had been faked. They then had to go through the process of deregistering pesticides that they found out were teratogenic, that is they led to monstrous birth defects, or
carcinogenic, that caused cancer, which information had been suppressed by IBT Labs in the United States.
Canadians and people in the United States who believe in the so-called values of privatization must understand, from that example, that as a result of what IBT did in the United States, as a result of the scandalous suppression of information in those toxicology tests, hundreds of Canadians today may be dying of cancer or giving birth to children with monstrous birth defects.
In spite of the information gained and the lessons we should have learned from IBT, the fact is that, for example, the Government of British Columbia has just privatized its environmental lab and now people in British Columbia are complaining about the veiy low quality of environmental research and environmental testing that is being done in British Columbia. It is actually inhibiting the clean-up and the enhancement of our environment on the west coast and creating serious problems for people in the fishing industry and people who depend on fresh water supplies and also on the life-sustaining capabilities of the marine environment on the west coast.
I have some serious concerns about the ideological propensity of the Tory government to cut back on research in order to encourage research being done in the private sector because that research tends to be of lower quality and also tends to be more self-serving and in some cases, as in the IBT example, is extremely suspect.
I had a case in my riding which does not relate directly to scientific research but which relates to public funding of applied research that can have an impact on how Canadians are served by the scientific community. In the Toronto Children's Hospital we had a doctor whose name, I think, was Ian MacDonald. He became an expert in reconstructing the craniums and faces of children who were born with extremely distorted faces. Those kids were often abused by the other kids at school. They were rejected by their parents. They ended up living short, unhappy, terrible lives.
Dr. MacDonald was able to put together a team at Toronto Children's Hospital which developed surgical techniques and treatment techniques. As a result of the public support given by Toronto Children's Hospital, he

Government Orders
was able to put together one of the best teams on the globe for cranial facial research and reassembling the facial bones of these children so that they could look like normal human beings, enjoy life and relationships with other children and become fine, positive, contributing citizens of Canada.
However, the Humana Hospital in Dallas-Forth Worth found that it could give more money to this type of research than Toronto or than the province of Ontario was willing to give. As a result, they were able to take Dr. MacDonald and his team of cranial facial specialists down to Humana Hospital in Dallas-Fort Worth and set up what they call the International Cranial Facial Institute, which is now the premier institution in the world for doing this kind of research and for providing treatment to children.
The worst thing about that is that now Canadian children are being sent to Texas to get this type of treatment and Canadian doctors are going there to become involved in this kind of research because Canada, as a result of its foolish priorities or its lack of priorities in this area, neglected to provide the necessary funding.
We also tend to believe that research is going to be done in universities but, as I mentioned before, the current cuts in transfer programs to the provinces is going to result in a cut in funding to research. In my discussions with presidents, deans and department heads in universities over the last four or five years I have heard that there has been a massive outflow of quality scientists from Canadian universities to the United States and to other areas where there is a priority for investment in this kind of research. The priority for the investment seems to be lost in Canada. That loss of priority is reflected in the funding cuts to the National Research Council and the lack of priority that this government seems to allocate to research and development in this country.
The parliamentary secretary was talking about the problem of the deficit, saying that we have to take money from scientific research in order to deal with the deficit and that when the deficit is no longer a problem we will come back and fund scientific research. By that time it is going to be too late. The reputation of our research
institutions will have suffered. The ability of our research institutions to recruit people will have suffered and the respect that scientists around the world have for research institutions will have suffered as well.
As a result, Canada will be spending millions upon millions of dollars more than if the government had maintained those facilities and the funding and kept the scientists rather than doing the silly thing that it is doing now, which is transferring money from pure scientific research to paying off the deficit.
There are other things that can be cut and we pointed out in previous speeches in the budget debate exactly where those cuts could take place without seriously harming science and our economy. These kinds of cuts do disastrous damage to our economy and disastrous damage to our scientific establishment.
We congratulate the Liberal member for Ottawa South for bringing up this resolution in the House.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, my honorable colleague raised quite a few points. The government continues to favour also research done in laboratories, in universities and elsewhere.

The greatest problem is transferring out the knowledge gained to the industry where it will do the most good and increase productivity.

That is the primary role the National Research Council has been playing for some time in basic research within the context of its long-term applied research based approach which may have general applications in the industry and in governmental programs. The universities also play a very important role in basic research, and the government suports such activity through granting councils and centre of excellence network programs.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, not only will basic research be maintained at the National Research Council, but it will be intensified through co-operation with the academic sector and other research agencies.

March 16, 1990


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary was just rereading sections of her speech, so there is really no point in responding to that.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I took some exception to the definition of undemocratic institutions, referring to our Armed Forces. I do not know if the hon. member is suggesting that we vote every time a colonel or captain makes a decision.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the issue of research and development and the cuts to the NRC. I would suggest that in general terms there is a lack of understanding of what is happening out there.
In my view there is no national standard to deal with the issue of education in the first place that can address and redirect our student population to the proper fields. For example, we have here in Canada 20 times more lawyers per capita than they have in Japan, while in Japan they have 10 times more engineers per capita in society as a whole. In the House of Commons we have approximately 56 to 60 lawyers. In comparison, we have about three engineers. If you consider those figures you have a pretty good idea of what is happening.
There is a lack of understanding and, in fact, a lack of commitment to the issue of education. The fact that the drop-out rate in our post-secondary institutions is approximately 30 per cent should tell us something.
In my view, the whole issue of research and development has to start at the very bottom end of the scale, that is, at the primary school level. We have to start encouraging more students to go into the research and development field, the science field and so on, and start building from the bottom up.
Condemning the government is the least we can do at this point in time.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, what I referred to as undemocratic institutions are institutions that could fire a scientist who discovers something that the institution did not want him to discover. That is what happens in the case of the military. I think we have seen many examples of it both in Canada and in the United States.
Government Orders
I support 100 per cent what the member says about starting at the bottom end, I just do not agree that that is the bottom end. If we want to produce a good crop of scientists, the top end is the elementary schools. Instead of having a 27 per cent drop-out rate, we should be contributing the funding that is necessary to produce a good school system in this country so that we are turning out top quality scientists.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the mussel poisonings in December 1987 threw the country into a public health safety crisis. In a matter of days, the health culprit was apprehended. Canadian researchers and scientists identified domoic acid as the responsible toxin.
The identification of this toxin was an historic achievement, an historic scientific breakthrough, thanks to the Atlantic Research Laboratory of the National Research Council.
Many more achievements have been made by this council, and many more will be made, but only if we continue to provide adequate funding. Complacency has no place if scientific breakthroughs are to continue.
That is why the topic we are debating today is such an extremely important one. I therefore support and congratulate my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa South, for his motion:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to
support the National Research Council as Canada's premier
research institution and its failure to promote basic scientific
research in Canada.
This is extremely important because science and technology will play a vital role in determining the future prosperity of all Canadians.
The NRC was formed in 1916 as the honorary advisory council for scientific and industrial research and in 1928 the national laboratory was founded. Between 1939 and 1952 reorganization was done to provide a strong foundation in basic science. The principle was established that the extramural budgets of the National Research Council should increase to match the intramural budget.
The NRC is the government's principal scientific research arm, the internationally renowned seedbed of Canada's two Nobel prizes. It has been a source of technological development, not only for Canadians but for citizens of the world.
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
I would like at this juncture to briefly indicate some of the achievements in order for Canadians to know what the National Research Council has done. Dr. Luc Piche, a scientist at the NRC's Industrial Materials Research Institute, was chosen by the American magazine Research and Development, for an award for developing one of the 100 most significant technical developments of 1987. He developed a technique to measure the density of polyethylene using ultrasound technology. This technology provides a valuable tool for both quality and process control, giving the polyethylene manufacturing industry a competitive edge in the international market.
NRC scientists in Montreal developed a biosensor, as another example, which accurately measures the freshness of meat or fish. This product will have an important impact on the food processing industry because it reduces what was formerly an hours-long process to a mere five minutes.
The NRC's division of physics developed a fibre optic system that was used in the world's first open heart surgery to remove plaque from the coronary arteries. Further refinement of his technique, which uses an ultraviolet laser beam to cut away the plaque blocking the blood vessels of the heart, would "ultimately eliminate the need for major open heart surgery", the National Research Council reports.
The public security program of the NRC has developed a system that tracks patients quickly and easily through miniature transmitters inserted in their identification bracelets. This is very useful in keeping track of elderly patients in chronic care hospitals and nursing homes who tend to wander away. These are already being used in Canada and are now being marketed world-wide.
Also, Porter Dillon Ltd. of Nova Scotia has designed Canada's first full-scale biomass reactor for the treatment of municipal wastes. These reactors effectively treat waste and recover energy while offering minimal impact on the environment.
Today, industry in Canada is spread out across the country and the country needs an agent to bring research and development resources together; industry, universities, and government. The NRC is supposed to be this agent. It is ironic that the government expects the NRC
to play this vital role at a time when this government is ruthlessly and continuously cutting its budget.
In 1984, $60 million was cut from the NRC budget. In 1986, an additional $29 million and 250 jobs were lost. In the next fiscal year another $30 million will be cut. Hence, programs and personnel will be cut, staff morale will be diminished and benefits to Canadians today and tomorrow will be lost. Many more programs are going to be phased out.
The government has dealt some fearsome blows to the NRC. Scientists wondered in the past, as they are wondering today, if the NRC will survive at all.
In the time remaining I would like to speak about basic research which is very important in the establishment of the NRC, which now has been shifting its focus to helping industry. It appears that basic research is being neglected by the government.
On Tuesday, March 13, The Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette and other major newspapers carried the news of the cuts to NRC staffing and basic research. It required the courage of the NRC President, Mr. Pierre Perron, to release his letter of January 5 addressed to the Science Council of Canada. I quote; "NRC plans to limit its involvement in basic research-to that required to maintain a minimal insurance policy for the nation." The Research Council's next five-year plan "will propose a clear policy statement and a strategy on privatization and divestiture."
It appears that basic research is being neglected by this government and I challenge government not to do that. It is most crucial that we continue to encourage our creative scientists, provide them with the environment and milieu conducive for them to continue their work and, at the same time, continue to have a decent family life.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology just yesterday. In its submission the association indicated to the committee its concerns about the plight of basic research in the country.
I ask the government to reconsider its plans and to strengthen rather than dismantle the NRC, if we are to ensure the continued scientific breakthroughs that I

