1981-06-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter which is both pressing and urgent. Given that Canada's inflation rate has increased by S'A per cent in one year, and given that the government's high interest rate policy, which was supposed to slow down inflation, is obviously not working, but is instead causing untold hardship to small businesses, farmers, and those on fixed incomes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance devise a fair and practical policy to halt the growth of inflation, and abandon their love affair with the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that VIA Rail is considering cancelling as many as 16 commuter routes in Canada. One of these routes is the passenger service between Havelock, Peterborough and Toronto. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Van-koughnet):
That none of these routes be terminated in light of the recent Ontario task force report on provincial rail policy, and that serious consideration be given by VIA Rail to extending commuter service, not reducing it, at a time when energy conservation should be the number one priority.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Housing starts in Canada have reached an all-time low under the present government. Credit should therefore be given for every possible start in order to alleviate this embarrassment. Since the senior citizens' home at 551 Hugel Avenue in Midland, Ontario, is being constructed under a building permit issued November 6, 1980, with CMHC funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That the federal government's construction sign outside the building be updated to delete the designation of the hon. member for Papineau as the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a post he has not occupied since March 20, 1979, and insert the name of the hon. member for York-Scarborough who has been responsible for CMHC since March 3, 1980.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that in Burnaby, British Columbia, Nabob Foods Limited has substantially reduced its work force, eliminating over 150 jobs and cutting product lines since FIRA approved their takeover by a Swiss multinational Jacobs AG in 1976, and in view of the fact that in recent months union members at the Burnaby plant had to endure a union busting unfair labour practice in an attempt to prevent Jacobs from clawing back gains made under earlier contracts, and in view of the fact that the Foreign Investment Review Agency is a toothless wonder not mandated to protect the job security of Canadian workers

June 30, 1981
employed at plants affected by foreign takeovers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take immediate action to insist that foreign companies make long-term commitments to jobs in Canada by amending the Foreign Investment Review Agency Act, and take steps to put an end to the massive loss of jobs at the Burnaby Nabob plant.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Ron Irwin (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) stated in his speech yesterday that he rejects the kind of thinking behind the statement, and I quote, "We are no longer a colony of the British empire". I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier):
That the House encourage the member for Provencher to continue his trips to former British colonies such as South Africa so that he may enjoy British colonial status, for in Canada he will find, if he chooses to consult with his constituents, that the vast majority do not wish to be considered colonials of the British empire.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHERN POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas on November 24, 1980, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) promised that a northern energy policy would be developed by March 1981, and whereas on March 24, 1981, under questioning, he put it off until May 1981, and whereas on May 12, 1981, he put it off again and this time promised that it would be ready in June, and whereas today is the last day of June and no northern energy policy has yet materialized, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be censured by this House for his refusal to keep his word, and that he be replaced by someone with at least a modicum of good faith and credibility.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Representatives of the P.C. Youth Federation from across Canada have just returned from observing the national convention in Chicago of the university youth wing of the U.S. Republican Party. Largely because of the persuasive arguments of the P.C. Youth, the college Republicans passed a resolution calling on President Reagan to honour the Canada-U.S. memorandum of intent on acid rain signed between the two countries in August of last year, and further to strengthen U.S. clean air laws rather than weaken them as the U.S. administration appears bent on doing. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House joins the PC Youth in expressing the hope that President Reagan will act on the resolution passed by the college Republicans this past weekend.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House calls on the government to make an immediate commitment to introduce this fall a bill to provide women who work in the home with pensions equivalent to those available under the Canada Pension Plan, such pensions to be available not just to those who could afford to pay a high premium but to all women who work in the home, and this House also calls for the said bill to provide pensions forthwith for women between the ages of 55 and 65 who are alone and who are not in the labour market, it being the view of this House that the needs of such women should be met without further delay.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE BENEFITS TO WOMEN- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1981

Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an important matter. In view of the fact that Canadians travelling abroad, on returning home after prolonged vacations are permitted $150 worth of duty-free purchases per person if a person has been out of the country for seven days, and in view of the fact that this amount has been badly eroded by inflation over the last decade and barely covers vacation expenses in most instances, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the government give serious consideration to increasing the duty-free purchasing abroad to $250 per person if a person has been away for seven days or longer.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MONARCHY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in view of the forthcoming marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer on July 29, 1981,1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the Prime Minister instruct the Postmaster General to issue a postage stamp to commemorate the wedding of the future King and Queen of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Today on the eve of Canada's national 114th birthday we have litle to celebrate. Canadians again have to endure the disruptive effects of a nationwide postal strike, a strike, I might add, which causes extreme hardship for many, and daily aggravation for all. In light of the fact the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was denied his constitutional
Oral Questions
package as his Dominion Day birthday gift, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the President of the Treasury Board provide the Prime Minister with a gift of greater value and take immediate steps to end the postal strike today. If he did this, Canadians would have reason to join in the singalong at noon tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: Apart from the fact that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) is not in the House, is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise seeking the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that yesterday the Conservatives refused to pass Bill C-37, to amend the Holidays Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That this House recognize tomorrow, July 1, and every July 1 thereafter, as Canada Day.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for disruptions of services in the Public Service of Canada. After a long period in which Radio-Canada and CBC have been on strike we now have a situation in which some 23,000 postal clerks and mail handlers are out on strike today. When we take account of the fact that last fall some 48,000 clerks were out, that means that in the last eight months alone nearly one quarter of the public servants under the direct authority of the President of the Treasury Board have been out on strike. That indicates a terrible record of labour relations by this government.

June 30, 1981
Oral Questions
Now that that record has deprived Canadians of the right to receive their mail, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board what action he plans to take now to bring an end to this postal strike before it can cause real and deep damage to Canadians in all walks of life?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am frankly hurt by the comments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to my record in negotiating settlements. I might refer him to an article in the Toronto Star-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: This is a quotation from William Doherty, who is the first vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. He says:
-"dozens and dozens" of disagreements between the government and its workers are settled peacefully under the collective bargaining system.
The public's attention isn't drawn to these because "the only time the media pays any attention is when things get down to the wire and there's a major strike threatened."
For example, there was practically no media interest recently when ... an agreement between the government and 19,000 of its blue collar workers across the country-
Was reached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I think the government is in fact to be congratulated for the record it has in the settling of disputes in the public sector.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this government is unbelievable. The minister stands up in this House and says he is hurt. The people who are hurt by his actions are elderly Canadians, small businesses and others who count upon their mail service, a service which has been denied them by the incompetence of this government.
Any minister who could stand and be proud of having one quarter of the people who work under his authority out on strike in eight months is a minister who deserves to resign immediately.
The minister knows that the difference between the government's offer last Friday and the cost of the conciliation board report is less than 2 per cent, and yet the government maintained that the board's recommendation could not even form the basis of negotiations. The minister also knows that his best chance of a settlement at less than that extra 2 per cent was to negotiate to a settlement before a strike, and that the longer the strike goes on the higher the cost will be to Canadians.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the President of the Treasury Board explain to this House of Commons why he deliberately provoked a strike which is going to wreak such havoc on so many Canadians when he knows that a settlement was available and that a
settlement later will cost the government and the people much more than a settlement would have this past weekend?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not inhibited by facts. I will give him a few facts, in the event Your Honour offers him an opportunity of asking another supplementary question.
In fact the position of the union has been that it will not return to the bargaining table unless every element of the recommendations of the chairman of the conciliation board is accepted. That would produce an increase in the over-all rate, as indicated by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-an increase, incidentally, which would take us into a very high range of settlements across the country, which would be a very serious matter indeed. However, going beyond that, I have with me a letter from the president of the union, who says that having accepted that and then returning to the table, we will begin to negotiate the questions raised in the union minority report of Mr. Desmarais.
That report embraces such things as wages, for example, where Mr. Desmarais recommended that there be an untriggered COLA, which automatically gives us a rate of something in the neighbourhood of 13 per cent because it is compounded on a quarterly basis as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, plus the settlement itself which was requested, that would bring the over-all rate to 22.58 per cent. I am surprised that the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, concerned as he pretends to be about restraint and the deficit, would even suggest that we should negotiate a settlement on that basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, it is no wonder that we have no postal service in the country starting today, when we have the minister responsible for negotiating the government side who has twice in the House misrepresented publicly the position of the union. Perhaps it is because he knows it is not the most popular union in the country and he is looking for a scapegoat upon whom he can blame the inefficiency of his government.
i


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has not yet explained what he intends to do to ensure that Canadians have the benefit of their postal service.


ROLE OF POSTMASTER GENERAL
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. He will remember that when post office strikes were averted, either last year by this Postmaster General or the year before by the hon. member for Vancouver South, they were avoided by the direct involvement of the Postmaster General. Will the Postmaster General tell the House why he has not taken a direct role in trying to avoid this strike, as he did last year?
June 30, 1981



Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and Postmaster General): Madam Speaker, I want to say to the Leader of the Official Opposition that so far the Treasury Board has conducted the negotiations in impeccable fashion, and I find it altogether deplorable that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has refused to pursue the negotiations and is now in a position to strike. Keeping in mind the generous offers made by the Treasury Board on behalf of the government, I suggest that the attitude of the leaders of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is inexplicable. Rather than launching into this war of words which reflects a blatant lack of responsibility on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, members opposite would be much better advised to urge the postal workers to return to the negotiation table with a view to ending the current postal strike through a negotiated settlement.


EXCLUSION OF POSTMASTER GENERAL FROM NEGOTIATIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, for the third time today a minister has refused to answer a question. The minister knows that when governments wanted a postal settlement in the past and not a strike, they sent in the Postmaster General to negotiate. That was not done this time. Why, when it was done successfully on the last two occasions, was it not done this time?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, periodically we have reached settlements with several unions of the Post Office Department without strike action on their part. Quite recently the Treasury Board reached a settlement with postal carriers through the normal negotiation process without the need for a strike. I have no reason to claim at this time that there are not enough elements on the negotiation table to enable us to arrive at a negotiated settlement, to the extent where the leaders of the Canadian union of Postal Workers are prepared to discuss conscientiously and responsibly with the negotiating unit of the Canadian government. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the Leader of the Official Opposition that, instead of trying to score political points and acting as a petty demagogue, he ought to recommend to the postal leaders that they resume negotiations.


CONTENTS OF GOVERNMENT'S OFFER TO UNION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who has made some allegations about the existing position of the negotiations. Yesterday in the House the minister indicated that the government was presenting a final offer yesterday, "a
Oral Questions
full package on all outstanding issues." The minister maintains that the reason we do not have negotiations is because the union will not negotiate. Why did the government's offer yesterday contain for the first time matters which had not been recommended by its nominee or by itself? In other words, why was the offer made yesterday worse than any previous offer made to the union?
I refer specifically to the fact that the offer contained roll-back provisions, taking away rights granted in previous contracts, roll-back provisions which had not been previously demanded by the government or by its nominee in this round of bargaining. Since the minister says he believes in bargaining in good faith, why was bargaining in such bad faith entered into yesterday? Why should the people of Canada believe that the offer was made with any other intent than to create a strike?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am sure the people of Canada will accept our view and our word; we had no intention of creating a strike.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Moreover, I point out to the hon. member the reason the package was delivered was that we had no other way of communicating with the union. The union left the negotiating room on Friday and we invited them back to the negotiating table. I have already answered why they did not come back-because they said there was a pre-condition. The only way we could convey the position we had on these various elements was to put them into a package and send it to them, hoping that those elements would form the basis of negotiation. The normal course would be to sit down then at the table with their position, as I have explained it to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and negotiate a satisfactory settlement. The union has categorically refused to do that to date.
I share the wish of my colleague, the Postmaster General, that the union will reconsider its position, particularly in view of the major movement which we made in terms of paid marternity leave, and return to the table and negotiate a satisfactory settlement immediately.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that the offer which was made yesterday is worse than the offer which was made last week. That is never the basis for entering into good faith bargaining at this late stage, as he will find out if he checks with the Minister of Labour.


COST OF STRIKE TO PUBLIC
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, given that the minister has refused to enter into negotiations in good faith, and given that the spread between the two parties in real dollar terms is about 2 per cent-and those are Treasury Board figures-can the minister tell us whether the Treasury Board has costed the effect of this strike to Canadians in all walks of life? Will the minister tell the House how

June 30, 1981
Oral Questions
many hours, or even minutes, it will take before the strike costs the people of Canada more than it would have cost the government to settle this past weekend?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, let me assure the House that members opposite have no monopoly on concern for the people of Canada and the difficulties they will have in enduring this strike. The only monopoly most members opposite seem to have is one on complete and utter fiscal irresponsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UPGRADING OF RAW MATERIALS AND RESOURCES BEFORE EXPORTATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Trade. As the minister is no doubt aware, Canada's share of world trade dropped by some 33 per cent during the decade of the 1970s, particularly in manufacturing finished products. Is it the intention of the government to bring in a new trade policy which would require greater upgrading of raw materials and resources before they leave this country, thus providing jobs in Canada instead of elsewhere in the world?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (Trade)):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his new responsibility with respect to trade. I look forward to working with him in the coming days in this regard.
It has been a policy of the Government of Canada to put greater emphasis on the further processing of our raw materials, and in particular on the sale of end products to other countries. Once the hon. member has a detailed look at our trade figures he will find that although our end products decreased last year, partially manufactured products increased substantially. This also has a substantial labour component. Last year was the first time in the last nine years that there was a surplus in the combination of Canadian end products and partially manufactured products.


RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Despite what the minister has said, Madam Speaker, last year in this country, in terms of finished products, we had a deficit of some $18 billion. I am sure the minster is also aware that many Canadian subsidiaries of foreign manufacturers are prohibited by their head offices from entering into world markets. What effort is being made to free them from this restriction, on behalf of Canada?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I ask the hon. member to look in further detail, as I
responded in my first reply, at partially manufactured products. He is right with respect to the deficit in end products, but in partially manufactured products which, for example, include lumber from western Canada for houses in Japan, and is not classified as an end product because we do not ship the houses, and newsprint which is classified as a partially manufactured product yet we do not ship newspapers, if he looks at the whole broad spectrum of partially manufactured products rather than end products, he will see that we had a surplus rather than a deficit.
With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question concerning branch plants of foreign multinationals, my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, is putting a great deal of emphasis on World product mandating. We have several excellent examples in Canada of branch plants of foreign based multinationals doing an excellent job in the export of products manufactured in Canada.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. It deals with the apparent announcement yesterday that certain VIA passenger services are to be abandoned or phased out, including the Barrie-Toronto run, Stouffville-Toronto run, and the Havelock-Peterborough-Toronto run. Is it true that the phasing out of those three lines is under consideration and that it is anticipated that the lines will be turned over to the Ontario government to run as part of their GO train service? If that is the intention of the federal government, has it notified the Ontario government that such an action is planned?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the decision of cabinet has not been made on this subject. As we are reviewing everything that concerns VIA, hon. members should understand that what the hon. member mentions may be part of the review now taking place. I would like the House to understand immediately that the purpose of this minister and cabinet is to save VIA, to break the vicious circle which now exists under which we have constantly escalating operational deficits for VIA. Because of a number of restraints we are not capable of improving the capital budget of VIA so that this vicious circle can be broken and VIA can begin to be a much more modern and able passenger transportation company than it has been up until now.


SUBSIDIZATION OF COMMUTER SERVICES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I hope the Minister of Transport will tell the House why he seems to have such a double standard. It was only on June 26 that he agreed to a $40 million special federal subsidy to re-equip commuter train services in the Montreal area. Yet he tells us in the name of restraint he intends to cut back on VIA and
June 30, 1981

intends presumably to put more costs on the Ontario government, a government that he has already reneged on paying $30 million which was pledged by his predecessor in that portfolio. Why does the minister have this double standard whereby in some cases cabinet decisions have been arrived at to give a $40 million subsidy to help the commuter to and from work in Montreal, but there is no such subsidy for those in the Toronto area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it has been the policy of the government since 1975, and even before that, that commuter services, because of the nature of their operations, are a municipal-provincial responsibility, not a federal one. This was confirmed by decisions of the CTC in a number of instances. What has happened in Montreal is a recognition of that fact. Because these lines in the city of Montreal have been neglected for a number of years, the Government of Canada decided to make a contribution, as it did in Toronto in 1967.
I would also point out that $30 million of that $80 million that is going to urban transportation in Montreal is given under the UTAP program, which is a decision that the Quebec government has made, allocating that amount of money to this particular purpose. Any province can do that. However, Ontario has not decided to do that.


MEASURES TO AID MOVEMENT OF INCREASED EXPORTS OF GRAIN
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Considering the prospect of rail rationing in western Canada, and given the fact that Canada's grain carrying fleet will be reduced by some 50 per cent by 1985 due to the retirement of some 7,000 boxcars because of age, what program or steps is the federal government taking to ensure that adequate rolling stock will be available to move the anticipated export shipments of 30 million tonnes by 1985? Specifically, why has the minister's department not yet accepted the proposal of the grain transport authority, endorsed by the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat, Board, to acquire 1,300 new units of rolling stock on an annual basis for the next five years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it is the view of the government based on a number of studies, some of them by the grain transport co-ordinator, that there is no need for more hopper cars this year. The lead time for ordering hopper cars is, I understand, six months. The government will have plenty of time to order needed hopper cars for the next year, if that assessment is made.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON USE OF RAILWAY SERVICES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: There seems to be some inconsistency, Madam Speaker. A spokesman for the government suggested there will be rationing in western Canada of the utilization of the rail system. I will direct this question to the Prime Minister. Was the government leader in
Oral Questions
the other place expressing government policy when he said this past weekend that the federal government plans to ration western Canadian rail space with a system of allotments for exports from the west? That was stated by the Hon. Senator Ray Perrault. He indicated that by 1985 it will be necessary to ration rail space in western Canada. Will the Prime Minister advise if that is an expression of government policy? If so, it is a classic cop out.
How will the government have sufficient capacity to move the anticipated 70 per cent increase in rail tonnage over the next five years and meet the anticipated export target of 30 million tonnes of grain by the year 1985?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the leader of the government in the Senate was simply expressing the view that unless something is done in due time, this is the situation that will exist in 1985. That is what he said. There would be a possibility of rationing of the main line. He was projecting to the future what will happen if decisions are not made, but those decisions will of course be made.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On April 21 in this House the minister assured the people of Canada that the Robertshaw study on child abuse, which was looking into problems which lead to the deaths of up to 200 children per year, was completed. The minister further stated that:
I am happy to say that I shall publish her report on child abuse.
Since there appears to be some discrepancy as to the status of this report and seeing as no report has yet been published, could the minister inform the House whether it is the study of the issue that has been completed, or the final written report, including recommendations, or had Mrs. Robertshaw been taken off the project before she had completed the real work she set out to do?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the study conducted by Mrs. Corinne Robertshaw is of a judicial nature and deals with child welfare legislation especially the provisions to protect children against violent abuse. We could ot/iously continue our investigation. However we considered this study could serve as a good working paper. As I said several weeks ago, we would publish whatever we could with the approval of our contacts. I should have a report within a few hours on the extent of what can be made public, but I know that to protect

June 30, 1981
Oral Questions
the children, several of our contacts would not allow us to publish the entire report. The work was completed in a satisfactory way a few days ago so that it will now be up to the parties concerned, in particular the provinces, to decide what they will do next.


RESPONSIBILITY CENTRE FOR CHILDREN
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the reason the minister has had difficulty getting some of this material released for publication is that people do not want to do anything which would preclude the completion of the final written report. It is the written report which the minister promised us on April 21. Therefore I repeat my questions to the minister. Has Corinne Robertshaw written a final report? If not, why not? If so, where is it? What is the mandate of the responsibility centre for children which the minister also mentioned on April 21 about which there has been no press release nor any details? When will the minister make good on her commitment to publish the written report and tell us something more about this responsibility centre for children that she was so rhetorical about two months ago?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is confusing several issues here. The Robertshaw study was conducted under the auspices of my department by this researcher with the assistance of another department. The study was supposed to last a couple of months but it finally stretched into twice that, if not three times. I think it has progressed to the point where we could publish the recommendations. As I just said to the hon. member, I should be advised within a couple of hours on the substance of the matter because I think some informers did not want their testimonies to be published. We will publish what we can. There is no need for the hon. member to cause a scandal or a controversy over something which is not that.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services about the situation regarding the F-18 fighter aircraft. According to press reports over the past few days and especially yesterday, the F-18 fighters would be by-passing Quebec, and three quarters of the economic fall-outs which had been promised to Quebec would practically disappear. Could the minister indicate what actually are the figures involved in these economic fall-outs from the F-18 contract, and whether to date the terms of the agreement have been fully met by McDonnell Douglas? Also, in case of non-compliance with these terms by the corporation, are penalties provided for under this contract?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I dare hope McDonnell Douglas will comply with all the terms of this contract. I should like to point out to the hon. member that when the contract was signed, McDonnell Douglas indicated that some $1,570 million in economic fall-outs would go to the province of Quebec. I must add that my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and I were both in Bromont yesterday for the official opening of a new vane and blade manufacturing plant which should generate some $600 million in economic activities. The original agreement called for only $60 million in respect to this plant, and the corporation has already promised to invest $97 million; moreover, nearly $500 million in economic activities will be generated between now and 1995. While there, we also announced a contract between McDonnell Douglas and Canadair which should yield nearly $92 million in economic fall-out. There is also a new digital rolling mill which has been promised, so that the benefits to date exceed the expectations of the original contract with the corporation.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the involvement of the Canadian National Railway Company in marine transportation. The minister has been warned that CNR's involvement in the Cast shipping group would create problems in Canadian ports. The minister knows that the U.S. Congress is considering a law to control marine carriers which transport U.S. cargo through Canadian ports, and he has caused diplomatic representations to be made to the U.S. Congress.
The minister must know that this law was motivated by Cast's predatory pricing policies, by its support from the Government of Canada, and by the CNR through financial assistance, through sweetheart deals in the port of Montreal, and in other ways. How will the minister explain his position to the U.S. Congress, and how will he explain this government's position to this House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend is exaggerating unnecessarily. This attempt by the Congress in the United States to pass a bill affecting transportation of U.S. goods into Canada is one that comes forward at regular intervals in the United States. The Department of External Affairs is aware of the situation, and it has sent a note through the embassy to the Congress on this subject. Congressmen, who are quite intelligent as are members of Parliament, will sooner or later understand that this is not a good line to take, because on the west coast the
June 30, 1981

situation is exactly the opposite. On the west coast Canadian shippers make greater use of U.S. ports than vice versa. Therefore, we have a balancing act, and I am quite sure that reason will prevail in the House of Representatives.


