1985-03-18

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works; and the amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p. 3072).
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion that the Bill be read six months hence. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I wish that this Bill would be read about 16 years from now so that as many of my constituents as possible could benefit from the very good programs which had been established by the former Liberal Government. These are the same programs, of course, which saw the axe on black Thursday, November 8, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled in the House the document known as "The Expenditure and Program Review". Of course, Mr. Speaker, this particular document should be known as "the expenditure and program cut-back", because that is all it is. I know that the Hon. House Leader, had he prepared this document, would have been a little more forthright and honest than the Minister of Finance and would have called this book what it is. So it was on black Thursday, November 8, that the axe fell on a number of very good Canadian programs which had been established by the former Liberal Government.
I am sure all the Conservative Members in this House this morning, if they were permitted to speak without being muzzled, would speak in favour of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the CHIP program as well. The Canadian Oil Substitution Program has been very successful. Because of the deadline of March 31, a number of people have rushed to convert their old, inefficient oil furnaces to better systems, such as heat pumps, forced air electric systems, natural gas, wood and so forth, and it has reached a point, Mr. Speaker,
where many contractors have run out of the equipment to be installed. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), therefore, has been asked to extend the program. Perhaps if that Minister could extend the program she would, but her boss, the Minister of Finance, won't let her. The Minister of Finance, "Mike the knife" as he is commonly called by some of us in this House, is unable or is unwilling to allow the extension to this worth-while program. This is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
I mentioned a moment ago that a number of contractors have run out of equipment. Contractors in the Ottawa area, as a matter of fact, have written to all Hon. Members in the Ottawa area. I know the Conservative Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) have received letters but they have not raised this issue in the House at all, Mr. Speaker. Many people have signed contracts in good faith, and on time, and now will not be able to benefit from this program because of the fact there is no equipment left to instal.
There is another situation which has arisen as well. Some people have had their furnaces installed thinking that they would be eligible for the program. However, all the inspections cannot be carried out before March 31. The Parliamentary Secretary said last week that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has now agreed that those who had a completed installation by March 31, and were only awaiting the inspection, would be able to receive the benefit of the program. 1 find it passing strange, though, Mr. Speaker, that the contractors have not been made aware of this fact. Ontario Hydro, Ottawa Hydro and all the other agencies who are responsible for administering the program have not been made aware of this fact. It is fine and dandy that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual eloquence, has announced in this House that those people who had their installations completed by March 31 but had not had the inspection will still benefit, but I suggest it would help if the public servants in the Ministry as well as all other agencies concerned could be made aware of this fact.
There is another problem which arises, Mr. Speaker. When one of our constituents decides to get his furnace installed, the contractor comes in and proceeds with some part of the installation but because he is so short of components the installation cannot be completed by March 31. Although the installation is already begun, those people will not qualify at all. It is too late for them. They cannot back-track and phone the contractor to come and get the components which are already installed. That won't wash. The consumer is going to be forced to pay.

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
The very least this Government should do, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you know this being in the non-partisan position you are in, is extend the program until the fall so that installations can be properly done in the summer. Of course, the best solution is to cancel the Government's idea to start with and allow COSP to continue. But again, the big act of the Minister of Finance seems to be what takes effect in this House.
After the Government tabled its expenditure and program review documents it gave a briefing book to Cabinet Ministers which told them what to say if they were asked some embarrassing questions concerning the cut-backs. I have a copy of the briefing book here. There are things the Minister was supposed to say. I am sure the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has her copy handy right now so let us see what they are supposed to reply when asked about the CHIP program. This is supposed to be a question a journalist might ask a Minister: "What is the rationale behind phasing out the Canadian Home Insulation Program? Federal CHIP grants have proven very popular among Canadians". Here is the Minister's tailor-made reply. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary already knows this reply by heart because the Cabinet Minister must have given him a copy of the briefing book even though it is a secret document.


Mr. McDermid:: I wrote it.


Don Boudria: Maybe he wrote it, Mr. Speaker. It says: "That's correct, and energy conservation in Canadian homes remains an important national objective. But we will have to pursue it in ways less costly to the federal treasury. Home owners will find that investing in energy conservation is still worthwhile, with or without grants. We have extended the program to March 31, 1986, to continue the impact on insulation manufacturers, contractors and consumers". Well, perhaps the Minister can get his home reinsulated without getting a grant, but the majority of my electors and the majority of the electors of the Hon. Member sitting right here cannot afford that. They need assistance to be able to do it.


John Horton McDermid: They have had it for eight years now; what have they been doing?


Don Boudria: Again the Parliamentary Secretary is perhaps in a financial position to do everything in one day, but some of my constituents are poor. They cannot afford it. They have to wait until they get the money. Unlike this Government, they cannot just borrow when they need to do something; they have to save up their money first.


John Horton McDermid: They have another year to go.


Don Boudria: Perhaps this Tory Government should learn how to do the same thing. The Parliamentary Secretary says they have another year to go. Yes, but at one half the benefit. They are going to be getting less, and that of course is totally unworkable.
Let us hear what the Cabinet Ministers were supposed to answer when they had questions on the oil substitution program. Here is a question: "Does the same reasoning apply to the winding up of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program?" The potential answer is: "Yes, to the extent that converting off oil is a good deal without Government financial help. The trend towards reduced use of oil is well established and federal incentives cannot be continued in a time of restraint". It is a time of restraint-


Mrs. Sparrow:: That is right.


Don Boudria: -and that is why the grants have been cut off from low-income constituents. I see the Hon. Member from Scarborough-no? I forget the name of her riding. The Hon. Member beside me is saying that is right, it is a time of restraint. This Government says it is a time of restraint.
I am very sorry to have to conclude my remarks so soon, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to tell Hon. Members of all the extravagances of the Government since it has been in power. With unanimous consent of Members I would gladly tell them the cost of renovating Cabinet Ministers' offices.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to reflect on two or three concerns that have been brought to my attention by literally hundreds of my constituents in the last number of weeks. I am, of course, referring to the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program. For all intents and purposes these two programs will be closed down as of March 31 of this year. For most of Canada that is still wintertime. Most of the country is still coming out of the depths of that cold period. It is a difficult time to be making the transition from an oil furnace to a gas furnace, a wood-heated facility, or whatever.
I would like to make some comments on behalf of three groups this morning. The first group is that of the small businesses in my constituency which have been participating in these two programs. By definition these tend to be small businesses which are Canadian owned and community oriented. They contribute to the minor hockey leagues and the Boy Scouts in their communities. On the other hand there are the oil companies of Canada which tend to be dominated by foreign transnational companies.
It is interesting to note that while the Government is busy providing as much as a few billion dollars each year to the foreign multinational oil companies, the programs which have assisted ordinary Canadians and small businesses in the communities of Canada, namely the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program, are being terminated. Those programs were costing a few dollars a year and now the Government is going to tell those people that there is nothing for them any longer. However, the Govern-
March 18, 1985

ment will continue with all its grants for the multinationals and it is going to allow them to raise the price of oil in Canada to world prices at the end of the month.
This is a real bonanza for companies such as Imperial Oil. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), has calculated what windfall profits will accrue to companies such as Imperial Oil. Hundreds of millions of dollars will accrue each year as a result of this policy of the Government. Whose side is the Government on? Is it on the side of small Canadian businesses which are involved in providing insulation and the necessary skills and equipment to move off oil? No, it is not on the side of that group, Mr. Speaker. The large multinational oil companies will be receiving benefits from the Government. That is my first point, and as my friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), says, it is a good point which must be made.
We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that some communities are still in the process of receiving natural gas services. By coincidence my constituency happens to be one of those areas. In the last number of months the Inland Natural Gas Company of British Columbia, with some support from the federal and provincial Governments, has been extending services into seven communities in my constituency for the first time. Unfortunately, the thousands of families in these areas will not be able to take advantage of this program because they happen to be out of step with it.
That is why I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) put forward the suggestion that we should hold this legislation off for a number of months. Rather than terminate this support by March 31, it could be continued to at least the end of September so that people in communities throughout Canada can have access to this particular opportunity. It is a very reasoned amendment and if the Government believes in fairness and equity in the country, it should consider this six-month extension to give families in areas like Shuswap, in British Columbia, and Brant, in Ontario, a chance to use these programs. However, they will be cut off at the knees as a result of this very cold and callous decision by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) of this new Conservative Government.
This legislation also causes me some concern about our commitment to conservation. Canadians should be encouraged to become more concerned about conservation. The programs under this legislation were meant to give low and middle-income Canadians an incentive that would enable them to move off their dependency on the non-renewable resource of oil, which is becoming increasingly expensive.
The Government is not interested in encouraging conservation. It is more interested in assisting the multinational oil companies by allowing the price of oil to increase to the world price while providing no encouragement for average Canadians who want to be relieved from their dependency on this expensive form of energy. We should recognize that this legislation
Oil Substitution Act
represents a regressive step because these programs have been recognized world-wide as a very progressive granting system that allowed ordinary Canadians to move off this dependency on oil energy.
The Government has indicated that it does not want to encourage conservation. Rather than assist Canadian-owned small businesses that participated in these programs, it would rather assist the multinationals. Such action would make ordinary Canadians question the Government's commitment to small businesses in Canada and to middle and low-income Canadians. It indicates very clearly that the support that the new Government gives is to the large multinational and transnational oil companies.
During the short life of these programs Canada saved approximately 42,000 barrels of oil per day. We have saved 15 million barrels of oil a year because Canadians have moved from their dependency on oil for home heating by using these programs. Yet they will be discontinued.
To date, nearly one million units have been converted across Canada. This is one Government program that has been a real success and has met with support from the people of Canada. The Government has eliminated a program that has been working, moved us from our dependency on oil and has assisted us to become more self-sufficient in oil production. It says now that this program is no longer required.
The Government's introduction of this legislation is a disgrace. Therefore I am pleased to be associated with my friend and colleague, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who has made the point that this legislation should be given a six-month hoist so that people who want to take advantage of these programs will have another six months to do so. In addition, perhaps it will give the Government time to come to its senses and see that this is a very regressive piece of legislation.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) to whom I must respond said that if the back-benchers on the Government side had their way they would probably be agreeing with him and voting against this legislation. Sir, nothing could be further from the truth.


Mr. Penner:: Lost your idealism?


Dave Nickerson: The impetus for bringing in legislation such as this comes from Members on this side. How many times has the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) made the very recommendation that these two programs, the Oil Substitution and Conservation Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program, be dismissed? The intention of the former Liberal Government was to let the program go on until the end of 1990. What this Bill would do is advance that date until the end of this fiscal year. What we have is a difference of timing. The Liberals would not let the thing expire anyway. Now they get all excited about it and say this is the worst

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
thing that ever happened to Canadians who have to heat their homes.
It is a great pleasure for me to be able to stand here today and say that I am 100 per cent fully in support of this legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: When it comes to the expenditure of very limited amounts of public moneys which this Government has available to it, our stated case is that we want that money to go where it can benefit the people who are most in need.


Don Boudria: Buy limousines. That is what you want to do.


Dave Nickerson: The people most in need are not the ones who are taking advantage of programs such as the ones we are doing away with today. The people who are taking maximum advantage of these two programs are the people who are reasonably well off in Canadian society.


Mr. Waddell:: Not so.


Dave Nickerson: They are the people who have nice houses. It is good for them to be able to save a few dollars at taxpayers' expense. The people who really need assistance have not been taking advantage of these programs. It is the reasonably well off Canadians who have done so. It is our view on this side of the House that Canadians are responsible people.
It is not necessary for the Government, by means of programs such as this, to direct that people spend money in certain areas and not in others. We think that Canadians should be taxed as lightly as possible and that the maximum amount of funds be left in their pockets. We believe Canadians should make the decision as to how they want to spend those funds.
What the Liberals have been doing is what the NDP would undoubtedly do even more were that Party in power-but that is never likely to happen. They might, of course, come back as the Official Opposition a few years from now; that is a distinct possibility.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: A very real possibility.


Dave Nickerson: Yes, the way the Liberals are acting is making it more and more a distinct possibility every day. The Liberals have been taking money out of people's pockets by way of high taxation and then giving it back to them in dribs and drabs in programs such as these. Canadians, however, have refuted that attitude. They said that they have had enough of that and that they want to make their own decisions. Canadians want to decide whether to spend their money on new furnaces, to drink it away in a bar, or to invest it in something. That is the people's decision, not the Government's decision to make. When Canadians were given the choice on September 4, they voted to make their own decisions.


Don Boudria: They voted for the promises and you broke them.


Dave Nickerson: In programs such as the ones before us where the Government has to deal with thousands and thousands of individuals and all kinds of different contractors, administration is extremely difficult. We have to hire more and more people, put them into the Government's employ, and then they make the decision whether Fred Smith or Bill Jones will get this money.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is called job creation.


Dave Nickerson: I do not think that is the way we should go about this. We should try and keep the Public Service to a minimum. We should not have to hire more and more people for very complicated systems of administration nor give these people the authority to say whether one person gets a grant and somebody else does not.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If you did not give a grant to the Northwest Territories, it would disappear.