March 16, 1990
Government Orders
have alluded to earlier, thereby ensuring prosperity for all Canadians and for all citizens of the world.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, on the important issue of government initiatives in research and testing facilities, I would like to give the member an example of what was in place in British Columbia. It involved basic environmental testing facilities which were equipped with scientists in government owned labs. It was their responsibility to test the impact of various operations on the environment.
The Government of British Columbia decided the best course of action, following on the Conservative model, was to sell off those labs or close them and get rid of them. What we have now is a situation in which private contractors who work for the companies in normal situations are the same people who are hired by the government on a private basis to produce environmental impact studies for the government and for the people of that province.
Thus perhaps the most severe conflict that one could imagine is taking place. There is a real distortion of the needs of people because of the government's very short-sighted privatization fixation, if you will, and because of the tremendous conflict of interest that is now in place.
We see the same kind of model at work here with the NRC and with the effects of the government selling off its assets, proposing to privatize those labs, giving them away for a song to private industry which will use them in a very narrow capacity. Also, public confidence is being broken in terms of the testing process. That data not only has to be produced so that people can make informed decisions about the kind of industrial and development activity that takes place. They must also have credibility. The data must come forward with credibility because of the objectivity of the group involved.
In British Columbia we have one of the worst examples of a conflict of interest and a lack of credibility in the data if it is produced that one can imagine. We are developing the same thing here through Conservative initiatives at the NRC. Would the member like to comment on that?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with my hon. colleague as to the importance of proceeding
with research that would assure that the environment is protected. As we protect the environment today, we are protecting the future of our children.
What I detect from the hon. member's question is the need for academic freedom for researchers to be able to pursue their research without fear of the politicians, without fear of the uncertainty that funding will not be there next year.
I also detect in the hon. member's question the need for the independence of the National Research Council, for it to be able to propose bold initiatives in the area of the environment without being deflected by the government of the day in terms of its political agenda.
I think it is most crucial that if basic research is to continue we have to encourage our universities, our scientists and science teachers to go on with their duties, obligations and mission unfettered, unhindered and unafraid of the uncertainty of political actions.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this debate on the question of the National Research Council and basic research at the National Research Council, it is important to try to put the debate into some kind of perspective to allow Canadians to determine the significance of the prospect of cutting basic research at the NRC. I propose to do so in the following manner, Mr. Speaker.
It is no secret that in today's world, human resources, research and development, and knowledge generally speaking have become critical factors in international competition. It is also no secret that Canada's economic prosperity is still largely based on the exploitation of natural resources.
Several weeks ago representatives from the Canadian Advanced Technology Association appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and reminded us once again that Canada depends largely on natural resources for our economic prosperity. They showed us figures pertaining to Canada's balance of trade in manufactured products. We have a large surplus-I think it amounts to $17 billion or $18 billion-in exports of resource related products. However we have large deficits in technological products, in low technology products, in medium technology products and in high technology products.
March 16, 1990

The reasons for this situation are profound and deep-seated. I would like to run through a number of them.
First, it is well known that Canada invests only half as much as our major competitors in research and development.
Second, we have fewer than one-half the number of scientists and engineers in our workforce than the average of the industrialized countries.
Third, we have a low prevalence of industrial research and development. Indeed, only about 2 per cent to 3 per cent of firms which depend on technology for their futures actually do any R and D. The officers and senior management of many Canadian companies have no scientific background and lack familiarity with what science and technology can do for their companies.
Fourth, science education in Canadian schools is poor and Canadian students do poorly in international competitions.
Finally, rather than providing adequate vocational training for Canadian workers, we have a history of importing skilled workers.
In order to remedy this situation we require a strategy that is far-reaching and comprehensive. There have been suggestions over the past five or six years that what is required is a cultural change. We have to make the transition from a resource based culture to an R and D culture, a culture which values education and learning.
Obviously a cultural transition is something which cannot be accomplished overnight, but the depth of the transition that is required should not be an excuse for inaction. What is required is a quantum leap in the attitudes and actions of Canadians. It is not sufficient to tinker around with programs and departments. Certainly at the very least we should not be interfering with that which is working well.
This brings me to the NRC. Government labs such as the NRC have been a sector in which for many decades Canadian investment in R and D has compared favourably with that of other countries. I want to stress "compared favourably''. Government performance of R
Government Orders
and D in Canada is about equal to that which is done in other countries. It is not excessive.
If it is proportionately higher to industry than it is in other countries, it is not because government is doing too much but because Canadian industry is doing too little. We do not get industry to do more by cutting government R and D, by cutting one of the few areas where we hold our own by international standards.

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservative government first came to power, government laboratories have been threatened by hasty and circumstantial analyses, budget cuts, uncertainty and red tape. The government now wants to reduce the National Research Council's involvement in basic research.
Mr. Speaker, this shows how deeply ignorant it is of the importance of basic research and of the National Research Council's mandate.
First of all, we know that basic research often leads to unexpected results and, to illustrate this, I would like to quote Professor John Polanyi, Canadian Nobel Prize winner:
Since technology needs science, there is a temptation to ask scientists to justify their projects by taking into account the value of resulting technology. By always looking for short-term benefits, we are dismissing scientific efforts- whose purpose is to answer fundamental questions and then to suggest totally new applications.
Mr. Speaker, when we stop doing basic research, we deny ourselves these new unexpected applications Professor Polanyi was referring to. And the situation is even more dramatic today because the time between a new discovery and its commercial applications is getting shorter.
Basic research is therefore essential if we want to keep up with the latest technological developments.
Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the National Research Council has always been to foster industrial research. This has always been an integral part of its programs. A good example would be the Industrial Research Assistance Program, IRAP for short. It happens to be one of the most important programs of the National Research Council and accounts for a major slice of the NRC budget.
A 1983 study revealed that a government investment of only $150 million produced an economic fallout in

