Debates of Nov. 21st, 1995

Supply

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry put that question. I must tell the House that we did not consult before.

The best example I can give him is the announcement made a week ago last Wednesday by the Minister of National Defence with respect to the acquisition of the capability for 15 search and rescue helicopters.

It allows the aerospace industry to be totally flexible in the way it goes about responding to this request. It can either provide helicopters by saying that it thinks those are the ones that are the best, and if it is assessed, that is the way it goes or the Canadian companies can say that they will lease helicopters. Having leased or bought them, the maintenance of the helicopters can be contracted out using the aerospace industry in a manner that perhaps was not conceived before and the inflexibility of this cumbersome system that I described in my presentation did not allow. More flexibility means more efficiency and better use of Canada's considerable aerospace industry.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting motion that we are debating this afternoon:

That the House condemn the government for having dropped the Canadian content requirements in the contracts for the purchase of military equipment and refusing to set up a genuine program for the conversion of the military industry, thus endangering the Canadian aerospace industry located in Montreal.

Right off the top, I have to say that this motion has great difficulty with one of the realities of the economic world today. We

live in a global economy. The motion fails utterly and completely to address the question that Canada must be competitive in that world. It seems to state that looking for subsidies somehow seems to be the answer. I could not disagree more with the thrust of the motion. I might wish to condemn the government for other things but that is certainly not one of them.

I would like to take a slightly different approach to this whole business and look at it from the industrial point of view, from the development of industry and, in particular, innovation and the science and technology thrust that ought to happen in Canada. One of the first of these is that Reformers encourage investment, not subsidization.

This country needs to develop entrepreneurs, risk takers, people who understand what it means to take a new idea and make it work. It is, after all, these innovators in this new technological world that are the engine of the new economy that is developing all around us.

We need to develop a culture that rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research and ensures that there is a level, competitive and honest marketplace in which these people can operate. That is what we need. This motion does the exact opposite. It throws the whole marketplace and the honesty of the marketplace right out the window. Therefore, we cannot approve it for that reason.

If entrepreneurs are developed with the skills to be innovative and to take the necessary risks, we will develop the kind of fibre in the people who will make Canada strong and who will get us to the competitive position that we need.

In order to do that, we need to do something else. We need to encourage investment in capital structures, in buildings. We also need to develop investment in equipment. That is obvious. The one that is not so obvious is that we need to have investment in research and development.

Let me draw members' attention to what the president of Digital Canada had to say about Research and Development Canada: "By far, the most overriding issue is the investment climate for innovation in Canada". We have all heard stories of new Canadian inventions. These are not so new. They have been around for a while but they were new at one time. One was the heart pacemaker and the other was the variable pitch propeller. Both of these inventions were exploited not in Canada but in other countries because of the reluctance of Canadians to take risks.

It is unlikely that Canadians are any more risk adverse than anyone else in the world. They will take risks. However, we have always had taxation and fiscal policies that encouraged investment in enterprises that had hard assets to back them up as opposed to enterprises that were based strictly on knowledge. That is the direction we will be moving in the future.

I am so encouraged to see that at least some of our banking community is beginning to recognize this. They are beginning to recognize that we need to recognize assets that are not hard and fixed but rather rest really in the minds, the capabilities, and the skills of individuals.

Then he goes on to an example of a particular company. Guess which company it might be? The Digital Equipment Corporation, which was founded in 1957 with only $70,000 of venture capital. That was put up by a company in Boston called American Research and Development. It took 70 per cent of the equity in the company but also showed the founders of the company how to build and manage a successful company. The result was that when that company went public on the American Stock Exchange in 1966, less than 10 years later, that $70,000 investment was worth about $30 million. That is significant.

It was the tax provision that existed in the United States at that time that made it possible for these ventures to succeed as they did. We need to learn from these successful countries and do something very similar. It has nothing to do with the kind of subsidization that is being advocated in this motion.

We need to go one step further as well. Canadian investors and Canadian entrepreneurs need to recognize that they need to have a change toward venture capitalists. They seem to have the idea, which is only human-I am certainly like that-that if something is mine, it is mine, and I want it all.

When you get into the idea of venture capital, these people who have the deep pockets with millions and sometimes billions of dollars in them, and who are prepared to underwrite the venture, do not want to just give that away. They want to say this is a good idea and they want a part. The company we just looked at took 70 per cent, but it became a $30 million investment later and gave a tremendous return to the owner.

The person who has the great idea needs to recognize that they have two options: they have all of the idea with no money to develop it, which means they will never make any money and never get rich; or they have the option of going to somebody who has a deep pocket, venture the thing out, share the major risk on the other side, and get rich in the process as well.

That attitude needs to develop in Canada. It needs to develop among academicians. It needs to develop with our entrepreneurs. It needs to develop on the part of parents of people who are seeking success in the industrial world.

We need to move into another area as well. We need to get into the area of management. When we get into high tech specialized industries and we need specialized management as well. We need

managers who understand science. We need managers who understand technology.

You can be the most brilliant scientist, the most brilliant technologist and understand all the machinations and all the intricate workings of networks and things of that sort, but if you cannot manage people it is no good. It takes a special kind of management skill to do this. We need to do that.

There are two skills I would like to draw to our attention today. The first of these is that these people need to learn how to solve problems. That becomes the key. It is not so much are you able to push the button or are you able to program the computer, but rather can you solve a problem. Then you must recognize that you probably cannot do it alone and that your skills need to be combined with those of someone else, a third party and a fourth party, so that the group together forms a team. That team then begins to solve the problem. At different times, different members of that team will become leaders. The whole concept of seniority and the other things that are traditional with us will go out the window.