REQUEST FOR GENERAL INQUIRY INTO EAST COAST SHIPPING
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to know that the minister thinks I am exaggerating, because Mr. Richard Lidinsky, in testifying before a committee of the U.S. Congress, referred to the Cast shipping group as a James Bond-type of operation and he asked Congress to pass this law. Does the minister not think, in view of the allegations that have been made in the United States, in view of the fact that the Dart shipping group moved from the port of Halifax to the port of Montreal because of the Cast-CN connection, that it is time to call, under the provisions of the National Transportation Act, a general inquiry into shipping traffic through east coast ports so that all of those concerned in the shipping industry in Canada will have an opportunity to present their views? This time Mr. Bandine may be willing to testify, because he was not willing to testify in the hearing held in Halifax by the CTC concerning Dart and the CPR.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sorry but I do not have before me the curriculum vitae of the gentleman whom the hon. member mentioned a moment ago. But the information I have is that he is working for one of the ports on the east coast, which makes him somewhat of a party in the debate.
On the subject of the relationship between Halifax and Montreal and other ports on the east coast, I thought there was a good airing of the subject in Halifax a few days ago, and I am quite sure there will be other opportunities.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport. It deals with my question to the minister of last Friday, which reads in part, as reported in Hansard at page 10983:
Is the minister telling us that neither his department nor any other department of government has been considering sports betting?
The minister responded, in part, as follows:
We do not contemplate any such scheme as the hon. member has mentioned.
1 would suggest that the minister was either ignorant of matters relating to his jurisdiction or he was misleading this House, because I have here a sample of a betting ticket produced by the federal government which would bet on 15 hockey games, called Sports Select. This is not Loto Select nor the computerized games. Therefore I ask the minister to set aside his sarcasm of last Friday and try to give an honest and intelligent answer on this matter.
Oral Questions


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: 
GOVERNMENT PLANS
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I knew that the Prime Minister does not always tell the truth, but now the disease is spreading to the minister as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, on Friday the minister categorically denied-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary he can ask it right now.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Otto John Jelinek: If the penguins across the way would give me an opportunity, I will. On Friday the minister categorically denied the government was even considering sports betting, and I quoted "sports betting". Now there is a sample ticket which the government has produced for hockey sports betting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: If the government is not considering this type of sports betting, which on Friday the minister categorically denied, what is the minister considering? What is the program for future gambling operations of the government when the Liberal government prior to this one assured this House that it would not go beyond the Montreal Olympic betting operation?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may remember that last week I told him he

June 30, 1981
Oral Questions
was skating on thin ice. It has just broken, and he is in deep water now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: What the hon. member says is totally incorrect.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it a lie?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Leader of the Opposition seems to be having trouble, or a fit, or something. Perhaps he can let me answer the question for the hon. member. The hon. member says that the government said it would never go beyond paying off the Olympics in Montreal. It never said any such thing. Furthermore-


Otto John Jelinek: You were not here.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Furthermore, Madam Speaker, long after that the government was still in Loto Canada. The party opposite was involved in Loto Canada when it formed the government, so it would have been in breach as well. This government is looking at various options. I have not even had the privilege to see the form that the hon. member is looking at, but I will be happy to examine it if he would like to send it over.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, let us go back to the Minister of Transport and some more gambling with safety and lives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since the railroads and the chemical and dangerous goods manufacturers are weeping and wailing and pleading high costs before the Canadian Transport Commission on the implementation of the Grange report, and since the bible of the Liberal party, the Toronto Star, says that the required changes in rail safety regulations should be made regardless of the cost, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he will call upon the CTC to order the railroads to speed up substantially their installation of hot box detectors on all the main and secondary freight and passenger rail lines in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the CTC has already done that. While the hearings are going on, and I understand that they are coming to a conclusion now, the CTC has issued an order telling CP to implement in the next year the plan that they had for 1985, if my memory serves me well.
The Grange Commission made a number of recommendations. I have already reported to the House on that subject.
Nine of them are presently being implemented, and six are before the CTC.
I received a letter recently from a distinguished minister of the government of Saskatchewan, telling me that there must be a happy medium between preoccupation with safety, which obviously is important, and the economic health of the country. I suggest that this would be good reading for the hon. member for Regina West.


CONVERSION TO ROLLER-BEARING EQUIPMENT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the distinguished minister in Saskatchewan knows how slowly this Minister of Transport, and previous ones, and the CTC have moved, and that this could affect the movement of commodities out of western Canada very seriously.
Since the incident at Sundridge, Ontario, occurred on a CNR line from Toronto to North Bay, which has no hot box detectors on it, I hope the minister will see to it that the CTC looks into that matter.
Would the minister also request the CTC to order the railroads to increase substantially the conversion of their rolling stock to roller-bearing equipment rather than brass journals, so that the time-frame for this work to be done can be substantially reduced and thus, in turn, reduce the number of accidents we are getting?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the purpose is obviously to reduce the number of accidents we are getting, as the hon. member says. But I was looking yesterday at another accident in White River, Ontario, where the train was equipped with roller bearings. This proves that, with or without roller bearings, there will be accidents. My old friend is right, however, that an effort should be made to reduce the number of accidents. This was the purpose of the Grange report, and it is the purpose of the hearing before the CTC now.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister should know that Canadians are now the world leaders in ornamental horticulture, and Canadian gardens located in several parts of Canada, including Montreal, Victoria and Niagara, are viewed by travellers as superior to most in the world. Will the minister tell the House why a work permit was approved for the Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton to allow it to appoint a person other than a Canadian to the post of director?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon member for the
June 30, 1981

information about the importance of ornamental gardening. That particular case was reviewed very carefully by officials of the department. We sent forward very specific requirements for a major job search to be done throughout Canada. That was done and a number of applications were received and reviewed. We never try to intervene in the actual selection procedure. We do insist, however, that Canadians be given an opportunity to make application for the job. Those requirements were fulfilled in this case by the Royal Botanical Gardens.


ISSUANCE OF WORK PERMIT TO NON-CANADIAN
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, the minister took the position in the Stratford Festival instance that he had to be shown that a proper and extensive search was made to make certain that Canadians would have first opportunity to take that kind of job. How can the minister approve such a work permit when the Royal Botanical Gardens did not follow the usual procedures in seeking a qualified person to fill that position, and when only about 1 per cent of qualified Canadians even knew that such a job vacancy existed?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to receive the information from the hon. member because it does not conform to the facts presented to me which are that a very expensive advertising campaign was undertaken in a wide variety of trade journals and magazines. A good number of applications were received but the job requirements called for very specific qualifications which, in this case, could not be met by Canadians.
As the hon. member knows, we apply very strict requirements for a "Canadians first" policy which works in most cases. We cannot and do not want totally and completely to exclude skilled people from coming into the country when they have the qualifications that we need.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. According to Austrian authorities there are 10,000 refugees from eastern Europe in Vienna, many of whom want to come to Canada, have applied for permission, and have to wait for long periods of time before their applications are even considered. Given those facts, I should like to ask the minister how it is possible and by whom it was arranged that Marian Stastny could go to Vienna and within a few hours of visiting the Canadian Embassy, be on a plane coming to Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski a special category of immigration for those who come from Eastern Europe. We call it the self-exiled class. They are given very minimal requirements to meet, basically health and security checks. We have substantially increased the levels we set for that class this year, up to 4,000, which is an increase of
1,000	over the previous year. In this case the application by Marian Stastny was under that classification. He was given no privileges different from anybody else, with one exception. It was the judgment of our officials in Vienna that he was under real threat and his security could not be protected. Under those circumstances we afforded him the same kind of protection we afford anybody in those circumstances; if we cannot guarantee security in Austria they are given the chance to come here and then go through landing procedures here in Canada.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the fifty-eighth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-20, an Act to revive Ontario News Company, Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act; Bill S-21 an Act to revive G.A. Barber & Sons Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act; and Bill S-22, an Act to revive Eastern Diversified Company Ltd. and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.


POINTS OF ORDER
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the Prime Minister's refusal to answer my question. I know the Prime Minister
11086

June 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Pinard
(Mr. Trudeau) or any other minister under the rules of the House is not obligated to give an answer to any specific question. However, when a member of his cabinet makes a definitive statement about government policy or the government's intention, surely we as members of this House have the right to know whether that statement is an accurate reflection of government policy. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer these kinds of questions, perhaps the least he might do is to consider putting a muzzle on some of his ministers to avoid the unnecessary confusion.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, that is not at all a point of order. The question was given a perfectly honest and straightforward answer by the minister.


An hon. Member:: How do you know? You didn't even listen.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course I listened to the question and I listened to the answer. What I did not hear was Senator Perrault's speech, but I am assured by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), as he told the House, that Senator Perrault's speech was quite clear, that as certain things were not done- The hon. member shakes his head. I would like to know what authority he has for shaking his head and denying what the minister has said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member had not been so prone to defying when I talked about double-tracking, he would know that we are, indeed, interested in solving this problem, in spite of the guffaws of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: This, of course, is not really a point of order. Hon. members will have me shaking my head before members who continue to debate once the question period is over.
[ Translation]


MR. PINARD-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, with respect, I would like to refer you to the order passed by the House last week which specifies that at precisely three o'clock the questions relating to the business of supply must be put. I therefore respectfully suggest, Madam Speaker, that you call the vote on the appropriate questions before calling other items of business.


Madam Speaker:: I am willing to proceed immediately. We often consider that three o'clock means following routine proceedings, but if the House so wishes, I can dispose immediately of the votes which should be held now.
It being 3:05 p.m., pursuant to the order made Thursday, June 25, 1981, the House will now proceed to the vote on the questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald James Johnston: That Vote 1, in the amount of $12,692,000 under Parliament for the Senate- Program Expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: The first question will be the deferred vote by roll call on the motion in the name of the President of the Treasury Board relative to Vote 1 under Parliament for the
Senate in the Main Estimates for 1981-82.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.			

The House divided on the motion of Mr. Johnston which			
was agreed to on	the following division:		
			
	{Division No. 80)		
	YEAS		
	Messrs.		
			
Allmand	Clark	Dupont	Appolloni	(Yellowhead)	Dupras	.(Mrs.)	Clarke	Duquet	Axworthy	(Vancouver Quadra)	Ellis	Bachand	Collenette	Elzinga	Baker	Comtois	Erola (Mrs.)	(Gander-Twillingate)	Cook	Ethier	Baker	Cooper	Evans	(Nepean-Carleton)	Corbett	Ferguson	Beatty	Corbin	Fisher	Beauchamp-Niquet	Cosgrove	Fleming	(Mrs.)	Cote (Mrs.)	Flis	Begin (Miss)	Cousineau	Foster	Berger	Crosby	Fox	Blais	(Halifax West)	Francis	Blaker	Cullen	Fretz	Blenkarn	Cyr	Frith	Bloomfield	Darling	Gamble	Bockstael	Daudlin	Garant	Bossy	Dawson	Gauthier	Bradley	De Bane	Gendron	Breau	de Corneille	Gimaiel	Bujold	Demers	Gingras	Burghardt	Deniger	Gourd	Bussieres	Desmarais	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Caccia	Dingwall	Gourde	Campbell	Dion	(Levis)	(Miss)	Dionne	Gray	(South West Nova)	(Chicoutimi)	Guilbault	Campbell	Dionne	Hamilton	(LaSalle)	(Northumberland-	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Campbell	Miramichi)	Mountain)	(Cardigan)	Domm	Hawkes	Cardiff	Dubois	Henderson	Chenier	Duclos	Herbert	
June 30, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Hcrvieux-Payettc	MacDonald	Prud'homme(Mrs.)	(Miss)	ReganHopkins	MacGuigan	ReidHudecki	Mackasey	(St. CathariIrwin	MacLaren	RobertsIsabelle	MacLellan	RobinsonJarvis	Malepart	(Etobicoke-1Jelinek	Maltais	RompkeyJohnston	Marceau	RooneyJoyal	Masse	RossiKaplan	Masters	RoyKelly	Mazankowski	SavardKempiing	McCain	SchroderKillens (Mrs.)	McDermid	ScottKorchinski	McGrath	(Hamilton-'Kushner	McKinnon	ScottLachance	McKnight	(Victoria-HLajoie	McLean	SimmonsLalonde	McMillan	SmithLambert	McRae	StevensLamontagne	Munro	StewartLang	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	StolleryLaniel	Munro	TardifLapierre	(Hamilton East)	TessierLapointe	Neil	Thacker(Charlevoix)	Nicholson	TobinLapointe	(Miss)	Tousignant(Beauce)	Nickerson	TrudeauLawrence	Olivier	TurnerLeBlanc	Ostiguy	VankoughnetLefebvre	Ouellet	VeilletteLewis	Paproski	WatsonLoiselle	Parent	WeatherheadLonsdale	Pelletier	WhelanLumley	Pepin	WiseMacBain	Peterson	YanakisPinard Portelance
NAYS Messrs.	Yurko-187.Benjamin	Keeper	OrlikowBlackburn	Knowles	RobinsonBlaikie	Lewycky	(Burnaby)Deans	Mitchell	Young-12.Ittinuar	(Mrs.)
Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES, 1981-82
Donald James Johnston: That the Main Estimates for 1981-82, laid upon the Table, Thursday, February 26, 1981, except the item disposed of earlier this day, the items ruled out of order by Madam Speaker and less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Estimates

[Stage Direction]
(A)
Donald James Johnston: That the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1981-82, laid upon the Table, Wednesday, June 3, 1981, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(B)
Donald James Johnston: That the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1981-82, laid upon the Table, Wednesday, June 17, 1981, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, at this particular point I should like to explain to the House the reasons for having posted the items under supplementary estimates (B), as I have done, which appear on the order paper. Now that the government has tabled bills to cover all those particular items, it is not my intention to press with that notice. However, I wish to raise a point of procedure which I think requires clarification.
Under the rules, hon. members have always been given the right to post a particular item for an expression of opinion by the House. I recall, as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization at the time, that hon. members would be allowed to post any particular part of the spending program for approval by the House.
What has happened is that somehow or other a form of notice of opposition was taken by the table. That requires 24 hours of notice prior to the deadline of consideration, but automatically, even though the government has not acted on it, a motion in positive terms is put on the order paper.
That motion oftentimes includes a much greater sum than the one of the hon. member wishes to oppose. For instance, in the Senate it could be broken down, yet the total amount is put forward. This puts the House in a dilemma in that while one might be in favour of certain items, that on which one wants an expression of opinion is swallowed by the whole. I fail to see why this should be allowed in so far as an expression of opinion by hon. members is concerned.
I put forward the proposition that those items in supplementary estimates (B) should not be concurred in. That is the motion which, 1 suggest to the Chair, should be taken by the Table and put to the membership; rather than the Table itself

June 30, 1981
Estimates
converting it into an affirmative motion and saying that these items should be concurred in.
This is the point I wish to raise. I would wish a clarification on it in due course, but I now formally withdraw all the postings of the estimates in supplementary estimates (B) which appear in my name.


Madam Speaker:: 1 can give clarification to the hon. member. The procedure is to allow a member to raise an objection about certain items in the estimates which have been dealt with item by item in committee. When the estimates come again before the House, the member is allowed to raise an objection to one or several of the items in the estimates. This is what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has done. He raised a number of objections to several items in the estimates which the Table transformed into a positive motion precisely to allow the House to express an opinion on the particular objections of the hon. member.
If I am correct-and I stand to be corrected-these objections were about different items, but they were not lumped into one motion. In the end there will be an all encompassing motion to accept the estimates. If the procedure is followed, the House will have had a chance to express an opinion on each and every objection raised by the hon. member.
This is the clarification I offer to the hon. member. I hope it satisfies him. I take note of his desire to withdraw these objections which he posted with the Table.
[ Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-80, an Act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1982, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-80, an Act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1982, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Francis in the chair.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Can the President of the Treasury Board assure us that there are no contents in this appropriation bill which form the subject matter or rely on the authority of the bills which were introduced yesterday and which have been the subject of deletions of estimates by the Chair some two weeks ago?


Donald James Johnston: Yes, I will be pleased to give that assurance. Further, I would like to assure hon. members that this bill is in the same form as in previous years and takes into account the effects of Madam Speaker's ruling of June 12.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 5 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 6 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule A carried.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule B agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.
June 30, 1981

[ Translation]


Donald James Johnston: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald James Johnston: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the third time and passed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Foster.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, in the two official languages- Mr. Beatty.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-81, to amend the Official Residences Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time, at the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
External Affairs and National Defence TRANSPORT


ORDER OF REFERENCE OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, following consultation with the other parties and with unanimous consent of the House, I wish to move the following order of reference:
That the Standing Committee on Transport, to complement its consideration of transportation matters, while travelling in eastern and western Canada during the month of September 1980, be empowered to examine and report on federal transportation policies and programs within central Canada;
That the committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical, clerical and stenographic staff as may be deemed necessary;
That for the purpose of such examination, the committee be authorized to travel from place to place in Ontario and Quebec for a period of up to 15 days during the time of the 1981 summer adjournment of the first session of the thirty-second Parliament; and that the necessary staff do accompany.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations as referred to by the hon. member and I confirm our agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So do we.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Does the House give unanimous consent to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations with the other parties and I would seek the unanimous consent to waive notice to move the following motion on behalf of the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That the members of the sub-committee on Armed Forces Reserves of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to travel from place to place inside and outside Canada while the House is not sitting; and
That the necessary staff accompany the sub-committee.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations and I confirm our agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1981
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,461, 2,494, 2,544, 2,545 and 2,546.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Crosby: How many meetings of the Halifax Port Authority were held to date since the appointment of the new membership of the authority and, in each case (a) what were the names of the persons who attended (b) what was the name of the person who presided (c) what were the items on the agenda?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises that: two meetings of the Halifax Port Authority have been held to date since the appointment of the new membership-Wednesday, March 4th and Tuesday, May 5th.
(a)	Attendance, March 4th meeting-G. E. Simmons,
Chairman; A. C. Huxtable, Vice-Chairman; R. G.
Austin; B. Shannon; J. W. E. Mingo; K. C. Curren; R.
V. Beck; D. F. Bellefontaine; R. A. Kaye.
(b)	The Chairman, G. E. Simmons presided.
(c)	Items on the agenda were as follow:
(1)	Minutes of the previous meeting November 13, 1980;
(2)	The port's facilities
(3)	The port's cargos
(4)	Review the year 1980
(i)	volumes
(ii)	financial
(iii)	construction
(5)	Projections the year 1981
(6)	Grain elevator
(7)	Changes in facilities
(i)	Transit sheds 26 and 27
(ii)	Transit shed 37
(iii)	Transit shed 9B and Open Area 9C
(8)	Port master plan
(9)	Senior port staff positions
(a)	Attendance, May 5th meeting-G. E. Simmons, Chairman; A. C. Huxtable, Vice Chairman; R. G. Austin; B.
Shannon; J. W. E. Mingo; R. V. Beck; D. F. Bellefontaine; R. A. Kaye.
(b)	The Chairman, G. E. Simmons presided.
(c)	Items on the agenda were as follow:
(1)	Business arising out of the minutes
(2)	Business plan 1982-1987
(3)	1981 projects
(4)	Fairview Cove Container Terminal. Up-date on progress
(5)	The grain elevator
(6)	Staff-new members
(7)	Cargo movements-January, February, March
(8)	Pier 37
(9)	Thru-put charge
(10)	Sheds 26 and 27
(11)	Finance first three months of 1981
(12)	New business


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the government have loans outstanding to the Maritime Employers Association and, if so (a) in what amount (b) at what rate of interest (c) what are the terms of repayment?
2.	Was the interest rate charged less or more than the current prime rate of interest and how was it established?
3.	Is the association now in a position to repay the loan and, if so, for what reason has it not been repaid?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Yes.
(a)	Principal outstanding as of December 31, 1980, $4,435,142.
(b)	10.375 per cent.
(c)	Two equalized payments annually to end on December 31, 1985.
2.	At the time of the contract negotiation, the loan was to bear interest at a rate of 216 per cent above the rate established by the Minister of Finance in respect of loans to Crown corporations for the period of the loan.
3.	Yes, the association has maintained the repayment schedule in accord with the original contract in a fully satisfactory manner.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): With reference to the answers to questions Nos. 2,127 and 2,126 concerning the Coast Guard auxiliary and the Coast Guard Vessel 122 (a) what is the exact meaning of the term "attended" (b) for what reason is there a difference between the average cost per rescue as indicated in the answers to question No. 2,127, Part 4(a) and question No. 2,126, Part 3(a) (c) for what reason is there a large difference between the average cost per rescue when only auxiliary personnel were involved as indicated in the answers to question No. 2,127, Part 5 and question No. 2,126, Part 3(c)?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: (a) The term "attended" is used when a
June 30, 1981

Coast Guard resource arrives at or is dispatched to the scene of a marine incident and undertakes:
(1)	to render direct assistance;
(2)	to advise and co-ordinate assistance already in progress;
(3)	to relay communications on behalf of RCC and/or other vessels involved;
(4)	to standby when pollutants may be discharged during the course of an incident.
(b)	The first figure of $900 is based on the average cost per incident of CG 122 during its first six months of operation. The second figure of $1,273.59 is the average cost per incident of all Coast Guard Search and Rescue resources on the west coast, including seasonal inshore rescue boats (IRB's).
(c)	In the North Saanich/Gulf Islands area, incidents are generally close to shore and seldom involve more than one auxiliary vessel. The average time spent on an incident in this area is about one hour. The figure of $20 is based on the reimbursement fee for out-of-pocket expenses by volunteers and does not include insurance charges which the Coast Guard pays.
In other areas along the B.C. coast, the average time to resolve a marine SAR incident is much longer and normally requires the participation of more than one auxiliary craft. In addition, auxiliary vessels outside the Gulf Islands/Greater Vancouver area are generally larger and more expensive to operate. The figure of $247.94 given in response to question 2,126 (3(c)), 17/02/81, includes the cost of insurance premiums paid by the government for each auxiliary incident.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): With reference to the answer to question No. 2,125 which stated $158,000 was allocated in the estimates to the organization and operation of the Coast Guard auxiliary in the western region for the calendar year 1980 and, of that, $119,837 was allocated to equipment, administration, re-imbursement to members, travel expenses and insurance coverage, for what reason is there a difference in the two totals of $38,163 and how were those funds spent?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Training costs for members of the CMRA(W) were not included in the figure of $119,837, nor were secretarial and printing services, all of which are shared in a common pool with the Coast Guard Boating Safety Detachment and Coast Guard Inshore Rescue Boat Operations. Costs on a shared basis for these services amounted to approximately $10,000.
The figure of $158,000 allocated in the estimates was for fiscal year 1980-81, not for calendar year 1980 as indicated in the question.
Underutilized funds of $30,000 from the 1980/81 allocation were applied to other CCG SAR resource requirements in the western region.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,125, were funds distributed for the 1980 calendar year to the organization and operation of the Coast Guard auxiliary in the western region for re-imbursement to members of the auxiliary, travel expenses to attend meetings for members of the auxiliary and insurance coverage for boats of auxiliary personnel in the amount of $67,837 and, if so, how can one account for the difference between that amount and the $158,000 appearing in the budget for 1980-81 ?
2.	Did the financial statement of the Canadian Marine Rescue Auxiliary (Western) Inc. state that the auxiliary received $49,121.06 from the government during the period ended March 31, 1981 and, if so, for what reason is there a difference between the amount indicated in Part 1 and the sum of $49,121.06?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. The budgeted cost predictions for the administration and operation of the CMRA(W) in 1980 had to be based on estimates rather than historical data which did not exist.
Of the total allocation of $158,000, a sub-total of approximately $48,000 was spent on administration, including travel; a sub-total of approximately $68,000 was spent on reimbursement to auxiliarists for out-of-pocket expenses and insurance premiums and an additional sub-total of approximately $10,000 was spent on auxiliary training and secretarial and printing services.
Underutilized funds of approximately $30,000 were applied to other SAR resource requirements in the western region.
2. The financial statement of the Coast Guard Auxiliary ending 31/03/81 was prepared in early April and did not include quarterly insurance premiums (31/12/80-31/03/81) and outstanding SAR travel and incidental expenses, which were submitted in April/May 1981 but charged to 1980/81 funds. Invoices for the 1980/81 fiscal year are not yet all received but will now be paid from 1981/82 funds.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Deans:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if I might inquire of the parliamentary secretary as to what became of the answer to my question No. 1483 which can be found on page 164 of the order paper for June 29, 1981. I am told by FIRA that the answer to the question, which was placed on the order paper on July 17, 1980, was given to the Prime Minister's Office within a matter of weeks of the question having been placed on the order paper. To this date there has been no reply. I would like to know whether or not the parliamentary secretary might inquire into the matter and report back to the House in order that I can come to grips with what has been a very difficult problem for a number of people.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 assume that since there is no answer printed in Hansard, it has not yet been given in the House. I shall look into the matter and see where that answer is.