March 16, 1990
Government Orders
excess of $2 billion. In other words the companies that took part in this program reported sales of about $2 billion on an investment of only $150 million.
I might add that a Conservative government survey revealed that IRAP is the most popular government program in the private sector. Why would this program be so popular, Mr. Speaker? Why such a huge economic fallout? It is because this program is closely linked to the NRC's laboratories, because we could count on the scientists to evaluate a project and determine whether it was feasible or not.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments today by saying that. I hope I have been able to show you how critical it is to maintain basic research and, indeed, the absolutely fundamental need to pursue our basic research efforts so that we can benefit from significant industrial activity.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to assure my honorable colleague who has a great concern for everything regarding science and technology that this government fully recognizes the importance of basic research. It is recognized, however, whether it is performed at the National Research Council or in universities and it is recognized as a national insurance designed to help us deal with social needs and also national needs to ensure national competitiveness.
I would like to give the honorable member some figures, for the sake of comparison, on what other countries spend on basic research. In Canada, 14 per cent of the science and technology budgets go to basic research. In France, it is 15 per cent; in Germany, 12 per cent; in Japan, 7 per cent and, in the United States, 4 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I think, therefore, that the Government of Canada is doing its share to promote basic scientific research. But I wish to repeat to the hon. member that it is not because in 1985 National Research Council officials were asked to submit a five-year plan, as is the case now, that they will run out of funds this year and they will have to submit another one for the next five years-it does not mean because the five-year plan is being submitted, that basic scientific research will stop.
This is a government which looks to the future and knows where it is going and which has its priorities well in hand.
For the information of my hon. friend, I must emphasize that the funding to the IRAP Program was not cut. In fact, the budget states that NRC's grants and contributions will not change from the previous level. It is therefore possible that some components of the IRAP Program might be governed by new policies and practices which will make assistance to businesses dependent upon conditions more consistent with those of the commercial sector.
Furthermore, I wish to advise him that the President of Treasury Board will soon develop guidelines for the implementation of this policy and will make the announcement. Just the same, the decision will not affect the applications received before February 19 which are already in the system.
The government recognizes that the IRAP is the most successful program when it comes to helping the industry and it is committed to it.
Again I will tell my hon. friend that basic scientific research is very important to the Government of Canada.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary in a way strengthened my argument. She compared the level of basic research done in Canada, in our universities and in the NRC, to that in France, Japan and the United States, but apparently she forgot that the bottom line is that Canada is only doing half what those other countries are doing. We are falling far behind them in research and development and our weaknesses are unbelievable.
Therefore, instead of reciting all the items in her strategy and quoting all kinds of statistics, I would simply like her to reply to a very simple question.
Her Leader, the Prime Minister, stated before he was first elected that he would increase twofold the Canadian research and development effort during his first term. As we know, the opposite happened. Canadian research and development expenditures have plummeted since the government was elected. Therefore, what specific action does this government intend to take
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
to increase Canadian research to the level of other countries?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I cannot allow that question right now.
When we get into 10-minute speeches and 5 minutes for questions and comments, and when there are long comments lasting two, three or four minutes, I cannot get in any more than one questioner and one rebuttal.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Calgary Southwest on debate.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I notice that the motion put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa South condemns the government for failure to support the National Research Council, which simply is not true.
I want to make it perfectly clear that no new cuts have been imposed upon the NRC. What the opposition is talking about relates to adjustments due to the creation of the Canadian Space Agency. In fact, the NRC budget without space program funds was $400 million in the last Main Estimates. It is $402 million in the upcoming fiscal year. There are no new cuts imposed upon the NRC.
The projected personnel reductions are as a result of previously announced restraint measures, something which the NRC has known about for several years. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was 1986 when that was announced.
The NRC has tabled some new and exciting programs and initiatives that it is going to undertake in its long range, five-year plan. All research programs change and evolve with time. Some research programs reach maturity; others develop in directions that are actually outside the mandate of the NRC; and others may shrink to a sort of sub-critical size or be phased out as resources at the NRC are reallocated and new initiatives are developed. It is very important that we constantly be aware of the new initiatives.
The NRC is committed to basic research. I notice that the parliamentary secretary gave some interesting statistics. I just want to repeat that out of the total amount of funding that this government puts into R and D, 14 per cent of it goes to basic research. As the parliamentary secretary just said, France is the only other industrialized
country that is ahead of that, and only by 1 per cent. I would say that some of us here might recognize that France has a socialist type of government, so 14 per cent is nothing to be ashamed of. Look at Germany with 12 per cent, Japan with 7 per cent, and the U.S. with 4 per cent. This government is committed to supporting basic research.
Canada today, like other industrialized nations, is facing scientific and technical changes. The NRC remains as committed today as it always has been to excellence. It is committed to remaining an organization where world-class research is performed by world-class scientists and engineers in world-class facilities. This means choosing carefully the areas where we intend to be excellent so as not to spread ourselves too thinly with the resources that we have available. I believe that even with new resources we would be obligated to review every activity that takes place with a critical eye to guarantee scientific merits and to ascertain the relevance of Canada's needs in terms of what is needed out there today. Whether the NRC is the best place to do basic research or whether it is best done in the universities, everybody has to be reviewing constantly what is in the best needs of Canada.
Excellence is essential for all our programs, but excellence alone is not enough. Our research must also be relevant and mesh well with other NRC activities. One of the best ways for NRC to choose priorities and increase the impact of limited resources is through increased collaboration and increased communication with its clients, with government officials in the departments such as our new Department of Industry, Science and Technology. Let us just state here that this department has received world acclaim and we have a minister for science.
This government recognizes that if we are to be competitive in this global trading world this country must improve its science and technology, which is just the way we are going.
The federal government has played a leadership role in developing Canada's competitiveness by investing heavily in the S and T area. The support the federal government gives to research and development is significant and compares favourably to public sector non-defence spending of its major international competitors.

March 16, 1990
In 1989 over $5 billion was spent by the federal government. Since 1984 more than $2.5 billion in new moneys has been spent on federal science and technology, and the $5 billion figure is for direct funding only.
In addition, the federal government indirectly funds university research and development through Established Programs Financing transfers and industry, research and development through a system of research and development tax incentives.
The achievements and initiatives resulting from federal support of basic research are truly significant. There are many examples such as the funding to the tune of $7 million for the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research with its unique capacities to form networks of co-operation in such fields as robotics and biotechnology. There has been the selection of 14 networks in the $240 million networks of Centres of Excellence Program which links industrial, university and government scientific research in engineering, natural and medical sciences, manufacturing, business, resource and high technology sectors all across the country. Each network involves from 5 to 25 institutions and companies.
It is interesting to note here, Mr. Speaker, because I know you will be very much aware of this, that out of the 14 centres the University of Calgary was affiliated with 7 of them. I believe your university, the University of Alberta situated in Edmonton, was affiliated with 8 of the 14 centres.
There is also the Canada Scholarships Program which has a budget of $80 million. It awards 2,500 scholarships annually to recognize and encourage more of our top students to pursue undergraduate studies in natural sciences and engineering. Academic excellence is the basis for selection with a minimum of one-half of the scholarships being presented to outstanding women.
I have just completed 10 letters to people in my constituency who won these scholarships this year. I think that shows right across Canada how much we appreciate and how much we are trying to inspire young people to get into the roles of engineering and science. It certainly is the future of this country.
I do recognize that there is always a need for more funding. However, I also recognize the new five-year
Government Orders
plan coming from NRC, where it is studying each particular area, and looking at new areas. If Canada is to keep up, we must not become stagnant but we must always be aggressive enough to see what is out there and what we must grasp hold of.
Basic and applied research is important. As chairman of the Standing Committee of Industry, Science and Technology, we had about about 15-17 witnesses before us. They all stated that it is not the money-money is very important-but it is rather how the money is managed. We must learn how we are best able to interest and stimulate our industries here in Canada to take on research and development themselves and how to stimulate youngsters to study science and engineering. It goes right to the elementary and secondary level of school education. It is a major problem. I know that level of education falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Perhaps it is time to have a debate on whether the federal government should suggest some sort of a standard of education, but we will leave that for another day. There is no doubt that I support stimulating all young people to get involved in science and technology.
In conclusion, this government gives total support to S and T, to R and D and we look forward to Dr. Perron's five-year plan from the NRC and we look forward to supporting the NRC as best as possible.
[Translation}


Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to answer the conservative member for Calgary-South-west.

I heard her huffing and puffing about all the good things that the government has been doing. Before asking her the question, I would like to make a comment about the National Research Council, which is located in my riding of Carleton-Gloucester and where most of the employees reside.
The cut-backs to the National Research Council in November, 1984, when the present government came into power, cut the NRC budget by $60 million. They cut the Energy Division, the Environment Secretariat, the Manufacturing Technology Institute, The Institute for Electro-Chemistry, and the Cold Regions Research Institute amounting to 80 lay-offs.
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
In October, 1986 there was a $29 million cut to the NRC budget. Among the cuts were the photochemistry and kinetics section where Nobel Prize winner John Polyani began his research. The government also cut the electromagnetic and mechanical engineering programs, environmental toxicology programs, and aeronautics, construction and physics programs and 200 more jobs were eliminated.
In February of this year the new president, Pierre Perron, in a confidential memo wrote:
NRC intends to limit its involvement in basic research -to that
required to maintain a minimal scientific insurance policy-
The next five-year plan for NRC will propose a clear policy
statement and a strategy on privatization and divestiture.
Third, he planned reductions in permanent employees at the NRC. There have been more cuts since 1984. The $500 million budget was cut to $400 million in 1990. This is a 20 per cent cut in 1984 dollars.
I would ask the member the following question. How will these budgetary cuts and the new NRC President's objectives enhance the role and the place of the NRC in a world-class research community?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester for his remarks and questions. First, I believe that the statement that the NRC was limiting its basic research came from some external advisers. The hon. member knows perfectly well that in any sound business, and indeed any government agency, work does not continue on and on without reviewing, exploring, and having an in-depth study of the programs and mandate. Perhaps these were external researchers who were getting this type of information.
I can assure you that Dr. Perron, the president of the NRC, states that the commitment of the NRC is to basic research in priority areas. They are not going to change that mandate. Their priority areas include legally mandated areas such as astronomy, standards in measurements research, as well as the basic research needed to maintain skills in generic research programs. This has been NRC's fundamental role in basic research for some time as it focuses upon long term applied research with broad applications to industry and government programs.
Universities play an important role in basic research and the government is supporting this activity through the granting councils and the Centres of Excellence program. We have the Medical Granting Council as well as NSRC. There are three major ones. They do tremendous work. You do not put all your funding into one area. Regardless, basic research at the NRC will not only be maintained but it will be strengthened, as I said earlier in my speech, by collaboration with other performers in universities and research organizations.
The NRC, in fact, as a collaborator in 10 of the 14 chosen networks surely shows its importance and why those new centres will come forth and bring benefits to this country, not just tomorrow, but long term benefits.
The hon. member did question me on privatization and divestiture. I thought that I heard the parliamentary secretary state that our National Research Council will not be privatized. The NRC internal working memo refers to privatization and divestiture and it clearly states the NRC is going to encourage private consortia to assist in its operations and its facilities, but it will not be privatizing.
It is time that we became involved in partnerships. We cannot remain stagnant. It is very important to realize that just because money has been spent in one area for the past five or ten years, there are certainly no criteria or guidelines to suggest that the money should continue to be spent in that way.
Dr. Perron and the NRC's five-year program will show us the direction of Canada and why we have to become more competitive, and why research and development is so important, not just for the federal and provincial governments, but for universities and private industries.
It was interesting yesterday at the standing committee meeting. Dr. May from NSERC appeared before us and explained the good things that NSERC is doing and how their budget has been maintained, and indeed increased. This is an excellent way for our government to ensure that engineering science research is carried on at the universities.
We also had before us the Canadian Association of University Teachers. They are very worried about the falling enrolment at universities, and also the quality and level of education of students coming into universities. That gets back to my concluding statement that although elementary and secondary education falls within the