This motion, on the other hand, says no, no, no, do not do that; just create a government program for this industry so that it can be diverted to peacetime operation rather than military operation. No. Government needs to encourage the development of balanced people who can do the kind of management we talked about. We need to give to the individuals who seek this kind of education an opportunity to do that.

Members in the House will remember that we proposed a voucher system of education so that the student, the researcher, or the scientist who wants to advance himself becomes a person who selects where, when, and into how much detail he will go to get that skill in development. It seems to me that is rather significant, instead of having the university decide here is your program, here are your answers, come and get them. The student says no, he needs this kind of an answer, and asks if they have this kind of expertise. He searches around until he finds it and then gives that voucher to that institution and says he wants to do this. The institution benefits, gets the money, and has the resources to give this student what he needs.

We need those kinds of things. We need new people, we need investment, we need all those kinds of things. We need to go beyond that as well. We need to develop a sound vehicle for the transfer of technology from the place where the brains are to where it is actually applied in a profitable way. Canada has a gap here. That gap is an inability to adequately, effectively, and consistently transfer technology from the research bodies, usually universities and governments in some cases, to the development industries in order to provide strategic technologies for manufacturing, service, and resource based sectors.

Usually the best way to do that is to collaborate between sectors. The centres of excellence do this to a degree, as does IRAP, but we need to do something a little more advanced than that. We need to support more industry driven networks like Innovation Place in Saskatoon. That is an example of how university, industry, and government can collaborate and bring about true advancement in technology and the application of skill and innovation to new ideas.

It is becoming rather clear that some professors, who all want seniority and who all want these great salaries, are having great difficulty getting to the level of income they aspire to. At this particular centre of innovation these professors are driving the best cars around. They are living in the biggest houses. They have the kinds of bank accounts they have always dreamed about. Why? They have the willingness to take their intellectual property and work together with an industrialist or entrepreneur and work together with certain elements of the government and say together we can build a whole new way of doing things. They have succeeded in doing that, and congratulations to them.

There is something this government has done that is not too bad. It has financed a study called "The Commercialization of Research in Canada". Get a load of what this report advocates, which is very interesting. I hope the government has the nerve to do this: "Canada's universities should radically improve their intellectual property policies and processes for transferring scientific discoveries to industry or lose eligibility for government research grants". Madam Speaker, have you ever heard of this type of thing before? This is absolutely unbelievable.

The report goes on to state: "The policy should clearly articulate a university stance on the following issues: the responsibility of researchers to identify research results with possible economic or social benefits; electronic publishing; ownership of the intellectual property; a process for reporting and recording the facts of the case; routes and options for the protection of the intellectual property; options for revenue sharing; guidelines for technology transfers and commercialization, especially with Canadian based businesses; and exceptions to the policy in particular cases where a special contract is more desirable with the terms of the policy, such as in contract research, network research, or research involving a prior intellectual property". That is some of the most forward thinking I have heard in a long time.

It goes on: "Failure to develop such policies or to hire a person responsible for identifying and disseminating intellectual property and technology transfer policies to all individual researchers within the university should preclude all of the school's researchers from eligibility for government-industry targeted funding, such as granting council strategic programs".

Is that not a refreshing sound to hear? This would be absolutely amazing. Think of what this would do to the university. This would bring together for once the community and the academician. It would bring together the industrialists and the taxpayers who fund all this stuff in the first place and show how we can build a better Canada. That is the kind of motion we should be debating today, not the kind of motion that is before the House.

They are radical suggestions. Should they happen? Yes, they should happen. The reason they should happen is because Canada is in a globally competitive environment. Competition has become the imperative. It is a sad thing to say that science is not sufficiently recognized in the House. It is high time we recognized the significance of the role science plays in our daily life. We need to become aware that it is not only competition; it is also the role science plays in our economy and in our industry. While that may raise the ire of basic researchers who are afraid of having their work hijacked by economic demands, it must be accepted.

There will be an inevitable division between the traditionalists and the innovators. They will fight with each other. While neither can be excluded, the innovators must receive attention. The marketplace will ultimately decide that. Their time has come. They are the ones who can provide Canada with a foundation of economic independence. They will provide global competitiveness. The innovators are skilled in technology and science. The traditionalists, like all of us, will benefit from the country's wealth. Their task will not be lost; it will be assured. They will have jobs. We cannot let the naysayers turn us away from what is necessary. We must support the innovators, choose the path and move forward in that direction.

These are major new directions for our country. They are not easy to develop. They will not happen overnight. They require co-operation at all levels. I am very encouraged by some of the things that have happened recently. The important thing to recognize is that industry has to get into research. Industry must form consortia to share the costs of research.

I would like to address the comments of the Auditor General of Canada with respect to science and technology in Canada. He had some pretty serious things to say. With respect to some of the comments, we should stand back and say wait a minute, is it really that bad? Yes, it is. He suggests that the lack of progress in previous attempts to produce results oriented action plans can be attributed to a lack of overall government-wide leadership, direction, and accountability for implementing dramatic changes. That is probably one of the worst indictments anybody could make about the Government of Canada.

Seven billion dollars are spent on research and development in Canada. This country has a debt of $560 billion. We spend $7 billion on research. Not one of those dollars should be taken away. We need to spend that kind of money. In fact we should probably spend more. When the Auditor General of Canada says this money has not been focussed, has been spent in a manner that does not have a general direction, I say shame.

We need a focus. We need direction. We have been waiting for over two years for a policy on science and technology. It is still not here. I hope it will come very soon. We need it desperately. If we are to be an economically viable country, if we are to be competitive globally, we must come to grips with this part of our development.