Dave Nickerson: When Government has programs or legislation in effect, they should be easy to administer. A program should be something in black and white where one knows whether a person is eligible or not. It should not be necessary to have someone in the employ of the Government to make that decision for you.
It was part of the Liberal practice to try, wherever possible, to give out cheques to individuals regardless of the general expense. They took money out of the pockets of people and then gave it back to them in some form or another. Because of complicated administration, they got back maybe 60 cents on the dollar. By giving people these cheques, the Liberals were trying to buy votes. That was the idea behind this type of program. It was not to encourage oil conservation or all the great reasons which were given at the time. It was very simple: it was political. Somebody would have a $500 cheque from the Government and would say: "what great guys are these Liberals; we will vote for them". That was the idea but it did not work.
In my opinion the time is right for getting rid of these programs and others like them. We do not need to put it off for six months as is sought in the motion. The time for decision is now, and I hope we can vote on it in the very near future.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have read very carefully the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing this Bill. I have also listened carefully to the interventions of Government Members when I have been in the House. While they have made some persuasive arguments, I remain unconvinced that this Bill is at all wise.
The Bill proposes to eliminate two energy grant programs. COSP, which was introduced in 1977 to wind up on December 31, 1990, is being cut off from March 31, except for those who signed contracts before November 8. They will have up to June 30 to complete conversions. The second program, CHIP, which was introduced in 1977 to wind up at the end of 1987, is
March 18, 1985

being cut off in 1986. In both cases I have the criticism that Canadians are being deprived of predictability and order, in that programs which they had reasonably expected to continue are being cut off.
However, the deadline in CHIP is a little more reasonable. The deadline for COSP is totally impractical. A winter-time deadline makes no sense. Gas companies cannot instal lines in frozen ground. At this time of the year, furnace suppliers are not making furnaces; they are making air-conditioners for summer. The program is needed, as evidenced by the fact that after the November 8 announcement there was a rush of applications. Consumers' Gas has been swamped and cannot possibly meet the requests by March 31. While I disagree with the intent of the Bill, a six-month deadline would at least make it slightly less objectionable and more practical.
Since 1980, over 425,000 Canadians have received grants to convert from oil to an alternative form of home heating. This has resulted in a reduction of some 10 million barrels of oil consumption each year. CHIP was also well used by Canadians. In 1983 alone, according to the figures of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the program produced a $500 million reduction in home heating costs. Contrary to what has been said by the Hon. Member who just spoke, this has not been a program predominantly used by the affluent. In fact, a very substantial number of people who used the program have had family incomes as low as $15,000 per year. It was a program which encouraged Canadians to invest in the future by conservation. It was also a program which enabled low and middle-income Canadians to reduce their fuel bills, thus leaving them more disposable income. Also the program was used by a number of small businesses and small contractors. In the present climate of restraint, it is not easy to see how the opportunities for employment that were thus created can be replaced.
In the November 8 economic statement not only were these two programs axed, most of the programs for renewable energy also became casualties of restraint. Generally I find this to be a short-sighted approach. It takes about 50 years to research, develop, test and implement an alternative energy structure, yet the Government is eliminating the entire Energy Division at the National Research Council; that is, 61 person-years, two-thirds being professional.
The total cuts in the area of energy research and development amount to over $600 million, and $34.6 million of this is being cut from the National Research Council. Before the cuts Canada was recognized as a leader in several areas of alternative energy development and opportunities for export were emerging. The cuts have jeopardized all this. Also sold short are the developing and least developed countries which might have been beneficiaries of Canadian research and development in alternative energy sources, such as vertical access wind turbines. We all know that part of the reason for the crushing debt loads of developing countries, a situation which also represents risks to our whole economic structure, is their energy payments.
Oil Substitution Act
Our own conventional crude oil reserves are finite. In the United States and Venezuela, conventional crude oil reserves have passed their peak. Even in the North Sea and the Soviet Union an end can be foreseen. The Government's cuts in alternative energy and its cancellation of programs encouraging conservation and off-oil conversion appear to be very short-sighted indeed.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to spend a few moments this morning talking about Bill C-24. We are now at the stage where we have moved to delay the passage of the Bill so that there can be six more months to consider the proposal.
The proposal is to cut COSP as well as CHIP. Both these programs are to die at the end of March, 1985. These announcements were made in the November 8, 1984 economic statement. No applicants, that is those who did not have contracts in progress prior to the economic statement, have been considered over the winter.
I should like to review the beginnings of the program, from where it came and why it was put into place. We are about half-way through a long-term program to upgrade housing and insulation through a retrofitting program on houses built prior to 1980. We are also attempting to wean Canadian home owners off so much dependency on Canadian fuel oil. The reason is that we are importing oil to heat houses, particularly in the Maritimes, Ontario and Quebec. This has been very high-cost oil. The idea was to reduce the requirement for oil by improving the insulation quality of the homes and, second, to switch from oil to heating fuels that are more likely to be available in the long term in Canada. The Government was trying to have people switch to natural gas, which is presumed to be in abundance for the next 25 or 30 years, wood or electricity. Very much of our electricity, in eastern Canada at least, comes from water power which we assume will be there for quite a long time.
[DOT] (U40)
The basic over-all reasons for the program appeared to make sense. In fact, they made so much sense that this part of the notorious National Energy Program was supported by the then opposition Conservatives, now the Government, as well as by this Party. All Parties supported this part of the National Energy Program. It was supported without reservation. The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) thought the program should go somewhat further than it did at the time it was being debated. However, there was no indication during the debate on the original motion to create the COSP or CHIP programs that the Conservative Party would hack it or stop the programs in mid-stream.
The programs have met their objectives thus far. They were to have continued until 1990. Both programs have got literally half-way through the objectives, even though half of the time has not elapsed in both cases. We have succeeded in creating jobs with this series of programs. To date under the COSP program, there have been some 50,000 person-years of employment created, all in the private sector; and as my friend

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) pointed out, all among the small-business sector of the country. The CHIP program, the insulation program, to date has created some 44,150 person-years of employment, again among very small businesses and contractors. The expectation was that the oil substitution program would have created, had it been allowed to run until 1990, some 59,000 person-years of employment, which would be even more than has been created thus far. The insulation program is estimated to have still another 30,000 person-years of employment that could be created had that program been continued.
What seems to have been the problem with the program? I do not think Canadians had any problem. The Government now seems to have a problem with the program. It has not explained to my satisfaction what is wrong with the general thesis that was followed in the program; that is, to wean people off dependence on oil. What is wrong with reducing the volume of oil used to heat houses?
We have had some good success. For example, as a result of the insulation program, just half-way through the program we have saved some 23,000 barrels of oil per day in this country. Put another way, that is enough to heat 360,000 Canadian homes for one more year. That could have been doubled had the program been allowed to run the full course of its term, yet the Government decided that is not good use of Canadian money.
This program has been used by people in the lower income group. Contrary to what some Government Members have said, their own Department of Energy pointed out in its study that the insulation program has constituted 43 per cent of all retrofitting work in the market-place. Sixty-five per cent of the insulation activities would not have occurred had it not been for CHIP.
Two-thirds of the people who did insulate their homes could not have afforded it or would not have had an incentive to do the insulation without the CHIP program. As well, it was found during the survey that the other one-third, or 37 per cent of CHIP users, would not have done any insulation at all had it not been for the program. They could not have seen their way clear to do the insulation without the assistance of the dollar for dollar matching up to a maximum of $800.
The program has been doing its job among the targeted group of Canadians. It has been reducing fuel bills for those Canadians who have thus far been able to take part in the program. It has reduced the total output of Canadian dollars to buy foreign oil, particularly that imported on the east side of the country. Therefore, the program has been doing its job. It is very hard for us to understand why, in spite of all these clear indications of success, the Government would so ruthlessly and so quickly cut out the program.
There are many areas of the country where natural gas is just now becoming available. The installation of the lines are now going in or will be going in over the course of the next year or two. We have been told by the industry that there is a surplus, relatively speaking, of natural gas compared to oil and
that it makes good sense for Canadians to switch from one to the other.
Given the promise or intention of the Government to move to something called world prices, and we are not sure what that means, and given the fact that world prices seem to be hovering or perhaps falling, where is the incentive for people to move off oil on to gas? The feeling of a lot of people is that, given that the old furnace still works, why switch when oil prices might be coming down? Gas prices seem to be going up a little bit. These people are not too sure that the switch-over will make sense. Many will still continue on. In fact, I believe we would continue to have the kind of participation we have had in the past if the program were to continue its full term to the end of 1990. Those communities now having the gas available to them would find most of their residents switching from their current oil furnaces to natural gas. The over-all intention for the program would be completed. Canada would have become less dependent on imported oil.
The switch-over to the use of natural gas as well as the use of electricity and wood sources would result in Canadians being better off. Taxpayers would be better off because we would not be subsidizing the importation of oil. It would make good sense to use taxpayers' money to work at conserving the amount of energy we use. Instead, the Government has chosen another route, which we do not think will work.
We believe it makes good sense to spend the next six months reviewing the program. It would give the Minister and his officials time to review the data that they have before them. They could act on that in a good scientific way. The data tells them they should continue the program. This House thinks it should as well.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with those Members who have already spoken in saying that Bill C-24 which we are debating, which cancels two good Government programs, is regrettable in the extreme. The Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program were two programs which were effective and necessary.
Many Members from all Parties have in a variety of ways praised those two programs. We have been told that together the two programs have conserved 60,000 barrels of oil a day. That is no small accomplishment. We have also been told that as a result of COSP other forms of energy have been conserved. Canadians have been encouraged to use alternate sources of energy. That is something about which we talked for many years and now it is being done. Those two programs created jobs, and were used by all income groups. In fact, one-quarter of the family groupings which used the two programs were low-income families. Those families used the programs for a very good reason; they had to do something to cut the big heating bills which were imposed upon them because they used oil. Of course, other income groups took advantage of the program, but we should not forget that the grants for both of the programs were taxable and that the
March 18, 1985

Government recovered 30 per cent to 50 per cent of the money. At the same time those grants performed a very useful undertaking for society. The Government does not have a fair, just and equitable anti-deficit policy. It is going to spend $105 billion this year. Canada will have the largest deficit which has ever been incurred in its history. The Government does not have an anti-deficit policy. If it had one, surely these two programs would be allowed to continue until their original expiry dates-1990, in the case of COSP, and 1987 in the case of CHIP. The cancellation of these two programs and the cutting of other programs, such as the regional development programs and programs in the Canadian Wildlife Service, is not for the purpose of reducing the deficit. Rather, the moneys are being gathered and redirected, diverted or siphoned to other areas which the Government feels have higher priorities. After several months it is becoming clear that the Government's priorities do not lie with programs for the people or the environment.
During the election campaign hundreds of promises were put forward by the Conservative Party. Most of those promises have already been forgotten and others have been disavowed. Some have been reinterpreted and many have been postponed indefinitely. It is no wonder. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said during the election campaign, $20 billion was just too rich for our blood.
However, there is one promise to which the Government adhered, and that is the promise that it was going to cosy up to the United States administration. The Government has done that. We have lost FIRA, and programs for the people, the environment and regional development have been either discontinued or reduced. Why? Certainly, so that more money will be available. Money will come from the cut-backs in these programs, plus the money which the Government will borrow, and it will be directed toward defence expenditures.
A recent article in The Financial Post, dated March 16, indicated:
The Department of National Defence is quickly emerging as a major force in Ottawa and a spender that will create problems in a Government pledged to bring the deficit under control.
In cosying up to the U.S. administration, Canada as a country has decided that it too has to pack bigger and better guns on its hips. Defence issues are now in the forefront of the Government's policy-making decisions. The Government has no anti-deficit policy, but it clearly has a pro-military policy. I think Canadians should wake up and realize that we cannot afford to be like the big guys on the block. It is silly for us to strut around as if we were a big power in world affairs-all colour co-ordinated too!


John Horton McDermid: What's that got to do with Bill C-24?


B. Keith Penner: It has everything to do with Bill C-24, because some of the money will come from the termination of these programs. There are other more important national goals, objectives and priorities. I would remind the House that the decision to terminate COSP and CHIP is foolish and wrongheaded. I would like to illustrate why.
Oil Substitution Act
The Government continues to spend money to encourage the expansion of natural gas distribution systems. The Government has not yet decided to cancel that program, although we may hear more about that in the future. Citizens have responded very favourably to the possibility of tying into the new gas-line systems. Quite rightly, Canadians thought they had until 1990 to make a decision as to whether they would or would not do so. However, now the deadline is March 31, with a small extension to the end of June for people who applied before the end of November.
I am speaking about this today because that deadline and the extension discriminates against the people I represent. My constituents in northern Ontario will not have the opportunity to hook up to the new gas-line systems which are now under construction. Gas companies stopped accepting applications for hook-ups last December because they knew that it was impossible to break frost-covered ground during the winter or early spring. There will not be enough time for my constituents and other people in northern Ontario to take advantage of this last-minute opportunity by the end of June.
I am quite certain that Conservative Members from northern Ontario-the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher), the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais), and the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Mac-Dougall)-must be raising their voices in strong protest in the Government caucus. They must be saying that it is unfair to northern Ontario. They must believe that COSP must be extended and that it should continue until 1990. At least, they should be saying that the program should not be terminated in June, because it is not fair. I am sure those three Tory Members are saying that, unless the Government yields and makes amendments to Bill C-24, they will join with the Liberals and the New Democrats and vote against the legislation.
The one Member who will have a problem will be the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie, as he is a member of the Cabinet. Of course, the only choice which he has is to resign. That man told us during the election campaign that he would put northern Ontario far ahead of government decisions which would impinge negatively on that region.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He said that?