March 16, 1990
jurisdiction of the provinces, somehow-and I do not have the magic answer-we have to stimulate young people to be interested, to be inquisitive and to want to grasp the sciences and to go into engineering and to our science portfolios.
I appreciate the hon. member's questions. I can assure him that we are not privatizing the NRC, and that we are not limiting our basic research. It is very important and it will continue to be important.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, when I was 18 and just leaving high school, the very first job I applied for was at the National Research Council. I had no idea then that I would be standing here all these years later fighting a battle to preserve that institution. One of the proudest moments of my life was when I was accepted for a job in hot and cold state physics at the National Research Council.
I had grown up with the view of this institution epitomizing Canada's excellence in fields of research that were not happening anywhere else in the world, epitomizing our progress and adventurous spirit and our high stature, despite the fact that we were such a small country.
Things changed that summer, and I ended up going back to university and eventually making other decisions about the course of my life. Otherwise, I might have been sitting in the gallery today wondering what my fate was going to be instead of standing here defending those people who have made this country great and created our reputation internationally and continue to do so, despite the hammering that they have received at the hands of this government.
I want to talk about the people. The new frontiers of human endeavour are no longer the frontiers of geography, distance and climate. They are the frontiers of the human mind. We only conquer those frontiers and go beyond them with people of courage, commitment and dedication who are prepared to work for years and sometimes for decades with no specific results, except the pursuit of a new idea that eventually will lead somewhere. I will come back to that theme. I want to talk a little more about how the people who have done this for the country are being treated.
Government Orders
Aside from the cut-backs, aside from the people who are leaving-and they are now in the hundreds-the people who have been forced, coerced or cajoled into leaving are lost to us as a nation, not just to the National Research Council. As a nation these people are lost to us. The whole atmosphere has been demoralizing.
Mr. Perron writes one thing, and then he sends an internal memo to employees which states something else. On the one hand, he reaffirms to the employees the commitment to excellence and basic research. On the other hand, in another document he states: "We will be trimming our basic research to the bare minimum necessary for a minimal insurance policy", whatever the heck that means.
He talks about planned partnerships and working with others in his memo to the employees, and then in another memo talks about planned partnerships as the driving force behind the National Research Council. Planned partnerships are not a driving force, they are not an objective or a mission for an organization. They are tools to accomplish certain things. But to say something like that is to be the driving force is absolutely ridiculous.
It is no wonder people are demoralized, wondering where their life's work is going and wondering where there careers are going. They are being treated inhumanely as employees. There is an unofficial attrition program at the National Research Council that is far more vicious than many of the formal ones taking place in the public service. People are unprotected. They are obviously being hushed up when they retire early. We have statements and numerous clippings over the last three years which indicate that people are not free to comment. Why are we buying off people? People who have dedicated their lives to this country deserve decent treatment when they leave.
The most important thing is that scientists are being prevented from speaking out about what they and they alone know. What is wrong with free and open examination in the media of the implications of the actions of the government in cutting millions of dollars from the budget of the prime institution of basic research in this country?
There was a memorandum sent to the employees of the National Research Council which stated:
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
In the current climate, it is preferable to limit the number of people
speaking on behalf of NRC.
Contrary to the policy that scientists are free to speak out on their areas of expertise, the memo states: "If a reporter calls you, please do not answer", instead call the head of the communications section. That is stifling and gagging people. The very people who should be front and centre in the debate about the future of the National Research Council, because it is fundamental to the future of science in this country, are being told they cannot speak out.
Good research is done by teams of people. These teams take time to assemble. They can be broken up quickly, but they cannot be rebuilt quickly. The actions that are taking place at NRC, not only are removing good people at NRC from the fields in which they are expert, but are discouraging young people from coming into the National Research Council and discouraging young people from careers in science.
What we do at the National Research Council affects far more than the people who are there and the programs that are there. It creates a whole atmosphere. It exacerbates the problem of lack of understanding and lack of support for basic science. We who are leaders in this country have an obligation to give our scientists the freedom to say to the public that science is important, not only for what happens this year and next year but for what happens for the next century in this country and in the world.
We see a total lack of direction. How could the government, in 1986, abolish the Environmental Institute, cut out energy programs, cut out environmental technology and then decide, in 1990, that that is this year's priority. What is likely to happen is that we are going to see the chemistry division turned into an environmental division. What a stupid waste of money. What a stupid waste of people's lives, careers and expertise. How can anybody justify that kind of nonsense?
I want to finish with a few quotes from Canada's most recent Nobel Prize winner. Is it not ironic that in 1986, within the very week that Dr. Polanyi was being named Canada's latest Nobel Prize winner in science, the very lab where he had started his work was being destroyed at NRC. He was not alone. The Basinskis internationally
acclaimed for 30 years for their leading expertise in research which led to developments of tremendous amounts of technology over the years, were having their lab closed down and their lives' work ended.
At that time, Dr. Polanyi was appealing for the National Research Council and for basic research and when talking about his own work stated:
Had they asked whether the research was likely to produce applications and whether those applications would accord with the socioeconomic priorities of the day, they would surely have despaired of our work after a few years.
He talks about how the work which led to his Nobel Prize in 1986 started in 1957, not with the technology, not with an object in mind, but simply because people were seeking basic knowledge that they knew would lead to benefits for humanity as a whole. When asked by a young science student where he should plan his career, Dr.Po-lanyi stated that his advice to a talented and ambitious Canadian scientist would be that he go abroad. Dr.Pola-nyi stated that he did not relish giving him that response, but that at this juncture in our scientific history, which was in the middle of the first round of cuts to NRC, it was the only answer he could give. He also stated that it is not by chance that we talk about research and development. We do not talk about development and research. The research comes first.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her intervention and her commitment to research and development.
I was interested to hear her comments about the opinions of the Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Polanyi. I wonder if the hon. member could advise the House whether or not she and her colleagues have pursued this question with Liberal leadership candidates to see what their views are on such an important question.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an inappropriate question for the floor of the House. The member knows well where the Liberal party stands on these issues, where I personally stand on these issues and where my colleague, the critic for science and technology stands. All she has to do is to listen day after day in this House to know where the Liberal party stands.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I suspect that the hon. member is aware that the Speaker will rule what is an inappropriate

March 16, 1990
question in this House. I did not see the Speaker rule against that. I wish she would answer the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair does not wish to get into debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: I listened carefully to the hon. member and I know that since she was elected she made a lot of recommendations concerning NRC scientists. I would therefore like to give her the assurance that no new person-year reductions have been forced upon the National Research Council by this government. In fact, the National Research Council is now negotiating an agreement with Treasury Board for increased security and flexibility in the management of its human resources. That memorandum relates to the planned previously announced cuts in the NRC'S permanent staff. Those cuts are part of a well-known effort to restructure and re-organize the National Research Council. The down sizing in full-time jobs at NRC was outlined in public papers, including the Estimates. In fact, the NRC will do its utmost to relocate the employees affected by the cuts, either at NRC or elsewhere in the scientific community in Canada.
In the open letter from the President of the NRC, he points out on page 5, and I quote-it is the President talking:"-that the NRC commits itself to maintaining the duties of the groups concerned and that it will do its best to make sure that they be transferred to a more appropriate activity. We will take into account the needs and aspirations of the people affected. Their application for suitable jobs at NRC for which they will be qualified will have priority.
Therefore, I can assure my colleague that, as far as the scientists are concerned, if ever a field of research had to be transferred to universities for instance, the whole thing will be done in a most civilized manner.


