Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before our dinner recess, we have to put more money into research. This has become a vital factor in the world competition in which we find ourselves today. It perturbs me greatly when I realize that the provinces can only spend money and provide the buildings, on a matching basis, if they have the funds to do it. I think the solution of this problem in dominion-provincial relations is of paramount importance at the present time, and I mean the allocation of taxes.
As I said previously, the province of Ontario has been short changed to the tune of over $280 million and it is feared that not only education but also some of the health and welfare programs which have been set up in that province will have to be cut back. However, regardless of whether there are sufficient funds for construction of all the necessary buildings there is also a crying need for more teachers and researches. I hope that the Minister of Finance is listening.
There is today in Canada an urgent need for more teachers, to enable the schools to operate so as to educate more researchers and doctors. The first need which must be met is to provide sufficient funds to build the schools and to educate more teachers and researchers to train our graduates who, in turn, can themselves become teachers.
I do not think there is any need to elaborate further on this subject. Studies which have been carried out in the United States have shown that the social return from university education is between 8 and 11 per cent. This is a pretty good return, when one considers that it includes income tax and other taxes. According to those studies the private return alone is in excess of 12 per cent which indirectly in the long run will bring back more taxes. In Canada similar results have been obtained in the social field. The private return has been from 15 to 20 per cent. Therefore I say to the minister that if he wishes Canada to develop economically and to lay the foundation for this development he will have to provide the money with
February 7, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Rynard which to do it. In view of all this it is very hard to understand why the scholarship awards have been delayed.
This attitude on the part of the government applies not only to the field of medicine and medical science but also to industry. The other day I was looking at a brochure in which it was said that most of our engineers leave Canada to go to the United States, because if they stay here they only become some sort of managers. Surely the incentives to keep them here are insufficient when, through our own fault we cannot keep our well trained engineers in this country. Not only does industry suffer, but so does the whole economy of the country.
As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, this represents a very serious loss. The minister is well aware of the situation because he has been quoted as saying that we cannot expect the same standard of living in Canada as is enjoyed by the average American, because our productivity does not equal that of the United States. Surely, the way to cure that is to have better and more research scientists and more education. This is very well illustrated by the fact that in 1963 43 per cent of the male labour force between the ages of 25 and 64 in the United States had 12 years of education, as compared with the same age group in Canada in which only 25 per cent had the same number of years of education.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out that research was cut back. I think this is the highest type of folly that has been exhibited by this government. We are cutting off the hand that would feed us and keep the economy of this country strong. I do not feel there is anything to be happy about, in the performance of the government. People say, look at our productivity; it has gone up and our manufacturing has gone up by 50 per cent since 1961. This is correct, Mr. Speaker, but in the same period of time we had a greater percentage of increase in our imports. Where are we going? At the end of last year we faced a $2 billion deficit. Our manufactured exports picked up to the extent of 64 per cent in the same period of time, from 1961 to 1966 but when we examined the picture we found there was an over-all decline in the comparison with the same trading groups-or with other countries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. If we are going to build a sound Canada, we have to educate the young people of this
country and we have to keep our trained personnel in order to give us the research that will produce the goods and bring our productivity up to par with the United States. I believe we could even outsell the United States, Mr. Speaker, because in this country we have the natural resources. We do not have to buy them, we do not have to bring them in; they are in Canada. All we need is the skills for processing them; but we cannot get those skills by cutting back on research expenditures. We must provide the money, we have the taxing ability to do so. When we cut back on the provinces, they cannot go ahead with the projects they need to provide the trained personnel for this country.
I want to go back for a minute and say that I do not believe the people are going to tolerate this type of thing much longer. We are living in a country with the greatest resources per capita in the world. We have resources of all types right at our back door, but we need the skills to manufacture them. Sometimes I get annoyed when the government points out that we are proceeding more and more toward free trade, because I believe that if our productivity is now only 70 per cent of that of the United States, then the logical conclusion is that with a free trade economy we would have little manufacturing in this country. I do not believe this is the way to build Canada.