B. Keith Penner: He sure did. He said that he would represent the people of northern Ontario and that he would not let them down. The Hon. Members for Timmins-Chapleau and Timiskaming also said that. Now is the chance for them to show their true colours. Will they represent the region, or will they toe the line, take their orders and vote blindly against the region which elected them?
This Bill must be defeated. Bill C-24 is unacceptable. I do not think it can be improved in committee. I agree with the former speaker, as I too believe that the Government should take a fresh look at this legislation. The Government should listen to the three Tory Members from northern Ontario. They should support us today in hoisting the Bill for six months. These men should have an opportunity to bring the Govern-

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
ment to its senses. At the end of that six-month period, I am sure the Government will admit that it made a mistake, that Bill C-24 is not a good idea and that it will provide better legislation.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to oppose Bill C-24 and to ask for a six-month hoist. I believe it makes no sense to deal with this Bill in the middle of winter when the program cannot be used by many northerners and people who cannot connect their gas lines in this type of weather.
The principle of the Bill also makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand why the Conservative Government wants to cut back on two very important programs, the Canada Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. I might add that I believe the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, which is also being cut back, really should be considered in the same category.
Why does the Government want to cut grants which are very beneficial to low and middle-income home owners? I would think that probably the majority of homes in western and northern Canada are much older homes and have greater insulation problems. Why does the Government want to cut back on grants for these types of homes, turning against the whole philosophy of grants, and in turn give such large amounts to the oil companies either through direct grants or tax write-offs through the PIP program?
My colleague, our energy critic, tells me that $1.6 billion is being given away to oil companies this year, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand why a Conservative Government, which says that it does not want give-aways or grants, would give that amount of money to the oil companies when it is taking $250 million away from both the Home Insulation Program and the Oil Substitution Program. Approximately $125 million is being cut from each of those programs this year. That really does not make any sense from the point of view of logic. It, of course, makes a great deal of sense from the point of view of the dogma and political philosophy of the Progressive Conservative Party.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are many reasons why these programs are important and a good investment. They really do not cost a lot, they improve homes, and they do stimulate small business. First, consumers will save on their heating costs and for many families who are in older homes this is quite an important item. It is of particular importance to senior citizens whose taxes are increasing and whose fuel costs are really going up, not to mention food costs. It is important to save on heating costs from the point of view of the consumer, particularly consumers who do not have a lot of money and could not insulate their homes without help. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, these programs also mean a great deal to northerners and people who do not have insulated homes, being perhaps the older homes in the east.
I cannot understand why the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) would support this Bill. Surely in the interests of his constituents he would oppose this Bill and would strongly support the kinds of programs which would help the people of his riding insulate their homes. Why is he supporting a program which is going to be imposed in the middle of winter when his own constituents cannot make use of it? Those who did not get in on the program previously would have had no chance to get in during the winter months. That is one of the reasons we believe a six-month hoist is very important.
As my colleague has also mentioned, there is the whole matter of energy conservation. That was the main reason, of course, that the Liberals brought these programs into existence in the first place. The speaker from the Liberal Party who just spoke a few moments ago said that 60,000 barrels of oil per day are saved through these programs. I agree with him that that is a significant saving. I spend part of my time on one of the Gulf Islands just off the mainland of British Columbia. Many people there are now heating with wood. Some people are experimenting with solar heating. There are many improved methods of heating now which make it very sensible to look at alternate energy sources. I think these kinds of grants to home owners make a great deal of sense, coupled with research and development.
The third point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this program helps to improve our housing stock. The RRAP program, which the Conservative Government is now cutting back-about which the municipalities are very concerned-is another program that made a great deal of sense. It was used to improve older housing stock, to insulate and improve the quality of housing. It also enabled some people to subdivide their homes. In some communities where there is a tight housing problem many older people who have large homes are "over-housed", as CMHC refers to it. Through some of these programs it is possible to subdivide so they could perhaps have separate accommodations or in-law suites which would help to house more people. But they have to have some help in conversions and insulation. The CHIP and COSP programs were certainly valid programs from their point of view.
These programs are labour-intensive programs. They create and maintain jobs. In British Columbia we heard last week that 60 per cent or 70 per cent of construction workers are out of work. This is not only because there is a slack period in construction but also because of high technology being brought in. There are new methods of construction being used in large apartment buildings and major construction projects. We were told that in one high-rise development in downtown Vancouver which is using prefabricated methods-the walls are brought in and put up by cranes-they are now in the second stage of high technology and have reduced the number of carpenters needed to just three carpenters per high-rise. There is no question that many of these large projects are not using our skilled carpenters. Therefore, the smaller projects, home insulation and conversions to other heating methods, as well as the
March 18, 1985

RRAP program to rehabilitate older housing, are very sensible from a job and labour intensive point of view.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) mentioned the importance of these programs to small businesses. I would have thought the Tories would have been concerned about small business. They certainly say they are. But when it comes right down to it, they are willing to whack the small businesses in local communities who are providing the kinds of services which home owners need through these two programs. They are not willing to whack the big businesses, the large oil companies and the grants they receive from the National Energy Program.
I think those are my main remarks at this point, Mr. Speaker. These two programs save on heating costs for consumers, they conserve energy and will help to improve our older housing stock. They create jobs, are labour intensive and are supports for small businesses, many of which are close to bankruptcy. We do not feel that this Bill should go forward. We want to have a delay of at least six months, because even if the Hon. Member for Western Arctic does not, we feel some concern for the people in the northern communities who have not had a chance to maximize their use of this program. We also have serious concerns about the economic, social and conservational values of these programs and what would be the result of cutting back on them altogether. We do ask for a six-month delay with the option to go ahead and continue these programs.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join other Hon. Members in asking the Government to postpone consideration of this Bill for at least six months. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have already had an opportunity to speak to this subject, and I said that up to now, all Government spokesmen had agreed these programs were good programs and had been truly beneficial to Canadians.
I had an opportunity of speaking once on this Bill and I am happy to be able to join with other Members who have called on the Government to accept at least a six-month delay in the implementation of this cut. The record is clear. We have heard Members from all sides of the House, including the Government side, state time and again that these programs have helped considerably in the conservation of energy. It is clear that in the first few years of this program the reduction in energy consumption by Canadians has been dramatic, but we know that we still have a long way to go. In fact, we are among the highest consumers of energy in the world.
The particular concern met by this program was the use of non-renewable energy resources. We have to get off oil if we are to utilize Canada's renewable energy resources. However, at the same time as Government Members stood in the House to say what a great program this was and how it helped Canadians of all income levels but particularly those of lesser
Oil Substitution Act
means to develop conservation in their own homes, the Government insists on cutting it off.
There is one fallacy I would like to address which I think has muddied the waters regarding the Government's participation in this debate. Member after Member on the Government side has stood to say that this program was utilized only by wealthy Canadians. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding of Hamilton East, which happens to be the most industrialized riding in Canada, the average wage is well below what you would consider upper class living in Canada. I represent working people who, in many cases, are struggling to make ends meet. You know that primary industries like steel have been particularly hard hit in the last few years, and many of the workers in my riding were able to take advantage of the financial incentive of these programs to get off oil. So I ask those Government Members who claim that this was a program for the rich to table the figures because they will show that communities which are not seen to be rich communities, like certain remote areas of Newfoundland, were effective users of the program. People in ridings like Hamilton East were able to get a boost of, in some cases, up to $800 to assist them to get off the non-renewable oil which has been a bane in the world market-place since the mid-1970s. Unfortunately, at the same time the Government is cutting the program off.
What have we seen in its place? We have not seen an over-all global approach to Conservative energy policy. In fact, this legislation is typical of the Government's non-governing approach since September 4. No one would argue that the Conservatives have been given a massive mandate to govern and make tough decisions. But the tough decisions do not involve moving in piecemeal on programs like COSP without offering a panoramic vision of what we want to do to encourage Canadian-based renewable energy resource consumption. In fact, it has been a shooting gallery approach to economic reform. I feel like I am watching the ducks fall one by one and at the same time there is nothing coming up to replace them. Therefore, I would ask the Government to look at a six-month delay of this measure so that it can come back to the House with an over-all strategy for renewable energy consumption and conservation for all Canadians.
I know that Members on the Government side must get tired of hearing their own words thrown back at them, but I refer to the hundreds of promises made by the Conservatives during the election campaign in which they made energy a top priority. There were 39 promises made to the Canadian people dealing with everything from a kind of nirvana-like panacea that they would achieve with the Province of Alberta-and we have seen where that has gone-to support for the development of renewable energy sources for Canadian home owners. But as soon as they were elected we saw that the promises they made to get that little "X" on the ballot meant very little and they are now prepared to cut the very program which they said was of such help to middle and lower-income Canadians.
I frankly cannot help but support the statements made by my colleague from Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) when he said that this Bill discriminates against people in the north,

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
including northern Ontario. I must warn this Government that, notwithstanding its cozy relationship with the provincial Conservatives, we are probably going to be in a provincial election campaign in the very near future and the people of northern Ontario are going to be watching this Government to see what kind of message it is sending out concerning support for the north. The verbiage is fine, the appointment of northern Ministers is fine; but when you look at the bread and butter issues like the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, you see that the Government is clearly discriminating against residents of northern Ontario.
I know the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior spent the weekend travelling through the north with Ontario Party Leader David Peterson, and anyone who has travelled through the north will be able to tell this Chamber that the people of northern Ontario recognize the discrimination which exists in Bills like this one. It is fine for Members from Toronto to say: "No problem; we can meet the March deadline and get the installations done before the end of June". But if you live in an area where there is frost up until late April or early May, those kinds of installations are going to be almost impossible. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that of the 211 Government Members, there are many who must occupy themselves with constituency matters because they do not have responsibilities as Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries. I would think that at least these Members would be lobbying the Minister for an extension, if not a hoist of the Bill for six months, to allow those people living in northern communities to take advantage of the installation process. They could suggest to the Government that the northern portions of the country be allowed installations well into the summer. That would be of down to earth and practical assistance for Canadians. It would not be an esoteric attempt to obfuscate the fact that this Government is afraid to lead.
This Government has not said to the people it would table a plan for energy. It has not said it would table an agreement with Alberta. It has not come through with the hard decisions with respect to energy pricing and federal-provincial accords. Frankly, what this Government has introduced is a cheap attempt to tell the Canadian people that it is cutting back when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is swelling his own coffers and increasing his own staff by 54 per cent.
The Prime Minister and the Government are saying to the Canadian people that they are going to cut off the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, one of the few programs which the Conservatives still have in place to assist working Canadians and people who are trying to own their own homes. Anyone who has considered the increasing mortgage rates and the recent move of CMHC to double the cost of mortgage guarantees will know that the Government has already added at least a $3,000 burden on the average new home buyer across Canada. The people of Canada expect and want more from the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy).


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Opposition are complaining because the Government is cutting a program here or there. They should ask themselves why the Government is cutting those programs. We have been in government for only six months and we inherited a deficit of $35 billion this year. We have to put the house in order; it is as simple as that. We cannot continue spending and spending. There is a time when we must put the house in order and start governing.
In this country we have had programs for industry and for home owners, but these programs have not contributed to the economic growth of the country. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) why she believes we should continue spending rather than studying the real problems of deficit reduction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn).


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member who was just on his feet thought we had a question period, but we are on short 10-minute speeches and do not. I would like to make a very brief intervention with respect to this Bill.
At the outset I would like to say how much I regret that the Government wants to get rid of the CHIP and COSP programs, both of which were extremely popular and effective. Shortly after the CHIP program was introduced I was in Washington with the acid rain sub-committee. Our American counterparts thought that it was such a wonderful program that they were going to make an effort to bring in a similar program in the United States. It was a very innovative program, as was COSP. Both of these programs directly benefited individuals. In the House we often talk about the little guy or the ordinary Canadian. These programs were targeted to ordinary Canadians and once again the Conservatives are ignoring ordinary Canadians by withdrawing both of these programs.
A few moments ago it was asked how we can continue to spend money and give grants. I agree that there is a very high deficit in the country of some $35 billion. It is not quite correct to say that it is entirely the fault of the previous Government. Nonetheless, we have a very high budgetary deficit, as does the United States. That ultra conservative country to the south of us has the biggest deficit in its history and it is growing at a rate five times faster than ours. That is primarily the result of grants, expenditures, or tax breaks to the arms industry. Where are the moral standards of the Government? The Government is cutting off grant programs to ordinary Canadians which help them heat their homes more efficiently and at less cost. Its great Republican buddies to the south have racked up an almost $200 billion deficit, most of which is spent
March 18, 1985

on armaments. Who is right and who is wrong on this matter in a moral sense?
It is quite right to say that the CHIP and COSP programs cost the Government money in the short run. However, I am convinced that we are going to save money in the long run through job creation, more people working, more people paying taxes, lower fuel bills and lower costs of operating a home or small rental accommodations such as triplexes, duplexes and fourplexes. We are going to be less dependent on oil which is not a renewable source of energy. We have an abundance of natural gas and electricity in certain parts of the country. In my opinion terminating the COSP and CHIP programs is a backward step.
Many speakers this morning have addressed the deadline. I know that the fiscal year ends at the end of March. It is very strange that in this computerized age we cannot legally balance the Government's books by giving extensions of one, two, or three months. On March 31 there is still frost under most of Canada. It is unfair to try to force gas companies to switch over residential heating at this time of the year. It is inappropriate and unfair to the consumer.
I urgently request the Government to give a six-month extension, at least until September. In the summer time we can wait for our furnaces to be converted. In March that is virtually impossible on about 95 per cent of the land mass of Canada. I suppose in Windsor or along the north shore of Lake Erie the conversion can be made right now. However, in my riding of Brant, which is one of the most southern ridings in Canada and is only a few miles from Lake Erie, Union Gas has made the statement that there is no way it can fill all of the orders by the deadline. A lot of people are going to suffer as a result of this ridiculous deadline.
There are two or three points which I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker. The CHIP and COSP programs were excellent. Why defeat excellent programs? There are a lot of grant programs in the country which should be done away with, such as the huge tax concessions to the oil companies. We can get rid of those, but why hurt the ordinary Canadian householder who is trying to cut back on his overhead costs? Why not wait for a few months or a few years? Both of these programs are essential. They are economic in the long term. They will save the country untold amounts of money in the long term. It is a worth-while investment for the Government of Canada to continue to be involved in.
I have not heard of any changes in the American counterparts to the CHIP and COSP programs. When these programs were introduced they were world leaders in terms of making us less dependent on oil than we were a few years ago. I am convinced that by creating more jobs through the conversion program there will be more people working and therefore paying taxes, which will help to make up in the long term for what the Government may be losing in the short term. Let us not be penny wise and pound foolish. That is really what it boils down to.
I urgently ask the Government to give at least a three-month extension until the end of June. That would allow people to
Oil Substitution Act
apply to the alternate energy companies to have the conversion done. I hope the Government will take these suggestions into consideration and make the appropriate changes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) has spoken on the amendment. There are no questions or comments on a 10-minute speech. Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order?