Marlene Catterall: The hon. member has left me time to say little else in reply except that is absolute nonsense. Since I am not going to have time to give her the information she needs, I suggest she dig it out herself. I
Government Orders
suggest she find out how many people have been forced into early retirement and what mechanisms are being used to force them into early retirement, and how they are being bribed not to talk about why they left.
In fact, from 1984 through 1986, NRC lost 221 person-years. That is brains. Yet management is being increased this year by 12. That is management, not scientists, not the people who do the work, not the people who go around the world creating Canada's international reputation. This year they are cutting another 125, 30 researchers and 110 technical support staff. That is the best information I have at this point in time.
I suggest the member not speak in the Elouse until she has done her own research and found out what is happening. We are losing brains. We are losing them to the United States and to Europe. We are losing them to retirement. That is a crying shame and a waste of the most important resource this country has.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for ten minutes, plus five minutes questions and comment.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the excellent contribution to the debate by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West, may have rendered redundant some of the comments I was going to make. Earlier this morning, the member for Ottawa Centre made an excellent presentation as well.
However, I want to make a few other comments and I have a few quotations and some figures that might assist my friends opposite in their attempts to make up for five years of neglect and cuts that have damaged one of Canada's foremost scientific institutions.
The National Research Council is clearly one of the most distinguished scientific organizations in this country. Since its founding in 1916, it has been a leader in the scientific field here and abroad. Indeed, out of the National Research Council, as hon. members know, the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited body grew as a result of the research carried on. In addition, the Defence Research Board was a product of that particular council. It has been the foundation stone for contributions to scientific research at Canada's universities, certainly since World War II, and in the period before through its
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
program of scholarships for promising young Canadian students.
What we have here is an attempt by this government to dismantle, in effect, the National Research Council. The work has been going on in an insidious and carefully manoeuvred way to make it appear that, in fact, nothing is changing. I suggest that it is changing, and all for the worst.
I want to turn to the Prime Minister's comments on this. He has made statements about the government's promises and his hopes for scientific research in Canada. I quote from a statement he made at the University of Waterloo, March 4, 1987: "We are determined that excellence and relevance are the guiding principles for managing our government laboratories. For some years, I have been speaking and writing about the urgent and pressing necessity of increasing our national commitment to R and D, not only in the amounts we spend, but in the way we spend, such as using procurement of our government labs and for greater national support for university research. We cannot be satisfied with what we have accomplished".
Those are his words. They are certainly true. He might have said that most Canadians are grossly dissatisfied with what this government has accomplished.
In support of that, let us take a look at the figures. In the 1984-1985 financial year, the last year the Liberals were in office and it is the year that my Conservative friends hark back to every time as the worst year imaginable. The National Research Council, according to the National Council of Canada, spent $480 million. In this year's Estimates, the 1990-1991 Estimates, the total allowed to the National Research Council is $433 million. That is not only a matter of reduction in the increase in rate, that is an absolute cut in the money available to the National Research Council over a five-year period, five years of cuts by this government in what can only be regarded as one of the jewels in Canada's scientific crown.
Let us look at some of the other things that have gone on in the council. In the good old days, a group of people were appointed to head the National Research Council, and it was made up of a relatively independent group of distinguished men and women, at least half of whom were generally academics, scientists and persons with scientific knowledge of considerable distinction and repute in Canada. Under this government there has
been a shift in the kinds of appointments made to the council. Sixty per cent of the current members are composed of businessmen. It reflects the government's obsession with the bottom line and its unwillingness to consider the importance of scientific research in and of itself and for its own value. I submit that the presence of this particular group on the council is influencing the tenor of scientific research in Canada. It is changing from being pure science to applied research, research which is of interest to a certain group but of no interest to other groups.
In support of that let us look at the recent letter from the president of the National Research Council, Dr. Perron. He said in this letter to the employees dated February 15 of this year:
However, I believe that, even with new resources, we would have an unavoidable obligation to review our activities with a critical eye to scientific merit, relevance to Canada's needs, and to whether NRC is the best place for these activities.
Let us look at those three things. First, a critical eye to scientific merit. Who is putting the critical eye on it? This new board of businessmen. Second, relevance to Canada's needs. From whose perspective? The businessman's perspective, not the scientist's. Third, whether NRC is the best place for these activities. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you had your own lab operating in your own plant and you could get government funding for the lab, would you not rather have the research done there? That is exactly the kind of question that is being faced by the council of the NRC. They have stacked the deck, I suggest, in a way that is unfair to the scientific community of this country.
My colleagues have mentioned the results of what has been going on because of these changes, and I suggest that it is not surprising, given the attitude of the National Research Council as exemplified in this letter. The president's letter continued:
Excellence is essential for all our programs, but excellence is not enough. Our research must also be relevant and mesh well with other NRC activities.
Having made those statements, the embarrassment of having them challenged by other members of the National Research Council, employees, and scientists who are working there was too much. So, an additional memo came out which tells the members of the National Research Council to keep quiet. They were not supposed to talk about it. On February 22, there was a memo to all

March 16, 1990
directors general from Pat Mortimer, Director of the Corporate Secretariat. It read, in part:
-recent media reports have outlined changes that are planned or underway at NRC, and Dr. Perron has sent a letter to employees explaining the context of these decisions, and clarifying the direction NRC is taking.
In the current climate it is preferable to limit the number of people speaking on behalf of NRC. Should there be any further media inquiries on these or related policy issues, the primary spokesperson for NRC will be Dr. Perron or, in his absence, Dr. Ross Pottie.
That is what they said. That is a kind of gag order and I suggest it is inappropriate. What we have here is an attempt to reorganize the National Research Council.
To help my friends, I have a quotation from the time of Nero, A.D. 65, Gauis Petronius Arbiter, Pro-Consul at Bithynia in the Roman Empire. Here is what he said. It is directly relevant to what is going on with the government and its meddling with the NRC today:
We trained hard but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet every situation in life by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.
We have heard all about the demoralization that is going on at the NRC as a result of the policies being pursued here today.
There is one other scientist I would like to quote, a distinguished physicist at Queen's University, Dr. Alec Stewart. In his speech in November, 1986 to the Bedford Institute of Oceanography he said these words, and I suggest they are relevant to consider in light of the lack of promising future for our young students at the National Research Council and in the scientific community in Canada in general as a result of the cuts that have been going on here. He said:
Any healthy society, especially in lean and straitened times, must look to the future. The injury done in closing laboratories is real but small compared with the more intangible injury and damage done to young people's expectations and to future opportunities for them in Canada. Our perceptive children may see how little we care about the future-their world-and they may reasonably seek the stimulus needed for their growth outside our country.
Government Orders
Fiscal responsibility is necessary and so is an attitude that values
human energy, knowledge and intellectual achievement. Both are
essential for a future for Canada.
Those are the words that he used, and I submit that those words are extremely relevant for us today.
I urge the government to review its short-sighted policy, review the cuts that it has made to the National Research Council and which we hear denied with statements of the great amounts of spending, and reinstitute the good days when the National Research Council was properly funded and properly run.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, as well as some of the other speakers from Ottawa who have spoken out so eloquently in support of the continued and improved levels of funding for the NRC.
I come from a region of the country with its own high academic tradition, and has also benefited through the work done at the NRC by sending students here and also by having some of our graduates become distinguished scholars at the NRC. I can attest as well to the importance of this institution and the scientific work which it promotes and which it carries out.
I would like to ask my colleague to speak some more about the work that is being done at the NRC and the relationship with his university, Queens, which is another institute of higher learning that is doing a great deal of scientific research.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, clearly the National Research Council, in its long and distinguished history, has been the basis on which university funding of research has started. In fact, it has been suggested to me by some of the scientists with whom I have discussed this matter over the last few weeks that without the National Research Council there would be virtually no university research going on in the country today. It was the NRC that started universities on the road to extensive research which turned our universities into the very capable world leaders that they are in terms of research, both here and abroad.
That recognition has been achieved largely as a result of the National Research Council's work in funding research programs in universities at the end of the war. That funding was possible because of the attitude of the governments then which was very conducive to growth of research and scientific work in Canada. Also, the NRC
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
had developed a pool of expertise in the course of the war, attracting scientists of considerable repute and calibre to Canada, to move here and to work in this country. Indeed, it continued to do that throughout the years until now. Now we find a government that seems to be bent on destroying this institution, depriving it of the opportunity to attract talented and capable scientists.
The cuts are going on there and the people are no longer coming. The difficulty that I keep hearing about from the scientific community-I have been in touch with them for some time and they are very, very concerned about this-is that once you start breaking up an institution like that and people start leaving, it is a very difficult trend to reverse. That is the message I keep getting.
In answer to my friend from Cape Breton Highlands- Canso, I am afraid that we are going to lose these people from the National Research Council. Once they start going, they are going to keep going. The numbers are dropping off because of the cuts and the demoralization. The institution is in a very precarious state at this time, thanks to the efforts of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is only one minute left for a short question or comment. That is about all I can allow the hon. member for Willowdale.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, members of the industry, science and technology committee had the opportunity to visit the NRC a short while ago. We met some of the top people there. Their ranks were much thinner than they had been previously because of the major cuts at the top and throughout the NRC. When we asked these people specific questions about the state of research and development in Canada, they were afraid to answer straightforward questions. In my own mind, I was criticizing these people. I want to apologize to them.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a Minister of State for Industry, Science, and Technology to speak to this opposition motion today.
I have had the chance to listen to a great many of the speeches by hon. members opposite, as well quite factual and helpful speeches by hon. members on this side. I want to make a preliminary comment and then develop further the government's position on not just the National Research Council, but on science and technology funding generally.
I listened carefully this morning until noon and then came back later to listen to more of this debate. Not once did I hear anything from the opposition anything about links to the private sector. Its whole discussion of science and technology reminded me a bit of a defence of a cultural institution. Science and technology, according to the opposition, should go on in universities and government laboratories. Not a word do we hear about feeding and strengthening those institutions through links with the private sector and with the industrial reality of this country. It is a fundamental flaw in everything I have heard from hon. members opposite today. They do not feed the institutions that we have for research and government and university with linkages to the private sector. They do not talk nor care about that. They almost look upon science and technology as a cultural artefact which exists without any linkages to the real world or to the private sector.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Nonsense.


