RECOMMENDATIONS
With the budget soon to be presented to Parliament, the Industry Committee would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance some major themes for long-term policy as well as some more short-term recommendations. We have seen the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, The 1997 Budget and Beyond: Finish the Job, and we fully support its recommendations on science and business.
During our hearings, many witnesses explained the importance of science and technology for our economic future. Science-based firms are creating value-added products and providing well-paid jobs. There is strong private-sector support for many of our public S&T institutions and programs. The Committee also heard compelling arguments that our success as a high-tech nation will not only depend on the quality and quantity of our science and technology, research and development, and capital and labour, but, just as importantly, our success will be governed by our ability to collaborate, cooperate and network with one another and with researchers and firms abroad. There is even abundant evidence that Canadian entrepreneurs in the high-tech sectors have the capability to do more than they can do now. We heard of projects, particularly in the information technologies, that had to be cancelled because of a lack of skilled programmers and engineers, and of good jobs going begging, as well as of the difficulties some firms have in finding the right sort of finance at the right moment.
Many members of the science community feel that science has too low a public and political profile. The Budget Speech is by far the most widely reported economic statement of the year, and we recommend that the Minister of Finance use this public opportunity to highlight the importance of S&T and to set out the government's long-term commitment to it.
The Committee was warned of the need for a national portfolio of scientific activity balanced between research and development. Just as an oil economy would fail if too few resources were devoted to drilling compared to refining, the current state of our science infrastructure in our universities was of serious concern to both business and academia. We, as well as the Finance Committee, heard one joint proposal from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and the National Consortium of Scientific and Educational Societies to reinvigorate our university research facilities by earmarking part of the new infrastructure program. Both this Committee and the Finance Committee do support such a program, but it will require the best co-operative efforts of all tiers of government. Although joint action is preferable, this Committee feels that the federal government should continue with efforts of its own to improve our research infrastructure if circumstances dictate.
The Networks of Centres of Excellence program is up for renewal, and like the Finance Committee, we feel that Phase III of the program should be undertaken. Because the Industry Committee has had more time and opportunity to look at the NCEs than the Finance Committee, it is not unsurprising that we feel more strongly about the contribution the NCEs can make to our national innovation system. Apart from the impressive record of technology transfer and training, the NCEs promote new methods of collaborative working, ways of undertaking research and development that hopefully will permeate further into business and academia than the direct reach of the NCEs themselves.