Alex Kindy: On a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make my own modest contribution to the debate on Bill C-24. First of all, I support a six-month postponement for this Bill because I think the Government would be ill-advised to terminate the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Oil Substitution Program before their expiry date.
We must not forget that the combined effect of these two programs is that Canadians are saving 60,000 barrels of oil daily, which is quite considerable, in addition to the benefits to individuals who may receive grants of up to $500 for home insulation and up to $800 for conversion of heating systems.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to go back in time to put these two programs in their proper context. Their history goes back to the 1973 energy crisis, when the oil-producing countries, and more specifically the members of OPEC, agreed unanimously to a drastic increase in the price of oil, a decision that had considerable repercussions internationally and resulted in a heavy outflow of capital from oil-consuming to oil-producing countries. Here in Canada, one of the most significant effects of the 1973 oil crisis was that we started to realize how limited our oil reserves actually were and that we could certainly not look forward to a future untroubled by concerns about our oil consumption. Besides making us realize that our oil reserves were not as abundant as we thought, the energy crisis also brought home to us how insecure our foreign oil supplies could be with the kind of changes that were taking place on the international oil market.
First of all, this decision by OPEC led countries to seek new sources of conventional oil that is, accelerate exploration. It also was instrumental in making countries look for alternative energy sources in order to lessen the impact of rising oil prices. Here in Canada, for instance, we had two megaprojects, and we tried to develop the oil sands. Today, however, because of downward fluctuating world oil prices, oil sands exploration projects that seemed promising have been put on hold. Because of lower oil prices, we are no longer certain that tapping these energy sources would be a viable undertaking. What would be

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
the most logical reaction of oil-consuming countries that are trying to protect themselves against foreign controlled price fluctuations? It was to reduce demand in order to reduce consumption and also, and especially, in order to force down the price of oil on the international market.
I remember attending meetings with representatives of the OECD countries in Paris two years ago, where I found that the industrialized countries, in other words, the biggest oil consumers, were trying to align projects in order to try and reduce their dependence on OPEC with respect to oil prices and oil supplies. Debate centred constantly on the strongest and most basic weapon to deal with the anarchy on the oil market, and it was to reduce demand. And that is what most industrialized countries have done, with a great deal of success. We must not forget that in Canada, among the programs that have made a vital contribution towards reducing consumption, we have had the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Program, in addition to new Canadian standards aimed at reducing the consumption of gas on our highways. This finally produced the degree of co-ordination we have among oil-consuming countries today, and, interestingly, resulted in the present situation where we are seeing a drop in world prices which was, of course, aided and abetted by the arrival on the market of large quantities of North Sea oil. Nevertheless, it is essential that in the years to come, all countries that are big oil consumers introduce policies aimed at controlling oil consumption.
It is unfortunate that this Government should now be trying to terminate these programs before the date on which they are due to expire. I think this is tantamount to abdicating an essential responsibility that all industrialized and oil-consuming countries should have to introduce measures to ensure that world oil consumption is reduced to minimum acceptable levels.
Terminating these programs prematurely will, of course, have other disadvantages. These programs had been very well received by all Canadian consumers. There has been an unending stream of applications for grants at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which dispenses the grants. Contractors have backlogs of home insulation jobs and home heating conversions for Canadians who want to convert from oil to gas or other forms of energy. All of this proves that the program has been a tremendous success, and at the same time, that Bill C-24 does not meet the expectations of Canadians. Canadians want these programs to continue, and that is the reason for that unending stream of applications to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding in downtown Montreal, where average incomes are far from high, where people live in homes that are often between 60 and 100 years old, which are poorly insulated and thus difficult to heat, so that heating bills are high and on top of that, people do not really have the money to pay those bills.
This program is very popular in my part of the country, because it saves people a lot of money. Mr. Speaker, there are old houses in the southern part of Montreal that are not insulated at all, because it was not customary to do so at the time they were built. Today, we find that by bringing these houses up to the insulation standards of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we are actually cutting heating bills in half. This is of considerable benefit to the people living in these old buildings, in other words, to the consumer.
Another thing-once these houses have been insulated with the help of Government grants, and once heating bills have been reduced, there is an increase in general comfort. These homes have become more comfortable to live in because they are warmer in the winter and better insulated and sealed.
The program has been very successful for the reasons I just mentioned, and Canadian users of the program have now realized that the program was necesssary. When Members go back to their ridings on the weekend, people ask them: Fight for this measure as much as you can. The Government must not terminate these programs now. They must be allowed to continue.
That is exactly why our Party is opposed to Bill C-24. We think it would be the wrong decision to make.
We must not forget that the consumer who receives a grant under these programs, who insulates his home or changes over his heating system so as no longer to be dependent on oil, is getting long-term protection-in fact, protection for the lifetime of his home-against rising oil prices. It is an insurance policy. People are aware of the security that insulation or conversion provides.
Mr. Speaker, I have more questions for this Government.
What are we going to do with the enormous gas reserves we have in the West and in the North? They are there. They guarantee us a secure supply of gas for future decades. Why should we not continue to encourage Canadians to convert their heating systems from oil to gas, since we know that as far as liquid oil is concerned, we are trying very hard to find new oil but are having tremendous problems? As for gas, our potential is tremendous, and we should keep on encouraging Canadians to convert to gas.
In the province I represent, we have an abundance of electric power. Why should we sell this power to the U.S. if we can consume it here, once we have converted our heating systems?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I think
March 18, 1985

the legislation before the House is important and deserves serious consideration.
The purpose of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, is to cut back on these programs and to move up the date on which the programs are terminated, therefore limiting the number of Canadians who can benefit from these programs.
In that context this legislation is a part of the cuts announced by the Government last November 8. It is part of the Government's over-all strategy of cuts in government spending. This strategy of cutting public spending is quite contrary to what the Conservatives said in the election campaign. I am reminded of the words of one of the leading Members of the Conservative Party whom I cannot mention by name in this Chamber, but I am sure the Member will know to whom I refer. To paraphrase the Member's words, he said something to the effect that "if we told you before the election what we were going to do when in office, you just would not vote for us". That is a paraphrase.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Is that the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)?


Cyril Keeper: I would have to ask the Speaker's direction as to whether I could name a particular Member. I am sure the Member knows who he is.


John Horton McDermid: Give him some credit then.


Cyril Keeper: I will not say whether it is the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie); I cannot say who it is.


John Horton McDermid: How do you know it is an accurate quote then?


Cyril Keeper: The Conservative Member who said that is not to be condemned for having said what he said because it was a display of honesty.


John Horton McDermid: Give us a hint. Is he in the House today?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: Certainly the Member is within earshot.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: The Member is to be congratulated for his honesty and for his forthrightness in having said what he said.


Herbert O. Sparrow: We are all honest.


Cyril Keeper: Unfortunately, that was not true of the Conservative campaign. In the campaign the Conservatives promised that they would not cut useful programs nor would they cut into worth-while public expenditures, but they would cut out waste in government spending. They said they would balance the books of the federal Government by cutting out unnecessary public expense. That is what was said during the election campaign. I think the Bill before us today needs to be
Oil Substitution Act
examined in that light. Does it meet the criteria set out by the Conservative Party during the election campaign when the Conservatives said that they would reduce the deficit by cutting out wasteful public spending?
The Canadian Oil Substitution and Conservation Program is a program that provides an incentive for people to change the heating system of their homes from oil to gas or to something else. The program has been effective. It has resulted in a large number of people converting their heating system from oil to gas. This program helped not only individuals who took up the challenge and responded to the incentive to substitute or move away from oil to something else, but it helped in the conservation of a non-renewable resource. Once oil reserves have gone, there is no way to replace them. Once a barrel is empty, there is no tap to turn on to fill it up again.
I consider COSP to be a worth-while use of public money. It is an incentive for people to have their homes heated in a way that will cost them less and an incentive to preserve and conserve a non-renewable resource. I would challenge any Member of the Government to stand up in the House and justify the cutting back of this program in terms of which the Government spoke in the election. I challenge any Member of the Government to stand up now and say that this program is a waste of public money.
I consider this a very useful program. I welcome some response on this point from the Government side. It would be refreshing to see some of these Government Members on their feet contributing their thoughts in this debate. I would like to hear them say why they feel this program that gives grants to citizens to convert from oil heating to gas is a waste of public money. If any Member on that side takes up the challenge, and I am sure there is some brave soul across the way, I would also like them to explain-


John Horton McDermid: There are 211 of us.


Cyril Keeper: A pretty silent 211. I would like to hear them explain how they can reject a program based on incentives. I would have thought the notion of incentives was fundamental to Conservative philosophy. From the speeches I have heard Conservatives make, incentive is a sacred mechanism for stimulating action in the economy. Both COSP and CHIP are incentive programs. They are meant to stimulate activity in the private sector, which happens as a result. These programs have been successful in stimulating activity in the insulation of homes and the conversion of homes from oil to gas heating. The actual conversion and insulation work takes place through the private sector. It is an important economic activity and it is based on the principle of incentive.
I would like to hear somebody from the Government side of the House tell us why he or she is rejecting the mechanism of incentive for promoting economic activity and conservation. Why do the Conservatives characterize the use of public dollars as incentives as a waste? I would like some explanation on that.
This cut-back in the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and Canadian Home Insulation Program is part of the general

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
strategy of cuts by the Government, cuts that have hit the arts very severely and cuts that have hit the CBC. I can think of two cuts in the CBC that are of concern to me. The program Identities is being taken off the CBC schedule. There is also a program called Our Native Land. Both of these programs contribute to the multicultural nature of Canada. Our Native Land is a program which helps to knit together the native community across the nation. I hope the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) would take the initiative he seems to have taken as it affected another program which was cut, The Friendly Giant. Obviously that was a worth-while program and deserved to be reinstated. I am glad the Government took some initiative in that regard.


Dave Nickerson: You can't say that with a straight face.


Cyril Keeper: Well, I have children and I understand that they deeply appreciate the program. If the CBC can reinstate The Friendly Giant, why can it not reinstate Our Native Land and Identities? Why can the Government not take the initiative to alert the CBC to the need for doing that? Why can it not also reinstate the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program? I challenge Hon. Members opposite to rise and justify the cutting of these programs.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put forward some of the viewpoints of my constituents, not only those in Sudbury but also those in the riding of Nickel Belt. I realize there is another Hon. Member in the House who represents those constituents as well, but evidently similar concerns have been expressed by those constituents with respect to the decision of the Government to eliminate COSP. There would be very few of us who would object to the Government reviewing expenditures which were previously announced by other Governments.
As other Members in the House have indicated, COSP was well accepted by Canadians. Primarily it was a result of the requirements in the latter part of the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s, at which time we in Canada recognized that oil, being a non-renewable resource, would at some point in the future require alternatives put forward by consumers and companies to give Canadians an option in terms of the energy they choose to heat their homes. As a result of rapidly increasing prices in the oil price formula adopted by Canada in the early 1980s, a number of Canadians decided to switch from the use of oil to heat their homes to some other form of energy.
In particular, in northern Ontario a large number of constituents in my riding opted to use natural gas as an alternative to oil. This led to a great demand in that area for an extension of the gas line. This demand was met by the Liberal Government of the day approximately a year ago when it announced substantial incentives to extend the natural gas line throughout northern Ontario. As a result, a number of communities in
northern Ontario anticipated the opportunity of switching from oil to natural gas.
Most Hon. Members of the House are aware that there is a difficult problem in northern Ontario in terms of weather, climatic conditions and the terrain. When the Government announced in the November 8 mini-statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that the conversion from oil to other products would be limited to March 31, 1985, it may not have caused as much a problem for constituents in other areas of the country who do not face the inhibiting factors of climate and terrain. The difficulty is that in late fall most of the construction process comes to a halt as a result of weather and frozen ground conditions. Therefore the deadline imposed by the Government is very difficult for people in northern Ontario who want to accommodate their desire to switch from oil to some other form of energy. Not only from the standpoint of people who wanted to switch from oil to another form of energy, but a number of Sudburians and other people in northern Ontario were interested in opting to use electricity as an alternate form of energy. As a result of the way in which the Government put forward its deadline of the spring of 1985, a great deal of difficulty is being experienced not only by the natural gas company but by hydro utilities in northern Ontario. They have not been able to keep up with the demand for the equipment required for the conversion process.
I have received numerous representations from companies and contractors which, in the rush to meet the deadline artificially imposed by the Government, have been unable to keep up with the demand. For example, there are back orders of some five to six months for propane gas tanks for people who want to go to propane rather than natural gas. The same problem is being experienced by the Sudbury Hydro Corporation in terms of getting the equipment required to convert from oil to electricity. In addition, many contractors have indicated to Members who represent constituencies in northern Ontario-and I am sure this is true for Hon. Members who represent people living in other northern parts of Canada- that with climate and terrain conditions it makes eminent sense for the Government to allow an extension of the phasing out. The concerns of constituents in northern Ontario as well as those in other parts of northern Canada should be taken into consideration because they have had experience with weather conditions and in terms of the ability of contractors to be able to accomplish the work. Frankly, the speed with which the Government acted in eliminating the conversion program has created many hardships for contractors and those people who wanted to take advantage of the grant to switch from oil to another form of energy. Consequently, they have been unable to proceed with their conversion.
For the benefit of Hon. Members who are present in the House, there is no question in my mind that the original intent of the Canadian Oil Conversion Program was successful. I believe the numbers show that some 60,000 barrels of oil per day have been saved as a result of conversion by a great number of Canadians from oil to another form of energy.
March 18, 1985

With respect to the energy program itself, I think most Canadians recognize that the one area in which there is an abundance of energy supply is that of natural gas. Mr. Speaker, in your great Province of Alberta, a fair degree of employment opportunity has been created by the increased demand for natural gas from that province into other areas of Canada. Only in the last year have lateral lines been made available to smaller communities in northern Ontario. Historically, when natural gas lines were extended, it was only through the major centres of northern Ontario.
This kind of change in program by the Government does not particularly damage the people in large centres in northern Ontario. A number of constituents living perhaps 20 to 25 miles away from the main line have over the years lobbied individual Members of Parliament to convince the Government to extend the lines to their smaller communities. This would have allowed those people to have the same amenities as those made available to constituents living in larger urban centres in northern Ontario.
The fact that the Government has asked for the program to be terminated is a valid use of the mandate given to it last September. However, I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would take into account the difficult terrain and the other things which I mentioned earlier concerning the lack of products needed for conversion to take place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before calling it one o'clock, the Hon. Member should know that he has a minute remaining as far as his speech is concerned. After three o'clock, if he wishes to use that one minute when Orders of the Day are called and the House resumes consideration of Bill C-24, he may do so.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, given the striking down by the Federal Court of Appeal of the Section of the Customs Tariff Act that has been used to prevent the importation of pornographic material into Canada, it is imperative that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and
the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty), guided by the Fraser Report, which should be made public, move quickly to bring in legislation for a legally clear applicable definition of obscenity. Immediate updating of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff Act is called for in order to give coherency in our laws, and control the entry and distribution of violent pornographic material.
This ruling underscores and substantiates claims by women's groups about the inefficacy of the law. They have long recommended revision and updating of the 117-year-old Customs Tariff Act, and time and again have pointed out to legislators that the wording of the Act is too vague in its definition of obscenity, that it provides inadequate protection to our society against the degradation and violence depicted and directed toward men, women, and children.
Under the present Act pornographic material falls under the classification of immoral and indecent publications, and with such a loose and imprecise definition to determine acceptable or objectionable material, it is no surprise that the court so ruled. Until we have action to change the laws, we have open, unprotected borders to this offensive material. The time for action is now.