We must oppose the motion. Instead of doing what the motion proposes, we need to encourage investment. We need to encourage innovation. We need to develop a new attitude toward venture capital. We need to develop specialized management. We need a sound vehicle for technology transfer. We need to recognize the value of collaborative research. Finally, we must take seriously the Auditor General of Canada's caution to get off our butts and get a focus and a direction for the country.

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion. The concept that the Government of Canada has not been working hard to ensure a strong aerospace industry in Canada is totally false. Canadian involvement in space and in the development of the Canadian space industry has been exemplary. The story of Canadians in space shows clearly that Canadians can solve problems.

In typical Canadian fashion we have been modest in singing the praises of Canada's accomplishments in space. I am here today to ensure that Canadian scientists, Canadian engineers and Canadian entrepreneurs get their full recognition in terms of the marvellous accomplishments they have made and are making in the name of Canada in space.

Canadians are space pioneers. More than 35 years ago Canada launched Alouette . We were the third country in space, a pioneer. It is the same today. Just last month we launched RADARSAT, the world's most sophisticated earth observation satellite. Canada is leading the world.

Last week we saw Major Chris Hadfield onboard NASA's STS-74 shuttle mission to Mir using Canadian technology to help bring together the Russian space station and the U.S. space Atlantis . The two events showcased Canadian technology to the world in an unprecedented way.

I welcome the opportunity to tell Canada's story in space and specifically to underscore today the very important role Quebec has played in this effort. Ours is an increasingly competitive world and governments cannot afford to invest time, effort and money in ventures that do not bring significant gains both to scientific knowledge and to economic and environmental benefits the world over.

Canada's space program is a growth industry, aligned with the new realities of information technology providing us not only wonderful new technology for manipulating in space but new communications technology. Canada is a world leader in this area.

The Canadian space industry provides employment for 4,000 Canadians and pulls in annual revenues of more than $500 million. Over the last decade the average annual rate of growth in the space industry has been 15 per cent, with Quebec a particularly high performer.

Over the past ten years, the space industry in Canada has grown annually by 15 per cent, with Quebec being a particularly strong performer.

The space program was established to meet Canada's needs in areas vital to our economy: telecommunications, resource management, surveillance and environmental monitoring. Satellite communications has been the way for the auto route of information, the information highway, the 20th century equivalent of the railway providing linkages that help bind the country together from one end to the other.

The Canadian space program is also driven by a desire and a political will to ensure the development of a globally competitive economy. In a fashion, all regions of the country have been able to draw on the government's space effort, to transfer space technology from government laboratories to the private sector, and to capitalize on employment and economic activity generated as a result of this visionary program.

The province of Quebec and its aerospace industry have been beneficiaries of the program. The location of the Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert on Montreal's south shore is testimony to the importance of Quebec in this national effort. It underscores Montreal's international role in space, in satellite communication and in the information age.

The space agency has brought several hundred highly educated scientific people to the greater Montreal area and has added to Montreal's position as a centre of high technology. I am particularly heightened by the fact that Quebec has shown considerable leadership in the program, the industries and the people of Quebec. More than $540 million in contracts have been won by Quebec firms since 1988, which is more than 35 per cent of budget of the space program.

Quebec's leadership position in the space sector is further reinforced by strong engineering skills and industrial activities. The RADARSAT satellite was built by the Spar aerospace facility at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, as was MSAT, an advanced telecommunications satellite scheduled to be launched in the first quarter of the next calendar year. Mission control for RADARSAT is located at the space station in Saint-Hubert.

In building the satellite Spar was able to draw on the skills of a pool of highly specialized small and medium size enterprises that provided various components of the RADARSAT satellite. In economic terms some 60 per cent of the RADARSAT program was awarded to Spar and its subcontractors. This is just the beginning of the RADARSAT story.

Presently a study is under way to look at partnership arrangements for the next generation of RADARSAT to ensure commercialization of the RADARSAT system and launch of the second RADARSAT satellite. It is significant that a major Quebec based firm has become involved. I am referring to SNC-Lavalin, a firm that has successfully established itself as a world leader in project management.

Let me take a moment to talk about Canada's RADARSAT satellite. It is a remarkable Canadian achievement to have built and successfully launched a satellite earlier this month. The satellite uses radar to allow continuous monitoring of the earth's surface. Unlike most of the previously launched earth's observation satellites which cannot see through clouds and cannot therefore monitor much of the earth's surface much of the time, RADARSAT can monitor it continuously. By using the radar it can peer through the clouds and have a continuous assessment of the nature, the events and the changes on the surface of the earth.

Not only does Canada's RADARSAT provide a complete and continuous coverage of the earth's surface but it uses an extraordinary technology developed in Canada to provide a remarkably flexible, precise and complete coverage. RADARSAT can provide full coverage of Canada's Arctic area every 24 hours, full coverage of Canada's entire land mass within three days, every three days, and full coverage of the total surface of the world, of our globe, every seven days.

RADARSAT will provide for Canada and for the world a remarkably new tool to monitor crop development, to assess the status of crops, yield, insect infestations and all sorts of other things that may happen to the crops planted and to assess the status of forests, the growth, the harvesting, the regeneration and so forth. It is a wonderful tool with the ability to monitor the world's forests and specifically help Canada better manage its own forests.

It is very important for shipping to know precisely what is happening in terms of ice conditions like those in Hudson Bay or the northern Atlantic. RADARSAT will be able to provide that. The monitoring of water conditions to better control floods during spring runoff not only in Canada but around the world is a wonderful new technology that helps people the world over to live better and have a higher quality of life.