June 30, 1981
Oil Substitution and Conservation


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, I am rising on what I think is-although the parliamentary secretary will probably have better track of this than I-probably the eighth time with regard to question No. 1852 which I placed on the order paper on December 9. This question is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) who is responsible for the freedom of information legislation. I think we see an indication of the government's willingness to comply with this spirit of freedom of information legislation by their dealings with the answer to this question. It is clear that they do not deal with this whole matter seriously.
Before the parliamentary secretary gives his response, in case he comes up with the old saw about how complicated the question is, I would point out to him that the information for the answer to this question was supplied by the chairman of the CFDC to the minister several months ago so the answer could be given in less than two typed paragraphs. There is no excuse for the question not being answered.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could indicate whether this is simply a matter of the minister responsible for freedom of information having refused to give him the information.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, what may appear to be a simple answer expected by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) may, indeed, be complex from the point of view of the government. We undertake to make sure that hon. members are satisfied in every possible way. It may very well be that the question is much more complex than the hon. member thought when he put it on the order paper. I have looked into the matter and we are endeavouring to get the answer. I can only refer him to my previous answers to the same question.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-77, respecting oil conservation and the substitution for oil of other energy sources be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us hear from the minister.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his invitation to address the House for a few minutes on this bill entitled an act respecting oil conservation and the substitution for oil of other energy sources. Bill C-77 provides for the implementation of the Canada oil substitution program which is a very important element for our National Energy Program.
The National Energy Program pointed out that Canada's problem is not really a shortage of energy but that, as a matter of fact, Canada is a net exporter of energy to the tune of roughly $3 billion every year.
We have a problem in connection with oil supply and particularly, we must deal with our pattern of energy consumption which relies on oil and is producing, in effect, a growing dependence on oil imports. Obviously we should do everything we can to increase oil supply in this country by new discoveries all over Canada. The fact is, however, that all experts agree that it will take a few years before an increase in supply can be relied upon. In fact, it was forecast, before the National Energy Program, that we would see our imports increase substantially until at least 1985-86 until new sources of supply from the tar sands plants and new discoveries in Canada lands, would become available.
The Government of Canada decided that in those circumstances it was essential that steps be taken to dramatically shift energy sources for Canadians away from oil and toward those forms of energy that we have in abundance, such as gas, electricity, renewable energy generally, and coal.
Related to this, obviously, we also have, in the National Energy Program, a very dynamic conservation program encouraging Canadians to save energy. Later this afternoon one of my colleagues will address the question of conservation, particularly through the CHIP and HIP programs for home insulation in this country that have been effective for a few years.
When talking about the Canada oil substitution program, we refer to our off-oil conversion program for residential and industrial heating. This program represents our most important single lever for rapid adjustment and it constitutes the cornerstone of our drive toward independence from the world oil market within this decade.
The goal of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program is to reduce the use of oil in the non-transportation sector, that is in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors, to 10 per cent of energy use by 1990. I am happy to report to the House that this is a goal that is universally accepted. The provinces and industry agree that it can be done with the co-operation and careful management of all parties concerned. But there is a long way to go. Oil now accounts for 37 per cent of the energy for heating homes in Canada.
[ Translation]
For example, in my native province, Quebec, the percentage is even higher than 37 per cent which is the national average. If I remember well, some 61 per cent of Quebec homes are oil heated. Therefore, we are aiming high since we are striving to
June 30, 1981

reduce that percentage in Quebec, for example, from 61 to 10 per cent during the coming decade.

For the whole of Canada, getting to 10 per cent means we need more than two million conversions of heating systems in this country over the next decade. As a matter of fact, our goal is to achieve this objective early in the decade rather than late in the decade. This will mean a large investment in all parts of Canada. It will mean the creation of new firms, new jobs for thousands of Canadians, and I am happy to see that many firms, organizations and individuals are arranging their affairs to take advantage of this development in the energy sector in Canada.
Clearly, however, this objective will not be reached without an assistance program because the capital cost of conversion will otherwise discourage many Canadians from making the shift. We have therefore set up a grant program that will make this feasible and will quickly pay back the investment for both sides through a reduced compensation payment on imported oil by the national government and through lower heating bills for individual Canadians.

In fact, COSP which we are asking the House to approve formally this afternoon under Bill C-77 meets various needs throughout Canada, since it will help Canadians through substantial grants to change their type of energy consumption and to convert from heating oil to other forms of energy, either gas, electricity, coal, wood or any other form of renewable energy. In addition, the government has defined the allowable costs in a very general way to make sure that the heating systems will be efficient and safe when Canadians will be converting their system to a form of energy other than oil.
The grant provided under this act and COSP will cover half of the conversion costs up to $800, and the eligible conversions will include the conversion of an oil fired heating unit to another type of fuel, converting it for instance into a gas burning unit. Also, the program will cover the costs of replacing an oil fired heating unit with a gas or electricity heating unit. Finally, the program will allow the addition of a back-up system, such as a wood stove or an electric heat pump, which would reduce the level of oil consumption in the current heating unit by at least 50 per cent.
We have put together a very flexible scheme which offers consumers a freedom of choice and, for all practical purposes, makes it possible for them to transform fully and completely their heating units if they want to, or to transform their units gradually, on condition that their converted systems uses at least 50 per cent less heating oil.
In effect this $800 grant is designed primarily to assist the home owner in meeting the up-front costs of converting. It will also be helpful to smaller commercial establishments. As far as
___________________________________________11093
Oil Substitution and Conservation
centrally heated apartment buildings are concerned, a formula applies which will provide conversion grants of up to $5,500 per building, depending on the number of units.
Finally, for larger commercial and industrial buildings, we have come to the conclusion that the major incentive to convert will be the growing difference between the prices of oil and gas provided under the National Energy Program. As a matter of fact, we have foreseen that the wedge, or the spread, between the price of oil and gas, will increase appreciably over the coming decade. Already that spread is substantial indeed. In fact, in the past without grants or subsidies, we have seen that the price wedge has already led to hundreds of major conversions wherever natural gas service is available. Because of the nature of the country, the nature of the services that are available in Canada and the types of energy that are available here, we have had to develop a flexible program in order to respond to the availability of non-oil energy sources across the country. For the main part, I would say that the renewable portion of COSP applies across the country and that there are no differences to speak of while the gas and electrical components are tailored to regional availability and to provincial preferences.
We have had extensive discussions with the provinces during the last few months about this particular program. We have made every effort to tailor the program to answer the concerns of the various provincial governments. We have been led to introduce certain restrictions at the request of some provincial governments, taking into account their particular situations with regard to energy supply.
If we go across the country, I would say first that Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and the Territories where electricity is generated from oil and where natural gas service is many years away, COSP takes the form of a conversion program to the various renewable energy sources and, second, it takes the form of assistance to upgrade insulation and improve heating efficiency. What we have in those provinces is a program derived from COSP that we call super CHIP, which is the $800 available in the other provinces for conversion to natural gas, wood or electricity. In those provinces it becomes a program to convert to renewable resources. Also it can be used to add on to the existing CHIP program so that people can at least be assured they will have a very generous scheme for home insulation. Thereby we will be in a position to encourage conservation much more significantly in those provinces compared to any other strategy. In effect, in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and the Territories we already have energy experts in the field who will recommend in detail improvements that home owners can make to reduce fuel consumption.
In the Maritime provinces, the National Energy Program provides for a fund of up to $500 million to assist with the construction of the natural gas pipeline to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Also if I can jump to the other side of the country, it will provide, if necessary, support for the construction of a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island so that COSP can

June 30, 1981
Oil Substitution and Conservation provide broad assistance as rapidly as possible in those regions, so that people can switch away from oil as quickly as possible.
[ Translation]
In Quebec, the program has already been announced. It is already being implemented with respect to the substitution for oil of all sources of renewable energy as well as natural gas. The public is aware of the nature of this program. It provides any single family with grants of up to $800, but such grants may come as high as $5,500 in the case of multiple-unit housing. The problem which remains outstanding has to do with the conversion to electricity. I was surprised to learn from a number of my colleagues in the House that people calling Hydro-Quebec are told that the government of Canada alone is responsible for the fact that grants for conversion to electricity are still not available and that they must contact their federal member of Parliament to settle that problem. I want to say very clearly to the people of Quebec that if they are given that type of information over the telephone by people from Hydro-Quebec, it is definitely unfounded. In fact, in the past few weeks I have had a number of conversations with my colleague the Quebec energy minister, and I was expecting an answer from the Quebec cabinet on June 3 last.
For all sorts of reasons the Quebec government have found it impossible to reach a conclusion on that issue until these past few days. I am scheduled to meet very soon with my Quebec counterpart, Mr. Duhaime, with a view to settling that question as soon as possible. I certainly regret the very protracted delays we had to experience in Quebec as a result of that situation, and I hope that as a result of my forthcoming meeting with Mr. Duhaime we will be in a position to announce to the people of Quebec that without any further delay they will become eligible for the $800 grant to convert to electricity. Be that as it may, I must point out that since the program was first made public, the government of Canada has been ready and willing to make those conversions to electricity eligible for the grant and that we are waiting for the Quebec government to give us the green light to launch the program efficiently for all Quebec residents who are anxious to change their heating system to electricity.
I entertain every hope that we will reach agreement very rapidly and, in that case, the people of Quebec will be able to benefit fully and without any restrictions from all aspects of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program.
I would now like to deal with the other provinces west of Quebec-
First, in Ontario and Manitoba where virtually all alternatives to oil are widely available, COSP will apply fully. It will have the enthusiastic co-operation of the gas utilities and, we anticipate of electric utilities including the several hundred independent public utility companies in Ontario which are being invited to participate in the program delivery.
We have had many meetings and discussions with those utilities and we have had discussions with the provincial governments concerned. I am happy to report that we have received the full co-operation of everyone. In those two provinces, this program is already fully effective. I invite the public to make full use of that program.
I have already talked about Manitoba. In the other prairie provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, it is a fact that they are largely off oil. Alberta is very much the model province for COSP. Alberta has already reduced its residential use of oil to below 10 per cent. That is an achievement which is indeed remarkable, when we think of the oil that the province has and also the gas. I am happy to pay tribute to the foresight of consecutive administrations in that province which have pushed actively for the consumption of natural gas. In that province, by a very large margin, oil consumption for residential, commercial and industrial purposes is very much below that in other provinces.
The program of conversion to gas and electricity is not operating at this time in Saskatchewan, I regret, in view of the provincial government's preference for an alternative more appropriate to the province's circumstances. At the present time there are discussions between the two governments. I hope we will be able to reach an early agreement so that the people of Saskatchewan can have the full benefit of this program like people in most other provinces in Canada.
COSP will apply in Alberta for conversions to gas and renewables. There remains a considerable potential for rural conversions to gas in the northern part of Alberta.
In British Columbia the COSP program will help extend the use of natural gas on the mainland and eventually on Vancouver Island in line with provincial government priorities. That provincial government has resisted the extension of the program to conversion to electricity. Therefore, the program will essentially be applicable to conversions to natural gas.
A separate component of COSP is being developed in discussions with each province to provide funds over the 1980s toward the expansion of distribution systems for gas, electricity and renewable energy resources. This, too, will be a flexible instrument directly tailored to provincial and regional needs and priorities. However, this program will not become effective during the current fiscal year. It will not begin until the 1982-83 fiscal year at the earliest.
After having said a few words about the extent of the program and how it covers the country, I would like to say something about the delivery agents for this program. The gas and electric utilities play a very important role in the delivery of the gas and electric part of COSP. They are the channel for application forms and program material and a source of information on program rules and the conversion alternatives available. Once home owners have converted, they return completed application forms to the utilities concerned, either hydro or the gas utilities. These forms can then be verified and forward to the federal government which will issue the grants directly to those who have converted to gas or electricity.
June 30, 1981

With regard to the renewable and conservation portions of the COSP program, that will be delivered on behalf of my department by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This will be done following the two-stage application process adapted by the Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP. When there is a request for an application form, the form is sent out, completed and processed on the basis of the application form. This allows for much better control of the grant process. There will first be the COSP application request card and then a personalized application information package. This will ensure that we will be able to reduce to a minimum the possibility of a misuse of funds provided under this program.
The delivery agents, whether the utilities or CMHC, will establish that conversions have in fact taken place, that they are eligible under the rules and that invoices support the work actually done and the equipment actually installed. These are important tasks which help prevent abuse and ensure efficiency in the operation of COSP. The delivery agents are reimbursed for performing these steps. We have reached agreements with the various utilities whereby we pay them a certain amount for each application form that is processed. Therefore, the utilities, whether hydro or gas utilities, will not lose money as a result of processing these forms.
Furthermore, there will be an important link between the gas and electric components of the program on the one hand, and the delivery system for the renewables component of COSP on the other. There will be an automatic computer check of applications against gas and electric applications to ensure that duplicate grants are not paid at any address unless permitted by COSP rules.
To prevent abuse of public funds and to ensure that individuals make informed decisions about converting, the distribution of application forms is handled exclusively by utilities for gas and electricity and by CMHC for renewables. This can be explained further in the context of the various steps being taken to provide good advice to applicants.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words about the question of advice to applicants.
[ Translation]
I indicated quite clearly that our program would give Canadians wishing to convert their oil heating system the widest possible choice. Of course this flexibility is somewhat limited in some provinces because of decisions taken by the provinces themselves or because some sources of energy, like natural gas, are simply not available. But it is up to the applicant to decide when conversion will take place and what source of energy he will convert to, as well as what type of equipment he would purchase. I want to make it positively clear that the decision is up to the individual.
Naturally, there are various factors that come into play, for instance the individual's personal preferences but the government will do nothing to influence the individual in choosing one solution rather than another. However, under this program the government wants to encourage Canadians to consider
Oil Substitution and Conservation carefully all the alternatives and to ask the relevant questions. In fact, there is a whole range of services available to individuals considering conversion. First there are the brochures on the Canada Oil Substitution Program, which recommend that homes be better insulated, that overly large heating systems be avoided and that several estimates on the work to be done be obtained; other pamphlets have been prepared on each alternative energy source eligible under the oil substitution program; and, finally, various publications of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada deal with heating efficiency and energy savings. In addition, the advisory service of Ener-Save provides free inspection by mail to determine insulation needs and a free telephone information service is also placed at the disposal of Canadians. Finally, my department has opened regional offices in each province and both territories to provide information about the program; in every case, the telephone numbers may be dialed toll free.
I just about forgot to mention that my department has Enercentre stands in shopping centres and other public places throughout the country to provide information on energy programs, including the Canada Oil Substitution Program. Finally, public utilities, that is both the hydro companies and the natural gas companies, for instance, are other major sources of information on the criteria of the program and conversions to gas or electricity.
The objective of this whole set of sources of material and information is to allow citizens to proceed to the transformation of their heating systems away from oil and to allow them to make their decisions concerning their applications for grants with adequate information at hand. Vast experience suggests that if application forms for the grant program proliferate, the risk of fraud and uninformed decision-making increases.
In conclusion, COSP is a major, essential part of the National Energy Program. It goes directly to the problem of oil imports with a solution that is based on the use of cheaper and more abundant domestic alternatives. The program will have a raid pay-off in terms of lower heating bills. COSP will also benefit the suppliers of the alternative fuels. It will benefit manufacturers of gas and electrical equipment, wood burning systems and solar systems. It will benefit retailers of oil equipment and systems. It will benefit thousands of private contractors who will make these installations all over the country. It will spur the development of technology and the introduction of more efficient heating equipment. COSP will have a payoff for the country in reduced dependence on expensive oil imports and in growing energy securities. COSP in that sense is a global and team effort of people all over the country, and I urge the House to give this program its enthusiastic support.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are pleased to be able to look at Bill C-77 which encompasses COSP. I just want to draw to your atten-