ACID RAIN


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Since major holidays have octaves, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity yesterday to substitute for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Murta) as Irishmen celebrated St. Patrick's Day in Montreal.
I am pleased to report that the major topic of conversation in Montreal yesterday was the great pride felt by all Irishmen in Montreal with respect to the concrete measures taken by a well-known Irishman-our own Prime Minister-and another Irishman to widen the scope of proceedings, thus paving the way for finding a solution to the acid rain problem which is a threat to Quebecers.
In addition, I am pleased to say that I rejoice at the great progress made yesterday during the Quebec City meeting when another outstanding Canadian, Mr. Davis, was appointed special envoy.



TELEVISION


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) of changes in criteria for funding of independent television production from the Canadian Broadcast Project

March 18, 1985
Development Fund is welcome news only in the sense that it could have been worse. For the independent producers, whose work had dried up thanks to the CBC pulling out of the fund, the news means new contracts will be signed, work will go ahead, and they will stay in business instead of going bankrupt. But is this good enough? The decision shows the shortsightedness of the Government's cut-backs to the CBC last fall. Were it not for those cut-backs, the crisis in production would not have happened in the first place.
The Minister has used the opportunity to advance his own ideological agenda, an agenda never discussed in the election campaign, and contrary to Conservative promises made in the election campaign last summer. Government funding is moving away from the public sector, and government funding is moving away from the arm's length agencies. However, will there be any increase in good Canadian TV production? Unfortunately, that seems unlikely. The Minister has not put any more money into the pot.
Even with Telefilm Canada back in business now, with the ongoing CBC cut-backs over-all production will be down. The Minister's flying around the country in executive jets has not resulted in any cultural policies for our country that will fly. I suggest the Minister would be better advised, and our tax money better spent, if he would stay at home for a while-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.

[ Translation]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday, before leaving Washington to go to Quebec City, Mr. Reagan-the President of the United States- declared that there was no country that was more important to the United States than Canada, and that relations with Canada were better than ever. He went on to say that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) was an energetic and effective defender of Canadian interests and a firm friend of the United States.
Sunday, all Canadians could see for themselves, either on television or on the spot in Quebec City, how relaxed relations are now between Canada and the United States. The Canadian and international press commented that the conditions for restoring harmonious relations between our two countries are now in place and that Canada can already start reaping the benefits. Canadians are all proud of their Prime Minister and they congratulate him.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have been constantly attacking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for not keeping campaign promises to the Canadian people. Today I stand in this House to apologize. There is one promise that he made on May 24, 1983, and that he kept word for word, when he said:
There'll be jobs for Liberals and NDPs too after I have been Prime Minister for 15 years and I can't find a living, breathing Tory in the country.
On a daily basis since September 4 he has been appointing Tories, right, left, and centre, over a thousand of them. The criteria for appointments are simple: just be a Tory. Qualifications-who needs them?
The Prime Minister said he would appoint Liberals and NDPs after he was Prime Minister for 15 years. At the rate he's going now, he will run out of Tories in six months. The way he has been running the Government, I'm certain he realizes that he lacks the qualities needed to lead this country. He will not be around in 15 years, so he has to appoint them all in the first four years. Those are the only four years he will be in power.
The people of this country need jobs, jobs, jobs, not just jobs for Tories who are appointed by the Prime Minister.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House will recall the assembly of tall ships at the bicentennial celebrations in Quebec city last year. Regrettably, we had no Canadian tall ship of our own to participate. Thus it gives me great pleasure to advise the House about an exciting national project which is presently under way on the West Coast to correct this deficiency. A group of eminent Canadians from coast to coast has established the Pacific Tall Ship Association. This charitable, non-profit association, intends to build and operate Canada's first ocean going square rigger. The ship will be called the Spirit of Canada, and will primarily serve as a training vessel for young Canadians.
The proposed ship will be a steel hulled three-masted barque of approximately 130 feet, and will have the capacity to train 1,000 young Canadians annually. Fund raising is, of course, the major concern at this time since the group hopes to have the ship built and ready for Expo '86 in Vancouver. This project is widely supported by many Canadians. I, therefore, urge all Members of this House to support this very worthwhile project so that Canada's colours will be flown proudly wherever the Spirit of Canada travels on the high seas.
March 18, 1985



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 1984, Gordon Lyle Davidson, aged 28, was killed by a spill of wet material in a Cominco gold mine in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. This followed an earlier spill on March 17, 1984, that Cominco failed to report. There is now to be a full public inquiry into Davidson's death.
Yesterday the statute of limitations ran out on the earlier spill of March 17, 1984, but the Government failed to lay any prosecutions against Cominco. There is reason to believe that Cominco's failure to provide safeguards resulted in the tragic death. I believe that the statute of limitations should be extended to an inquiry into all circumstances of this case, including checking the actions of the Crown prosecutor and the Coroner's office. Cominco was allowed to escape prosecution, and many barriers were placed in the way of the union's lawyer. The buck passing in this case demonstrates a lack of concern over the rights of workers in the Northwest Territories.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this is a proud day for all Canadians as we witness and follow the summit meeting in Quebec City between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan.
Canadians have been deeply concerned about deteriorating relations in many areas with the United States over the last six to ten years. Canadians are anxious to have a positive and constructive relationship with our American neighbours. The summit meeting was a landmark start in rebuilding that relationship.
Acid rain and the environment are priorities for Canadians and the Government. The appointment of U.S. former Transportation Secretary, Drew Lewis, and former Ontario Premier, Bill Davis, as special envoys to resolve the issue of acid rain is applauded.
To quote the Prime Minister:
We have broken a three-year deadlock by agreeing to our common and shared responsibility to preserve our common environment.
Canadians are fortunate to have a Prime Minister who provides leadership, who resolves problems, and who is bringing a new direction to Canada. The Quebec summit is a splendid example of this leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
S.O.	21 FISHERIES



CANCELLATION OF FISHING VESSEL INSURANCE SCHEME

Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to request the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) to announce this week the reversal of the Government's decision to cancel the fishing vessel insurance scheme, which was announced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has only until the end of this week to make up his mind. Fishermen want to know whether this is the policy of the Government, or whether the Government will pay attention to the objections which have been registered by provincial Governments and all the unions which represent fishermen in our country.
This week is zero hour. I hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will take the opportunity to make a ministerial statement before Friday and reverse the ill-advised cancellation of the scheme. The decision was reached with no consultation with provincial Governments and fishermen across the country.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday will go down as a landmark in Canadian history. Not only did we celebrate the six-month anniversary of the swearing in of the new Conservative Government, but on St. Patrick's Day Canadians across the country watched with excitement and anticipation the historic summit meeting in Quebec City between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States.
The warmth of the welcome we have shown to the President and his wife has already been well documented in the American press. The New York Times has run major stories the last two days reporting to the American people the prospects which have arisen from the meeting for closer ties and understanding between our two countries.
In addition to the substantive discussions which have taken place, which have resulted in new joint plans on acid rain, the air defence accord, trade, military co-operation, and arms control, the meeting will have other long-lasting benefits for relationships not only between the two Governments but between the people of the two lands. It means investment. It means trade. It means tourism. It means jobs. And it means an economic vitality for the two countries.
The people of Canada and the United States who watched or read about the summit meetings will gain a new sense of encouragement and confidence that all of us who share the North American continent can, and will-

March 18, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) announced that the Pine Tree Line would be phased out and that most of the bases which are associated with that line would be phased out. Considering the economic hardships which will occur in the communities which are associated with those bases, both in terms of the military and civilian payrolls which will be eliminated, and the impact on the businesses which serve those bases, will the Minister of National Defence announce as soon as possible the time line for the phasing out? Also, would the Minister take steps to notify those Members of Parliament, in whose constituencies the closures will occur, and the mayors of the associated villages and communities, of the particular time line phase-out?
Due to the fact that military personnel will be transferred, will the Government take active steps to ensure that all civilian personnel who are attached to the Pine Tree Line bases will be provided opportunities for transfer within the Public Service, and that alternate uses for the bases will be considered?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. My question relates to the announcement of Mr. Davis and Mr. Lewis as part-time envoys on acid rain.
In view of the fact that we have in Canada-as initiated by previous Liberal Governments-a plan to cut smoke-stack emissions by 25 per cent between 1980 and 1990; a political and factual commitment to cut smoke-stack emissions by another 25 per cent by 1994; considering the fact that we are down wind of 26 million tonnes of smoke-stack emissions which emanate from the United States; and in view of the fact that there have been years of joint research on this matter, what will the Government know a year from now that it does not already know?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House
that the agreement which was arrived at yesterday, as stated by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, certainly represents a significant move forward. I would point out to the Hon. Member that the agreement breaks the deadlock which has existed for a number of years. It is the first time that a President of the United States has acknowledged that the acid rain problem is one which we share, and that we must work jointly to resolve it. At the end of this year we will see the work which will have been accomplished by two very prominent envoys who were appointed to the job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATURE OF AGREEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I hate to give a lesson in history to the Acting Prime Minister, but I would like to remind her that in 1981, during his visit to Ottawa, President Reagan made the exact recognition which he made yesterday. There is nothing new and nothing historical about it.
Would the Acting Prime Minister not admit that what was announced yesterday is a face-saving device which admits the political failure of the Prime Minister to convince his political counterpart that there is a problem which needs real action; and that it is a face-saving device which removes pressure for at least one year from the Washington administration? In essence, is it not just another do-nothing policy for another year?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Hon. Member's obsession with face-saving devices. People in his Party know all about them, as they have been dealing with those devices for the last number of months.
I would also say to the Hon. Member that in the last four years, he, as the previous Minister of that Department, was not able to achieve any agreement with the United States. He did not move the issue a single step forward. He should not sit there and speak sour grapes because movement is being made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the Deputy Minister is going to say next year to reassure maple syrup producers whose production is being affected by acid rain.
March 18, 1985



What will the Acting Prime Minister say to businesses in Muskoka and Haliburton? What will she say to the fishermen who are interested in the salmon spawning grounds of Nova Scotia? What will she say to the millions of Canadians who are concerned that this is the major health issue which is confronting us because it has not been dealt with by the major polluters who are emitting 26 million tonnes a year south of the border? What will she say to them?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, of course the Hon. Member would not even begin to admit that during his term of office in his Government's regime, it could not possibly come to an agreement with the provincial Governments. We have a $150 million agreement to begin to clean up acid rain in our own country which, of course, shows good intent as to what we can do and what we can accomplish. That is being done in Canada. That will show improvement. What is more, Mr. Speaker, that kind of movement forward will be seen in a bilateral sense in the next year. I would ask the Hon. Member to take the same positive approach as so many people in this country do when they do see that positive steps have been taken.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed as well to the Acting Prime Minister. This morning on Canada AM the United States Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, was asked what action the United States plans to take against Russian cruise missiles. The reporter asked: "Might this involve, for instance, launchers in Canada being placed in Canada?" Mr. Weinberger replied in part: "They'd be placed in the most effective way, but I think what we would try to do would be to locate the best places for defences, and some might be here".
Would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why the Government has assured the Canadian people that placing United States missiles here in Canada is not even a possibility when this is obviously being worked on right now by the United States Government?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has been in the House on several occasions in the past when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs made it abundantly clear that any decision along this line will be taken in Canada, and in Canada only. There is no contemplation of taking any decision of that nature here in Canada.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTERS APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, based on the words of Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, placed on the public record, the Conservative Government has not yet told the whole story to the Canadian people. I ask the Acting Prime Minister if she will make a commitment today that before the week is out the Government will have the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of National Defence, appear before the External Affairs committee to tell the Canadian people, through the committee, exactly why it is contemplating-based on what was said by Caspar Weinberger-changing a long established policy of refusing to have U.S. missiles based in this country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence have been far more ready to appear before parliamentary committees than former Ministers of the previous Government. However, I would ask the Hon. Member to continue and state clearly what Mr. Weinberger said this morning. The statement he made this morning in that regard was that "Canadian obviously, as a sovereign nation, would make its own decisions". That fact is recognized in Washington. I wish it were recognized by the Libera Opposition.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Last Thursday the Federal Court of Appeal in the Luscher decision unanimously struck down those parts of the customs tariff which prohibit immoral or indecent imports, finding them to be so vague and uncertain that they are of no force or effect. Will the Minister confirm that he will immediately issue new instructions respecting the court's judgment? And, given the fact that this decision effectively throws Canada's borders wide open in this area, will the Minister bring forward quick legislation in order to block the import not of explicit erotica, as in the Luscher decision, but of child pornography and violent pornography?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the Hon. Member's question deals with the status at the present time of that provision of the Customs Tariff. Because the courts have found that provision of the customs tariff to be ultra vires, it cannot be enforced by my Department. But my staff, however, will be under instructions that where they find, for example, a truckload of material coming in for distribution in Canada which is likely to be found to be illegal under the Criminal Code provisions, they will contact local police authorities and ask them to do their duty under the Criminal Code.