These are but a few of the potential applications of RADARSAT. Thanks to the foresight of our government, Canadian industries now have an extraordinary commercial advantage in RADARSAT. Canadian industry is well positioned to take advantage of the benefits of the new satellite. Canadians have expertise in the technology and are now actively marketing the potential of RADARSAT, its satellite system and its earth monitoring capabilities the world over.

I want to talk for a moment about the space agency in Saint-Hubert, home to Canada's astronauts. Chris Hadfield landed yesterday at the Kennedy Space Centre after a seven-day mission of historical dimensions. Here again Canadian content in a mission characterized by NASA as one of the most technically demanding ever undertaken by the shuttle program was significant owing to the Canadian role, the role of Canadian technology and Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, in bringing together the United States and Russia, the world's two space superpowers, in a successful partnership in space.

Marc Garneau, the first Canadian in space, paved the way for future Canadian flights on the shuttle. He will once again be space bound next year. Julie Payette is continuing her training and we expect this will lead to a flight opportunity in the years to come.

Canadian astronauts provide a wonderful role model for young Canadians. They are very important in a world where such role models are too infrequent. It is particularly significant as we try to promote the development of the science culture to have role models like Chris Hadfield, Marc Garneau and Julie Payette.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, the hon. Minister of Industry and I unveiled the second long term space plan in June 1994. We reconfirmed that Canada would be a significant contributor in space in the future. We reconfirmed that Canada would make a significant contribution to the international space station program, the largest scientific endeavour ever undertaken in the history of the world.

The program will break new ground in fields as diverse as biotechnology, physiology, material science and fluid physics, a new era in understanding space medicine, to name just a few. Canada will provide the technology that will make possible the assembly and maintenance of the world's science and technology institute in space. The operations of the Canadian contribution, the mobile servicing system, a leading edge robotics system, will be located in the space agency's facility in Saint-Hubert. Astronauts and space station operators from around the world will come to Saint-Hubert to train and to become knowledgeable about this very sophisticated and, one could say, intelligent robotic system.

I am proud to have been associated with the Canadian space program.

I am very proud to be associated with the Canadian space program.

Since we have become the government we have been privileged to participate in and lead many initiatives to ensure the continued prosperity of Canada and the Canadian Space Agency, to ensure the continuity of our Canadian astronaut program, to ensure a continued place for Canada in space, in new technology, in communications. Canadians are justifiably proud of our accomplishments. We should all be pleased with the social and economic benefits that come from this national effort. In today's information economy, we are indeed fortunate that Canada has such a strong space program.

In closing, let me emphasize once more the important role and the foresight our government has played in leading the Canadian space effort. It has mobilized an effort that will transfer increasingly some extraordinary technology to Canadian industry and provide at the same time the technology that will help us monitor and improve the global environment.

This is our future, this is Quebec's future, this is Canada's future.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kootenay East. I hope my voice will hang in there. If you see my lips moving and no sound, you will know it has disappeared.

Today's topic is a rather interesting one. At this time I could see a lot better wording than might be part of this question. We should start off by saying as the last member has, how proud we are of our aerospace industry and of our astronauts. Certainly every time we hear the Canadarm mentioned, all of us feel proud of what we have accomplished. Our future is in the area of technology and that is certainly something all Canadians know and are proud of.

However, when we talk about this motion, about Canadian content and about the protection of some industries over others, I

cannot help but go back a little bit in history. I cannot help but go back a little bit in terms of what some of the other members are saying.

I cannot help but go back to the F-18 contract in Winnipeg. Obviously the lowest bid was there and the recommendations were there. The qualifications for doing the job were there. Certainly the people of Manitoba, the people of the west do not forget the party politics that were played in the decision to move the F-18 contract to Montreal. Now we hear the other side of that. Now we hear the fears that we are going to lose this industry for Quebec.

All of us are looking for a free enterprise system in which all parts of Canada are treated equally, where one part does not have favoured status over the other, where we stop playing party politics and we start getting down to what is good for Canada. That should be the emphasis instead of what we are talking about today.

We also have to look at the criteria when we look at defence contracts. Obviously we want to have Canadian content, but not Canadian content if it is not competitive. If it is not competitive, it better get competitive if that industry is going to survive. If it has to be subsidized and protected, then it is obviously very short term and very short sighted planning by that company and by this government.

We also must be aware of globalization and what that means. We are now in a global market. We now have NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. We cannot talk about protecting industry and protecting the inefficiencies of the past.

We have to talk about being competitive in the world. We have the training. We have the technology. We have the people. Let us not hide behind government, behind bureaucracy, or behind rules that set up how we are going to give contracts. Let us do it because we are the best. Let us do it because we are the most competitive and thus we will market our products around the world. That is what globalization and free trade means. It is what the World Trade Organization will mean in 10 years. Canada can do very well in that field. So, let us not be embarrassed and shy and not be out front. Let us not hide behind the past.

We could also be talking about the Department of National Defence today. We all know that it desperately needs new equipment. All of us know of the helicopters. My hon. seatmate here talked about helicopters falling out of the sky. Certainly the search and rescue people need that equipment, but let us have a game plan. DND must have a real game plan, what it needs and what it is going to do. It seems as though we get knee-jerk announcements. We have heard announcements about a $600 million expenditure for helicopters, but the minister does not know for how many. I could not believe what I heard in that announcement.

We obviously need all terrain vehicles. It was shameful what our troops used in the former Yugoslavia. With regard to armaments, we must keep modern and up to date and have the best for Canadians.

Looking at the budgets, we can see that for years we have been cutting budgets and we have increased the requirement for our armed forces. This has done nothing except to cause morale problems and equipment problems in the military.