June 30, 1981
Oil Substitution and Conservation
tion that this bill was not available to anyone on this side, at least not to myself, until two o'clock.
The minister in his opening remarks on the Canadian oil substitution program talked about the need to become energy self-sufficient, or self-sufficient in oil, and to remove the people of Canada from the use of oil as an energy product without affecting the use of oil in transportation.
At the outset I would like to say that we on this side have some questions, and we will get to those I am sure when we are in Committee of the Whole on this bill. The one thing I should like to point out to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that devising a program encompassing all of Canada is not like devising a program that encompasses a smaller country. Our nation, with its different climatic changes, different energy supplies, different natural resources in each region, is a very vast country, and it is almost impossible to apply a universal program, as, I am sure the minister and his officials have found out. I am sure the minister and his officials have worked hard to try to make the program apply universally with the same effect on every citizen in our country. This has nothing to do really with provincial governments or the lack of co-operation. This relates to the nature of our country.
We feel there is one area in which the minister could find an additional 120,000 barrels of oil every day in Canada, if he would put his mind to it. He could do so by coming to an agreement with the province of Alberta regarding oil cutbacks in Canada. He would then find an additional 120,000 barrels of oil in Canada he does not have to import from overseas suppliers.
When we look at the problems different provinces have had with the application of the universal program of COSP, we should briefly touch upon situation which exists in the two western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
We in Saskatchewan are being denied 50 per cent of this program. At the request of the provincial government, and I am sure this is not the fault of the federal government, natural gas and electrical power should not be included in this grant program. Therefore, all we have available in Saskatchewan is renewable grants or grants in respect of wood. I find that very strange because in my province we rely on electricity for a considerable amount of our heating. I guess this is because in my province a lot of natural gas is imported from our neighbouring province of Alberta and used to generate electricity. That to me is a very ridiculous program, particularly when we consider the vast hydro resources that exist in northern Saskatchewan. I will later be asking the minister several questions that I am sure he posed to the provincial government of Saskatchewan, and I hope he will be able to supply some answers.
The need for energy self-sufficiency within Canada is not something new that the Liberal party which forms this government has come upon recently. On December 6, 1973 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a statement to the effect that the main priority of his government at that time was to reach energy self-sufficiency by 1980. I believe he said the end of the decade, and I presume that meant 1980. I would
doubt that the statement we have heard that we will become energy self-sufficient by 1990 has any more credibility than the previous statement made in 1973.
I would like to put forward a supposition, and later ask the minister to comment. As regards the methodology used to reach energy self-sufficiency by 1990, I presume officials built a supply curve. I assume the minister's department theorized, added a few tar sands plants and a few renewable resources and built a theoretical supply curve. Then, I presume, the people in the minister's department said: we know in the year 1990 we have to cross this curve because the government's policy is self-sufficiency by that time. By building a mythical supply curve and taking the year 1990 as the crossover point, I assume the government arrived at the decision that Canada would have energy self-sufficiency by 1990.
I hope the methodology of that supply curve will be made available to hon. members on this side of the House at a later date or, hopefully, in the Committee of the Whole. There have been some problems with government involvement and with CHIP in the recent past. One of those problems has been in relation to the amount of time people eligible for those grants have had to wait for them. I hope the minister will act to reduce this burden because interest costs are now running at 21 per cent or 22 per cent. These people deserve to receive their grants quickly. Perhaps rather than sending grants from a central location, several offices could be established across Canada. This would enable people to receive their grants much sooner.
Offices have been established by the minister's department in Edmonton and Calgary to handle the Canadian oil substitution program. In both cities I doubt very much if there are 500 people who are presently using oil. The off-oil program in those two cities does not keep the offices very busy. If the minister checks with the people staffing those offices, he will find that they are having a very relaxing time because there is just not much demand in those two cities.
As the minister stated, there is a vast rural natural gas program in Alberta. We in Saskatchewan do not have that. However, there are reserves of natural gas in Saskatchewan which could enable us to have natural gas available throughout rural Saskatchewan comparable to the situation in the province of Alberta, if only the federal-provincial atmosphere were a little more favourable. In this instance I think I can point particularly to the provincial government.
Six months ago the premiers of the prairie provinces briefly discussed an electric power grid. It was proposed that a joint network of power grids be run from Manitoba through Saskatchewan and into Alberta. In this case I find it strange that the provincial governments appear to be waiting for funding from the federal government in 1982 or sometime in 1983. I find that not to be much to my liking. As much as I feel sometimes that the minister is responsible for some things, I think in this case the minister is not to blame. The premiers in this case do not have the ability to get together and run a
June 30, 1981

power grid which would serve all the people of the prairie provinces.
While hon. members on this side welcome the Canadian oil substitution program, we do not find it to be a program which will be applied equally to the people of Canada. We find that regrettable. It is another example of trying to establish a universal program for a country as diverse as ours. We look forward to some of the answers we will receive from the minister when we go into Committee of the Whole.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to indicate to the minister that I think it is obvious to everyone that the direction of the program makes good sense. I do not think anyone looking at the problems of Canada and the problems of the world today in terms of the availability of oil could quarrel with a series of programs which ultimately will reduce our dependence on the petroleum companies of this nation and of the world.
On balance I think the program is supportable. However, I want to raise a few concerns. No one really believes we can continue forever to depend on oil. I once said in the House- and I believe it as strongly today as I did the day I said it- that I hate to think of the value of the last drop of oil when we finally find it. I am always concerned that we are putting, even yet, too much of our time and effort into the seeking of that elusive last drop of oil rather than spending more time, effort and money on the development of those alternatives which are renewable and will last through a number of generations.
I am never happy with the predictions of the oil companies.
I can recall not so many years ago when we were told quite clearly by the oil companies that we had sufficient oil to meet our demand needs for the foreseeable future, whatever that was-for a great time into the future, at least. It only became apparent when the price of oil started to rise in the world markets that the oil companies were either hoodwinking us, unable to tell accurately what the supply situation really was, or taking advantage of a situation which had arisen.
I think the future rests almost entirely on conservation. The off-oil policy is a good policy. In the short run, we have to utilize the existing alternatives, but I think the long-term future lies almost entirely in energy sources which to this point in time are probably little used and may even be quite costly.
It is toward cost that I want to address my remarks because, frankly, I am concerned. I have a nagging worry about the future. We are encouraging people to move from oil to electricity, natural gas and other energy sources, and quite rightly so. However, as people move to other energy sources, we have to keep in mind that the ownership of the energy source to which people are moving remains very much within the ambit of responsibility of the very same people who currently own the oil. I am worried about the fact that we may well be moving people to those alternatives and that the end result may be price gouging.
I raise that because if anyone were to ask me today where he should put his money, if he has any, I would advise him to put it into banking or other related institutions because they seem
Oil Substitution and Conservation to be making a buck or two these days. I would advise him to put it into energy, and particularly oil.
A statement is written up in today's newspapers indicating Imperial Oil is not prepared to go ahead with the Cold Lake project unless it is guaranteed a 20 per cent return on its investment. As we look at the rest of the economy, we must ask ourselves what kind of people are these people who insist on 20 per cent profit when any number of small businesses is going out of business today and when all other sectors, with the exception of banking and related concerns, are facing very serious profit crunches. What kind of people are they who, because they happen to have a product which is essential to the well-being of Canadians, will hold Canadians to ransom and demand from Canadians a guaranteed profit level in this wonderful free enterprise system in which they live? It made me stop and think when I read about it because I realized, as I looked at Imperial Oil with all its diversification, that it is entirely possible we are asking people to move from using oil to alternative sources of energy at a considerable cost to themselves and the public purse, and they will still end up buying from Imperial Oil. Imperial Oil will still be extracting this usurious amount of profit from these unsuspecting souls ten years from now.
Therefore, I want to suggest to the minister that while it is important, which I cannot deny, that we move away from dependence on oil, if only because it is a finite resource, and we encourage conservation and the utilization of renewable resources, we must at the same time put in place mechanisms to monitor both the availability, price and the profit flow from this absolutely essential commodity. I do not want to see us have another combines investigation of the new companies which are going to be set up to meet the energy requirements ten or 15 years from now and then discover, when that investigation is complete, that during this period of concern over availability of energy, these selfsame companies who ripped us off-I think a lot of people would admit that has happened over the last ten or 15 years to the tune of many billions of dollars-are simply able to rip us off even more by virtue of investing most of that money in alternative resources which are not monitored or controlled.
I do not want to see people put in the position of converting from one source to another only to find the cost of providing for their energy needs is no longer controlled or monitored, and they are going to find themselves paying exorbitant amounts of money to these companies which operate today in what they see is a very lucrative area. They will demand from those consumers that same 20 per cent profit level they are demanding in today's newspaper.
Who is going to bear the cost of what we are doing today? The taxpayer will at every level. It does not matter whether it is directly through their taxes or the price of energy, they are going to carry that cost. We have the direct costs, the cost of replacement of heating units, in some cases the cooking units. That is a direct cost, and the government through this program

June 30, 1981
Oil Substitution and Conservation
has made available sums of money to compensate for it, but of course that is money raised through taxes of one kind or another. Then there are the indirect costs the consumer will have to bear. Those are costs the major companies in the field are able to write off against taxes they should be paying. It is the cost of subsidies, write-offs and tax concessions. These companies demand on the one hand a 20 per cent return on investment, and on the other hand they write off against their taxes costs of exploration for research and development into alternative energy sources. So in every single instance, all the way down the line, the cost is going to be borne by the consumer.
Now I say to the minister in all fairness, I really do worry about the fact we do not yet have a handle on the way the major energy corporations are able to reach into the consumers' pockets. We do not have a way of monitoring fairly and accurately the degree to which they are able, year after year, to take from the unsuspecting and, in many cases, unprotected consumer. Of course, they would argue that, having taken for years when there was a sufficient supply of energy, as the supply begins to dwindle they need to get even more because, after all, it is in short supply. It then becomes a commodity with a much greater value because there is not nearly as much of it.
So I want to suggest to the minister that while I support the thrust of what he is doing and while I recognize that in both the long and short term it is preferable we move from the heavy reliance we have on oil to reliance on renewable resources, I want to be sure the government is going to put in place mechanisms to monitor the price to the consumer in order to guarantee there cannot be the kind of obvious rip-off that Imperial Oil is attempting to perpetrate on the Canadian public by their demand for ever higher prices in order to get a 20 per cent return.
I realize the government may not be prepared to admit to Imperial Oil that they can have a 20 per cent return. I can appreciate it may well be the government does not support Imperial Oil in that demand, but what worries me is that this company, the largest of the large, with untold reserves of capital, which for many years has had a privileged position in Canadian society and has been able to recover all of its costs by way of tax write-offs and concessions, and which has had to spend little in the way of after-tax dollars in the development of its enterprise, seems to think that a 20 per cent level is a fair return. They seem to think because they are in the field of energy it is all right to expect 20 per cent, given of course that the Canadian taxpayers have already put $40 million into the Cold Lake project.


An hon. Member:: Good investment.


Ian Deans: It could be a good investment, nobody is going to deny that, provided it does not permit Imperial Oil to then demand a pound of flesh from the consumers.
I want therefore to suggest to the minister that concurrent with this legislation, with these expenditures and initiatives, a way to guarantee protection for the Canadian consumer must
be put quickly in place. As we encourage people to move from the use of oil to other resources, we must recognize those resources will in most instances be in the private sector and we must put in place a means of assuring that the kind of unwarranted, unacceptable and unjustifiable rip-off which has taken place over many years by the multinational oil companies is put to an end. Also we should ensure that no measure can be taken by any of the producers of the new energy sources which will allow them to do to us in Canada what the oil companies have been able to do over the course of the last 15 or 20 years.
I do not want to see old age pensioners putting most if not all of their expendable life savings into making this changeover. I do not want them to suddenly discover that they are paying two or three times what they were paying previously, simply because the persons who are producing the new energy source think they have a captive market. We must be very cautious about that. I have seen it happen too many times; once they have consumers in a vice-like grip, where they have already made the investment and can no longer afford to reinvest, the price begins to escalate. Of course the end result is that people are forced to cut back in many other areas.
There are large numbers of families across the country who can ill-afford to make any further cuts in their standard of living in order to satisfy the greed of energy producers in this country or in any other country. I am not talking so much about gas because I realize there is the National Energy Board before which hearings will be conducted and prices established. Also I realize that, in the area of electricity, there are procedures, at least in Ontario and, I suspect, in other provinces where hearings are to be held, to determine the price structure and price level. I am talking about the newer more innovative methods, the renewable resources we are hoping will become a major part of the Canadian energy scene. Sometime between now and next year we should quickly put in place a method to guarantee that what Imperial Esso is attempting to do cannot be done by anyone else entering the energy field in Canada in the future.
I want the minister to say to Imperial Esso that the 20 per cent is too damned much, that this is not a game we are in. No one can expect to get a 20 per cent profit margin guaranteed by the public of Canada. Imperial Esso cannot expect this, nor can anyone else. If Esso wants to continue to have access to our oil resource, the oil of the public of Canada, then it better act in a responsible way and recognize that every penny of the cost will ultimately be borne by the consumer and the taxpayer.
No matter how Esso juggles its figures, it cannot possibly justify what it is requesting in economically hard times such as the ones we are experiencing now. It is a situation which, I suspect, we will be in for some time to come. The minister should put in place some way to ensure that we will never again be left at the mercy of greed. This is what it is. I would have thought by now that companies operating in the country
June 30, 1981

would have realized that greed cannot be tolerated, that there is no place for it. We cannot afford them if that is what they expect us to do. We would much rather do it ourselves than have it done for us and done to us at the same time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Before putting the question it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Railways-Measures to aid movement of increased grain exports-Government policy on use of railway services; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydmin-ster (Mr. McKnight)-Agriculture-Increase in number of eligible townships;-the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper)-Indian Affairs-Department's treatment of Manitoba Indian bands.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-77, an Act respecting oil conservation and the substitution for oil of other energy sources, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, be referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
On Clause 2-Definitions
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to say how much I appreciate the minister's outline of the bill. Rarely in recent years have we had from him this type of comprehensive yet objective account of his legislation. I think this should be pointed out.
Oil Substitution and Conservation
I do not think there is any question that the House in general understands and supports the purpose of the oil substitution program, but I would like to raise a series of small points, if I may, in the hope that in the performance of the bill under the minister's administration we can improve it somewhat.
My first point has already been covered by the minister, namely, that we require a separate type of program with each province. I am conscious of the fact that he dealt very lightly with the province of Saskatchewan which did not have much reason for barring those people of Saskatchewan from the federal program who had converted to electricity or natural gas. I will say no more about that. It is up to the people of Saskatchewan to skin their own shunks. I suppose they will do it within the next year or so.
My second point concerns the philosophy of the program, and I want to end my remarks with a question. It is a good philosophy to get as many people in the low technology systems as possible to move away from the consumption of oil. It is particularly good, if the alternative is cheaper not only than the present price of oil but the future price as well.
I am somewhat concerned about the fact that there is so much pressure to convert to natural gas or to electricity. I do not believe they will meet the test of low-cost energy for the people of Canada. When I look at the interest rates and the capital intensity of the structure of moving with electricity and the production of electricity, I know that these interest rates will show up in high prices for electricity for many years to come. Be that as it may, certain things can be done that were not specifically mentioned by the minister in his remarks today which I believe come under this bill.
The bill tries to provide encouragement through incentives in the form of a grant to get people to convert from oil to any type of energy which is generally available and, hopefully, cheaper. Will the minister tell the committee whether a heat pump will be acceptable under this grant system?
Before the minister rises, I want to point out the fact that all across Canada, but particularly in rural areas, almost every farmer has a well, a dug-out or some form of water nearby with which he can heat his house. Many people have lawns in front of their houses and gardens at the back on which there is enough heat stored in the form of solar heat which will heat a house during the winter. This has been done for 50 or 60 years; but the heat must be converted into a form which can be used by interposing a heat pump. A heat pump is not a new device. It has been used by the housewives of our country for some 60 years in the form of refrigerators which take the heat out of food and pump it onto the floor. That same type of apparatus can take heat out of air, out of the ground and out of water and put it into the house. At the present time this method is much cheaper than the heat obtained from oil or natural gas. I would like to ask the minister whether a heat pump will come under the $800 provision in this bill.

June 30, 1981
Oil Substitution and Conservation


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain for his kind words. I would like to take this opportunity to stress his well-known interest in this field for many years.
I would like to answer the hon. member very quickly. Heat pumps will be eligible for conversion grants. Obviously, this depends on the agreements we have with the various provinces. We do not yet have an agreement with Saskatchewan, and in Nova Scotia this matter is still being negotiated. However, in all the other provinces heat pumps are eligible for the grant. I hope that since discussions have started again with the government of Saskatchewan, this will become the case in that province. Although heat pumps represent a large investment it is our view that they also imply very substantial savings in terms of energy consumption and particularly of converting from oil.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would like to put this thought forward to the minister, Mr. Chairman. I hope that when he is negotiating with the province of Saskatchewan, which above all other provinces needs this type of item in the arsenal for fighting home heating costs, he will consider what I have to say. With the research that has been done in the last two years I feel I can say fairly accurately- and the minister can verify this through the National Research Council-that if you are heating your home out of air, the co-efficient of performance is about 1.6 to one. I know that is the Canadian Standards Association level for Ontario, but it also applies in Saskatchewan. If you are heating your home with water or from the ground, as long as you put your heat exchanger below the frost line or below the ice in the water source-in the case of wells that is always open-you can obtain a co-efficient of performance of close to four to one. Translated into dollars and cents, that means if you tried to heat your home out of the air around your home over the year, a dollar spent for electricity to run the electric motor, which runs the compressor in the heat pump, will give you $1.60 worth of heat. This, it is a good deal. But if you heat your home with a heat pump where your heat is obtained from a constant source, such as the water in a river under the ice of the water in a dug-out or a well underneath the ice, and if you have built a storage thank, you obtain a co-efficient of performance of approximately four to one. At present prices, that means $1.00 of electricity gives you $4 worth of heat. That is a tremendous saving. Of course, that saving increases if oil prices rise.
Something to remember about a heat pump-that is where the difficulty might arise for the minister-is that in those provinces if you put a heat pump into your home, you are required to have a back-up furnace, either an electric one or an oil or gas furnace. If you put the heat pump beside the existing furnace and use the same fans and electrical system to operate it, your installation ban be at a minimum cost. I hope the minister will suggest to his officials and to the provinces when he is dealing with them that when they deal with applications for heat pumps, it will not be a requirement to remove your old furnace when putting in a heat pump. If the heat pump will
provide you with over 50 per cent of the heat supply for your house, you should not be required to remove your old furnace. I would like to ask the minister whether this is looked after in the regulations.


Marc Lalonde: The comments made by the hon. member are confirmed-it would be quite a challenge to match the hon. member's own expertise in this field. I would like to tell the hon. member that there is no requirement under the federal rules for the existing system to be removed if one wishes to instal a heat pump. As a matter of fact, we quite understand that an existing system can very well be maintained. The only requirement is that the new system which is to be installed must replace at least 50 per cent of the oil consumption which occurred before installation. As the hon. member has explained, that would be achieved by the installation of a heat pump.
I understand that some utility companies in certain provinces insist on the previous system being kept. For instance, the government of Quebec is considering an arrangement whereby it would allow conversion to electricity only in so far as the previous system would still be maintained as a back-up with the possibility of converting to oil or gas later on. I do not expect there would be great difficulty in this regard. It is a matter in which the provinces could have an influence in terms of their powers over provincial utilities. As far as we are concerned, we certainly do not intend to make any such requirement, that is, we see no problem with keeping the back-up system in operation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I appreciate very much what the minister has just said. It has been my experience that no matter how well intentioned your programs are, they can sometimes be messed up, to use a polite word, in the translations, and through the regulations in the various types of programs.
I have several other questions. I do not want to take up too much time but I would like to offer some suggestions to the minister. I do not think my suggestions can be covered at the present time under this bill. They might very well be covered in the next version of the bill. I am talking about the fact that one of the ways we can save money and the use of oil is by utilizing in our heating systems passive solar energy. For instance, I would like to use one example. The province of Saskatchewan has developed a very convenient and simple technique for storing heat from passive solar energy through the use of sodium sulphate mixed with peat. Without going into all the fancy details, a person can build a storage facility for a small home which would cost only $1,000. That facility can store the surplus heat provided by solar energy through ordinary windows. That is why it is called "passive". You can store the heat from days when the sun is shining and bring that heat back into your home during the night.
The research work in this field which has been done by the province of Saskatchewan shows that the technique is long-lasting. Incidentally, the first place where this apparatus is being sold is in Ottawa. It is very simple for a person to handle
June 30, 1981

this apparatus. It is just like the ice pack that you take along on a trip in the summer to keep things cold. You can buy any number of bags. They can be set along your windows to collect enough heat to heat a house, according to the experimental work which has been carried out. All the time that the sun is shining and the room is hotter than 70 degrees in the sunshine hours, heat is being collected into these bags. The minute the room temperature drops below 70 degrees, the bags begin to pass out the heat they have collected. This is a simple type of technology. If one were to spend money on that and to add to one's passive heat it would be a substitution for oil. I know it is not possible the way the bill reads now. I wish the minister would keep in mind that if anyone can offer a proven technique to reduce the use of oil, it should be included in the bill, just as a stove is. I just thought I would throw it to the minister and hope he will keep it in mind.
I want to move on to some more realistic ideas, Mr. Chairman. We waste a tremendous amount of heat in our homes through the gray water that goes out into the sewers. By gray water I mean water from washing machines, the baths and sinks, water which is dirty and so is called gray water. Usually it goes out still containing heat. Some research has been done by the University of Saskatchewan which shows that by spending about $100 for a heat transfer system, the heat could be extracted from the water and transferred to a water heater. This is only legal in Saskatchewan, however. The minister could approach the other provinces with a view to having them change their health regulations to allow individual householders to direct the gray water to a tank where the heat could be extracted and then transferred to the hot water tank. This would save 50 per cent of the cost of heating water in the household, which at present is roughly $200 per year. This is a type of proposal that I think we could sneak into the bill as a way of getting individuals to adopt methods which would save a substantial amount of oil.
There is one thing that I hope the minister will take up with the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman. The bill provides for an $800 incentive taxable grant. In the propane legislation it is $400. Other legislation gives a two-year accelerated write-off to anyone who uses renewable energy hardware. I have already written to the Minister of Finance with a suggestion. I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could support me in saying that in order to be fair in applying this to all Canadians, this proposal, which only applies to those income taxpayers who have capital cost allowances under their form of income tax, should be extended to individuals who live in towns and country homes, who do not qualify for the capital cost allowances that farmers and businessmen qualify for.
If those millions of people who live in town or city homes had access to the same type of tax incentive as the farmer or businessman who has the advantage of the capital cost allowance provision, it would be a break for them. Officials in the Department of Finance are familiar with the tax credit concept. If this could be applied, it would be a tremendous incentive to the people who have to go into the more extensive,
Oil Substitution and Conservation
expensive types of conversion. A heat pump for a small home will cost about $2,000 or $2,500 and close to $3,000 including installation. The incentive to the taxpayer, if he could get the same deal as the person who was claiming a capital cost allowance, would be tremendous.
It is estimated in the United States that in the next ten years there will be a heat pump in almost every home, and certainly in every building. Billions of dollars worth of business will be generated in providing these heat pumps for heating and cooling. There is roughly $15 billion worth of business for Canada in the next 15 years as well. I think the individual who puts up money for the conversions in order to save oil, natural gas and electricity, is probably doing more for his country than can be done in any other way and without great expense to the government. What the government can do to get people to convert from oil to other energy is nothing compared to what 24 million Canadians could do who are willing to convert, first of all, because it is cheaper, second, because it is cleaner, and third, because it is renewable. We can push this concept of conversion from oil to natural gas and electricity by using the knowledge which is available to us.
I am not going to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. I want to conclude by congratulating the minister again for bringing this legislation forward and allowing us to ask him some questions. I hope he will consider the suggestion that I have made to improve the legislation and make it available to all Canadians. If so, we could achieve this conversion from oil to other energies more rapidly than this bill can by itself.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Chairman, before asking one or two specific questions, I want to make some brief remarks and indicate that although I agree with the direction of this bill, I have some misgivings. First of all, I want to touch briefly on the universality of the program, second, on the incentives for conversion and third, on incentives for the supply and distribution of a specific form of energy.
I was involved in the rural natural gas program in Alberta which gave monetary incentives for supply and distribution rather than for conversion. The provincial government made sure that gas was available, through co-operatives, that it could be tapped by users and that it paid, to a large degree, the supply-cost to the user. In some cases the subsidy amounted to $2,900 per user and in other cases it was less.
It effectively guaranteed that the price of the energy supplied would not exceed the price of other energy forms. Before anyone connected to a natural gas system, he had some guarantee that the price of his energy would be lower than other forms of energy in the foreseeable future.
I shall ask the minister whether in the negotiations on energy pricing in Canada, he is going to guarantee to all persons who hook up to natural gas, that the price will be 65 per cent or 75 per cent of the price of oil. He might tuck that in the back of his mind so that he can answer it later.
The incentive for moving in this direction is a saving on the consumption of oil, but it is also really a saving on the federal government's subsidy for imported oil. That is the real incen-