March 18, 1985
Oral Questions
In so far as the second half of the Hon. Member's question is concerned, it deals with the essence of response to the work of the Fraser Committee. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, is the Minister responsible for this.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Deputy Minister of National Revenue has said that despite the decision of the Court of Appeal it is "business as usual" for the Department, will the Minister explain this apparent contempt for Canada's judiciary? Rather than snubbing the courts, why is the Minister waiting for the Fraser Commission? Why does he not come forward immediately with badly needed legislation to fill this obvious gap?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I had a chance in Ottawa today to review the judge's decision. My instructions to my staff as of an hour ago were to issue new instructions to the border units stating that where the courts have found the provision is ultra vires the single most important principle which must be used as a guide is the rule of law. The Government is obliged to obey the law. It cannot take the law into its own hands. That is our instruction. We will, however, draw to the attention of the local authorities any importations which offend against the Criminal Code provisions.
Again, the Hon. Member in the second half of his question did not listen to my response to his first question. I do not have the authority to amend the Customs Tariff, nor do I have the authority to make changes to the Criminal Code. He may want to ask my colleague, the Minister of Justice, what action he intends to take as a result of the Fraser Committee's work, but that is an area in which I do not have any authority.
The Hon. Member, having counselled us to respect the rule of law, must also respect that I would not attempt to take the law into my own hands in terms of making proposals which I have no authority to make.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my further supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. We in this caucus are prepared to pass legislation within 24 hours which deals with the obvious gap which the Federal Court of Appeal has left in the area of child pornography and violent pornography. Is the Minister prepared, on behalf of his Government, to give an undertaking that he will immediately bring forward the necessary legislation to deal with this obvious gap and thereby ensure that Canada's borders are not in fact wide open, as the Court of Appeal decision now leaves them?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that the hon. gentleman and his Party would support amendments or changes in that direction and would support legislation to replace the provisions now found to be ineffective. But I think the Hon. Member is being too selective. Pornography is pornography. I don't think that we can just concentrate on child pornography, or some other kind of pornography which particularly bothers the Hon. Member. When we bring in legislation, if that is the course we will adopt, we will bring in legislation which will apply to pornography whether it is child pornography or any other type of pornography. It will have to be quite specific in light of the decision that the court has given.
I can only advise the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that we are reviewing the situation to see whether that is the best course. We are glad to have the co-operation of the New Democratic Party. I imagine that the Official Opposition is against pornography as well, and that it will join in seeing that the legislation will go through the House within a very short period of time. I welcome the assistance of Hon. Members on all sides of the House and I am sure that the Hon. Member's offer will be taken up in due course.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and it is in respect to the question of acid rain. A leading environmentalist has said that envoys are better than nothing. But with 30 million tonnes of sulpher dioxide falling on us every year, mainly from United States sources, and from Canadian sources to a lesser extent, killing lakes, destroying forests and crops, and affecting human health-and this is all documented by research-would the Minister tell the House how appointing two envoys would help this situation? Is it not simply delaying a program of action? We have heard it all before, Mr. Speaker. "Got a problem? Appoint a committee".


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has heard it all before, why did his Government not do something about it? For how many years have we heard this issue raised? Yes, we have done something about it. We have come to a very significant agreement with the provinces to move in this regard in Canada. We have come to an agreement with the United States to work jointly on this issue within the next year by appointing two people whom the Hon. Member may dismiss out of hand, but whom many people in this country believe are individuals who can move this very important issue forward to the solution which we all want to see.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has entirely missed the point. Is the Minister not aware that several plans of action were presented by the
March 18, 1985

United States Environmental Protection Agency to the White House? All were rejected. Will the Minister tell the House what assurances the Canadian Government received that any recommendations flowing from the Davis-Lewis envoy team are going to be acted upon by the U.S. administration?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the assurances we have received are of the nature which shows in the relationship that exists between our two countries. In the last number of years we have seen a Government in Canada which tried to achieve things by fighting with its allies. We do not believe that is the way we should really go about things. We believe that the way we accomplish things is by working together, and that is what this agreement is really all about.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and concerns the job-creation potential in the arts and culture field. Is the Minister aware that 66 per cent of the revenues to arts and culture go into wages compared with roughly 20 per cent in manufacturing, and that the return in jobs is six times that per dollar invested compared with other sectors? Therefore, would she not agree that this presents enormous opportunities, and that restoring the cuts suffered by the Canada Council, Radio-Canada, and other agencies might be the best job creation scheme the Government could come up with?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do agree with at least a part of what the Hon. Member has said. It is because we realize the potential for job creation in the cultural community that the Minister of Communications and I have been working together in the Government's new labour market strategy, allocating money to make sure that there are programs in that $900 million which will be specifically addressed to the cultural community and the way in which jobs can be created in that very important sector.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister is aware of the practical effects of the Government's policy in this field since coming into office. There have been rallies all across the country, from Halifax to Victoria, and what the community is saying is the Government's policies right now are costing it jobs. Unemployment is going up, and people being trained as actors and actresses and in the arts colleges, and so forth, cannot get jobs because of these cut-backs. What good are these potential programs going to be if the practical result of the cut-backs is job losses?
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member has not been following the discussion on the new job-creation sector because the jobs apply to the fiscal year 1985-86, coming into effect on April 1. It is for that very reason that the Minister of Communications is consulting with the cultural community and bringing that input back to the over-all plan of job creation, so that there will be new and more effective measures coming out of the allocation of funds devoted to the creation of jobs and the development of human resource potential.


TERRORISM
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. Last Friday the Secretary of State for External Affairs admitted that he had misled the House on the question of advance warning to Canada by the Turkish Government, even though he had made a thorough inquiry of his officials before making his erroneous statement. The correcting statement of last Friday was unacceptably vague. I want to ask the Government which Canadian officials were given the urgent Turkish warning, and what did they do with that information?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has stated, the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a comment to the House last Friday about the situation with regard to the Turkish Embassy. He indicated that he would be carrying out an immediate investigation. It is my understanding that the results of that investigation are now with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and he will be making a statement to the House in that regard on his return tomorrow.


REVIEW OF SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister about a statement of the Deputy Prime Minister to the effect that, 30 days before the incident at the Turkish Embassy, the security at that Embassy had been reviewed and upgraded. Can the Minister confirm that in fact the security was not upgraded at all, no additional resources were allocated to the Turkish Embassy, and in fact there was nothing more than a letter sent by the RCMP to the Pinkerton's guards telling them to be vigilant? What kind of an upgrading of security is that?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the House that the investigation of this matter has been going on over the weekend, that the results of that investigation are now with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I presume with the Prime Minister, and that a statement on the result will be

March 18, 1985
Oral Questions
made tomorrow. I ask the Hon. Member, given the fact that these people had already been committed to a very important engagement, as we all recognize, in Quebec city, to wait until he hears that statement tomorrow.


OIL SUBSTITUTION AND CONSERVATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There are people who want to take advantage of the Oil Substitution and Conservation Program. Is the Minister aware that gas line installations are being held up because the ground is frozen and parts have to be ordered, and that there is a waiting list, especially in Quebec and here in Ottawa? Could the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect, I think the Member is asking a question with regard to a Bill which is currently before the House. I am afraid that is not normally allowed. I am prepared to allow a different question by the Hon. Member, but not questions regarding a Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me then ask the Minister about a speech she gave in Vancouver last week. She suggested that she was interested in conservation. She said that energy use in residential housing could be cut back a further 30 per cent. Why, then, is the Government proceeding with measures to cut back conservation, and not interfering with grants to oil companies? Why is it taking this direction-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


TERRORISM
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. On January 29 I was advised by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that Armenian terrorists were the greatest and most serious threat to Canadian security. I was assured that the threat was being monitored very closely and that the Intelligence Service had considerable intelligence information on the matter. Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service failed to provide this intelligence to the RCMP and, specifically, confirm that the CSIS failed to notify the RCMP of the urgent advance warning from the Turkish authorities?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when the Deputy Prime Minister was asked questions about security at the Turkish Embassy last week, he indicated that there was a full investigation under way. That investigation is being completed. When the results are made known, the Deputy Prime Minister will report to the House.


ADVANCE WARNING INQUIRY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister at least confirm today that that advance warning from Turkish authorities went to the CSIS and they in turn failed to pass that information on to the RCMP?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm that. I will take the question as notice and pass it on to the Minister responsible.


AIR CANADA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who just released the list of the new board of directors for Air Canada, a very critical and major Crown corporation. At first glance it would appear that it is simply a list of Tory hacks, flacks, and bagmen.


Mr. Broadbent:: On second glance, too.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On second glance it would look even more like that. Would the Minister explain to the House what criteria he used to select this very critical group of people to provide direction to one of Canada's most important Crown corporations?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Hon. Member looks at the list again he will find that they are very distinguished and well qualified Canadians who represent all regions of the country. They will do a tremendous service to Air Canada, and a tremendous service to Canada.


APPOINTMENT OF DAVID ANGUS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to be more specific, could the Minister expand on the point he just made by explaining how the major job of David Angus, which is raising funds for the Progressive Conservative Party across Canada, helps him in providing critical leadership and direction to Air Canada?
March 18, 1985


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the fact that he participates in a political Party should be held against him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We encourage outstanding people to participate in the political scene. Mr. Angus happens to be a very distinguished lawyer who has a tremendous background in transportation, particularly in the marine and air sectors. His contribution to Air Canada will be clearly felt, not only by the corporation but indeed by all Canadians.


BEEF IMPORTS FROM EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the representative of the Minister of Agriculture. Cattle producers are gravely concerned at the prospect of continuing high levels of importation of subsidized beef from the European Economic Community. Can the Minister advise that import limitations or quotas have been negotiated with these supplying countries?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Member raises an important question for the livestock industry. He will be aware that at the beginning of the year we indicated that we were prepared to use provisions under the Meat Import Act to restrict beef coming in from the European Community. They have since objected, and have threatened to increase tariffs on some of the agricultural products that we send to them.
We are staying in touch with the Community, and both Governments are working on a solution that will avoid what we believe to be retaliatory tariffs against some of the agricultural products which we send to the European community, while at the same time safeguarding the very important livestock industry against what many people believe to be damaging import competition. Hopefully, through further consultation we can arrive at a solution that will satisfy all parties in this matter.


PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a supplementary question of last Wednesday which the Minister did not answer. Will the Minister tell the House if she is going to abolish-


Some Hon. Members:: Which Minister?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell the House if she is going to abolish the
Oral Questions
petroleum and gas revenue tax as was promised by the Prime Minister on July 6, 1984, three days before the federal election was called?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we will not be taking unilateral action as his Party did when it established the PGRT. As I have continually told the Member, the whole issue is under negotiation with the western producing provinces at this time. I will report to the House when those negotiations are completed.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister would not be taking unilateral action, because all of western Canada wants the petroleum and gas revenue tax abolished.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where were you in the last regime?


John Horton McDermid: Who put it there?


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister proposing, and putting forward in her talks with the three western energy producing provinces, the abolition of the petroleum and gas revenue tax?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be more clear in saying that we are not negotiating in the media on this issue, and that I will report to the House when negotiations are completed. If the Member felt so strongly on this issue, surely he would have made his representations to his Party when it was imposing this hated tax on western Canada.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If the Government responds to lobbying by multinational pharmaceutical companies, and generic drugs are no longer available for low-income people, it is estimated that this would cost Governments, under the Canada Assistance Plan, over $200 million. Does the Minister support this lobbying, and, if so, is he prepared to pay this cost?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Member again has far too narrow a view of a very complex issue. She must keep in mind the need for a supply of drugs at costs that are acceptable, on which we have consulted the Consumers Association. She should also realize, as I hope she does, that we would like to develop the pharmaceutical industry. We have seen a decline in it on the generic side. On the one side we have had some improvement. On the multinational side we have had a substantial decline.

March 18, 1985
Oral Questions
Canadians who want more research and development and some world mandates in this highly technical field, realize that putting these two groups together with government officials to try to reach an agreement, is surely better than the regime we have now.


PATENT LAW INQUIRY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not agree with the Minister on these points and I do not think the Consumers Association would either. His Department is largely responsible for research and development. Will he, or will he not, oppose any changes to patent laws that will substantially raise drug prices for Canadians?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. The Hon. Member is obviously of that school of thought that has dominated Canada so often, that it is cheaper to buy than to have research and development and a world mandate in Canada. Obviously the Government wants to have some research and development in Canada. The Government wants to ensure that we are a member of this high tech field, especially with regard to new drugs.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For the second time in only a few months, a federal agency is submitting that it is unnecessary, for the time being, to raise contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. The advisory committee on the Canada Pension Plan and the Chief Actuary are suggesting a gradual increase in contributions to the Plan.
In fact, the Minister of Finance announced some time ago that he and his provincial colleagues were considering increasing contributions. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he has read the report and if so, whether he agrees with the report's recommendations concerning contributions.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct when he states that the Ministers of Finance, including the federal Minister, have met in regard to considering the possibility of maintaining the financing of the Canada Pension Plan. There are basically three recommendations in the report to which he refers, from the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee. I cannot get into the specifics during this short period of time, but if one looks at those recommendations he will see that in general
terms they are similar to the task force report on pension reform that was brought forward in the last Parliament. The real question that we must examine with the provinces is how to maintain a funding level which not only keeps in mind the capacity to pay, for both employees and employers, but as well keeping the plan viable.


