6 - Friday, July 25, 1986 - North Share News News Viewpoint | Try, try again T WAS a good try but North Vancouver District didn’t win its day in court. Earlier this month the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled against iC in a case involving Canadian Occiden- tal Limited. Formerly known as Hooker Chemical, the company produces 400 tonnes daily of liquid chlorine. Uf the plant is operating at full capacity that’s 146,000 metric tonnes of an extremely dangerous chemical being shipped out of the North Shore each year. The District, under Mayor Marilyn Baker’s leader- ship, sought to regulate the coinpany by enacting a bylaw, which would in effect curb the production level of Canadian Occidental. The District is well aware that, if an accident involv- jng the chemical was to occur, an evacuation of the area’s residents would be a costly and difficult affair. It's true the 29-year-old company is a ‘‘good cor- porate citizen’’ paying more than $1 million in municipal taxes annually, but safety is more important than monetary pains. Safety was why the District enacted a bylaw which would prohibit certain land-use activities locally. But the District lost in court after three appeal judges ruled that the municipality had no jurisdiction over federal land. Canadian Occidental leases some land from the federal Canada Port Corporation. If the ruling was favorable there would be nowhere in the District a company would be able to produce these hazardous goods. It's a desirable goal, and as such the District should continue in its efforts to see that goal is met. Its next step should be to seek a decision by the B.C. Supreme Court. TAL WORE CGE NORTH AND WEST VANCOUNE Ht worth shore... ORD AY SUNDAY «we perer DAY . 1139 Lonsdale Ave. North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 2H4 57696 ec ee oe tay Display Advertising 980-0511 Classified Advertising 986-6222 Newsroom 985 2131 Distribution 986.1937 Subscriptions 986.1337 HON Shoe Hews ng Wea foe. (oer | b { YOU GUYS {X CALIFORNIA ARE FORTUNATE... RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A GAS SURPWS.... rapes Tyestesr f, o/s UE Waa ver Publisher: Editor-in-Chiat Managing Editor Advertising Director Dees Speck Piet Snag Esaareoett basteeet Lond Steweaet fete contents Norn Share Prem Prose Ltd Alt mOTIESAES, tose SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY MISUNDERSTOOD Research and development may help to solve the country’s trade position Dear Editor: { enjoyed the recent Canadian Federation of Independent Business feature service article en- titled Groundless fears bedevil free trade, It summarizes some of the key economic concerns we have to think about at the present time. However, the article left out in depth mention of the key role of science and technology in trade liberalization. Trade liberalization is not new to Canadians, as a review of the trade history of the last four de- cades will show. Successive Cana- dian governments have set trade liberalization as cornerstones of their trade and foreign policy. The only past exception was the Diefenbaker government. However, Canada is still known as a high-tariff country, having double the typical U.S. rate. Canada has also vigorously main- tained its customs and quota pro- tection, its non-tariff barriers, for its inefficient industries like tex.ue, clothing, footwear and_ ship- building. As a result of the Kennedy and Tokyo rounds of mutti-lateral trade negotiations and the Auto Pact, negotiations that saw the participation of the Pearson and Trudeau governments, Canadians accrued large gains from freer trade — benefits as high as seven to 10.5 per cent of GNP during the last 20 years. Suddenly, with the publishing of the MacDonald Commission Report last year, Canadians discovered that to survive in the international trading environment we need assured access to a trading community of at feast 100 million customers. The United States handily meets that criteria. We haven't learned all our lessons yet. We have not commit- ted ourselves to improving our technological standing. In terms of science and technology, a key economic catalyst, Canada is a lightweight compared to its trading partners. On a percentage of GNP basis, we spend fess than any other OECD country on the improvement of our science and technology stan- ding — 1.2 per cent compared to an average of 2.2 per cent. For in- stance, the computer industry in the U.S. spends more money on R&D than Canada does across the board. While there has been much talk about this shortcoming, what has been missing in recent free trade documents like the MacDonald Commission Report has been a basic understanding of the realities of science and technology. Basic and applied research is not a free market commodity like goods, as anyone who knows anything about the subject can tell you. The intellectual property of basic and applied research is not traded like the end products, the manufactured goods or services. They are very much national commodities, strictly guarded by patents, technology transfer restrictions, fierce secrecy, national procurement programs, and ac- cumulated ‘know how’ and sup- ported by aggressive public spen- ding policies, Even with freer trade, Cana- dians will have to take it upon themselves to improve our science and technology standing. No country is going to gratuitously provide its competitor the tools needed to improve the com- petitor’s trade position. It is a fallacy to think that free market forces will by themselves drive the improvement of our technological standing. The classic example of national commitnent is Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITT. MITI sets, funds and directs industry and technology development goals as well as pro- tectionist goals and quotas. The communication equipment and services market, as an example taken from many other examples, is closed to foreigners within Japan. In 1980 Japan overtook the U.S. as the leading producer of automobiles, and in 198] launched a 10-year program to become the world’s leading supplier of advanc- ed computer systems. In 1986 Japan surpassed the U.S. in credit lending to the rest of the world, At the heart of these achievernents is MITT. In Canada we have no similar institution. Instead we have a hodgepodge of small scale and un- coordinated programs within our governments run by ministers with limited background, and the occa- sional large discretionary expen- diture like the $800 million space station project, Even this large space commit- ment falls short in that the benefits will only be accumulated in On- tario and Quebec and not in the rest of Canada. Also, at this point in time it is unclear whether this Canadian space commitment will see the creation of new Canadian technology or merely the use of off-the-shelf American technology. There is an absence of a broad national economic commitment to science and technology in this country, which can only weaken our trade standing. Of the over 800,000 businesses in Canada, some 100 together do 90 per cent of the total industrial R&D in this country. The smaller businesses are frozen out because of the lack of financial and human resources and expertise. Their at- titude towards university spon- sored research also Jeaves much to be desired. What little R&D we have under- taken also stand a small chance of seeing the new knowledge demon- strated or applied in our economy. The investors and managers in this country are at least 10 years behind the rest of the world. We could also greatly benefit by concentrating on finding innovative applications of ex- isting technology. The flawed SRTC program we have heard so much about this past year was intended to alleviate the shortage of forward looking R&D and spread R&D effort more ‘the business community uniformly within the business community, but a lack of direct accountability within government and a lack of professional ethics in turned that program into a fiasco. Within our political leadership, less than one out of every hundred of Canada's parliamentarians and legislators have a science or technology background: these technological illiterates wish us to believe they can take us into the 2\st century and keep us abreast with such countries as Japan and the U.S. Their lack of technological ex- pertise within government or their freezing out of decision-making is also a serious problem. I think this is a national disgrace. Canadians, their b.:sinesses and their governments are very much behind the times when it comes to science and technology and not much being done today seems to be geared to changing this short- coming. The earlier groups like the CFIB take this to heart and do some- thing about it, the better the chance Canada will have in inter- national trade. Without a stronger commitment to science and technology research, development and demonstration, across the board, we can not ex- pect to achieve a broad and sus- tained improvement in our trade position. Patrick Bruskiewich North Vancouver