Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!fred
From: fred@mnetor.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Federal support(?) of science
Message-ID: <1080@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 11:38:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1080
Posted: Tue Jun 25 11:38:11 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 14:54:56 EDT
References: <1589@dciem.UUCP> <1118@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 31
Keywords: higher education, R&D
Summary: 

In article <1118@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>In article <1589@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:
>>If the Conservatives care about the economy, why are they keen to cut
>>spending on science?
>
>Probably has something to do with the priorities of the Canadian *people*.
>All hell breaks loose when the PCs talk about scrapping universality, 
>but how much of a peep do you hear from anyone when the PCs backtrack on
>their commitment to double that percentage of the GNP spent on R&D? Not
>much. The attitude seems to be that it's more important for "bank presidents"
>to get their baby bonus cheques every month than it is for the country to
>cease being a high-tech branch plant. 
>
	I am a member of the PCs and having said that, let me say that I
don't necessarily back *everything* that they do. I feel that this is
the best way I can have an effect on what takes place in politics.
	To the best of my recollection; during the campaign of last fall
the figures for R&D in Canada were given for the previous year as
being about half that of the US when compared with the GNP, (that's
Gross National Product). The PCs promised that this would be
rectified if they were elected. *NOTE that this does not mean that
the government would start throwing money at researchers. The figures
for R&D expenditures include private industry! 
	In the budget that came out recently, Finance minister Wilson
announced a rebate for R&D expenditures which seems directed at
stimulating just such activity. Whether it will be successful
remains to be seen, but it should be encouraging to companies in
a position to do research.

Cheers,		Fred Williams