PROVINCIAL INVOLVEMENT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the Canada Pension Plan is 20 years old this year. To keep the fund solvent and meet benefit requirements, we shall have to increase revenues. Will the Government bow to the wishes of the provinces and increase CPP contributions to the fund, or will the Government insist that the provinces start to repay over the years, on schedule as agreed, the $25 billion owing? Will it make that recommendation stick with the provinces?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Member raises a valid point in the sense that he recognizes that any changes to the Canada Pension Plan would have to be made jointly by the provinces and the federal Government. I will just remind the House that when the Canada Pension Plan was originally introduced it became a shared jurisdiction. It was for that reason that these arrangements were put forward as they were. The Government has said that it wants major pension plan reformation. There is not now a parallelism between the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan. There are a number of issues that must be dealt with.
If there are any increases in the premiums, at whatever time or level they might come, I believe the Hon. Member would join with me and most Members of the House in saying that we would also like to see some changes in benefits as have been identified by my statements and other earlier statements.


PETRO-CANADA ATTEMPTS TO ACQUIRE CO-OP OUTLETS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources respecting letters I have received from the boards of directors of several Saskatchewan co-operatives protesting against attempts by Petro-Canada to acquire co-op bulk petroleum outlets.
Could the Minister advise the House why Petro-Canada is attempting to acquire the outlets of co-ops which represent a completely Canadian-owned segment of the petroleum industry? Furthermore, why has Petro-Canada not considered the impact of such take-overs on the planned co-op heavy oil refinery for Saskatchewan?
March 18, 1985


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the concerns raised by the Hon. Member. I have passed those concerns on to Petro-Canada and I will respond to the Hon. Member when the information is available to me.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would have directed my question to the Acting Prime Minister, given that this is the first time a woman has held that position-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: However, since the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here, I can direct my question to him. Recognizing the problems that developed due to the use of urea formaldehyde without proper consultation and proper understanding of its effects, will the Minister take steps now to ban the use of isocyanates until such time as a proper investigation has been undertaken to determine the effect that the use of those particular products could have on the health of workers and consumers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the question put forward by the Hon. Member does not lend itself to a simple answer in the House of Commons. I am sure that he has in mind, as well, the tragedy that happened in Bhopal, for example, and other safety measures with regard to these chemicals.
I have asked officials in my Department to re-examine our safety standards and requirements. At the moment, that is as much as I can report.


REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY BAN
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that isocyanates are widely used in the manufacturing processes here in Canada and that the effects on the individuals who have come into contact with them are irreversible? Recognizing the problems we have had in the past with similar substances, will he not now move at least on a temporary basis to ban their use until such time as the full effect can be determined and adequate protective measures can be put in place?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the question is really the same as the first question which the Hon. Member asked. Therefore, my answer is also the same. It is easy to ask to ban a given product "until such time ..." but obviously there are various factors that must be taken into consideration. It is my responsibility to look at the entire scene rather than simply agree to something that the Member puts forward in the manner he did.
Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the 160 political appointments that were made over the last three weeks, including an ambassador in waiting to Washington. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying, referring to patronage: "We are going to reform this instrument of our national life". He also promised, during the election campaign, a parliamentary committee to review political appointments. Which one of the 160 political appointments over the last three weeks will be reviewed by a parliamentary committee, if any?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the appointments that have been made by the Prime Minister and this Government include a great number of very fine Canadians, who, indeed, merit the appointments that they receive. I can certainly give the Hon. Member many examples of that.
I would also point out to the Hon. Member, as I am sure he knows, that the whole question of parliamentary reform and the reform of this Chamber is being examined under the very good supervision and direction of our colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East. One of the issues that he will be dealing with is that very important issue that the Hon. Member raises. I hope he will provide his input and lend his support to the work that is being done by the Hon. Member for St. John's East.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
This is a promise made by the Progressive Conservative Party, and I do not see why I should pay to help them keep their promises.
On July 16, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
I was speaking to some Conservatives at the time, and that was what they wanted to hear. When speaking to Canadians during an election campaign-


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry, but the Hon. Member knows perfectly well a preamble is not allowed on a supplementary. I would therefore ask him to keep to the supplementary question.


Don Boudria: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree that this statement reflects the present policy of the Conservative Government, more so than other statements made during the election campaign?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the latest figures I have regarding the support for political parties in this country show that the

March 18, 1985
Oral Questions
number of people who identified with the Conservative Party was in the vicinity of 53 per cent; those with the Liberal Party, 25 per cent, and I believe those with the New Democratic Party were 21 per cent.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Oh, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Make it 22.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I could have moved it up a few notches. However, in looking at the number of appointments from across the country, and with regard to representation, taking into account all of these people who fit within political parties, I would have to inform the Hon. Member that some of them, in fact the majority of them, would have to be people who supported the Conservative Party, because that is a reflection of the country today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Minister of State for Finance, concerns Pioneer Trust. Can she confirm that there are ongoing negotiations between the federal Government and the Province of Saskatchewan in terms of working out a package to help the uninsured depositors of Pioneer Trust, recognizing that CDIC will not be able to help them? Are the federal Government and the provincial Government attempting to work out some package to help many widowers, retired businessmen, and others?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am in touch with the Minister of Finance in Saskatchewan.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, is the Government willing to have a public inquiry, because we understand that some commitment has been made by the Prime Minister's Office to have some form of inquiry? Can the Minister explain what type of inquiry will occur, whether it will be public, and who will head such an inquiry?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I have already pointed out in the House, this subject is under examination. I have already attempted to put the facts on the table for Hon. Members, and I will continue to keep them informed.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. It concerns the Government's support for research in science and engineering within the Canadian academic community. Ten days ago the Minister announced several millions of dollars in additional funding for research and development in Canadian universities. When we last formed the administration, we had a five-year program for support of research and development-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


William Tupper: Will the Minister tell the House if he will be introducing a new five-year program for research and development in the Canadian academic community?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, of course this Government and this Party have been committed to increasing the support and funding for research within our Canadian universities, for many years. Cabinet is presently reviewing the next five-year plan proposed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. We were pleased to announce a week or two ago an additional $20 million in funding for the current fiscal year.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, maybe when the Irish jig is up we will start to get some answers again in the House.
My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Last week, the Federal Government's figures demonstrated once and for all that Canadian workers have suffered a drop in earnings over the last three years. This means that this year, they will be receiving about 20 per cent less than the inflation rate in Canada.

Does the Minister not agree that this record of Canadian workers tightening their belts in tough times is in direct contradiction to the attitude expressed by the Prime Minister when he told Americans through Fortune magazine that our products are inferior, our deliveries unreliable, our expertise borrowed and our technology non-Canadian, in effect saying that the Canadian record is a disaster?
March 18, 1985


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Hon. Member begins her question the way she does because of the envy of Members in that Party who want to sing in harmony. They have not been able to do that within their own group for some time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to say that the main emphasis of this Government has been in the area of jobs, job creation, and in trying to bring more emphasis in that field. Although it has not been raised often by members of the Opposition, I think it is important to note that in the last month when the employment figures came down, it was shown for the first time since the recession had begun that between the months of January and February both the unemployment rate and the actual figures for unemployment had declined. This was the first time that that had taken place between the months of January and February since the recession began, and I think that is an important sign.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, March 15, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to
form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which states that recent actions of the Health Protection Branch have resulted in the seizure of certain food supplements, including amino acids and certain herbal products, that these products have been readily available for many years and that when the undersigned inquired as to the reasons for this action, they were advised that they had been declared new drugs and would not be permitted to be sold. In order to obtain these products the petitioners must buy them in the United States at considerable inconvenience and cost. Wherefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revoke the decision of the Health Protection Branch and return these products to the market-place without delay.
Order Paper Questions GIFT OF WARPLANES TO TURKEY


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which is signed by hundreds of Canadians of Greek descent which states that the undersigned Canadians of Greek descent are very alarmed at the intentions of the Canadian Government to give 20 renovated fighter planes to Turkey and none to Greece. While there might be good reasons for Canada to support a NATO ally, Canada should not side with Turkey against Greece. Canada has a long tradition of fairness in world conflicts and should not get into a position of arming one side against the other.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 55, 160 and 272.

dnd-transfer of directorate of pay services


Mr. Howie: 1.	Will the Department of National Defence directorate of pay services be transferred to Chatham, New Brunswick and, if so, during what period and how many persons will be employed in Chatham by the directorate?
2.	Will a building be constructed to house the directorate and, if so, on what date will the construction be (a) commenced (b) concluded?
3.	What is the current status of this project and has it received Treasury Board approval?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. The government's commitment to retain CFB Chatham as an air base, in addition to the Training Center for the Low Level Air Defence System, will result in CFB Chatham maintaining its present employment level without the need to transfer the DND Pay Services.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


Mr. Orlikow: Has the Department of Environment cut any projects in its science and technology programs in order to absorb the reduction in its expenditures required by the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House on November 8, 1984 and, if so, what are they and what are the projected costs?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, see below.	Costs
Description	Person-Years $
1. Weather observations at Eddy Point, Nova Scotia	- 70,000
2.	Weather observations at Bisset, Manitoba 3.	Development of remote sensing techniques for weather	- 50,000
observations 4. Historical research for new development in existing	- 220,000
parks	3 90,000

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Costs
Description	Person-Years	S5.	Archeological research for new development in existing parks	7	210,0006.	Effects of toxic substances from industry, agriculture and forestry on wildlife	9	412,0007.	Wildlife research in national parks	12.5	483,0008.	Effects of forestry practices on wildlife	5.5	258,0009.	Research on transboundary wildlife populations	0.5	20,00010.	Research on endangered prairie fauna	1.0	45,00011.	Environmental assessment of the impact of energy projects/industrial development on wildlife and shore-birds and their habitat	2.0	80,00012.	Pathology and bioelectronics services	5.0	190,000


Mrs. Killens: Does the Government intend to have issued, dollar coins and, if so, will provisions be made to include, on the coins, distinctive signs for the visually handicapped?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Canada now issues about 2,300,000 dollar coins annually. The Miscellaneous Estimates Committee is reviewing the matter of a $1 coin in more detail. The Royal Canadian Mint is recommending a revised coin design that takes into consideration the needs of the visually handicapped.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works; and the amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p. 3072).
Douglas Cockburn Frith: I know I have 60 seconds left, Mr. Speaker. I just want to implore the Government side to listen to the representations of Members of Parliament who represent constituents in northern Canada and allow an extension of the deadline for the phasing out of COSP, which would
be of great benefit to the constituents in northern Canada who find, because of weather and a shortage of material, that contractors are unable to complete their work. This extension would go a long way to appeasing the viewpoints of our constituents.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-24 on oil substitution and conservation and on home insulation. One of the real values of keeping this Bill before the House as long as it has been is that it gives the opportunity to people to let us know exactly how they feel about this Bill. Since I last spoke on the Bill a couple of weeks ago I have had about 20 letters, almost all taking the same position. People need this oil substitution Bill extended rather than cut. The idea of keeping a Bill before the House and maybe hoisting it for six months allows the public to take a good look at the Bill, to judge it and then let us know how they feel about it.
I strongly support a motion to hoist this Bill because that will give not only the people of Canada an opportunity to take a look at this Bill, but it will also give an opportunity to the present Government to back off and make use of the Bill in a different way.
As a matter of interest, I want to list a number of reasons that have been conveyed to me in letters from my constituents. The reason that comes most often from my constituency is that gas supply is just now reaching a person's farm or house. If this Bill cuts off the opportunity for substitution, that person will not be able to take advantage of the structure presently in place. Is that fair, Mr. Speaker? Just because gas does not reach an individual's home until this summer or the summer after, is he not going to be able to take advantage of the substitution grants?
A second reason and one which has been mentioned many times already is that the ground is frozen. People will not be able to dig until after April. Therefore a person is forced into a position where he will get less of the substitution grant than someone who was able to take advantage of it last fall.
The third reason one hears is from the person who has been planning to substitute his energy supply for years. Now he is only going to be able to do about half as much work as before. Another reason is that a person would have been able to afford conversion but cannot now because the grant will not be as big as expected. All of this is information that has been passed to us from our constituents.
I have not received-and I think the same goes for my colleagues-as many letters from people worried about the loss of CHIP grants, probably because that program has been used much more extensively and has not been dependent upon the availability of gas or other forms of fuel. However, the general tenor of the letters has been much the same, that it is unfair to take away these grants since some people have not had an opportunity to make use of them while other people, even in the same areas, have had an opportunity to do so. The other
March 18, 1985

main point of view has been that future increases in costs of fuels will make them take advantage of the grant and therefore they would like that opportunity. Some people have indicated that they could not afford to do it before but will have to do it in the future, so why should they not receive the same support as have other people in the past?
There are a number of points which should be put on the record before we let the Bill go to committee or hopefully hoist it for six months, so that the Government can take a look at the effect of the Bill. This has been one of the most popular grant programs across the country. In fact, it might be the best possible job-creation program around. When a few dollars are put into the hands of people to make their homes more energy efficient, they usually make other improvements as well. Perhaps it would be best to expand this program and put more money into the hands of home owners so that they can improve the quality of their homes. These grants, along with RRAP grants, have almost been direct job-creation programs because as soon as the money is available to home owners to improve their homes, they hire someone to do the work. It is also a direct job-creation program in that it has a direct effect upon small businesses in the communities where the money is spent. Home owners purchase new furnaces and have them installed; home owners purchase insulation and have it installed. Its cancellation is unfair and discriminatory because a large group of the population has not had an opportunity to substitute oil with some different fuel. They are quite willing to do so now that a substitute fuel is becoming available to them.
Many speakers on the Government side have suggested that these grants went to higher income groups. A study conducted by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources indicates something quite different. Since these grants were taxable, the taxation system took away a certain portion of the amount payable, particularly for higher income groups. The Government is suggesting by this cut that it is no longer interested in conservation or in assisting lower income Canadians to reduce their costs. It has said that it will let the oil go to the world price and that it will not put in place a mechanism for people who cannot afford the world price to improve their homes so that they will not use as much oil. The money saved in conservation by individual home owners, as far as the Government is concerned, is money that it will not have to put out to purchase foreign oil.
Consequently, the business direction in this Bill is not for the good of the people, for the good of the country or for the good of the Government. Therefore it should take advantage of our hoist motion and keep this Bill off the books for at least six months, until it analyses its effects.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion of this Bill today and certainly the motion before the House dealing with a six-month hoist. I would have preferred if this legislation had not been on the floor of the House of Commons at all, as I come from a province which specifically relied very heavily on the off-oil program, and which has the highest energy costs of the country.
Oil Substitution Act
We talk about energy conservation. What better method of keeping the price of oil low in the future than to have a quantity or surplus of oil and other forms of energy. Since COSP and CHIP were introduced by the former Government, they have saved the country 75,000 barrels of oil per day in consumption or the equivalent of 25 million to 30 million barrels of oil per year. An extremely significant amount of energy was saved by this off-oil program. I am sure my colleague from Calgary would like to see us spending millions of dollars on energy, but I say to her that I am from a part of the country which cannot afford to spend the dollars that are necessary.