Thomas Hockin: Hon. members opposite say this is nonsense. It certainly is nonsense but this is what they are saying by neglecting to talk about the links to the private sector. The problem with their approach is they want us to maintain these institutions almost in an incarcerated way, cut off from the lifeblood of what will make them dynamic and strong which is to link them with the real world, industrial research and the private sector.
The government has done a great deal to make sure that happens. Members opposite find this most difficult to agree with, but something we have tried to do is to make them stronger in their linkages with the private sector and the industrial community that is outside of universities and government.
I want to make comments in three different directions. I want to talk about this linkage with the private sector and basic research. I also want to give some examples of how this new approach of linking industrial research that is done in government and universities more with the

March 16, 1990
private sector is bearing fruit and working. I want to delineate how important that is to the government's philosophy toward a stronger scientific and technological sector in Canada.
Let me correct a factual error first. The hon. member for Ottawa West mentioned the cuts of the NRC at the senior management level. She argued that there was an increase in senior management of 13 people. She was contrasting that with decreases in employment in other levels. I want to help her with this. Since November 1989 there has been a reduction of four in executive management at the vice-presidential level in the NRC. I refer her to Part III of the Estimates on page 63.1 will give this to her after I speak today. There has been a reduction in executive and senior management. Therefore, she has either misread the documents or she needed this exegesis of mine of the Estimates. I encourage her to look at page 63 of the Estimates.
The other point is more fundamental. The contribution of the government to science and technology as a proportion of government program spending has gone up under this government over what we inherited. When we came to office, the proportion of federal government spending on programs, as a percentage of federal government spending on programs, was a little over 4 per cent; it is now almost 5 per cent. This is at a time when there are tremendous other pressures, the claimants for government attention are growing, and a time when the government has had to be fiscally responsible. Science and technology has increased in that proportion. That over-all expenditure reality has been overlooked by hon. members opposite and it is very important for me to bring that back into the House so that hon. members will remember what we have done in terms of proving, with dollars and cents, how important science and technology spending is to the government.
Let me just move to some systematic comments about what we are doing. First, the problem with what we have heard today from hon. members opposite is that they are putting the NRC on a kind of Olympian pedestal, and they are doing a disservice to the NRC by doing this. What they want to do is put it on a pedestal. We even had a wonderful quotation from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. When the hon. member quotes proconsuls from some previous century, I listen carefully. He has good quotations and I like to learn
Government Orders
from them. In his quotation, a quotation against reorganization, he said we should not reorganize because that can be very difficult for the life and health of any institution. I want to address that. If an organization does not change, if it is not renewed, if it does not improve its context in the society of which it is a part, it will die. Those reorganizations are, of course, what we have encouraged and I am going to outline how we have done that.
We should not place this institution on a pedestal, far above the hurly-burly of day-to-day life; we should not do that. What we will do is involve the NRC far more than ever before in the most important challenges facing the nation. We want the NRC to be right at the vanguard of the challenges facing the nation, not to be incarcerated in some ivory tower. We have, in fact, helped that to happen in dozens of ways.
With our support, for example, the NRC's council is sharpening the NRC into one of the country's principal agencies for economic competitiveness. That is something else we have not heard a word about, economic competitiveness. The department of which I am a part is essentially the department in charge of industrial competitiveness. I did not hear a word about competitiveness. What hon. members opposite want to do is protect these institutions from change. I say, if these institutions are going to have strong morale and a sense of purpose, they must deliver on the country's economic competitiveness, and that is what the government has been doing.
The NRC has a very proud history, but it cannot flourish as a monument to past achievements and that is what we have been hearing. Members want this monument to past achievements not to be touched, not to be renewed, and that is not our philosophy. It must always be a national resource, helping to meet the country's most significant needs.
We heard the hon. member for Ottawa West talk about morale. The problem with her presentation was that she linked morale with a kind of glacial stasis. She argued that any change at all will affect morale. She knows that institution well and I do not believe that any institution believes that. Most institutions believe that their morale is improved if the changes made will give a stronger more pertinent long-term future.
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
In looking at history and this quotation of a proconsul from a previous century, it said that we should not reorganize. In fact, the NRC has never been static. It has always gone through waves of pertinent reorganization. Before World War II, the NRC cultivated and supported university science, and this has been brought out during the debate, helping to create world-class faculties out of small undergraduate laboratories. This we acknowledge; this was part of its mission; this was an important contribution, part of its style and essence. During the war, the NRC helped to give the country the technological edge so important to victory in World War II. That was a mission which is different now. It is not participating in that mission, but that was a mission that it had during World War II. That was a change from what went before, and what the NRC is doing today is a change from that.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the NRC undertook fundamental research and used this intellectual fervour to attract and retain for Canada some of the world's best scientific and engineering talent, people like Gerhard Herzberg and John Polanyi, both Nobel Laureates. Recently the NRC has taken up the new challenge, a new development in its distinguished history, to help Canadian industry become the best. Its council is working on a five-year plan that, building on the experience of recent years, will turn the NRC into an engine of applied intelligence. The NRC has always managed to change to better serve this country. The NRC will continue to change, just as the nation as a whole will change.
The NRC has changed. It has gone through, probably, four or five important iterations in its history. The hon. member who quotes the proconsul does not want it ever to change. It is important for its health and its relevance that it goes through these changes. That is what will guarantee its success and its relevance to the country as a whole. We need the NRC. Canada cannot exist without a strong National Research Council. The government is determined to make sure that it does not atrophy by doing things from another era. We are determined to lead, as you know, a competitive renaissance in Canada, and we want the NRC to be part of that.
On the platform of abundant resources, Canada must build right now an edifice of applied intelligence and applied skills in order to maintain our standard of living. We must do that and we cannot be laggards in doing that. Only through economic growth fueled by effective competition in the world's markets can the country maintain its social safety-net, its support for the arts, its regional balance and social harmony. If we are going to win competitively, it requires an intelligent and skilled workforce employing the latest technology. The NRC will be an important way of ensuring that Canada's workforce can be the best. We do not want to incarcerate the NRC and make it irrelevant to the competitive agenda, we want to put them at the forefront of that agenda.
Several things are happening at the NRC to fit it out for its new task. Planning is still taking place, but the next five years will see the following: a renewed commitment to excellence backed by more intensive effort in selected critical areas; closer ties to Canadian industry through participation in consortia, joint research, employee exchanges and increased assistance. I did not hear a word from hon. members opposite about that and how important that is to sustain it and give it a lifeblood of creativity from connections outside of its own doors.
Up until now, government laboratories made extensive efforts to transfer their knowledge to industry. Government laboratories have been very helpful with regard to that. In the new NRC, industry will co-develop that knowledge and the transfer will be to foreign markets in the form of competitive products and services.
Finally, the NRC will resume its role as the finishing school, if you like, for the country's most highly trained scientists and engineers. Once again, the country will enjoy the talents of an NRC alumni of scientific excellence. That is our view of where it is headed. That is our view of its relevance.
Although hon. members opposite do not like to speak of the links with the private sector, yes it is true, the new NRC will be industrially-oriented. It will not be an ivory tower. It will not be an incarcerated institution. We are going to make sure that its roots are strongly in the industrial reality of the country. Its Industry Development Program, like the Industrial Research Assistance Program and the Canadian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, will be sharpened and honed.