June 30, 1981
Oil Substitution and Conservation tive. When I look at the chart showing the growth of oil consumption and natural gas consumption in Canada, they show that over the period 1962-1976, the consumption of natural gas increased three and a half times while the consumption of oil increased twice. 1 do not think the figures have changed too much since 1976 when the residential area was using 265,000 barrels of oil a day, the commercial sector was using 100,000 barrels of oil a day and the industrial sector was using 220,000 barrels of oil a day. From what the minister has said, I gather he is looking for a saving of something in the order of 100,000 barrels to 150,000 barrels of oil usage in Canada. Therefore, there is a saving in federal government subsidies for imported oil because the government is subsidizing the imported oil going to the Atlantic and eastern provinces.
I do not think there are many of us who do not realize that the energy utilization in Canada will shift to gaseous fuels and electricity, or to solar energy and heat pumps, as the former speaker indicated, but primarily for a period in the future it will be gaseous fuels and electricity. Gaseous fuels are natural ones. They can be transported through pipelines with a very high Btu content. This includes natural gas and synthetic gas from coal and biomass, as well as hydrogen produced basically from electricity, as was indicated in the report of the committee.
But if one is going to move to provide incentives for conversion to the natural gas area or to the gaseous fuel area and electricity, surely one must look at the cost of supply of these systems. One must look at the cost of the availability as well as the distribution of that fuel for residential use. I suggest that if you reduce the cost of supply and distribution greatly, because the end user's costs are always three or four times the cost of the fuel itself, by the time you factor in the cost of supply and distribution, particularly with the interest rates we have now of more than 20 per cent, the real incentives to the users are not necessarily the end cost of the fuel itself but massive subsidization of the supply and distribution system.
It bothers me that there is no crash program in existence in Canada today, I mean a crash program to distribute the enormous quantities of gaseous fuels that we have available in Canada to all areas of our country. We must not only supply it to an area but distribute it to the people, and the costs of distribution are high. I would have thought that the federal government, besides coming forward with a conversion program, because conversion is done automatically when the supply is there and the costs are right, would undertake, on an emergency basis, a program of supply of gaseous fuels literally to most of the nation. Second, I would have thought the federal government would provide the necessary subsidization of the distribution system so the costs of supplying it can be brought to the users at reasonable rates.
I have two questions for the minister. Does he have under consideration any grants or subsidization whatever in relation
to the cost of supply and the cost of distribution of gaseous fuels as well as electricity?
I was involved in the western grid system and the availability of hydro power. The distribution of electricity throughout the west, was enormous costly. Does the minister have a subsequent program of supply and distribution for gaseous fuels as well as for electricity for residential conversion from oil to gas? Second, can the minister guarantee a price Structure to the people who convert from oil to natural gas so that the cost of natural gas will be consistently lower than the equivalent cost of oil on a Btu basis?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, on the first question asked by the hon. member, I indicated in my earlier remarks that we have already set aside a fund of $500 million to help construct a gas pipeline to the maritimes. Part of that money may also be available to help the completion of a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island so that all regions in this country will be provided with a gas trunk line system.
As to the second element on the help to expand the distribution systems, we have also provided funds that will become available next year at the earliest for the expansion of distribution systems in areas where it is uneconomical to do so at this time. We would not seek general subsidization for the expansion of gas lines or electricity lines anywhere in any province. It would be in places only where expansion would imply massive substitution away from oil in those areas where it is marginally uneconomical at the present time. A fund of this type would be available for this purpose.
As far as the second question raised by the hon. member is concerned, I am having discussions with the producing provinces on a new oil and gas agreement at the moment. I can tell him that all the producing provinces agree that there should be a significant differential in favour of gas compared to oil. This is very much a basic element of our own policy. I can say that as far as the national government is concerned and as far as the governments of the producing provinces are concerned, we are all in agreement that we should maintain an appreciable differential in favour of natural gas versus oil for the foreseeable future.
We are talking about an agreement lasting several years. I have no doubt that such an agreement, if it were arrived at, would ensure that any investment citizens would make in favour of natural gas at the expense of oil would be a very good one for those who convert. Obviously I cannot guarantee the kind of provincial taxes which would be imposed on the various forms of energy in the future. But again, all my conversations with the various provincial governments indicate they recognize that preference should be given to natural gas as opposed to oil for residential, commercial and industrial purposes.
I think citizens of Canada can, with a great deal of confidence, proceed to investment in natural gas, knowing that over the years the advantages of natural gas compared to oil will be substantial.
June 30, 1981

In the National Energy Program we have a proposal which will take the differential down as low as 65 per cent, I think perhaps even lower than that, but I do not know what it will be once our negotiations are concluded in particular with the government of Alberta but 1 can assure the hon. member that all governments agree that this is the direction in which we should proceed.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's answer. He has answered as forthrightly as he could at this time. However, he spoke rather glowingly about conversion from oil to natural gas. Have any studies been made by his departmental officials to suggest strongly that conversion to electricity may have the same benefits as conversion to natural gas in the future? I think the minister has indicated that with appropriate subsidy for supply and distribution of natural gas and some guarantees on pricing, he would not be fooling people in terms of conversion, that they will in fact have an advantage in years to come. I again ask what guarantees, analyses and studies has the department done to supply some sort of assurance to people converting to electricity from oil as against conversion to natural gas?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, some studies have been done, but the situation varies considerably from province to province. We do not have a complete study that would constitute a report on the national situation in this regard. This type of work has traditionally been done at the provincial level by the provincial departments of energy in so far as they control the gas utilities and hydro. We have not been able to get price forecasts for electricity for years to come from some provinces. That information is not readily available with regard to all the provinces. However, I will be happy to inquire from my officials which provinces can give us that type of forecast.
Canadians all over the country can assume that when electricity originates from sources other than oil, it will be cheaper to switch to electricity than use oil. That is a kind of general statement. As to whether it would be advantageous to switch to natural gas rather than electricity, that matter will have to be examined in every province. I suggest that individuals check with the gas utility, if there is one in the area, and hydro, compare the cost estimates and arrive at their own conclusions. As we know, individuals make decisions not only on pure cost factors but on other features as well. If the two services are available, I suggest that individuals obtain quotations and proposals from both utilities and then make their choice.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise another question; the minister did allude to it. Canadian citizens should be cautioned to some degree about conversion to electricity for residential heating. I hope that the literature to be put out does not put the major emphasis on conversion to electricity because it may appear acceptable and appropriate in the short term. In the longer term, for example a period of five to ten years, it may not be as attractive as is being suggested at this time by some of the officials in government.
Oil Substitution and Conservation


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I have a question with regard to Clause 5, development assistance. I will put a hypothetical situation so that I can get this cleared up quickly. Am I to understand that if one of the existing oil companies, which has already put into its price structure the requirement for the possibility of investment in other than oil, decides to acquire an existing company or go into discovery, development, production, transportation or storage of other than oil, natural gas or electricity, it would be eligible for grants, loans, or financial assistance guarantees from the government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, Clause 5 is permissive. It provides for administrative discretion in the approval of grants. It is a matter the minister will have to determine on the basis of each application, taking into consideration the validity of the project, the cost benefit, the discovery that could be made and the ability of the company concerned to carry the cost on its own. Obviously we would have to treat differently an individual who has a bright idea, would like to develop it and only has a few dollars and an application from Imperial Oil. This is something the minister and the administration will have to take into account when the various proposals come forward. This is done all the time with the various grants or schemes in operation in the different departments of government.


Ian Deans: May I just pursue this a little further. The bill refers to "discover, develop or produce". To produce is a little more difficult. The ones that worry me are acquire, transport, store or make available for use. If a person wanted to acquire an existing alternative energy source other than oil, electricity and natural gas, or wanted to acquire the transportation system, for example the trucks to move it, or wanted to set up a storage facility for future use-make available for use is ambiguous but that is beside the point-is it possible to come to the government under those circumstances for a grant, loan or guarantee to enable him to do this?
What sort of criteria will be established to enable people to understand whether it is even worth their while to make application? I can imagine any number of people looking around the world for a variety of different enterprises they could acquire, taking on a transportation system and using government funds to get the trucks or setting up two or three metal sheds for storage purposes at public expense. Is that what the minister is talking about?


Marc Lalonde: Obviously one can think of the most ridiculous situations and say it would be terrible if grants were made in such cases. One can go through the various pieces of legislation and imagine a rather silly administration doing silly things. Clause 5 is of a general nature. It refers to grants to persons, governments or institutions. The legal draftsmen tried to ensure that there were not too many restrictions with regard to the applications for grants.
It may be that a municipality wishes to acquire a certain heating source or discovery from abroad and requires a grant either to acquire or transport it. It may represent a possible breakthrough. The municipality might need some help in order

June 30, 1981
Oil Substitution and Conservation to achieve that purpose. The government would have to examine whether that heating source represented something new, whether the cost benefit was appreciable and whether the institution applying for the grant was in need of it. I repeat, these are very general provisions. We will have to look at them on the basis of the various applications.


Ian Deans: I know the minister will forgive me for my dubious and doubting ways. However, the whole thing is so ambiguous as to allow people to drive trucks through it. I really do not understand it. All it does is say that the government will be able to give away public funds in whatever way it sees fit to anyone it wants to at any time as long as the people are not in the business of providing oil, natural gas or electricity and can claim to be in a business related in one way or another to the provision of other than those three energy sources. That whole clause is permissive, and "permissive" does not describe it.
The record of the government in terms of its handouts is part of the reason that Parliament and the public of Canada seriously question the fiscal responsiveness of governments here and everywhere else. Will there be regulations? I do not see any indication that there will be. I have certainly looked at the clauses here. There is no reference in Clause 5 to regulations, although Clause 3 specifically makes reference to them. Can the minister help me on that?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to speed this up and help my friend on this subject. If he reads the beginning of Clause 5 he will see it says "Subject to any regulations made under this Act and in accordance with such terms and conditions, if any, as the Treasury Board may specify". You end up having both regulations and specific conditions the Treasury Board puts out before approving a request for funds for this particular purpose. These are all public conditions and regulations that the applicants would know. There are considerable restrictions there. In addition the funds voted for this would be controlled by Parliament through the estimates. There would be considerable control over the spending both by the government and by Parliament.
As far as the general comments of the hon. member are concerned, this clause provides the necessary discretion to provide grants for development assistance in new forms of energy. Unless my hon. friend wants the minister to come before Parliament every time and have a vote on every grant, I am afraid he has to be reconciled with living with administrative discretion.


Ian Deans: My final point is that Clause 5 says: "Subject to any regulations" which are made. That does not require that there be any. It says: "Subject... to such terms and conditions, if any, as the Treasury Board may specify". That does not mean there will be any. I just want to suggest that it has been my experience, limited here though extensive elsewhere, that the legislative process is certainly no guarantee there will be fiscal responsibility. The minister knows as well as I that we
are forever approving expenditures long after they have been made.


Mr. Demers:: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend the minister for introducing a bill which will make it possible for many Canadian families to save energy. However, I wonder if any study has been made. Already in our metropolitan area and in many other areas of Canada there is a very heavy demand for contractors to convert systems from oil to gas and it would seem that those contractors are charging over and above normal prices. I am therefore wondering whether your department has studied the possibility of training additional contractors so that there will be a more realistic balance between supply and demand.


Marc Lalonde: I think the hon. member is raising a very important and most interesting point. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is responsible for training manpower and the required staff in Canada. I think that my department as such does not have to assume that responsibility. However, inasmuch as citizens are involved, I would advise and encourage them not to decide on the strength of a single offer but so seek tenders from two or three different contractors; they will find out that quite often there are significant differences between tenders. One would be well advised to call tenders and not rely on only one bid.


Yves Demers: Mr. Chairman, I have a second question. I wonder whether the minister is now having discussions with his Quebec counterpart since Quebec does not have an 8 per cent tax on heating oil, which it must import from foreign countries. On the other hand, local energy sources such as electricity and natural gas are taxed at 8 per cent. This seems to me very illogical because the consumer will thus lose a good part, or 8 per cent, of what he will save by converting his heating system. I therefore wonder whether the minister has had discussions with provincial officials in this regard.


Marc Lalonde: Once again, I recognize that the hon. member for Duvernay is raising an extremely important question related to the Quebec tax policy. What he said is quite right, and it is unfortunate that there should be this additional tax of 8 per cent on natural gas, for instance, in Quebec.
Before the recent elections in Quebec, Mr. Berube, the former Minister of Energy, had stated that the Quebec government planned on doing away with this tax when gas is more widely used in Quebec. I have already raised this question and I intend to raise it again with the new Quebec Energy Minister, Mr. Duhaime, and I hope that he will succeed in convincing the Quebec Finance Minister to do away with this tax, which is really counterproductive as concerns the total energy policy that we are trying to implement. It is indeed somewhat ridiculous to impose a tax on electricity and gas when it is the demand for oil that we want to reduce, especially in Quebec. I
June 30, 1981

am glad that the hon. member has raised this point, and I thank him for his support in this regard and I can assure him that I shall raise the issue once again with the Quebec government.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the minister I think I should ask him the question I said I would in my reply to his opening remarks. The province of Saskatchewan has accepted less than 50 per cent of this COSP program. We in Saskatchewan are well aware that we have a Crown corporation which distributes natural gas and electricity to the people of Saskatchewan and which made, in my opinion, an unconscionable profit last year. Would the minister explain to the House why the government of Saskatchewan asked that the people of that province be deprived of over 50 per cent of the benefits of this program, which is, indeed, a national program?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I should first of all like to thank the hon. member for his comments on the bill at first reading stage. I want to tell him that I was somewhat surprised to hear from the government of Saskatchewan that the reason it was not favourable to the extension of the COSP program to the additional 50 per cent was that in the case of electricity the cost of extending electrical service would be too high as far as it was concerned. That government felt it did not want to incur the additional cost that bringing additional electrical service to the citizens of the province would entail.
As far as natural gas is concerned, the government felt there was already a reasonably large coverage of gas consumption in Saskatchewan and it did not feel the need for an additional subsidy. I understand now that the government is reviewing its decision. I would not like to misrepresent that situation. There are discussions taking place at the present time, again between officials of the Government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan, and I do hope, indeed, that the people of Saskatchewan will have the same global access to the program as the people of other provinces.
[ Translation]
Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to hon. members, but there were discussions among the House leaders along the lines that we would have one speaker at second reading for each of the eight bills dealing with the estimates which were introduced yesterday. I am talking about Bill C-70 through Bill C-77. I regret that we did
Business of the House
not make that a House order. Unfortunately, some hon. members are of the view that we can have extended debate in Committee of the Whole, but I understand hon. members are prepared at this time to have a House order to the effect that, in dealing with Bill C-70 through Bill C-77 inclusive, the speeches be limited to one per party lasting no more than 30 minutes each at the second reading stage, followed by Committee of the Whole with no debate and then third reading with no debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the essence of the discussion which took place among House leaders. I think, however, when we saw the extent of the first bill we dealt with-and I must say I commend the government for bringing that bill forward; it is a very extensive and admirable bill-there was a great deal of interest. There was a very healthy discussion.
However, in dealing with the bills my friend has recited we would be prepared to agree to that House order. At the outset these items appeared as dollar items but were ruled out of order by Madam Speaker. Although the programs were agreeable, the process was wrong. The government having agreed to a correct process to accord with the ruling of Madam Speaker, we agreed that the matters could go through in a way which would process them quickly. Therefore, with respect to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, we are prepared to agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we had planned these debates with the three half-hour speeches at second reading. We just assumed that the time in Committee of the Whole would be very limited. I am a little reluctant to cut the Committee of the Whole debate out altogether. I would even go for 20-minute speeches at second reading if we could have 10 or 15 minutes in Committee of the Whole. Perhaps we could just leave it to common sense. If in Committee of the Whole there are some obvious points of order or questions which should be raised, we could govern ourselves accordingly. However, on the basis that we are not ruling out common sense, we agree.


David Michael Collenette: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I sent the hon. member a note a few moments ago, and I assumed he would be in agreement with the suggestion I just made. Perhaps we should go back to the drawing board. However, in terms of reconsidering the proposal I have just made, there is some urgency, specifically respecting the bill involving the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Senate will be sitting tonight specifically to consider these bills. We will be sending them over immediately so that they can be dealt with tonight. That is the reason I wanted to preclude discussion at the Committee of the Whole stage. As hon. members know, the nature of debate at Committee of the Whole stage is such that one question leads to another. That is the normal course of events, and we recognize that; but there is some urgency specifically in relation to the other two bills dealing with energy matters.

June 30, 1981
Canadian Home Insulation Program


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be difficult, and I do not want us to get into a lengthy discussion in Committee of the Whole, but my friend who will be speaking on the next bill, for example, says she has one or two questions she would probably like to put, and she would like to get answers. Maybe the minister could answer in closing the debate at second reading.


David Michael Collenette: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, we will keep speeches within the half hour, and if each person speaking from this side asks questions, he or she would be entitled to a reply from the minister while we are still at second reading.


Walter David Baker: That is a wrinkle which will lead to agreement. Therefore, if that is a firm proposal and if that is acceptable to the government, it is certainly acceptable to me.


David Michael Collenette: I certainly thank hon. members for their co-operation and agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There seems to be general agreement to the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM ACT
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-75, respecting a home insulation program for certain provinces in Canada, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. MacLaren:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might call it six o'clock so that we can resume this discussion at eight o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-75, An Act respecting a home insulation program for certain provinces in Canada, and Bill C-76, An Act respecting a home insulation program for certain Maritime provinces in Canada.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
June 30, 1981
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable W. R. McIntyre, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 30th day of June, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment. Bill C-65, an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplemen-trary Retirement Benefits Act in respect of the early retirement of air traffic controllers.

Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada and British Insurance Companies Act. Bill C-13, an act respecting the relocation of government agencies. Bill C-68, an act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act.

I have the pleasure to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-80, an act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1982.
When the House rose at six o'clock the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had been given the floor.
June 30, 1981


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-75, respecting a home insulation program for certain provinces in Canada, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, before we took our dinner recess there was some discussion about the merits of brevity. I shall accordingly attempt to be brief in my comments on Bill C-75.
This bill is intended to give further impetus to the energy conservation activities of the government. It also draws attention to that part of the National Energy Program which I regret has not received as much attention as the supply side; that is the need to conserve energy in Canada. We have had in place for some time a program intended to reduce the consumption of all forms of energy in the industrial sector. Earlier today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made reference to the co-operative arrangements that have been worked out between industry and government to give substance to our commitment to reduce the use of energy in the manufacturing industry in particular.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is one of the world's heaviest users of energy, but that of course is understandable given our vast territory, small population and an often hostile climate. Nevertheless, those factors should not be seen as an excuse for extravagance in our use of energy. Therefore, the conservation efforts embodied in the NEP, indeed in this bill, take on a special importance.
In addition to the industrial initiatives I mentioned, the NEP also envisages new rules regarding residential units which will be implemented as of tomorrow. Hon. members may have seen in the newspapers in the last few days the requirement that no new residential unit will receive federal assistance or guarantees if it is heated by oil, unless no other reasonable energy alternative exists.
In addition to the building requirements, we have embarked upon a program four years ago to promote better insulation in residences. CHIP is familiar to hon. members of the House; I need not dwell on it. It is the principal method of providing funds to encourage greater energy efficiency in our homes. Currently the residential sector accounts for approximately 15 per cent of primary oil use in Canada. We believe that through CHIP which was initiated in 1977 the federal government will be able to encourage a reduction in the consumption of oil and thereby contribute to our total goal of self-sufficiency by the end of this decade.
We have set some substantial targets for a reduction in home heating oil consumption. Home owners are clearly responding to the incentives we are providing through CHIP grants. In 1977 only 15,000 grants were made, whereas the estimate for 1980-81 is for a total of 500,000. This is clearly a
Canadian Home Insulation Program
substantial increase. Our present goal is to reduce by one-third the oil used for space heating in reinsulating residences.
The bill before us this evening draws attention to the benefits of the insulation program. It will also bring to mind, in the case of some hon. members and in the case of the public, the need to ensure that high standards are maintained in the insulation industry. The government has moved to ensure that certification becomes a basic feature of the total program. We have worked with the Canadian General Standards Board to develop a certification program for home insulation which will be in place on November 1 of this year. Indeed, after that date it will be mandatory for all contractors performing work under CHIP to be certified if they wish to continue in the industry. Equally, we have embarked upon a major program review to determine the extent to which CHIP has met its initial targets and to explore any modifications which may be needed in light of experience.
In our view, the program has proven to be a major success. It is an important feature of the total National Energy Program and indeed of the energy future of Canada. In terms of reducing Canada's demand for imported oil, the program has already reduced our needs by something over $2 billion.
I could continue with some more details about the program, but I hope my necessarily brief introduction is sufficient for a bill which I trust will win the immediate support of all hon. members of the House.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, if I had not
been in place tonight to listen to the introduction of the program more commonly known throughout Canada as CHIP in a somewhat cursory manner as a matter-of-fact program, I would not have believed it. I cannot believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren) is so ill-informed that he is not prepared to address what is the major problem in Canada today.
Bill C-75 is a so-called act respecting the home insulation program for certain provinces. Surely the parliamentary secretary has experienced some degree of doubt in his riding about the workmanship and the legislation which have gone into the planning stages of CHIP. I do not think there is an area in my riding of Peterborough which has not corresponded with me on a weekly basis concerning the horrendous nightmare stories connected with the bureaucratic administration of this system of supplying moneys to people to insulate their homes. It is not being administered by the private sector. It is not being administered by the people who are best able to evolve a program which will work for the people, namely, the different regional areas across Canada.
Let me give some specific examples of where the program has created major problems not only in the riding of the parliamentary secretary but in many others. I have a letter from an insulator in Peterborough, George W. Scott, in which he refers to the total disregard and arrogance of the CHIP program. That is the subject. He had three cases where people received government cheques, cashed them and then claimed