We need to become diligent shoppers. That does not necessarily mean we have to buy in Canada. Remember, we must be competitive.

This is a very timely topic today. I would also like to know what provisions we have in place to prevent the patronage of the past which was so common. Everybody knew about it and it seems to have carried on into the present government. We need to make sure there are guidelines in place so that this does not happen again. It does not give politicians a good name and it certainly does not give Canadians a good name when this sort of thing takes place. We should not be politicians for sale.

We also have to ask questions about DND and the seemingly constant turmoil. It appears as though it is constantly having problems. No sooner does one crisis go away than a new one surfaces. We have to ask what it is doing to get its act together. That could easily be a topic for today.

I refer to the former deputy minister of DND. I wonder why approximately a year ago he quickly disappeared from the scene to go to the United Nations as if to get him out of town.

What about the EH-101s? How much did it cost to pay those off?

The hon. member across the way mentioned that we should be very proud of our students and graduates who are filling technical jobs. I am very proud of them but I am concerned because at the University of Waterloo for example, 91 per cent of graduates in the electronics area are going to the U.S. for jobs. I am really concerned about that. I am concerned that we spent that money on training. That is a costly resource and we are losing them because they cannot get a job in Canada. We must work on that because they are the best.

We have to talk about peacekeeping as well when we talk about armaments and DND. We need to know what to expect from our military. We need to have that game plan before we actually start talking about and worrying about the content of the equipment we are buying. We need to discuss it in Parliament. We need to discuss what those objectives and criteria are. We cannot keep doing things on a knee-jerk basis. We cannot do things where we have parliamentary debate and the decision has already been announced outside the House. We cannot keep doing that.

We need to do something to restore public confidence as well. There is a great pride in our Canadian peacekeepers. There is a great pride in what we have, but when we send them underequipped and poorly controlled we have problems. We know what that has done to our reputation. We can talk about Somalia; we can talk about Rwanda; we can talk about the former Yugoslavia. All of those are problems which have hurt our reputation. We should be concerned about that.

We need to set up criteria. We cannot go every place. We are not equipped to do that. We do not have the equipment. We know that we must ask about the cost, not that cost is more important than lives, but that is the reality. We cannot go everywhere. We can only afford so much and we have to ask those questions.

In looking at these criteria we do need new equipment. We need to raise morale. We need efficiency. We need to get rid of the bureaucracy that seems to be causing all the problems.

In closing, rather than whining about competition and Canadian content, we should get competitive. We should worry about our place in the marketplace. We should demand a fair and open bidding system. We should get rid of the politics, the patronage and the old line political games that so often go on. That will do more.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments made by the member opposite.

I commend the member for his deep interest in the Canadian Armed Forces but at some point we have to fish or cut bait. I am not exactly sure of the position of the Reform Party with respect to procurement policy for the Canadian Armed Forces. I have listened many times and I have heard the Reform Party talk about the wholesale cutting of departments, that what the government has to do first and foremost is to tame that debt and deficit monster. That means wholesale cuts across the board to departmental expenditures.

The member opposite knows full well that out of the non-statutory expenditures of this government, the previous government and the government before it, one of the largest envelopes of non-statutory expenditures is in national defence. What I am trying to ascertain from the member's comments is whether he agrees there should be new expenditures in national defence. If that is the case it may go contrary to what his party said particularly during the last election about going in and cutting those departments.

Is the member in favour or not in favour of the EH-101 contract and its process? Does the member believe and advocate that the government of the day go forward with further expenditures in defence procurement? In particular, I am speaking about the replacement program for the Sea King helicopters. The member mentioned quite correctly that some of the search and rescue and Sea King helicopters have had some difficulty because of their age. Unfortunately there has even been loss of life as some of those helicopters have gone down. I am not necessarily convinced it was because of the age of the helicopters.

I want to seek something clear and unequivocal from the member. Is he in favour of further defence procurement spending, yes or no? If the answer is yes, does he wish to see this government accelerate its procurement policy with respect to new helicopters? Would he and his party support the government spending billions of dollars for the replacement of the Sea King helicopters?

The hon. member talked a great deal about open procurement policies. What he said during his comments was that far too often these things are knee-jerk. Is the member not aware that a House of Commons committee travelled and came up with a report dealing with the future of the Canadian Armed Forces? In response to that report the government came out with the defence white paper which clearly outlines the government's policies with respect to national defence. Last, he says that before these big procurements are finalized they should be debated in the House. Is he an advocate that House time should be spent debating each and every procurement contract of the Government of Canada?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I will get all 20 questions answered, but I will make an attempt.

We are saying that national defence must have better equipment. However before it gets better equipment, we have to target what we are going to do. We have to establish the criteria and then we have to do it.

He talks about the report that was presented. I was on the foreign affairs part of the committee and there was communication between the two committees. The point is that the recommendations were to cut from the top. That has not been done.

If cuts are made at the top that money will be available for the bottom. Cuts should not be across the board but certain things should be targeted. Some things are gone 100 per cent, other things will increase. The sort of slash and burn tactic that the member has in mind is totally not what Reform members have in mind because we will target. We will set our criteria and then we will have something that is efficient. We will apply the same efficiencies that business applies, which government has totally ignored for all these years.

It is a matter of going after the top. Government does not seem to be able to do that. It is too easy to cut from the bottom up.

As for the EH-101s, that should have been looked at very carefully. I am sure the government did, but did it know of the potential costs of the cancellation? Did it really look at all of that?

From what experts say the EH-101 probably was not the helicopter that was needed. What the minister is proposing is probably a good idea, but he has to have his act together. How much does it cost? How many are being bought? How many are needed? That is what has to happen.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting that we meet here today to discuss a Bloc Quebecois supply motion which attempts to get even more Canadian dollars to spend in Montreal.