March 16, 1990
Industry will be encouraged to shoulder a larger part of the nation's research, in part by having increased access to the rich talent and the facilities of the NRC. What is wrong with that? Why should we not ask the industry of the country to carry a larger part of this burden? Hon. members opposite too often want to foster dependence on government to an excessive degree. That is not healthy for the country and it certainly is not healthy for the scientific and engineering excellence in this country. If industry is encouraged to shoulder a larger share of the nation's research, in part by having increased access to the rich talent and facilities of the NRC, does this mean that it is any less a laboratory? Are you defiling the laboratory by encouraging it to do this? You are not. You are making the laboratory relevant. Is relevance and usefulness wrong? Of course it is not. Must Canadian technology always be developed by our competitors, instead of our industrial partners? That is our view of the kind of linkages we would like to see for the NRC.
One of the most appalling misunderstandings has been the charge that the new NRC is doing this somehow against its will. I do not believe most members of the NRC are doing this against their will. They do want to have these linkages with the private sector. It is a misunderstanding that somehow this means that they are neglecting basic research.
As a former academic myself, I know what basic research means. I believe that basic research is best conducted not just in an ivory tower. Let me just tell you what is happening about basic research in the NRC. We have had the hon. member for Calgary South speak to this, but we have had some additional information that we think the House should hear.
What do the critics really mean when they talk about this? If they mean that the NRC is neglecting its contribution to humankind store of knowledge, they are wrong. For example, in the Herzberg Institute, the NRC has a world class performer in astronomy. The institute provides Canadian astronomers with first-class facilities, collaboration on frontier research and scientific leadership in important areas.
The NRC is participating, too, in the world-class basic research of 13 of the 16 Centres of Excellence. They are right there and a part of that basic research phenomenon brought by the government, the Centres of Excellence.
Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Are you moving the Herzberg institute? Answer the question.


Thomas Hockin: The hon. member wants to know whether we are moving an institute from one place to another? That is all he cares about. He cares about those kinds of small political things.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is not small at all.


Thomas Hockin: What he should care about is basic research and what the NRC is doing about basic research. That is what I am talking about.
The NRC has played a critical role in establishing this Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Does the hon. member object to that?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, I think it's great.


Thomas Hockin: Very good. It is a uniquely Canadian contribution to the cutting edge of the understanding of cosmology. Are these the achievements of a national laboratory that is turning its back on basic research? It is not. It is doing basic research. This will continue. I have dozens of examples here I would be glad to give in terms of answering questions or making comments.
Let me just conclude with this. NRC is not just contributing to basic science or linking with the private sector, but it is innovative. The NRC has never lacked for innovative approaches to problems facing Canadians. This is very important to us in this decade. Just last year it was involved in electronic pace and tracking systems, assembly-line programming, measurement devices for food freshness, a coal-water burner, aerial magnetic instrumentation, automated pipe welding, rail grinding to prolong rail life, oil-rig stability measurements, an innovative five-wheel unicycle for the physically-challenged, and a trace vapour detector for airport security.
These examples and more all demonstrate that NRC's research has the potential to become competitive products and competitive services. This new approach of linking with the private sector as much as possible and encouraging basic research has produced these innovative approaches.
This new approach featuring in depth NRC industry and university research on problems of fundamental importance will only increase the value of this institution's efforts. All our competitors have organized their science along similar lines. The opposition would not like
March 16, 1990

Government Orders
to do this. It would like to somehow isolate and incarcerate the NRC. That is not our view.
Canadians, as I have already pointed out, remember with satisfaction the contribution of the NRC in aid of the war effort. The country is in a commercial battle every bit as intensive in its own way today. It is not a military war, but it is a competitive war. We need the NRC to win that battle, and we need it as a vanguard.
If we are to do this, there will be changes in the NRC. Some established programs will be discontinued or handed over to others in the university and industrial sectors. But it will be worth it. The commitment to deficit reduction does not permit the easy solution of endless expansion. Remember, though, the NRC did not establish its Canadian and international reputation by staying the same. That is not how it got where it is. It has always been one of the pillars of Canadian science and technology by maintaining a commitment to excellence, a commitment to relevance, and a commitment to change with the times.
That is why it is run by an arm's length council and president, and this is why the council largely sets its own rules and determines its own directions. This is also why the government continues to assign NRC new tasks, always important tasks, and why the NRC is strong now and will be even stronger in the future. Let us breathe life into the NRC. Let us make it relevant to our economic future this decade. That is what we are trying to do.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I was amazed when the hon. minister mentioned the fact that there was an increase in terms of federal government investment between 1984 and now. The facts speak for themselves. In 1985 the spending in terms of Gross Domestic Product was $1.4 million. In 1987 it fell to $1.35 million. I cannot see how that can be considered an increase.
In terms of the over-all funding for the National Research Council, in 1984-85 the government spent close to $505 million. In 1990-91 that fell to $402 million.
Can the minister explain his original statement to the House that there was an increase in research and development and an increase to the National Research Council?
He also talked about creating a partnership with the private sector. That is great; that is definitely the way to go. We are not disputing that at all. One has to remember, though, that the federal government has a leadership role to play. The federal government has to create an economic environment for the private sector in order to invest in research and development.
Obviously, when the private sector sees us as the federal government attacking one of our major institutions, the National Research Council, by cutting grants, it is not going to move the way it could move if we play a leadership role with them.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my hon. friend has asked these questions because it allows me to clarify statistical points that I was making.
First, if we take out the space component the NRC's budget has gone up from $400 million last year to $402 million this coming year according to the Main Estimates. We took the space expenditures out and put them in another part of the Estimates book. That is where the hon. member has been misled and why he is quoting inaccurate statistics. It is probably not his fault. If we remove the space program and put it elsewhere in the Estimates, we find that spending for the NRC has gone up slightly from $400 million to $402 million, not down the way that he expected.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What kind of per cent is that? Tory times are tough times.


Thomas Hockin: That is very important because we are making the NRC more relevant. The NRC is having to share its role in the over-all scientific and technological thrust of this country with respect to other expenditures.
We remember what they are- the $240 million network of Centres of Excellence Program, the $80 million Canada Scholarships Program and the $200 million increase in base funding for the granting councils. We do not hear about this from the hon. members opposite because they are fixated with the NRC.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You will.


Some hon. members:: Lower the debt.

Government Orders


Thomas Hockin: They should look at the whole package. This is part of the whole package.
Finally I have to add all this up and tell the hon. member that it is program expenditures on which the government has flexibility. If we want to find the priorities of a government in Canada we cannot look at the interest on the debt because that is a given. The government cannot do much about that except to decrease the deficit every year as best it can, which we have done and the previous government did not do in the 15 years before we took office. What we should do is look at program expenditures. As a proportion of program expenditures the S and T envelope has increased from 4.46 per cent in 1984 to close to 5 per cent under this government. This is financial and symbolic evidence of the importance of S and T to this government as a priority. In very difficult fiscal times there has been an increase. This is a priority, not the opposite.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the minister promised us some examples of the products he was talking about and I did not hear of them. I think it betrays his ignorance of NRC if he thinks it was only in the last year or the last few years that links with the private sector have been an important part of NRC's operations. They always have been.
On the other hand, the shift here is to turn away from promoting science to "serving Canada's industrial competitiveness", and you serve Canada's competitiveness by having new products and new technology and most of all from research.
The president of NRC goes on to say that this industrial partnership, this approach on competitiveness, could be temporary and NRC may very well have to shift back to promoting science. When it shifts back it will not have any scientists to do it with. I am shocked that the minister is not concerned about the number of good and competent people we are losing.
I will give him a few examples of why it is important to keep basic research, because that is what international competitiveness is. Before I do so, I want to remind him that he talks about NRC going abroad and selling our technology. We now have 90 per cent of our technology developed abroad and only 10 per cent developed in Canada. It seems to me that the job we have to do is
some work in Canada. We do not do that by cancelling what has led to the science and technology we are now feeding out all over the world. What we learned to do is to enhance that, to make it better, and to improve our ability to develop it here in Canada.
I just want to go back again to the fact that it took 15 years to discover the protein that only grows in tumours and allows us to identify cancer at an early stage. The end result had nothing to do with what people were looking at when they started; they were looking at calcium in tumours. If we cancel that kind of research for five years we are stifling our progressiveness for the next fifty years.
I go back to Dr. Polanyi. The very detectable infrared luminescence that Ken Cashion observed in 1957 led three years later to a suggestion for infrared lasers. A decade later the sort of laser we proposed had become the most powerful source, and yet another decade passed before it began to be evident what the market use might be for such lasers. It was 28 years before the first small observation led to one of the most significant technological developments in the last century. That is what is important. These other things are all products. They are all what you do after you have done the sciences. They are not what you do instead of the sciences. I fail to understand why the minister does not understand that.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. friend's comments. She gave some very good examples of important contributions NRC scientists have made through basic research to real world success stories, research that was done originally as basic research which lo and behold suddenly became relevant in the real world. That is precisely what we want to do. We do not want to make a total dichotomy between basic science and industrial application. As I made clear in my remarks both must occur.
What I think we have to recognize better than the hon. members opposite have is the link between basic science and real world realities. Let me give some examples of the two happening: the NRC which is a storehouse of basic ideas suddenly becoming adaptable to the real world. For example, the NRC does research on environmental problems. Researchers at the NRC's Biotechnology Research Institute in Montreal are working with Environment Canada on developing new technology to
March 16, 1990