June 30, 1981
Canadian Home Insulation Program they did not receive them. When he requested photocopies of the cheques, CHIP barefacedly refused, as was stated by an employee in the office in Montreal. This is the office one phones, the office with the magic 800 number. I defy hon. members of the House even to get a ring; usually the line is busy. He continues:
"It is against the law", and five minutes later as stated by Mrs. J. Barrette, "It is not a contractor program, and we do not have to help you".
He said that if this is the case it is time the idiotic government should find out from the business community what a serious mistake it is making in trying to administer what could best be administered at the provincial level.
1 do not suppose there are very many people in the Ottawa bureaucracy who understand the heating and energy problems in the provinces of the nation, and the same could be said for the provincial governments and in some cases the regional governments. Why does the government feel that it can administer, by instituting an 800 number, a program which will bring economical heat savings to the people of the nation?
Having said all that about the problems of the bureaucracy in administering the insulation program, the parliamentary secretary said tonight that we have a high consumption of energy in Canada because we have a hostile climate. I suggest to him that we have a hostile climate in Canada today because of the national energy policy and bills such as Bill C-75 which the government has endeavoured to bring into play through questionable means. This has already been evident to the House by the rulings of the Speaker.
Also the parliamentary secretary said that the government promotes better insulation. I challenge him to give evidence of that statement. 1 wonder whether the tens of thousands of people across Canada who used UFFI to insulate their homes feel that the government has given Canada better insulation and promoted better use of commodities in the conservation of energy. I will touch upon that a little later.
The parliamentary secretary said that we are moving toward self-sufficiency in energy by 1990. That statement follows on the heels of a statement made in the House tonight which suggests that we are high consumers of energy, by virtue of fact. What facts can the parliamentary secretary give us which would indicate that we have been moving toward self-sufficiency in the last year and a half to two years? What facts can he give us which indicate that we are not importing more oil from abroad, that we are not becoming more and more dependent on offshore sources for our energy needs than we were the year before? The importation of offshore oil is the principal cause of our national $14 billion deficit which this government is forecasting for the current fiscal year.
I question whether granting $500 per home owner for the current fiscal year will afford us, in the net result, greater independence from offshore oil supplies. This $500 per home owner totals in excess of $250 million, to use the hon. member's figures, if it were paid to some 500,000 home owners. In reality, if we did not have a hostile climate in Canada, if we
had not created a national energy policy which caused major divisions in our nation, we would be less dependent on offshore oil.
In discussing Bill C-75 1 would like to read into the record some of the concerns expressed by some of the standing committees of this House of Commons with regard to the legality of the process. Clause 7 of the bill before the House tonight reads:
The Canadian Home Insulation Regulations made by order in council PC 1981-1435 of May 28, 1981, shall be deemed for all purposes to have the same force and effect from July 1, 1981, as if they were made under the authority of this act.
In The Canada Gazette of June 10, 1981, under SOR/81-437 these regulations so appear under the Privy Council date of May 28, 1981. However, in a letter dated June 16, 1981, just six days after these regulations were published, from Mr. R. E. Fowler, senior counsel of the legal division of CMHC to Mr. G. C. Eglington, who is counsel for the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, there appears the following:
With regard to the need to expressly refer to paragraph 11 (2)(a) of the National Housing Act as the corporation's authority to prescribe standards, it is our belief that the needed change was not made. In this connection, I must say that notwithstanding a written request that we be shown a copy of the regulations well in advance of their submission for approval, the corporation was not shown a draft thereof. Our first opportunity to see the regulations occurred following submission of the regulations to Treasury Board, shortly before their approval by council. Our legal division was, as a result of a hasty review, able to secure a vitally needed change to the proposed regulations to rectify a problem affecting the ability of the corporation to carry out its functions under the program.
The failure to give effect to the standing joint committee's request is regretted.
I believe that an opportunity will soon arise to amend the regulations at which time the question of clarifying the reference to "standards" can be dealt with.
Notwithstanding the remarks of the senior legal counsel for CMHC that the failure to give effect to the standing joint committee's request is regretted, and that he was referring the letter from the standing committee to the director general of energy, mines and resources with the request that the department implement the committee's suggestion at the next opportunity, the irregularities which have lately been attached to this bill underline the inappropriate nature of the government's approach to legislation and regulatory reform.
As the preamble to the regulations, as published in The Canada Gazette for June 10, states, these amended regulations are made "pursuant to Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Vote 35, Main Estimates 1981-1982, as authorized by Appropriation Act No. 1, 1981-82." As my friend from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) has pointed out, this vote is one of several which is not acceptable to the House as spending authority. Therefore, in so far as Bill C-75 accepts these regulations, through clause 7, which do not include changes recommended by the Standing Join Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, and endorsed by senior legal counsel for CMHC, I submit that clause 7 might not be sufficient authority to secure our satisfaction. It was not reintroduced into the House in a manner which reflects the 1980 recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.
June 30, 1981

Having said all that, I would like to read into the record some examples which should not go unreported. One example which has already come to light regarding the rushed introduction of CHIP is the ill-considered means by which UFFI was approved. Another possible problem, as yet not addressed publicly, is the improper installation of conventional insulation. To quote from a Public Works Canada publication concerned with thermography, the use of special photographic techniques to assess the thermal efficiency of buildings:
Poor technical performance in buildings is common,... Recent investigations undertaken by Public Works Canada across Canada have revealed that defects in insulation placement, air tightness, and vapor control are common. They are often severe and cause high operating and maintenance costs. These inadequacies result in moisture accumulation on the inside surfaces of wall and roof construction. This reduces thermal effectiveness and in certain instances eventually causes material degradation.
Has the government considered performing a survey of houses insulated under CHIP with conventional insulation to determine whether the insulation methods endanger the structure of the house through moisture accumulation? If not, why not? Will the government be kind enough to table all correspondence and other forms of communication between the CDC, Lorcon or Rapco Foam and any of the departments concerned with home insulation, that is, CMHC, NRC, Public Works Canada and EMR? I have been led to believe that UFFI was given approval due to pressure brought by the CDC, which seems to control Rapco through Lorcon.
The government through the Department of Supply and Services, in the last few days has signed a contract with the consultants regarding a possible overhaul of CHIP. What problems are there with the program at present? How many different investigations or charges are under way by the RCMP? I would like to call for these papers to be supplied to members of the House of Commons.
When CHIP was originally announced in 1977, the government set a target of 70 per cent of all houses. Thus far the penetration rate in pre-1961 housing is markedly below the 70 per cent target. This raises doubts in my mind whether the 70 per cent can ever be reached.
A study by the Department of mines and energy in Nova Scotia showed that the average savings in houses insulated under HIP, which is now virtually the same as CHIP in the rest of Canada, was between 7 per cent and 11 per cent. What is the government going to do about this apparent failure? Does it even know what the saving rate is under CHIP?
We know that the program has been inefficient, Mr. Speaker. It has saved less energy than was anticipated by the government. We also recognize that a number of fly-by-night contractors got into the act. Workers have been poorly trained and in some cases standards of performance were low. UFFI is now installed in 125,000 homes in Canada and the government is now going to conduct a study on 2,000 of those homes. What about the other 123,000? In Ontario the provincial government has decided to study 30,000 homes.
Canadian Home Insulation Program
How many dangers to the health of Canadians are the result of inadequate testing? How many homes affected are there? I am sure the government is reluctant to assume any responsibility even though it knew in 1977, through a report made to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that there was a possible health hazard. Another study was conducted in 1979 and now there is another "expert" study. The government has decided to study the study that studied the study in 1977! This is inexcusable, Mr. Speaker.
The government knows that the home owner's matching contribution will still not be enough to insulate a home properly. It is still far short of the dollars required, on a matching basis, to insulate properly most homes in Canada. The government budgeted $265 million for a year. The bill speaks of $195 million for nine months. I would advise the people of Canada right now that if they are going to insulate homes up to and including December 1977-not 1961 but 1977 as the bill says-there is not enough money in the bill for that.
The homes in Canada that need to be insulated will not be unless everyone starts in July and continues to insulate at maximum capacity. The installers tell me that it is physically impossible to do it. As I say, there is not enough money provided by the bill, but that is typical of the government. Perhaps when the time comes that more money is needed, it will just wind up the presses.
The loose regulations that affect the control of material that goes into the insulation of a home have resulted in only 20 per cent cut in home heating fuel consumption rather than the 30 per cent that was projected. Where is the other 10 per cent? I have not seen a report that explains why the government has fallen 33 per cent short of its objective. Canada is still the highest per capita fuel oil user in the world. If the government thinks that it is moving toward self-sufficiency by creating a National Energy Program that is causing the taps to be turned off, and if it is satisfied with paying $ 16-odd a barrel to the west and $40-odd to Mexico, Venezuela, Kuwait and Argentina, then I wish it would explain the economics of that decision. Would it not be better to spend that money in Canada to create energy and investment dollars and help us achieve self-sufficiency by 1990?
Shunning the Canadian Standards Association, the government barged ahead in 1980 by formulating its own peculiar brand of restrictions and standards for insulating contractors. I wonder how many members of the government talked to insulating contractors. The contractors will have to be college graduates if they want to pass the test set for them by the Canadian General Standards Board. A number of competent installers of insulation in my area tell me that they find it very difficult, even with the expertise they have gained through years of work, to get a pass mark on the examination set by the government. The CGSB does not have a good track record, in view of the UFFI disaster. If the government is building its hopes on an insulation program based on the record of the CGSB, it should keep in mind the disaster of UFFI which is evident in cities all across the country. The CGSB has a poor track record, Mr. Speaker.

June 30, 1981
Canadian Home Insulation Program
Canadians are off to a slow start in home renovation. The government owes it to the people to provide reliable information on its fast-spreading and obviously non-productive practices in insulating homes. Only 32 per cent of Canadian homes were built before 1950 and only 8 per cent were built before 1900. This means that 60 per cent of homes have been built since 1950. The problems that the government has with CHIP and its "ugly sister", UFFI, are really inexcusable. People who thought they were saving energy and increasing the value of their homes now find that they have potentially serious health hazards in the air of their homes and they have watched the value of their homes plummet.
I can tell the House of cases in Peterborough, Mr. Speaker, where people have sold their homes because of this government program. They had their homes well insulated with UFFI, sold their homes and established closing dates, moved out of their homes into temporary quarters or, in one case, permanent quarters, only to find that the buyers refused to close the deal because of urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
The government has been batting this around for several months-or several years-knowing full well that there would possibly be a health problem with foam insulation. Its reaction to this possible health problem was to continue studying it. The study committees are now called "expert" committees on UFFI or foam insulation. Is this telling us that in 1977 the doctor who reported to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that there was a possible health problem with foam insulation was not an expert? Is the government telling us that in 1979, when the tests were carried out on UFFI which indicated a problem, they were somewhat inadequate? I suggest that we look closely at Bill C-75 and its possible inadequacies.
In reality, the government has fallen down on four points. It takes three to four times the amount of the grant established to insulate properly a three or four-bedroom home.
It has given conflicting advice on what the best insulation is. Probably 125,000 people in Canada today thought at one time that UFFI was the best form of insulation to instal. There are innumerable stories from consumers about rip-offs by fraudulent insulation contractors.
If the government is going to enter the marketplace and suddenly become expert in giving advice to the provinces and the regions of this country on what is the best insulation to put into their homes, it should be creating the legislation and the climate in which the free enterprise system can function. The government should rely more closely on the business community to do a job that is satisfactory in the insulation business. Price will take care of itself.
Subsidization of programs by government creating a lesser cost is not always the answer to conservation. I do not think General Motors was convinced to stop building large cars with air conditioners because the government of this country decided to tax that corporation if it put in air conditioners. I think what caused people to buy smaller cars in Canada and forced
Canadian manufacturers to build smaller cars is the price of energy. If energy is priced realistically and if the charge for it is what it is worth, then the marketplace will take care of these things in a much better fashion than the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
When the government gets into such programs as CHIP the paper burden increases. A large portion of the money that is spent on the saving of energy across Canada is used by this government to feed the octopus, with its insatiable appetite for tax dollars to keep the flow of paperwork going. What happens to the business community is that every time the government passes these regulations and every time the government puts more pressure on the business community to live within the guidelines set by government, more paperwork is created. As a result, we have higher costs, higher inflation and less employment.
Nothing but confusion surrounds this government's maze of acrimonious acronyms. Only one thing comes to the public's mind when the government's energy conservation programs are announced, and that is confusion. Instead, it should be conservation. Obviously, in the absence of a coherent program for fair and stabilized Canadian oil prices, energy conservation should be the number one priority in this country.
Canadians must be helped, not hindered. Government should create the atmosphere and the climate in which the business community can function. The government should not become part of the business community. I thought the government would have learned that in 1978 with the Enersave program. At that time the government thought it could hire unemployed people to supervise and instal insulation in homes Canada, only to find out that it cost twice as much as if the government had allowed the free enterprise system to do it living within the framework of a truly competitive market.
First of all, the CHIP grant should not be a taxable benefit. Second, a $500 grant is hardly a realistic sum today to insulate properly a home in Canada. Third, there are obviously positive benefits to the business, both at the contractor level and at the wholesaler level-I know it bothers some of the socialists to hear this-and as a result of spin-offs, of an increased rate of insulation under CHIP.
CMHC, one of the major Crown corporations of this government which used to run this program, reported that at meetings held in 1977 with representatives of the major insulation manufacturing companies, federal officials were informed that a substantial increase in production could take place for all types of insulation products. Isn't that nice?
Fourth, there is such an evident lack of cohesion in the government's conservation policies that the people of this country could be forgiven for insulating their ears against the government's continued platitudes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to an order made earlier today, I must interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) has the floor.
June 30, 1981


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent the New Democratic Party in speaking to Bill C-75. I must say first that I certainly agree with the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) about many of the things he said, except his last reference to socialists, of course. But I do question the very oversimplistic and astounding statements that were made in the introductory remarks on behalf of the government. This is an act dealing with CHIP for certain provinces in Canada and asks for, I believe, another estimated $65 million for this part of the program. Later we will have a bill for other provinces.
Let us take a look at CHIP, which is the federal government's effort to encourage conservation in Canadian homes. We agree it would be desirable to have a conservation program. We agree with the theoretical goals as they are stated. But the practical experience with CHIP surely falls far, far short of what the intent was.
I will deal with the information part of the program. If we look at the cost of administering this program through CMHC, a considerable amount is required just to put out basic information. The basic information is not practical. It does not get to most Canadians. It is up to Canadians to try and locate these fancy pamphlets. The information does not really advise people in a sound way on the best and safest ways to insulate homes. Seminars are not provided, for example, which would be a sound way for CMHC to give this information. In fact, misinformation has been given. Letters were sent out to consumers begging them to insulate their homes. Many of them insulated with UFLI. People were then sent letters of congratulation by CMHC and government officials for using UFFI. But all the time they were poisoning their environment.
I will deal now with the economic incentives. We have heard that up to approximately $500 is available per household. Homes built before 1977 will now be eligible. The parliamentary secretary did not elaborate on this point at all. We hear that 10 per cent of home owners have received CHIP grants. I am very glad that I am not one of the householders which has a CHIP form of insulation in my home because I think in many cases anxiety has been created by having used it. The goal is to actually upgrade some 70 per cent of Canadian homes by 1987.
I agree with my colleague who spoke earlier that Canadians must have a much sounder guarantee that they will have decent service from people who instal insulation in their homes and that certification will come from the government that the insulation is sound and reliable.
We have heard also about the many fly by night contractors. Hardly a day goes by in my area of Vancouver without phone calls from contractors who ask: "Have you got your free insulation yet? We will put it in for you for $50". We know they are taking advantage of this program. There is no real guarantee that they are reliable. In many cases they have proven to be anything but reliable. The grant itself of $500 would barely cover the cost of insulating a ceiling. Most of the home owners to whom I have spoken are most concerned
Canadian Home Insulation Program
because they have urea formaldehyde insulation. Because they cared very much for their homes they worked very hard to insulate them carefully. They spent about $2,000 for insulation in the walls of their homes. Most of that sum was their own money, but they found out they were paying for extreme problems.
We can conclude that because $500 does not nearly cover the cost of adequate insulation in a home, most pensioners and lower income people have not used this program. For once they are on the right side of things. For once the poor people have an advantage. At least they have not been poisoned by having urea formaldehyde in their homes.
This brings me to the whole question on which I want to spend most of my time. I want to have in the record the whole history relating to government responsibility for the UFFI type of insulation.
I was astounded that the parliamentary secretary when talking about the marvellous values of CHIP did not mention the health hazards of this foam. There is considerable documentation on it, and I will get to that in a minute. There is not only the threat to humans but the economic problem.
In my constituency there are many people who have worked all their lives to be able to buy a home. The savings they have been able to accumulate have gone into insulation. Now they cannot live in those homes because of the effects of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. They are faced with economic problems, health hazards, stress and anxiety. Many thousands of people across this country are angry because they have been victimized as a result of this insulation program.
Responsibility for the UFFI problem falls directly on the shoulders of the federal government which approved UFFI despite the warnings. It pushed this type of insulation through its CHIP program and praised those who used it. The health hazard was acknowledged in the ban instigated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in 1981.
I am sorry the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is not here this evening. He has acknowledged the serious problems. I wish to quote some of what he said on June 1. He stated that the federal government may offer home owners financial aid to replace the potentially hazardous insulation urea formaldehyde as a result of a random telephone survey of 800 homes. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) certainly has not supported this position. He was quoted as saying, "I would never have it in my home". Perhaps the minister showed some good judgment in that instance.
The energy minister stated that if the survey indicated there was concrete evidence the insulation was causing harmful side effects to residents, the government may consider financial aid to replace the insulation. He said that the government would take what steps are necessary. It is time those steps were considered and the budget was allocated for removing this poisonous type of foam insulation. That is the only solution for many of these home owners.

June 30, 1981
Canadian Home Insulation Program
I wish to place on record a chronological review of the problems and the different steps the government has taken in relation to UFFI. This material was first used in Canada in 1969. It was removed a year later because of shrinkage and instability problems. In 1976 the National Research Council issued warnings to the effect that the standards for UFFI were not adequate. In 1977 doctors warned of health problems. It was also in 1977 that the Canadian government approved the use of UFFI. Consumer demand was immediate as the insulation was accepted for use under the government's Canadian home insulation program. In fact, the government was pushing UFFI.
American studies and reports in the 1970s identified instances of medical problems and structural deterioration of buildings after installation of UFFI. A temporary ban was announced by the Department of National Flealth and Welfare last December and a permanent ban on April 23. I wish I had time to quote from the report of the special committee established by health and welfare.
There are many items in the April, 1981, final report of the Department of National Health and Welfare expert advisory committee on urea formaldehyde foam insulation. There are many points in the report which substantiate the danger to both health and the environment. It is very interesting since the government talks a lot about testing. That is the way of getting itself off the hook. I quote from page 8 of the report:
The committee has reservations over the usefulness of single ambient formaldehyde measurements. There can be both variations in the day, as well as from day to day variations. Changes in temperature and humidity can affect the readings. Therefore, the significance of a single reading can be misleading-
The committee is therefore not prepared to recommend any level of formaldehyde exposure as inherently safe.
That statement by an expert committee of the government emphasizes that testing one week may show a result quite different from testing the next week, not to mention six months later. Therefore, it does not solve the problem. The health hazard increases as the foam gets older. As it disintegrates, there is more likelihood of the gas affecting the residents of the home.
It is estimated that between 80,000 and 100,000 homes have UFFI. Experts agree that health problems depend on the duration of exposure and the concentration of formaldehyde. It varies as the foam gets older and according to the condition of those living in the house.
Resembling hardened shaving cream, UFFI can break down soon after installation, releasing formaldehyde gas. Symptoms include eye, nose and throat irritation, nosebleeds, headaches, coughing, nausea, asthma-like reactions, vomiting and dizziness. UFFI has been related to cancer in laboratory animals.
Elderly home owners who have visited my office have told me about having to sleep in their cars for several weeks because of the condition of their homes. They have beautiful homes but cannot live in them because of the gas concentrations caused by UFFI. Another example is two elderly people having to live in their basement. The woman has severe health problems. These people are desperate. They do not know what
to do. They cannot get any satisfaction from the government. Their anxieties and health problems are complicating the situation.
The federal government continues to stress that only a few homes will require complete removal of the foam. We do not know that. In most cases they say a few less complicated measures will reduce the exposure to the formaldehyde to near normal levels. There is no proof of that. In fact, the report from which I just quoted indicates the reverse.
Residents in my constituency and throughout the Vancouver area as well as in other cities across Canada are organizing. They are angry. These people are well informed about this issue. They have done their homework. They have the research.
Federal officials have continually said that people are unnecessarily alarmed about this. If we lived in a home with UFFI we would be alarmed as well. We would insist on more than just information which, incidentally, is not yet available.
1 have already mentioned that in adverse conditions, where many factors come into play, UFFI can cause very serious problems; high temperatures and high humidity which are of great concern in my area, along with poor ventilation and sloppy installation, usually result in the foam having to be removed. We know how inefficient many of the installers have been under the CHIP program. I think it is pretty safe to assume that the installation was faulty in many cases.
The federal government initially telephoned some 800 homes but we have not heard the results of that phone survey. Many of us have asked questions in the House as to why the government was doing this, but presumably it was to determine the extent of the problem.
Federal officials have repeatedly dismissed any legal responsibility but have admitted some moral responsibility. I am not a lawyer but I cannot see why there would not be a legal responsibility since the government itself endorsed and promoted this poisonous type of insulation.
Finally, we find that on June 11 the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs announced he was going to spend $5 million to establish an information line, a co-ordinating centre with a phone that was put into service today, I believe. There was to be a national testing of 4,000 homes. That testing is not really going to prove anything valid. There is to be a board of review set up on June 29 primarily to hear complaints from the industry which is trying to defend its position, just as is the government.
Home owners and, I am sure, landlords who have this problem in their buildings are up in arms. I have received countless letters about this and I have many clippings that I do not have time to read into the record, all of which indicate how really appalled and angry are home owners across the country. What they need is that $5 million and money from the CHIP program put into sound programs to remove this poisonous
June 30, 1981