On the basis of the number of dollars that have been sent to the province of Quebec from the so-called have provinces, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, one would think there would already have been a recognition of the tremendous amount of support there has been on the part of all Canadian taxpayers to the idea of the old line parties of attempting to buy the loyalty of the people, and I think of them as being in the minority in the province of Quebec, who would see Quebec secede from Canada.

It is also interesting that on this particular day we also note that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has decided that he is going to continue in the House of Commons as Her Majesty's official loyal opposition, working his attempt to break up Canada, all the while waiting to become the premier of the province of Quebec.

I seriously doubt the sincerity of the motion being brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Indeed, in its own way it is rather mischievous.

Furthermore, after taking a look at the issue of whether there should be a Canadian content to our military procurements, it strikes me that it runs a very strong parallel to the attitude of this old line government, the Liberals, and their predecessors, the Conservatives, relative to regional economic development grants. It falls into exactly the same category.

There seems to be a will on the part of the old line parties to create a national level playing field. In a matter of about 25 minutes, the auditor general's report on regional development grants will be released. It will be very interesting to be able to focus on a dispassionate review of how these grants have worked and whether a national level playing field has been created.

With respect to the issue of taking military product off the shelf, there is an over-arching issue. The over-arching issue is that Canada, at the federal level, is not taking into account the non-funded liability of the Canada pension plan, which is already over half a trillion dollars in debt. It is approximately $550 billion to $560 billion in debt. Much to the amazement of people when they actually take the time to think about it, the government is borrowing about $100 million every day to pay the interest on the money which has been borrowed. Therefore, when talking about necessary military equipment procurement, if there is a greater value for Canada's tax dollars, that must be paramount in the decision making process.

The idea of being able to intervene in the Montreal economy, or for that matter to intervene in the Canadian economy, is appealing. It certainly has been shown to have a tremendous appeal to members of the old line political parties. The $100 million which is borrowed daily will destroy our ability to fund health care, post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan. Even old age security is under threat as a direct result of the desire of the government and its bedfellows, the Conservatives, to intervene in the economy.

If an off the shelf policy for these procurements can be created and achieve the savings which Canadians are looking for, then the question is: What would that do to business in Canada?

As a proud Canadian I am constantly impressed with our ability to compete. In the world there is no nation of people who are better able to adapt and compete. Canadians do not need this kind of over-arching government intervention to help competitiveness.

It also drives home the issue with which we were faced during the latter days of the referendum. I recall being told that the majority of Canada's CF-18s were at Bagotville, Quebec. I also recall being told that the vast majority of armaments, that is, the munitions for the Canadian Armed Forces, are in the east end of Montreal. When the Bloc defence critic, on the letterhead of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, advised people in the Canadian army to desert and join the new Quebec army, I really have to wonder about the sincerity and the depth of thought which has been given to this issue by the Bloc Quebecois. Why in the world would we permit ourselves to fall into the situation in which there is even more investment in that field in Montreal when the people who are proposing this legislation are talking about separating Quebec from Canada?

The defence critic, I presume, is shepherding this motion through the Chamber on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. His comments, in my judgment, were nothing short of sedition. You cannot be telling people in the Canadian army to desert. That is absolutely and totally unacceptable. I understand that a legal action has been commenced. I rather hope it has some success.

It is just about time to call a spade a spade. If the Bloc Quebecois was serious about this motion, if it really wanted to see Canadian procurement and if it is talking about taking Quebec out of Canada, how in the world can it not be seen as being totally contradictory? As a matter of fact, the two things are absolutely diametrically

opposed to each other. They simply do not fit. In all good conscience, how could any Canadian go along with this motion?

To get back to the smaller issue of procurement, because truly the larger issue is that of the Bloc attempting to smash Canada, Canadians, because of the size of the debt, must demand value for their tax dollar. This motion simply would not achieve that.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I want to put a question to the member for Kootenay East. It has to do with the issue of Canadian content.

The greatest dollar value of exports, not just in terms of dollar value but number of jobs created in the country today in the manufacturing sector, is the automotive industry. The automotive sector represents the greatest number of jobs and exports. The foundation that has generated that reality today started when the auto pact was negotiated with the United States of America.

In that auto pact, percentages of Canadian content were negotiated. As the automotive industry was developed, the taxpayers invested in the foundation stages hundreds of millions of dollars in new equipment, in research and in the capacity to manufacture a world class, automotive, technology manufacturing capability.

When we have such a model of proven success in job creation in a sector that is bringing literally billions of dollars to the treasury right now when it is looked at in its totality, why should we not do a careful analysis to see if we could not create the same opportunity in the aerospace sector?

I realize that the free trade agreement states that Canadian content can be dictated no longer. I opposed the free trade agreement and that was one of the reasons why I opposed it. I felt that it took a piece of our industrial policy making capability away from us. However, why would we not take a look at the aerospace industry in the same light as the automotive industry?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find that question to be very reasonable. There is a very significant difference between myself and the other member because I look at the aerospace sector and the procurement of any of these armaments, be they tanks or helicopters, as being dollars spent by Canadian taxpayers, whereas the procurement of an automobile is dollars spent by a consumer.

I also contest and simply do not accept the concept that Canadians directly invested dollars in General Motors or the Ford plant. These are multinational corporations that have their own investers and their own ability to borrow. While from time to time they have depended on ill-thought programs the various old line governments have come forward with, the reality is that the dollars that are being invested are not only being invested by the multinational corporations but are being raised by multinational corporations.