clean up the banks and the sediment in the St. Lawrence River.
Another example of a combination of basic research with the real world, in 1987 NRC scientists identified the mysterious toxin in P.E.I. mussels which caused two deaths and more than 100 cases of serious illness. In Saskatoon, the NRC worked with the University of Saskatchewan to discover a group of chemicals that promote rapid seed germination.
Nothing is more basic to transportation and the life of this country than safe trucks. The NRC is working to make trucks safer and cut down on the number of accidents. For example, when a fuel truck hit a bus in Ottawa last September, I think in the hon. member's riding, killing the truck driver and causing a huge fireball, police turned to NRC experts for help in determining the cause.
Finally I refer to a great example in that we all have to carry bills around in our pockets. NRC technology has made Canadian money counterfeit-proof. I agree with the hon. member. This is basic research adapted marvellously to the realities of the real world. That is what is going to make us competitive and relevant.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the things which the minister has talked about. The minister focused, not surprisingly, in his comments on the essence of the motion itself and the accomplishments of NRC. Incidentally, by noting some of these accomplishments I think the minister is simply proving the point that this is an extremely valuable institution with a fine record behind it, a record which deserves consistent and continuous guaranteed government support so that it has a sense of confidence and security for the future to be able to continue to do the excellent work to which the minister has referred.
One issue which the minister referred to in the earlier stages of his comments is the relationship between research and development and science and technology, on the one hand, and the whole industrial structure on the other hand. Like the minister I think that a fundamental weakness in our society is that economically we do not have in this country what we see in the suburbs surrounding Boston, in the areas surrounding MIT or in
Government Orders
the areas around Stanford in California, that is a massive number of small businesses which have been spun off from the basic research taking place in the universities that have made the connections with industry. By making those connections with industry they have started to make the commitment, as this motion puts it, to promote basic scientific research in Canada as something which is economically significant, economically tight, and economically important.


Thomas Hockin: What about the University of Waterloo?


Steven W. Langdon: There are exceptions. The University of Waterloo, as the minister suggests, is one which has done relatively well. There are other exceptions. The University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon has done quite well with this kind of thing. Even in those cases we are talking about a level of relationship with the industrial structure which is so different from that which exists in the United States and indeed in many countries in western Europe that we are virtually talking night and day.
What are the reasons for this problem? I have got probably 10 or 11 more minutes in which I can speak, and I want to identify three crucial problems which exist in the heart of our economic structure and help to explain the problem. Often there are people on the Conservative benches, and indeed on the Liberal benches, who wonder why it is that this party is so concerned about foreign ownership and about foreign takeovers in particular. There is a distinction between foreign ownership and foreign takeovers. We can have a new industrial enterprise that when established sets up a number of different parts of its operation, some of which contribute to new scientific activities in this country. When we have foreign takeovers of scientifically based companies, high tech companies, in this country, it is much more difficult to see the likelihood of new expansions in research and development.
I looked at some success stories we have had here in Canada of industries which had recognized the importance of making the link with the scientific community, the university community and institutions like NRC.
I think, for instance, of a company like Mitel or Connaught Labs which grew out of the central core of the University of Toronto. I look at both these institutions and I see now that both of them have been taken

March 16, 1990
Government Orders
over by a foreign owner. As a consequence of foreign ownership, major changes are being undertaken to these high tech companies in Canada which recognized in the past the need for an integral connection between those in industry and those in institutions of scientific research in this country.
Those connections inevitably are destroyed when foreign ownership reduces the staff, through massive rationalization, as in the case of Mitel. It is a polite word for explaining that lots of people are fired and lots of lay-offs take place.
In the case of Connaught Labs we have the key Canadians who turned this enterprise into a successful, high tech enterprise simply eliminated by the French company that has taken it over.
We see the same kind of thing in the case of a company like Federal Pioneer. Federal Pioneer is perhaps the foremost company in this country that develops electrical equipment. For the development of that kind of innovative, electrical equipment, its connections and relationships with the scientific community have been crucial. I am certain those relationships, too, are going to be subject to devastating attack by the foreign takeover which is now to occur with Federal Pioneer. That is one set of issues. I could talk at much greater length about the problems associated with foreign ownership.
The second set of problems are those associated with the free trade arrangement which we have entered into with the United States. I have to talk about two or three examples which have come to my attention in the last year or so, in a particularly compelling and personal way. During the campaign for leadership of the New Democratic Party I worked a good deal of the time in Ontario. One of the places I visited was the massive Massey-Fer-guson plant in Brantford, a plant which strikes you now as perhaps the most symbolic example of the potential consequences of free trade in this country. We have had a free trade agreement in agricultural implements with the United States since 1948. When you go into that magnificent plant in Brantford it is as if you see six full football fields completely bare. That bareness or that destruction is a destruction not just of the jobs, not just of the people and their families, but a destruction of the innovation which was associated with that company. In
fact the major innovation associated with that company has been transferred to the United States, the axial combine which was being produced by Massey.
The same thing is taking place in a company like Stelco, one of the biggest and most important companies in this country. This is a company which has done much research and development. It is now transferring much of its attention to the United States for expansion.
Finally I have to talk about a third area of serious problems, and that is the fact we do not make use of our natural resources to benefit our country, our industrial structure. We see it, for instance, today in the National Energy Board decision which effectively means that we will not be able to apply to exports of natural gas in the future the national interest test that social cost-benefit analysis permitted us to do.
What happens when these three kinds of developments take place? First, we see that there is no longer a focus for scientific research here and for spin-offs from that scientific research. We see it in the case of Mitel. We see it in the case of Massey. We look as well at the destruction of our high tech firms. Those firms are then not able to make the connections which I agree with the minister are so crucial to the ability to establish successful scientific research in the future.
That is why we do not have a commitment to basic research in this country. That is why scientific research is so weak here. It is not because NRC is being attacked, though I agree that the attacks on NRC are foolish and short-sighted. The reason is that the basic policy being followed by this government and the basic policy followed by the previous government was a policy which failed to tackle the questions of foreign ownership and the questions of development of high tech firms of our own, here in this country. That is what we have to change.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa South which blames the government for not supporting the National Research Council and also for not encouraging basic research.
March 16, 1990

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that half of the NRC's budget is for applied research, 25 per cent for basic research and 25 per cent for national facilities, CISTI, and administration.
The member who made the motion said this morning that our priorities were to reduce the deficit instead of maintaining funding for research, science and technology in Canada. It is true that we put a lot of emphasis on deficit reduction, Mr. Speaker, but I must tell you that we have to do so now in 1990 because they did not for some 20 years. It is because they too brought down budgets that did not give what they should have for science and technology.
I have some details on that, Mr. Speaker, to tell you about. They say that people do not realize that under the Liberal government, the NRC's budget was $531 million in 1984 and that the forecast for 1986, had the Liberal government remained in power, fell to $480 million.
In 1986, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance made his financial plan for the next five years, of which the last year begins this April 1, he forecast a budget of $3.4 billion, which is nearly $700 million a year. This year, Mr. Speaker, the budget for the last year of this five-year plan is $731 million.
So this means that since 1984 we have been increasing our estimates by 38 per cent each year and if we compare the $3.4 billion figure I mentioned earlier to the $2.3 billion in the Liberal Government Estimates, we have increased the national investment in science and technology by 48 per cent.
I have another statistics, Mr. Speaker. It strikes me that the opposition often suggests we are opening the door to foreign investment here in Canada, we are pushing the door wide open. I have here, Mr. Speaker, three foreign-controlled corporations-Pratt and Whitney, IBM Canada and Imperial Oil. Pratt and Whitney, Mr. Speaker, is investing $243 million a year into research and development, IBM Canada $132 million, and Imperial Oil $54 million.
Government Orders
When they suggest foreign capital is coming here to steal our jobs away, when they suggest as I heard this week that we are selling the Canadian soul away to foreign corporations, I believe this is hogwash and I label that disinformation. This is not information but disinformation Mr. Speaker, because those corporations come here and invest, they come here and do research, they come here and employ our workers and researchers in their operations.
What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? Why do we have to hear that kind of demagogy, that kind of disinformation about foreign investment?
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if opposition parties were a little more co-operative on government initiatives, they would not accuse us of spending millions of dollars to advertise the budget or the sales tax while that money would be spent for science and technology.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it three o'clock, I wish everyone a very happy St. Patrick's day and a very happy weekend. You must remember:
It's a day for wearin' a shamrock To honor that glorious saint!
It's a day when folks who are Irish Feel sorry for those who ain't!
It's a day for thinkin' of Erin,
Colleens and the Lakes of Killamey,
And toastin' friendships both old and new,
And speakin' a wee bit o'blamey!
It's a day when a smile's for the wearin',
And the bands will be blazin' away,
And for wishin' friends "The Top O' The Mornin'"
For sure-'TIS THE IRISHMAN'S DAY!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired. This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 19, 1990