foam from the walls of their homes, getting rid of this risk forever.
For that reason I have spent this time talking about UFFI in relation to the CHIP program. I cannot really understand in conscience how we can endorse more money in these estimates for expenditure on a foam insulation program which has not worked and for which the government has assumed no responsibility, a program that has not provided any protection to the consumer and which has been a major health problem for consumers.
We have raised these questions in the House, as have members of the Conservative party. We have made a number of recommendations. First and foremost is the importance of allocating funds for the removal of this foam from these poisoned homes. We agree it is long overdue that installers must be certified. Sometimes I think many of the CMHC and government officials should be certified as well. How the parliamentary secretary could be so innocuous in his remarks tonight by assuming this has been a sound program is beyond me.
We also question the cost of administering this program, and I will come back to this point later in relation to the CHIP program in the maritimes. A very high percentage of the allocation of funds has gone to the cost of administration by CMHC, yet when people phone CMHC about problems with contractors or UFFI they get no help at all.
A few weeks ago I directed a question to the minister responsible for CMHC and appealed to him to have CMHC through its local offices attempt to be helpful to these consumers. Surely that is reasonable since CMHC sponsored the CHIP program initially, as a result of which this foam was put into houses. It seems to me not too much to expect that people with serious health problems who cannot live in their homes until something is done about the situation, like the couple I mentioned, or those who cannot afford to live anywhere else and cannot put their homes on the market because there is no value, should be provided with some kind of alternate accommodation on an emergency basis through CMHC.
As I said earlier, we feel the government must concentrate not so much on testing but on getting this foam out of homes. There is enough proof that it is dangerous and that the hazard worsens as time goes on. Anyone with foam in their homes should be worried about it. Any real estate person would certainly be reluctant to sell a house which was, in effect, poisoned by this foam. We feel there should be tax deductions for people who take the initiative of removing the foam themselves. There should be tax credits in the case of lower income people who take this action.
Most of all I urge the minister, who is not here tonight but who said he would take note of our representations, to consider that his department should do. He is promoting this program through the bill we are discussing tonight. The federal government has continued to push home insulation programs. There are no guarantees at all that any other programs in the future will provide protection for consumers or that they will be sound insulation programs. There is no accurate information
Canadian Home Insulation Program
being given out to people and, in short, consumers are really quite disillusioned with the whole service of the federal government.
Perhaps there will be five minutes for the parliamentary secretary to respond. I urge the government through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make some financial commitment for the removal of the foam already installed through the CHIP program, and I urge the government not to proceed with further insulation until that is done or funds to be used for that are made available as a first priority.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to facilitate our work this evening I was brief in my introductory comments. Clearly I set a standard which could not be achieved by others in that there was a certain amount of indulgence in statements which hardly accord with the facts of the CHIP program. I note that the hon. member for Peterborough, (Mr. Domm) who indulged himself in such a cacophony of contradiction and calumny and confusion, and who has in fact left the House, evidently did not wish to hear the facts of the case with regard to the CHIP program. He made his little statements, his allegations, his half-truths and confused remarks, and then left the House. Be that as it may, I shall respond to a few of his comments in the hope that he might actually take the trouble on some occasion to seek out the facts rather than to indulge himself in the way he did.
I regret in particular that the hon. member evidently feels conservation is not a laudatory goal for a government to pursue, and if it happens at all it somehow should be left to the private sector. That point of view seems to me to avoid entirely the question of what the consumer in Canada is to do when faced with higher oil prices. People, especially in lower income groups require, need and benefit from the off-oil program which the minister described this afternoon, and from the CHIP program we have been discussing this evening. Quite obviously, conservation is the quickest, most enduring, most effective and cheapest way of reducing the consumption of energy in Canada, and to hear the hon. member attack that program strikes me as a form of reprehensible irresponsibility.
I suggest that when the member opposite, the hon. member for Peterborough, speaks about the lack of any evidence of the benefits of the program, he overlooks entirely the situation in Canada today. In fact, during the first quarter of 1981 the consumption of oil in eastern Canada dropped by 7 per cent, an extraordinary reduction in a very short time. Here is ample evidence not only of the benefits of the industrial conservation program, on which I touched earlier this evening, but also of the success of CHIP, which has substantially reduced the consumption of home heating oil across Canada, and particularly in eastern Canada.
Not only does the hon. member opposite overlook the reductions in demand which I have mentioned, but he also has paid no heed at all to the savings which have resulted from this program. I noted earlier that over $2 billion in imported oil

June 30, 1981
Canadian Home Insulation Program
costs have been saved as a result of CHIP. These are substantial savings, which will only increase in the future as the program expands. Those are macro numbers and, impressive though they are, they overlook the benefit to the average householder. Good insulation can cut heating costs by at least 30 per cent. Effective insulation can reduce projected home heating costs in 1981 by $230 for oil, $250 for electricity and $180 for natural gas. Quite obviously those savings are of substantial benefit to the consumer across our country, and especially to those, as I mentioned earlier, in the lower income categories. We are providing the opportunity for them to receive benefits and to receive incentive from the government, and we are doing it in a very effective way.
That is not to say, as seems to be the case in the minds of some members of the opposition, that CHIP is intended to meet the full costs of insulation. Not at all; it was never intended to do so, and it does not do so. What the program does is to provide assistance, incentive and impetus for householders across Canada to undertake further insulation and to provide the base cost to assist in such initiative.
Some mention was made about the fact that at the moment under the program only houses built prior to 1961 are eligible. That is true, but it has equally been noted and should be stressed that it is the intention of the government to move that date forward to 1977 at a time when we are satisfied that houses built prior to 1961 are insulated to a more substantial degree than they are at the moment.
With regard to the review of CHIP, a number of aspects of the program are under review. The study which has been referred to is to evaluate the impact of the program on the householder and on the insulation industry and to study how the delivery system might be streamlined. There will be a review of eligible items under CHIP, for example, the impact on rented units and generally the effectiveness of the program as it now stands in meeting its objectives.
I will be very brief in discussing abuse of the program. I refer the hon. member for Peterborough to a statement I made in the House some month or six weeks ago, at which time I reviewed the efforts which have been made to ensure that there is no abuse and, where such abuse has been identified, to bring those abusing the system to the courts.
A number of the comments made tonight should be dealt with. I hope there will be another occasion when we can go into this subject in some greater detail. However, I am conscious that time is passing and that we need to proceed also with our examination of the third bill before us this evening.
With regard to UFFI, upon which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) spent a great deal of time and made some rather broad statements, I only emphasize to the hon. member that the government has acted to establish a UFFI centre which is now operational. Members of the public can register their complaints or solicit information there. I think the hon. member said there was no toll-free line available. In fact there is.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What does it do? How does it help?


Roy MacLaren: Those who have taken the trouble to look at the advertisements in the newspapers will see that that service is now available. A national testing survey is under way. It will ensure that the facts of the case are better understood. A board of review has been put in place to hear submissions from the industry.
Finally, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has stated quite clearly that the government will decide on any further action once the results of the national testing survey, the recommendations of the board of review and the findings of the co-ordination centre are available.
With those few comments I hope I have answered some of the questions which were raised during the course of our discussion this evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We have had more discussion, and I must say everyone is showing a great amount of co-operation this evening. In order for Bill C-75, Bill C-76 and Bill C-77 to receive royal assent this evening we have agreed among the parties that the House will sit beyond 10 p.m. to consider Bill C-76 in all its stages and we will not commence proceedings under Standing Order 40 until after Black Rod knocks and royal assent has taken place.
Essentially this means, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to ask members to stay for about an extra 15 or 20 minutes at the very most. The Senate is in session right now on those bills; a Supreme Court judge is here this evening even though they are recessed for their vacation. In view of the urgency of passing these bills, as acknowledged by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we have undertaken to agree to this House order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is quite correct. I would not want to see these proceedings shortened or the pith and substance of debate lost in any way, but I know the shortening of speeches would be warmly welcomed by all members on these matters, perhaps even retroactively.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been these discussions. We are always interested in the definition of "co-operation" that we get from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. If he makes a request
June 30, 1981

and we bow or agree to it, we are being co-operative. Sometimes co-operation should work the other way.
At any rate, we do agree and if we sit a little late and that makes it necessary for their Honours to stay up a little late over in the other place, I do not think it will hurt them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-77, an Act respecting oil conservation and the substitution for oil of other energy sources, without amendment.


HOME INSULATION (N.S. AND P.E.I.) PROGRAM ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Hon. John Roberts (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-76, respecting a home insulation program for certain maritime provinces in Canada, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief but I promise the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to preserve the pith and substance all the same.
The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) was asking earlier for some substantiation as to whether the programs were working and I am very happy to offer him some facts and figures from the Atlantic provinces. It is important to note that, as of June 1, 1981, over 70 per cent of eligible units in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have participated in the program, with the resulting expenditure of almost $7 million.
A recent evaluation of the home insulation program in Nova Scotia indicated 60 per cent of participants experienced an average 9 per cent decrease in fuel consumption. This decrease varied significantly with the kind of work done. Insulating walls, for example, results in a 20 per cent decrease, whereas those installing storm doors or windows resulted in about a 20 per cent decrease. The government of Prince Edward Island has calculated that the use of heating oil there has declined by 25 per cent since 1976, primarily due to the use of the home insulation program as well as an increase in the use of wood energy and the installation of temperature setback devices.
The home insulation program was initially to end as of December 31, 1981. In view of the high participation rate it
Maritime Home Insulation Program
will proceed as planned. We are, however, examining the feasibility of extending CHIP after December 31 to those residents of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia who would be eligible and who have not participated in the home insulation program.
In 1977 it was stated the home insulation program could save a maximum of 2,500,000 barrels of oil annually. At the current international price of $44 a barrel, this amounts to a saving of $110 million.
The total cost of the home insulation program during 1981 and 1982 is estimated at $4,300,000, of which $1,075,000 is requested in the supplementary estimate. These facts and figures prove the program is indeed working. I trust all hon. members will recognize both the past success and the future necessity of this program and appropriate the required funds. On this side of the House we are fully committed to achieving energy security for Canadians. The home insulation program is one part of a much larger picture which is Canada's energy future.
In Atlantic Canada significant progress is under way on a wide variety of fronts. In fact, I would like to read from the most recent list of approved programs in Atlantic Canada, the kind of thing being done by the federal government. In Dartmouth, space heating with a wood waste Parrsboro-made furnace is a new program just approved. The Metro Transit Commission in Dartmouth has a grant to heat with solar heat in the new transit facility. Dafron Industries Ltd. in Lunenburg is now launching a sawdust waste-burning furnace for space heating. Riverport Electric in Kingsburg-Lunenburg has received a grant to monitor the wind profile at Hirtle's Beach.
We are creating a heat sink source for the new dental school at Dalhousie university in Halifax. Interprovincial Engineering in Halifax is studying the feasibility of hydro power from municipal watersheds. And in Mabou there is a new project to evaluate a small hydro site. In all, there have been some 36 projects launched just recently in the Atlantic provinces by the federal government to make the Atlantic provinces energy secure.
I urge the House to support this bill.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side certainly support this bill and its quick passage. However, I must say the government spokesmen make it awfully difficult to be reasonable and pass things by their use of misinformation in rationalizing these programs. The program stands on its merits. It encourages the use of insulation and other fuels. However, the numbers used to describe the success of the program are absolutely absurd. The house I live in Ottawa has not been changed. It is relatively new and if I were offered CHIP I would not know what to insulate. However, we have reduced our energy consumption by about 10 per cent over the last three years because energy is darned expensive and I turned the thermostat down.
Now, I suppose my savings are going to show up in some bureaucrat's statistics so they can say "Look, CHIP is working marvellously, HIP is working marvellously, we have saved 10

June 30, 1981
Maritime Home Insulation Program
per cent." Nonsense! They have not saved a darned thing as a result of the program. The saving is a result of the decision I made and similar decisions are being made by millions of Canadians. So my plea to the government is: For crying out loud, be honest; let the programs stand on their merits. Do not cook up these numbers because it makes it awfully difficult not to respond in kind and escalate into a battle over something we should not be battling about.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the whole energy programs smells of that kind of misuse of data and information, such as the revenue sharing of 45-45-10, which is a bunch of hooey. It is absolutely indefensible. We have the totally fabricated demand curves in the NEP. They showed supply and demand had to cross in 1990 because the minister said they would. So somebody drew a line, today to 1990, and that is a demand curve. It is an abuse of integrity or fairness. That kind of dishonesty in approach does nothing to contribute to the understanding of government programs on the part of the public. It does nothing for the credibility of government. It does not help one iota in terms of developing the policies and programs we need.
Yes, we support HIP; yes, we support CHIP. But please do not abuse us any more by referring to fictitious numbers and claiming that these programs are responsible for all the savings. It is just not so. The programs help. They are part of a parcel of things which help. But please do not abuse us with numbers manufactured by the same people who wrote the atrocious document of last October 28.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I have several questions relating to housing in the maritimes and their home insulation programs. I do not believe the minister clarified why the programs are different in the maritimes. I understand they are largely administered through the provincial governments and subsidized by the federal government. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would be interested in hearing the minister's remarks.
Also I believe that the dates which are being applied to the programs are different in the maritimes. They will receive funding to insulate homes built up to 1981, if I am not mistaken. Why is this aspect different from other parts of Canada?
Also I would be interested in knowing what other conservation methods are being promoted. What other sources of alternate energy are being promoted, such as solar heat and so on?
I believe an article appeared in The Globe and Mail today which indicated that CMHC is adopting rules on oil-heated homes which will take effect tomorrow. Particularly it was indicated that homes heated by oil will remain eligible for mortgage insurance in the four Atlantic provinces and in the two territories where the alternatives of natural gas and electricity are not available at reasonable cost. In the other provinces new oil-heated homes will not be eligible for mortgage insurance through CMHC. This seems quite reasonable. It is a good incentive, with the exceptions where they should be, in the Atlantic region.
Having visited the Atlantic provinces on a housing tour, I noted some of the housing characteristics of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces. There is a very high degree of home ownership. Many people do not have mortgages. Many of the homes were self-built.
Why is nothing being done to change the application of CHIP so that people can put their own labour into it? Why must they always go through contractors in whom they really do not have much confidence? Why cannot this program be adapted so that people can do it themselves? Perhaps there could be seminars or some assistance for these people to do it themselves. Then they could make sure the money is spent the way it should be. It would make sense, particularly in the maritimes where there is a tradition of building co-operatives and putting their own labour into their homes.
Also I noted that things are changing rapidly in the maritimes. This gets back to housing costs. I saw white-painting in city centres which put up the cost of housing. I think the conversion of older homes and the rehabilitation of them would certainly increase demand for home insulation. Also I noted zero vacancy rates in the larger cities. Saint John is very similar to Vancouver. I gather Halifax now has the highest percentage increase in house prices. Surely this will have an impact on the program as well.
I received a number of letters from people complaining that there was not a fair allocation of money for co-op housing in the maritimes, particularly in Nova Scotia. I would be interested to know whether there are any facts concerning the number of maritimers in these two provinces who have used UFFI. I understand there were considerable complaints in the past about problems with another type of insulation known as a cellulose fibre material. It was installed in 40 per cent of the maritime homes which used CHIP grants. This insulation can rot in Atlantic weather and affect the structural stability of houses. Pressure from insulation installers to lower test standards to allow more insulation material on the market has produced a situation similar to the UFFI problem. The problem is the same, so I will not repeat my questions.
I must say that I did not receive any serious answers from the previous government speakers. I would be interested in knowing what guarantees there will be for consumers in the extension of this program to make it available for modern houses. What compensation will there be for those people who are victims of poor insulation programs, particularly UFFI? Has the government received complaints about this from the Atlantic region?
In closing, I should like to register my concern in regard to some of the figures and estimates for these programs. Going back to the budget for this fiscal year, I note that $3,200,000 was allocated for contribution payments to individuals for the home insulation program in the two Atlantic provinces. Also I noted that the contribution payments to CMHC for administrative costs were $1,100,000. This is 35 per cent of the total
June 30, 1981

allocation for those two provinces. I think there should be some explanation why that amount of federal money is going to CMHC administration, not to the people who need home insulation.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, as to the first question, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia were originally selected for the insulation and energy conservation program because they required a means of offsetting the substantial increase in the cost of electrical generation resulting from their high reliance upon imported oil-fired thermal generation. This was the real reason and the urgency for the program in that area.
It was determined that the resulting expenditure burden on consumers would be greatly reduced by a policy aimed at greater efficiency in consumer use of petroleum energy in general and specifically by a program which would result in greater efficiency in space heating.
The home insulation program was first introduced in PEI. Based on the experience in that province, CMHC anticipated a good response from householders in Nova Scotia, so a decision was made to go ahead with the expanded program.
As to the second question concerning eligibility, the home insulation program applies to units built and occupied prior to January 1, 1977 in Nova Scotia and in Prince Edward Island. The eligible units include principal residences, either rented or owned; houses or apartment buildings three storeys or less; mobile homes and hostels are also eligible. A grant is provided for either the cost of materials in the amount of $350 or one-third of the total costs of labour and insulation materials to a maximum of $500. The home owner can instal it himself; there is an either/or provision. I hope I have made that clear.
A further indication of federal assistance to these particular areas of Canada, PEI and Nova Scotia, is the fact that this grant is non-taxable. There are other items included in the program, such as insulation materials, weather stripping, caulking, and the installation of storm windows and doors. Applicants go through a pre-application process to obtain approval for the proposed work prior to having the work undertaken.
I hope these are the answers the hon. member requested. At to co-operative housing, I would ask the hon. member to direct those questions to the minister responsible for CMHC.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Animal Diseases BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the great progress we are making we will now proceed to Bill C-70, standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, as agreed to by all parties. Unfortunately, the Minister of Agriculture is not here this evening and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has very magnanimously agreed to speak ahead of the minister. He will speak until the Black Rod intervenes, pursuant to the order made earlier.


Walter David Baker: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that there is agreement with what the parliamentary secretary has said. It should also be noted that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was one of the most distinguished ministers of agriculture this country has ever had.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are being co-operative. We are agreeing to what is requested of us. I would like to be sure that the absence of the Minister of Agriculture does not mean that he has gone to the Senate!


ANIMAL DISEASE AND PROTECTION ACT
Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-70, to amend the Animal Disease and Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances under which I rise are quite unusual, I do take great pleasure and some honour in making these few remarks about Bill C-70.
What I wish to do is put before the House, as a proper preliminary to these amendments which we are now discussing, something of the history of this very important legislation which has been on the books for over 60 years. This bill is called "an Act to amend the Animal Disease and Protection Act."
As the House knows, the movement of any form of livestock or any form of plant material across borders is one of the most sensitive things in the world today. The one act that protects the producers and consumers of animals is this act which we have before us.
My first memory of this act goes back 30 years to the unfortunate outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan in 1951. At that time we had an act in place which allowed for a very small compensation for animals which were destroyed. The circumstance at that time involved a person who had been travelling in Europe, who came to work on a farm near McLean, Saskatchewan and who had apparently carried on his clothing some of the virus of this disease which we are now discussing under one of the sections of this bill. This virus caused the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, which
11118

June 30, 1981
Animal Diseases
is a very serious disease in Europe. Any mention of it in North America causes great panic in the market squares of Canada.
Foot-and-mouth disease affects all forms of animals with cloven hooves; but it also has another effect, too, and that is that it debilitates the animal. But the animal can recover. The fact remains that the spread of this virus terrifies those of us who have dealt with it.
Parliament may not know, but one of the proudest sections of the Department of Agriculture is the health of animals branch, which is made up of a group of underpaid veterinarians who have done more to build up the cattle industry in Canada than any other group, outside of the breeding section, 1 suspect. These men worked to a standstill, at great physical discomfort, to clear this country of tuberculosis.
That program went on from the early 1920s, all during the twenties, the thirties, the forties and the fifties. I had the privilege of doing the last inoculation of some 15 million animals which had been inoculated over that long period of time. Today, Canada remains free of bovine tuberculosis because of the magnificent veterinarians from all across Canada who serve in the health of animals branch. Tonight we are carrying this bill forward trying to meet with current conditions.
I introduced my remarks by talking about foot-and-mouth disease, since it strikes terror into all producers of beef, pork, etc. We have never had to endure in North America what has been endured in Europe. We are very fortunate that when this disease did break out in Canada in 1951 we had a very competent health of animals branch which moved into the battle. The battle was not that terrible because the few animals which had the infection recovered. The fact is that the virus has moved down that one creek, the Waskana Creek, through Regina and northwesterly from Regina, and got into some of the purebred herds. What made it difficult for the health of animals branch to fight the spread of that virus was the fact that the compensation in the bill at that time was so low, based on a previous period when prices of cattle were much lower, that no farmers with purebred dairy or purebred beef wanted to report any signs in their herd which would indicate the presence of that disease. They were afraid to do this because they knew the procedure was to quarantine the whole herd and, if necessary, destroy the whole herd, even if it were healthy. But because the animals had been exposed, under the rules of the game, and to win confidence in the world that we were fighting this battle, all herds were destroyed.
I do not see the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) in the House, but he would know about this because the main part of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 1951 occurred in his area. Many of us remember these beautiful herds of dairy and beef cattle being brought in. They were some of the most beautifully bred animals I have ever seen and it was tragic to see them being lined up and shot, then dumped into pits with chemicals thrown over them. It was a cruel sight
to see, knowing that the farmer concerned had his basic herd destroyed when he knew that all the animals were healthy. It was done for a psychological reason-to prove to the Americans, who were our main market, that we would do everything possible to eliminate that disease entirely. We won the confidence of the American market and got it back in the next year or so.
Next I want to describe the very dramatic debate that took place in this House in the summer or early fall of 1951. The minister of agriculture at that time was the Right Hon. James Garfield Gardiner. He put up a sturdy battle to protect the act as it existed at that time. He had no choice but to do that. The compensation offered was too low to induce farmers to volunteer information. The member on this side of the House who led the debate was the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. For four or five days the two men fought out the issue of expanding compensation to include farmers on voluntary report, so that there would be no question of anyone losing his whole livelihood because he made this contribution to the industry. The Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent settled the issue and ruled that what the then member for Lake Centre proposed should be accepted and the compensation rated to a level that the farmers would feel was equitable.
I was present during that debate and, of course, coming from the affected area, I had an intimate knowledge of all the people concerned. The experiences of that terrible summer of 1951, when foot-and-mouth disease almost threatened to destroy the beef industry of western Canada, have never left my mind.
Tonight our purpose is to amend the act, and the key issue is compensation. The provisions of the bill make all the animals listed available for compensation at market price. Two groups of diseases are exempt; one is tuberculosis, which, to my knowledge, was wiped out 20 years ago in Canada; the other is brucellosis. The reason for this is that both those diseases have direct effects on humans; in other words, the disease is trans-mittable from animals to humans. I suspect that is the reason that the health of animals branch always paid special attention to them.
It is regrettable that even though the level of compensation is increased in the bill to the market price for all animals, a different technique is used for animals suffering from tuberculosis and brucellosis. It is commendable to raise the amount over what it has been for the last five or six years, but it still does not meet the experience of the last 50 years.
In the last four or five years brucellosis came from Manitoba into my riding so I have some experience in this area. I have seen herds of 700 cattle slaughtered when I doubt if any more than two or three of the cattle had ever been infected. I saw a family forced to feed their animals in a closed area under quarantine. They could not put them out to pasture where there would be contact across the fence with other animals or other grass, because the virus spreads by contact with grass, grain, mud and so on. After the winter feed was gone, the farmer had to haul grain and water. Eventually he had to borrow thousands of dollars every week in order to bring in
June 30, 1981