I have a very significant difference of opinion with the other member. To underline the major difference I just spoke about, the dollars being spent on the procurement of equipment for our armed forces are Canadian taxpayers' dollars. The dollars being spent for the procurement of an automobile are being spent by the consumer.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Barely a minute remains. The hon. member for Charlesbourg will allow for an answer.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say to the representative of the third party that, in his list of figures and in his comments, when he talks of surplus military equipment in Quebec, he is completely forgetting to mention the navy.

There is nothing in Quebec to do with the navy. It is to be found in the west and in the maritimes. As far as the F-18s are concerned, most of them are not in Quebec. He should go over his figures and inform himself better. As regards the awarding of contracts, I might propose this list here of the latest contracts worth more than $3 billion, awarded to Ontario without call for tender. In the west, the Western Star was obliged to accord part of this contract to Quebec-6.5 per cent. In another contract, there was no mention of Quebec at all.

All of this to say that often things are interpreted according to the figures or information one has available. I would simply like to point out to the member from the third party that, if he wants more specific information in order to have a better understanding of Quebec and its representatives, I would be pleased to provide it, because, unfortunately, I have run out of time.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for-

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe I was asked a question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Sorry, the time has expired. I asked him to take 30 seconds. Please go ahead very briefly.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would suspect that the member, along with many of the old line parties, sees the military as a make work project. We do not.

Second, I was not referring to surplus purchases. What I was referring to was that there was current active military equipment based in Quebec that under the Bloc Quebecois, under the separatists, would have ended up, as far as they were concerned, under

their control in the event the vote had gone the other way. I do not think Canadians see that as being rational or reasonable.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate, because I finally have the opportunity to set the record straight.

The Canadian space program, which has been running for 35 years already, has allowed Canada to carve out an enviable position among developed countries. Canadians have reaped benefits from it that have improved their quality of life, if only in terms of satellite communications.

It is with much pride that I point out the excellent work of the Canadian Space Agency, one of the most prestigious federal institutions which now has its headquarters firmly established in Saint-Hubert, near Montreal.

As a member of the government, I am proud to be associated with this success and to have been part of the agency's accomplishments since my arrival in the House.

The construction of its headquarters in Saint-Hubert, an investment of almost $80 million, has created, either directly or indirectly, almost 1,000 person-years. According to studies that were done to quantify the economic spinoffs of having the agency in Saint-Hubert, it is estimated that it has injected about $75 million into the Quebec economy annually, both in terms of salaries and the purchase of products and services.

These are the figures, but one of the main economic benefits of having the agency in Quebec is its impact on that province's industrial base. Here are some concrete examples: the development of new cutting-edge technologies in strategic sectors such as communications and data processing software; the international reputation consolidating Montreal's status as a global player; and the establishment in Saint-Hubert of other space facilities such as the RADARSAT ground control station, the control centre for the mobile servicing system and the astronaut and international space station operator training system.

One of the main social advantages is the training of the hundred or so students who come every year to specialize in high-tech areas.

Since 1988, Quebec has received over 35 per cent of the total budget of the Canadian space program, which means that $540 million worth of contracts are awarded to Quebec-based companies. Quebecers are among the main beneficiaries of the Canadian space program.

Spar Aerospace alone, which is located in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in my riding, has received a significant portion of the contracts for the production of MSAT and RADARSAT satellites, which testifies to the excellence of Quebec engineers. RADARSAT, which was launched into orbit on November 4, is the result of more than 15 years of co-operation and political will. RADARSAT also ushers in a new global industry. The resulting global trade will contribute to the development of a new natural resources management and environmental monitoring business. And it is mainly in Quebec that this great project has materialized.

And that is not all. At present, a feasibility study is under way to gather all that is required to implement Phase II of RADARSAT. But what must be pointed out here is the participation of a new player, namely SNC-Lavalin, whose reputation as the world leader in large scale project management is firmly established.

The Canadian Space Program also promoted the diversification of several Quebec businesses, which have gained a world-wide reputation of excellence. Take these four for example: CAE Electronics, of Ville-Saint-Laurent, with contracts totalling $90 million; MPB Technologies, of Montreal, whose contracts are worth in excess of $16 million; FRE Composites, of Saint-André, with a total contract worth of $11 million; and BONEM, of Quebec City, with contracts totalling $4 million.

The need to adjust to new realities brought about by market globalization and by the growing importance of a knowledge-based economy represents a major challenge. In this context, it is important that we be able to define new partnerships between learning institutions and industry. Like the other provinces, Quebec has displayed impeccable leadership. Fifteen years ago, there were no university programs to prepare for the future in high-technology sectors. Through an initiative of the Centre d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre aérospatiale du Québec, post-graduate programs meeting international standards were developed.

Today, a particularly innovative university-industry partnership has resulted in a master's degree in aerospace engineering being offered in five Quebec universities. This training strategy is proving to be very effective in enabling Quebec to keep playing a lead role in the space industry.

To invest in the space industry is to invest in our children. This vision born 35 years ago had not died; it keeps making Quebecers and all Canadians prouder and prouder.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I have a short question. Since it is almost two o'clock, I would prefer to begin my remarks after question period.

I would like to build on the member for Vaudreuil's point. He alluded to the notion of creating this infrastructure, which ultimately leads to exports. This is the point I was trying to make earlier to the member for Kootenay East when I asked the member of the Reform Party if he did not see the investment that was made in the automotive industry from the auto pact until the free trade agreement. Under the free trade agreement we do not have the same options of opportunity to invest in that industry, but thank goodness it has a great foundation now: the auto pact leads, in terms of job creation and exports, any sector in our country.

The point I was trying to make to the Reform Party is this infrastructure we have invested in within the province of Quebec in the aerospace industry now leads to tremendous exports not only in terms of military hardware, helicopters, et cetera, but also aircraft like the Canadair commuter jet, which is now being exported all over the world, creating jobs not only within the province of Quebec but across the country.

Could the member for Vaudreuil confirm for the House that the investments the Liberal government has made in the aerospace industry are now leading to all kinds of exports around the world, which ultimately means jobs for Canadians?

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, I am proud that the commitment by our government has always been to promote the industry and sustain the industry.

I am hearing from the industry that it is not after handouts. It really wants to be on a level playing field on an international scale. If we take a look at the successes in the aerospace industry, a major beneficiary of which is the region of Montreal, we would not have to look very closely to see the success of Canadair, the success of SNC-Lavalin, Bombardier, and recently the joint partnership that Pratt & Whitney announced with Russia.

If we are to allow this industry to promote itself and to grow, we have to give it the level playing field and the tools necessary for it to compete on a world scale.

Report Of The Auditor General Of Canada

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, volume 3, dated November 1995.

I should remind the hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( d ), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

As it is two o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Canadian National Institute For The Blind

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this year the Canadian National Institute for the Blind dedicated its annual review to the more than 20,000 people from across Canada who work as CNIB volunteers.

Volunteers work at all levels of the organization, from national policy development to fundraising to the support of core services. They enable the CNIB to do much more than would otherwise be possible, transforming each $5 donation into an estimated $100 of impact for clients.

The CNIB values its volunteers because the imagination, experience, purpose and insight they willingly provide would be difficult to buy at any price. Without volunteers its work would be unthinkable.

I am sure all members join me in recognizing and thanking those Canadians who give so generously of their time and energy in support of the CNIB.

Beaver River

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week I drove 3,300 kilometres around Beaver River conducting my fall tour. I talked to hundreds of people at town hall meetings, school classrooms and in my office.

People are concerned about the government's bills on MP pensions, employment equity, gun control and so on. The thing they asked more questions about rather than anything else was the referendum. Everybody in the meeting asked now what.

This morning we find out that now what means another referendum. People at home recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec with regard to language, culture and civil law. Because the term distinct society is undefined they think it would be a lawyer's delight to see it enshrined in the Constitution as it would be wide open to

interpretation. I even had a Liberal supporter ask me what part of no the Liberals did not understand in the Charlottetown accord.

We must move forward to the new Canada, not backward to failed ideas and plans. They did not work. They are not working and will not work. Let us scrap the unity committee of politicians and let the people speak.

Unemployment Insurance

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, overall reductions to benefits paid to recipients of unemployment insurance are adding to the welfare rolls of many provinces including Saskatchewan.

The cumulative impact of the cuts to the unemployment insurance program has been the addition of over 15,000 persons to the Saskatchewan assistance plan caseload at a cost of $63 million. In addition to the UI reductions, the Liberal government transferred responsibility for providing assistance to off reserve status Indians, adding another 10,000 people to the welfare roles at a cost of $38 million. In Saskatchewan, UI payments decreased by over 25 per cent from $410 million in 1992-93 to $300 million in 1994-95.

The Liberal government was elected on a platform of providing jobs. Instead it has thrown more workers on to welfare roles in Saskatchewan than ever before, adding to the burden of Saskatchewan taxpayers.

Canadians get angry when the unemployed are forced to live on welfare while in Ottawa a Liberal MP receives a free new suit simply for getting off his chair.

Space Program

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Chris Hadfield on his voyage in space and best wishes to members of his family in Peterborough riding: son Kyle at school in Lakefield, sister Pat Bowlar in Norwood and Aunt Caroline Kitchen in Peterborough.

A Canadian has now operated our Canadarm in space and it will be the prototype for a giant space crane. Next year Marc Garneau, one of our most distinguished astronauts, will be returning to space. He will be followed by yet another Canadian astronaut: three Canadians in space within a year and a half.

The astronaut program is one of the most successful features of the Canadian Space Agency which is based in Montreal but which has a nationwide science and technology network. Our astronauts have inspired students from kindergarten to Ph.D. III. They have had a healthy effect on all science and technology in Canada.

Canada is united in its space efforts. Let us remain united on this blessed portion of the earth's surface.

Official Languages

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, Ontario recognized French as one of its two official languages before the courts. The province has since passed several provisions which have made it increasingly bilingual in the judicial field. In fact, a case can now be heard in French at any level of the provincial legal system, including that of the appeal court.

The Association des juristes d'expression française, which held its convention in Ottawa this past weekend, has always been at the forefront of the movement to improve our bilingual judicial system. This is a complex and difficult task, and I want to congratulate the association for its dedication and its determination in overcoming any obstacle to that very important goal.

The program benefits all Ontarians. It also shows that, in North America, the French language and culture have a much better chance of being preserved, and even expanding, in a bilingual Canada than in separate states.

Gun Control

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the senators will decide tomorrow if they will oppose the House of Commons firearms bill. Some of us may be in favour of Bill C-68, some of us may be against certain provisions, but all members of Parliament would agree that the voice of the people of Quebec and of Canada has been heard on this issue, in this House.

The debates lasted a long time and several witnesses came to express their concerns. The federal government rejected most of the amendments put forward by the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and the Liberal members rejected the amendments proposed by the official opposition members.

However, Bill C-68 concerning the firearms was passed by hon. members who were democratically elected by their constituents. Respect for our democratic values should, in itself, prevent senators from opposing this legislation. Whether they are Liberal or Conservative, these senators do not speak for the people, they only speak for themselves.