feed and water for his animals. He was not allowed to sell them. The family almost went into bankruptcy.
Thanks to help from the health of animals branch, I was able to get through to the government the fact that this farmer should be helped. If the health of animals branch wanted to keep that herd under quarantine, then I thought it was its responsibility to feed and water them and to keep the farmer and his family from going broke. The branch finally accepted this argument and on the instructions of the chief in Ottawa gave the order to slaughter the whole herd even though they knew that, if they waited long enough and no more cases of infection occurred, the herd would have been cleared and left intact.
There are not many animals on that farm today and a lot of the barns have been burned down; but the farmer hopes it can be rehabilitated and again become one of the major cattle producing farms of Saskatchewan.
This bill makes the mistake that has been made every time this situation has occurred in the last 50 years. A fixed amount has been set for compensation for brucellosis and tuberculosis. A fixed amount is dangerous, Mr. Speaker. If the price of cattle is above that set by legislation when brucellosis occurs, the farmer will have a feeling of being discriminated against, as was the case with outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and when we were fighting the outbreak of brucellosis which came from Manitoba to Saskatchewan. It is not possible for legislation to establish the value of our cattle at the moment they are to be killed.
I know nothing can be done at this late date, but Treasury Board must learn that it is necessary to include a flexible formula based on the market price for an average period of quarantine so that the farmer will not be subject to the whims of the only buyer who is allowed to buy. He will not get a fair market price when there is only one buyer. The packing plant that will take the animal is appointed by the health of animals branch. The minute the animals go through the gate, they are subject to the packers' price.
Even though the amount of compensation is fixed, if, as I expect to happen in the next two or three years, cattle prices increase from the 70 cents to 80 cents per 100 pounds live weight at present to over $2, that would make a 1,000 pound animal worth $2,000 or $2,220. It would be a blow to the farmer to have to accept $1,200 each for several hundred animals that have to be slaughtered. Often they would represent a lifetime of work.
I should have liked to see the bill include a formula which stated that the market value would apply to cases of brucellosis and tuberculosis, based on the number of days the farm was in quarantine and giving the average price for that period. If that price were flexible and moved up and down with the market, it would encourage every farmer who had a suspicion of something wrong with his herd to report it. If he saw a cow abort he would report it immediately because of the possibility of brucellosis. If he does report it and finds that it is brucellosis, the whole herd is condemned as well as all the other herds who have been in contact through fences, neighbouring pas-
Animal Diseases
tures or sharing a common pasture. The loss effect, economically and otherwise, is tremendous.
I think it would be wise for us to remember the next time we amend this bill that Parliament should have a little more time to get amendments through. I know that the health of animals branch wants a flexible formula, but I also know that Treasury Board works on very fixed principles protecting the public purse. I know the reasons for the arguments on both sides. We are not doing credit to the whole purpose of this bill by putting in the section with maximums in it. Whatever the maximum is, it is generous now for the average type of animal, but it does not allow for exotics and above all it does not allow for the rise and fall of the price structure. That is the essential weakness in the bill which has been there ever since the beginning, even though we are generous in raising the amounts at various times in the life of this bill; but the fact is it should be flexible to make sure there is no sense of loss, inequality or injustice whatever. It is imperative to those who are trying to build up the cattle industry, indeed to the survival of the human race, that there be no hesitation on the part of a farmer in reporting anything unusual.
These diseases can be damaging and devastating, affecting whole continents and the lives of thousands of people. I would think in introducing this bill on behalf of the minister that the minister should be as straightforward as I have tried to be in saying that this bill has good points but also this one fatal weakness.
I know the health of animals branch has for three years had before Treasury Board the proposal respecting a flexible formula. I am sorry they did not get it. I am sometimes tempted to suggest very strong action by ministers when they run into this type of situation. We all agree, regardless of party affiliation, on what should be done, but we run into this hurdle every time because the legalistic-minded people who draft these bills do not think about what the health of animals branch has to face in dealing with these terribly contagious diseases which can do so much harm in a short space of time.
I will not horrify the House with examples of what I have seen in this field. I simply say that I am glad that we have been able to get this bill into this House, even if it has been two or three years in the making. We are glad to put it through but with the warning of what is going to happen as sure as we are all sitting here.
I hope any other person who wants to discuss this bill will bring forward the other aspects that I know are lacking in the bill. I can think of a few but others may want to speak to them.
I was supposed to speak until Black Rod knocked on the door. May I continue, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 30, 1981
Royal Assent


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think what i have said so far has been relevant to the bill, but what I will say now will be wider in scope.
I shall now talk about the cattle industry in Canada and the United States. The cattle industry has been one of the great growth industries of our country in the last century. There is no question but that it has added more income on a stabilized basis to the farm income of Canada than any other source. It does not have the ups and downs that grains have. It does have its ups and downs in the breeding cycle and in the supply and demand cycle, but generally speaking it has been the most productive-


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-75, An Act respecting a home insulation program for certain provinces in Canada, and Bill C-76, An Act respecting a home insulation program for certain Maritime provinces in Canada.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Deputy Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting a home insulation program for certain provinces in Canada-Chapter No. 57
An act respecting a home insulation program for certain Maritime provinces in Canada-Chapter No. 58
An act respecting oil conservation and the substitution for oil of other energy sources-Chapter No. 59
An act to amend the Department of Labour Act-Chapter No. 60 An act to provide for the prohibition of certain international air services- Chapter 61
An act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act-Chapter No. 62
An act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act-Chapter No. 63 An act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act in respect of the early retirement of air traffic controllers-Chapter No. 64
An act respecting the relocation of government agencies-Chapter No. 65 An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1982-Chapter No. 66

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
['Order. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Thursday at 2 p.m.\nThe House adjourned, without question put, at 10:49 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order.', 'Thursday, July 2, 1981']
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising this evening is to register my total dissatisfaction with the answers I received to two very important questions earlier today during the question period. One deals with the matter of grain transportation and the matter of rolling stock, and the other with the railway capacity problem, particularly as it relates to western Canada. Both of these issues, to me, are issues in which the government is failing very dramatically.
I should like to deal first with the matter of the grain carrying fleet. What is happening is that the boxcar fleet dedicated to the movement of grain is decreasing very rapidly. In 1980 there were some 28,400 pieces of rolling stock composed of 14,400 boxcars and 14,000 hopper cars. That boxcar fleet is declining at the rate of about 1,000 cars per year with respect to the CNR and 800 cars per year with respect to the CPR. This means that at the end of this year, 1981, there will be 3,600 fewer cars in the grain carrying fleet than in 1980.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his answer today said there is no need for more hopper cars. I should point out that in the 1979-80 crop year we were able to move some 23 tonnes with roughly 28,000 pieces of rolling stock. What is happening is that the movement of grain both for export position and for commercial position in Canada is now declining. We are now faced with an uneviable record of moving less grain in this country than we did last year at the same time. I should like to put these figures on the record.
The total commercial disappearance of Canadian grain from August 1 to June 10, 1981 is recorded at 23.674 million tonnes. For 1980 over the same period, August 1 to June 11, that figure was recorded at 23.882 million tonnes. I should point out that while we are about 100,000 tonnes ahead in export disappearance we are about 285,000 tonnes behind in commercial disappearance. So we are falling behind now and



[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1981
[Stage Direction]
we are going to continue to fall behind further still unless our rolling stock is replenished.
The hon. senator in the other place said, and I quote from page 2636 of Senate Hansard'.
-the ordering of hopper cars and the number of hopper cars needed are now under active consideration.
Yet at the same time the Minister of Transport said in the House today that it is the view of the government, based on a number of studies, that there is no need for more hopper cars this year. Whom are we to believe? This is another clear example of total inconsistency on the part of this government.
Let me point out that the grain transportation authority recommends that we should be putting at least 1,300 new hopper cars into the system on an annual basis. That is supported and endorsed by the advisory committee. As a matter of fact, that committee passed a resolution just recently, which I will quote:
That the Advisory Committee to the Canadian Wheat Board urge the Government of Canada through the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board that orders be placed immediately for additional hopper cars in accordance with the requirements recommended by the Grain Transportation Authority.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: That means now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That means now, as my colleague, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) suggests. The Booz Allen report commissioned by this government recommends that we should be bringing at least 1,900 new hopper cars into the system every year now through 1985. Someone here is dramatically out of touch. I think the Minister of Transport is pathetically out of touch on this whole issue.
I come now to the question of rationing. The government House leader in the other place says that the federal government plans to ration western Canadian rail space soon with a system of allotments for exports. He went on to say:
It's an absolutely urgent priority . . . It's the most important priority we're facing.
Today in the House the Minister of Transport pooh-poohed the idea. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said we should not have laughed at double tracking. I have read the Senate debates for June 29 at page 2638 in relation to double tracking, a matter raised in the other place. This is what the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board had to say about double tracking:
Many people felt that this statement was rather foolish and farfetched.
The commitment of the Prime Minister was to double track the line from Winnipeg to Vancouver using the existing sidings. I have to agree with the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board on that.
I want to know what the government is going to do. Will it stand idly by and do nothing about the capacity problem, recognizing that there is to be a 70 per cent increase in traffic demand in western Canada? Will it do nothing about finding
Adjournment Debate
adequate revenues for the railways for the movement of grain? Will it allow our reputation as a reliable supplier of grain and other export commodities once again to deteriorate? In short, is it the policy of the government simply to stand idly by and allow this policy of rationing, which has been talked about by the railways, to take place, or is it going to do something about it? If it is, would it please tell this House what plans it has? It owes that explanation to the House.
It owes it to this House, the people of Canada and particularly the producers and those people who rely upon the movement of export commodities to port position for movement to other countries. It owes it to everyone to lay its plans before this House and the country so that we can get on with the job of building, providing jobs and strengthening the Canadian economy.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised several issues related to the adequacy of western rail capacity to meet the anticipated demand, especially from bulk commodities, in the coming years. In a sense some of these issues are peripheral to the main issue. For example, it is obvious that the government will have to look at the need for additional grain hopper cars in the near future, but the general view in the grain industry is that an order does not have to be placed immediately.
The hon. member seemed to object to a press report in which Senator Perrault was quoted. Without knowing exactly what the Senate leader said, it is clear, even from the press report, that he was talking about possible rationing by the railways, not Ottawa, and that this could occur in 1985 if decisions are not made soon. These distinctions, however, are not very comforting for the producer of coal, potash or grain who will be faced with congestion and bottlenecks. The main issue here is that bottlenecks will occur, and rationing is unavoidable unless railways obtain sufficient revenue to invest soon in increased rail capacity.
The hon. member has correctly identified this as the critical problem. Others, including the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his speech last fall in Edmonton, have also done so. What they have recognized is that the debate, which started as a discussion on what to do with the Crow rate, has now evolved and broadened to a global concern for western economic development. As everyone knows, the western economy depends heavily on the export of raw materials. If the transportation system does not have the capacity to move them, the economy of the west, indeed of the country, will suffer.
Some months ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in the House that he was not willing to consider changes to the Crow rate unless there was a consensus in the west that changes had to be made. In my view, Mr. Speaker, more and more westerners are now realizing that this is not just an agricultural issue but one that affects western economic development in general, and they are speaking out. As a responsible westerner, I am sure the hon. member does his best each weekend to build the consensus that the government is seeking. I hope he encourages his colleagues to do the same.

June 30, 1981
Adjournment Debate
[DOT]	(2230)


AGRICULTURE-INCREASE IN NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE TOWNSHIPS
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, on April 1, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) if he could confirm to me and my colleagues whether an additional 400 plus townships have been added to the herd maintenance assistance program. He confirmed that and very kindly sent me a list of the additional townships. However, I would like to know why I was denied the original list. When my office asked we were told it could not be made public and no reason was given. I am sure the minister's office was just as confused as I was at that answer, but I would ask the minister now to release the original list of townships that were eligible under this program. Since the additional list was released I am sure there could be no objection to releasing the other list.
I brought up another anomaly that I would like to have clarified. There are some 3,000 farmers waiting to have their applications reviewed by cabinet and I would like to know how long they have to wait. I am not sure who is reviewing them and I hope I can be informed of that tonight. These farmers and cattlemen are waiting for their applications to be reviewed because of the precipitation data criteria established by the government. Some of these people have been waiting since last fall. They have already had a calf out of the cow they were paid to maintain but have not yet received any money.
In addition, 1 asked the minister why some 1,100 applications reviewed by the appeal board are now sealed and cannot be opened by the PFRA people for review. I should say these
1.100	odd files have to do with crop yield. I do not know why the PFRA cannot not be made aware of the decision and the methodology the appeal board used in turning down these
1.100	applications. I would like to repeat, there are 1,100 applications which cannot be reviewed by any cabinet decision unless hopefully tonight the minister or his parliamentary secretary will explain to me that they are going to be reviewed. This would be very much appreciated by the producers. I hope they would review both sets of applications and do it now.
The review by cabinet that I spoke of will take place I hope next weekend in Winnipeg, when the senator responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture meet there. That meeting will be looked forward to with anticipation by producers in all parts of Canada.
The other thing I would like to ask about to this. The Minister of Agriculture, in announcing the grain embargo compensation payments, made the statement that they were able to use $100 million they had set aside for drought relief in the year 1981. If it rained in western Canada there was no need for drought relief and we were going to take the $81 million from that fund, leaving approximately $19 million.
[DOT]	(2235)
I am also told that approximately $40 million has been spent from the $60 million allotted for herd maintenance drought relief in the year 1980. That leaves approximately $40 million. When we take the 3,000 farmers who have their appeal
reviewed by cabinet decision because of rainfall, and the approximate 1,100 who have not had the ability to appeal because of crop yield, that is $40 million for 4,000 farmers. I do not think the government can plead that it does not have the cash flow to meet this demand. People who in good faith applied and kept their cattle herds at the request of this government are still writing to their members of Parliament.
The area of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) was one of the areas left out and had to be included later. I converse quite often with the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). We are now receiving telephone calls from people saying they have not heard whether they have been rejected or accepted, or they have been accepted but have not received a cheque. I am sure the parliamentary secretary understands that when the government makes a commitment, the people of Canada expect it to honour that commitment, and not in 12 months but as soon as possible.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacLellan) is here. I am sure he will give me a responsible answer. Fie will agree that the payment of compensation for herd maintenance and drought relief is long overdue.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to deal with many of the points the hon. member made in his presentation. I will deal basically with his original question and say that, as part of the review process under the herd maintenance assistance program, an individual review of each township outside the severe drought area was undertaken.
In the first instance, this review was undertaken by the program staff as townships were identified during the initial process. A report and recommendation were prepared for each township and forwarded to the review board when it commenced operations in January, 1981. These reviews were based on all available precipitation data for each township under consideration.
During the board's initial review of some of these township files, it became apparent that the board did not concur in many of the program's staff recommendations to reject townships on the basis of precipitation levels greater than 60 per cent of normal. To resolve these disagreements it was agreed that professional hydrologists employed by PFRA would carry out rigorous regional storm analyses on all townships outside the drought area. These analyses are based on the premise that if any point within the township received less than 60 per cent of normal precipitation, the township met the program precipitation criterion. The analyses considered only basic regional storms and ignored peak storm values and localized precipitation. Based on the regional storm analyses of April 14, 1981 the review board and program staff have concurred in the inclusion in the drought area of approximately 450 townships out of the total of 1,300 townships originally identified as outside the drought area.
In addition, the hon. member made reference to the cases presently under consideration. It is believed that these deci-
June 30, 1981

sions will be made and identified very shortly. With respect to the 1,100 that he mentioned are sealed in Regina and will not be forthcoming for cabinet appeal, he is correct in his statement. These 1,100 have been looked at by the review board, contrary to what was mentioned earlier, and they are determined not to qualify. Every consideration was given to these people and it is possible to bring everyone who requested assistance under this program within the criteria. The review board recommendations were then reviewed in turn by the PFRA officials and it was on the basis of both these reviews that it was determined they just did not qualify. They are not, "sealed in Regina"; they are merely filed away under the normal business practice.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF MANITOBA INDIAN BANDS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to draw attention to a question which I asked some time ago of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). In fact, I asked the question on March 16 of this year.
Basically, what I asked the minister at that time was for an assurance that his department and he would do everything possible to meet the needs of the Indian people in Manitoba. He responded by saying that some of the matters I raised at that time had already been dealt with in meetings with Indians in Manitoba. In response to a supplementary question he said that I was becoming repetitious. If the question is becoming repetitious it is only because it has not been answered. What is the government doing to meet the needs of Indian people In Manitoba? I will continue to raise this question until it is answered in a real way.
All it takes for any citizen, including the minister or any of his representatives, is to look at the conditions of the Indian people in Manitoba, as they are common across this country. They have only to look at the social conditions, the economic conditions and the financial status of Indian people to see that the question has not been answered.
One might ask oneself whether this is really an important question, since it is not a new question and the conditions are almost perennial. As a Canadian I say that it is very important since it remains a blot on our social landscape. It is a matter of shame that in the history of our country we have allowed the disparities which exist between the Indian people and the general population to become so broad. I say that the government is wrong in not acting to reduce these disparities. I feel the people of this country are willing to pay the price necessary to allocate financial resources to reduce those disparities, and to reduce them in a significant way.
Today, in preparation for tonight, 1 spoke to the Indian leaders in Manitoba to obtain an update on their meetings with the minister and with regard to whether or not the minister had turned around and started to take some real action. Unfortunately, what I found is that the Indian leaders
Adjournment Debate
in Manitoba still have a plethora of unmet priorities to which the minister has been unable to respond.
Even though this may sound unkind, 1 must say that while the minister has often met with the Indian people he does not seem to possess the capacity to deliver. He makes commitments, comes back and meets with his officials but does not seem to know how to deliver the goods. This is something which bothers the Indian people of Manitoba and the Indian people across this country. I know, because it is brought to my attention quite often.
When I spoke to the Indian leaders today they indicated to me a whole list of priorities which remain unmet. I only have time to mention a few. For example, there are 61 Indian reserves in Manitoba which have been promised 20 new schools between now and 1990. The other 41 reserves will have to wait for the promise of a school until after 1990.
The same situation prevails with regard to child welfare. The province has the jurisdictional responsibility but will only act in life and death situations. The federal government, through the Department of Indian Affairs, does not have any services to provide for child welfare. Indian people have been developing proposals to present so that they can deliver these services themselves, but there has not been sufficient response from the government.
It goes on, into water rights, migratory birds and economic development. For example, I know that the department recently made a proposal to give billions of dollars for economic development on Indian reserves. It was turned down. Then it went scrambling for a shopping list of projects for Manitoba that could come within the limited budget being offered by cabinet. Of course, the shopping list was developed without the involvement of the Indian leadership in Manitoba. This is another example of how needs are not being met. They cannot be met unless the people concerned are involved.
I am rushing along, Mr. Speaker, because of the shortage of time but I want to say that a big, splash announcement was made recently in Winnipeg about an increase of 33 per cent for band core funding across the country. That amounted to $3.8 million and is the only increase since 1972. When inflation is taken into account it is in a fact a decrease. This is another example of funds not meeting the needs.
The Winnipeg Indian council has as its priority the core funding for its organization. I understand that the minister has promised action on this and we are giving him until July 14 to deliver on that promise. I hope in this instance he can demonstrate the capacity to deliver the goods once he has made a commitment.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the concern of the hon. member on this question. It has tremendous ramifications and covers a broad spectrum of the concerns of native peoples.

June 30, 1981
Adjournment Debate
While the government recognizes its responsibility to Indian people and its commitment to provide financial support in response to their needs, it must also recognize that this must be done within the confines of available resources.
The House should recognize the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's strong commitment to looking for new ways to deal with increased budgetary restraints and higher costs of providing this support. The department is coming up with solutions to problems identified at the band level, such as the housing subsidy which the department was responsible for increasing last year.
Although the government recognizes its responsibility for Indian residents in Canada, those Indian people living off the reserve must also be recognized as citizens of the provinces in which they are residing. Therefore, the federal government is continuing to attempt to work out solutions with the provincial governments whereby they recognize their responsibility as well for these Canadian residents. Jurisdiction for status Indians, in particular, living off the reserve is a question which will take much negotiation and time on both sides to work out.
With particular reference to the Manitoba situation and the request made by the chiefs for the resignation of our senior managers there, I wish to reiterate that we have every confidence in those members of the departmental staff of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. Public servants must take critical decisions every day, and will continue to be subject to this kind of publicity in light of those decisions.
Consultation with the bands continues, and I am fully confident that the proper consultation processes are being implemented. Other groups are welcome to participate in these discussions and their concerns may be addressed in that forum, if they wish to make those concerns known to our regional management team for their consideration.
The hon. member mentioned that the recent 33 per cent increase in funding for Indian bands to cover the expenses of chief and counsellor was another example of the department's failure to keep its commitment. I would say that the $3,800,000 goes a lot further in keeping a commitment than was the case before the money was granted. I think the department, and the minister in particular, is making a very honest attempt to meet the concerns of the hon. member and native problems, and he will continue to do so.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Thursday at 2 p.m.
The House adjourned, without question put, at 10:49 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 2, 1981