Herbert O. Sparrow: But you set the price.


George Roland Henderson: Poor people of my province cannot afford to spend the dollars necessary to keep fuel in their tanks.
Many people in my province have taken advantage of this program. Not only has it been good as far as conservation of the energy resource is concerned, but it has been excellent in terms of job creation. Numerous small contractors who supply and instal CSA approved furnaces, as well as the other heating apparatus which goes with them, have created many jobs in the last few years. While CHIP only provided grants in the amount of $500, the Government did not seem to understand the program. I have heard Hon. Members opposite speaking on the Bill. They seemed to say that it was another giveaway program, that it was something Canadians did not need. It was a taxable program. Certainly those in the higher income brackets had to pay taxes in the 45 per cent to 50 per cent range, but those in lower income brackets or those who did not have to pay income taxes received the entire $500. It was an excellent program in that respect. In my mind, at least, it benefited the people who needed it most.
I have received many inquiries since the Bill was introduced in the House by the Minister. The people in my province are frustrated, not only because of this Bill but because of a number of other programs. I would mention the high cost of energy. In the last few months this Government has introduced programs to increase potato inspection fees and meat inspection fees, to levy ferry rate increases, national park fee increases, increased berthage fees for fishermen and so on. There has been a litany of new programs introduced by the Government under the camouflage of reducing the deficit. COSP and CHIP are two such programs. At the same time, expenditures in the Prime Minister's office are being increased by $2 million. We see $50 million going to the Armed Forces for new uniforms. A record number of Cabinet Ministers have been appointed to this Government at extremely high cost.


John Horton McDermid: You are just sorry you are not in there.


George Roland Henderson: My friend says I'm sorry that I am not in there. If he was any good, he would be in there. We have all these programs being cut, and those affected will be the people who can least afford it.
3120

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Members on the Government side have talked about all the jobs that were lost in western Canada because of the National Energy Program. I agree that some jobs may have been lost, but when people in Atlantic Canada convert from oil to wood, they create jobs in that area. Atlantic Canada obtains its oil from offshore. For many years there was a subsidy program in place to help these Canadians. The dollars spent to purchase that oil left this country. However, a dollar spent on wood or other energy sources that we have in our own back yard is reinvested within the community. Every dollar spent generates another seven dollars in that community.
It is a shame to see what this Government is doing with these two very important programs. There are many people who insulate their homes from the outside, not the inside. The inside walls may be perfectly good. When they reshingle, they may tear off the boards from the outside. That could not be done between November 8 and now.
Other speakers have mentioned digging for gas lines and so on. I do not know whether that is entirely appropriate. I realize that you cannot dig as cheaply in the winter as in the summer, but the gas lines can be installed. However, not much can be done to the outside of a house in the winter in my area. If we cannot get this legislation withdrawn completely so that the programs will stay in effect until completion in 1990 for COSP and 1987 for CHIP, then the six-month hoist is a fair idea. It is not long enough, but the Government could use that six months to organize. When it receives input from Canadians, it will see the benefits of the program. It would also become aware of the job-creation aspects of the program.
The pittance of an incentive that was there had spin-off effects. If someone installed a wood furnace in my province, in many case he would often put in a new chimney, which created work for bricklayers and others. Most Prince Edward Islanders began burning oil in the early 1960s. Previous to that they burned wood. They got away from that in the days of cheap oil. Many of those furnaces needed replacement. Senior citizens and others were sometimes unable on their skimpy income to afford a proper conversion. This $500 or $800 given by the previous Government was of great benefit to them. Once again, this Government is penny wise and pound foolish by bringing this kind of legislation before the House of Commons to get rid of something which over the years has been an excellent program.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it may seem a bit strange that someone from Windsor should rise to express concern about the threatened demise of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program, especially given the warmth of our people and the moderation of our climate. In fact, it was not a concern until we felt the first cold wind of conservatism in this northern climate. That could only be explained by the ideology of the present Government, consistent with other cuts which had been applied, directed at cutting the deficit at any cost. It is another of these programs that in search of deficit cutting clearly has been introduced with little thought, just as with the
cuts in the CBC and cuts in the environment which, in afterthought, were at least modified to some degree.
Both CHIP and COSP have as their purpose the conservation of energy. COSP was designed to encourage the conversion to alternate fuels, providing a 50 per cent grant or $800 maximum. The insulation program provided 60 per cent of cost to a maximum of $500. These programs met their intentions.
This is a country in which energy costs are very high. We have the highest rate of expenditure for energy of perhaps any country in the world. I would think that any program that is designed to reduce energy costs in this country would be supported by just about everyone in the country, with the possible exception of the Conservative Government. This is a country in which housing costs are fast outpacing the ability of people to pay, and energy costs are a significant component of that. Any programs that were designed to cut housing costs would be supported by almost anyone in the country, except this Conservative Government. This is a country in which we have limited oil resources. It is a non-renewable resource. Any program designed to conserve oil would make sense to anyone in this country, with the possible exception of this Conservative Government.
Imported oil is costly. It is needed in the east particularly. Any program designed to reduce imports of oil from elsewhere would, I am sure, be supported by almost everyone in this country, again with the exception of this Conservative Government. Unemployment is a critical program and any program designed to produce jobs would be approved by anybody in this country, except the Conservative Government. Indeed, because COSP and CHIP contribute to all these goals, they would be supported by almost everyone in the country. We must ask ourselves: Why are they not supported by the Conservative Government?
The Canadian Oil Substitution Program was introduced in 1980 to reduce oil use from 37 per cent to 10 per cent of residential energy. By 1984, half the target, or two million conversions had been reached. There are 42,000 barrels of oil per day which are saved, and householders are saving $634 per year. It means that the consumer will receive a return on his investment within two to three years.
Similarly, CHIP had a targeted conversion of 4.9 million residences by 1987. At the end of last year, 2.5 million residences had been converted. Many of the people who converted were low-income citizens. Indeed, a great proportion of the grants went to those who earned less than $15,000 a year. Those who took advantage of the cuts in fuel costs were able to reduce their expenses by 17 per cent through CHIP. It amounted to a saving of $207 per year. Therefore, they paid for their conversion within one year. Through CHIP, 23,000 barrels of oil per day were saved. A person who took advantage of both COSP and CHIP saved approximately $800 a year.
These two programs have been meeting their goals. For the Government to propose the termination of the programs can
March 18, 1985

only mean that it is opposed to the goals. Certainly, that puts the Government at variance with almost everyone in the country.
Another aspect is the employment which these programs create. They not only meet an energy-saving need, but they are effective in job creation. As my colleague indicated earlier, the unemployment rate in Vancouver in the construction industry is 60 to 70 per cent, as it is in Windsor. These programs would produce jobs in the construction industry. They are labourintensive programs. A lot of emphasis has been placed on the prospect of job creation in the oil industry and the atomic energy industry. If one looks at the oil industry, 18.9 person-years of work are produced for every million dollar expenditure. In the atomic energy field, 24 person-years of work are created for every million dollar expenditure. But almost 36 person-years of work are created for every million dollar expenditure in the conservation of energy. In fact, the number of jobs which have been created through CHIP has been superior to any of the figures which I have mentioned. In fact, through CHIP, 108 person-years of work are created for every million dollars of government expenditure. With the demise of CHIP, 30,000 person-years of work will be lost.
With respect to COSP, 50 person-years of work are created for every million dollars which is spent. Between 1981 and 1985, 50,000 jobs were created. With the termination of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, 59,000 person-years of work will be lost.
It is difficult to determine whether the Government has given any thought to the proposal which is before the House, that is to say, any thought beyond the ideological premise. When attempting to test the validity of a piece of legislation, one must hunt for a basic premise which is founded in reason, which has some logic and which has an element of common sense. But when a Government proposes an action which does not recognize that the ground is frozen in the winter in northern Canada, I believe that calls into question the thought which went into this legislation.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this legislation which relates to the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. It strikes me that the motion to hoist Bill C-24 for six months is intelligent and one which would be greeted with a great deal of respect by Canadians. All Governments are entitled to an error in judgment. I consider this legislation to be a serious error in judgment.
In my city, the housing stock is very old and all kinds of government incentives are required, particularly in this time of decreasing income and increasing costs. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the Bill. Perhaps the Government should put it aside until a time when it can bring forward a more comprehensive program. In any case it should stop dealing with these issues by way of a piecemeal approach.
The Government made 38 energy promises during the election campaign. I believe that many of those promises were stated with good will, but they were stated in a glib way and
Oil Substitution Act
were not fully thought out. I would ask the Government seriously to consider withdrawing this Bill. It should take the six months to consider the legislation carefully. Then it could come back with something which would make sense to the people in my riding as well as people in Montreal, Quebec City and those areas of the country where there is a lot of old housing stock.
Most families with two incomes are having a difficult time. Most families require two incomes. It is not a matter of both people wanting to work or wanting to express their creativity, but rather a matter of their having to work because they need the extra income. Any programs which will enable families to reduce their overhead costs, enable them to save money, and at the same time conserve energy, are valuable programs.
With respect to meeting government goals on job creation, what better programs could be used than CHIP or COSP? These programs provide an opportunity for manufacturers to produce new goods such as furnaces, and they also provide opportunities for the service sector to insulate attics etcetera. It creates jobs in the business and service sectors. In addition, families will be able to manage their budgets much more effectively.
It is a serious issue in a country which has a cold climate for almost six months of the year. Many northern parts of Canada cannot become involved in these programs, except for short periods in summer, because of climatic conditions. In converting to alternative resources and in using, particularly in Quebec, hydroelectric power or wood and gas, we will conserve approximately 65,000 barrels of oil per day. That is a very significant saving of a non-renewable resource. If we are serious about conservation, we must look at the subject in a comprehensive way.
A Member opposite referred to the fact that these programs were used only by the wealthy. That is not the case. As the previous speaker indicated, the programs have been used by many low-income families. Even when they are used by wealthy people, they are a taxable benefit. I understand that $1.3 million has been spent on home insulation and off-oil programs, but the Government has recovered over $300 million. I do not think that because these programs have been used by upper-income people they should be terminated. They have been a very important service to middle and low-income people as well.
By the way, regarding that 65,000 barrels of oil a day which has been saved, I believe there was an update by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources increasing that to
75,000	barrels a day. That saving of oil must be a very significant factor, particularly to the Party in opposition, and I am speaking about opposition across the floor to my philosophy.
So I recommend very strongly that the Government support the hoist motion, keep this Bill off the books for six months, go back to the drawing board and bring back a comprehensive plan which will deal with alternative energy, something that

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
will be a good deal for both Alberta and Newfoundland where they have signed some kind of new agreements. Let us not continue to cut anywhere just for the sake of cutting. We have had enough of that. This is a lifeline into our own families and the use of our own resources. So I strongly recommend that we give this a second thought and support the motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, little wonder government Members want to put the question, because Bill C-24,1 maintain, is one of the most embarrassing pieces of legislation this Government has introduced.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: I hear moans and groans from Members opposite. They maintain that in order to reduce the deficit we must cut back on programs like CHIP and COSP. They say that this is important in order to reduce the deficit and get the country back on its feet. But I suggest that if they would only look at the amount of money the Government is now spending under the ill-conceived National Energy Program, started by the Liberals and which subsidizes imported oil and, through grants and tax breaks, the oil industry, they would see that some 75,000 barrels of oil a day have been saved owing to these two programs at a cost of some $1.3 billion. Even that figure is misleading because approximately one third comes back to the federal and provincial Governments in the form of taxes. So let us put the figure at around $900 million and it results in a saving to the consumers of this country of some
75,000	barrels of oil a day. Compare that to the $17 billion odd committed at the end of 1983 to the National Energy Program which has produced only some 22,000 barrels of oil a day. Where are the economics? The economics are very simple. The Government commitment is to help the oil industry and the oil barons, not the home owners of this country.
Members opposite talk about reducing the deficit. Let me suggest to them that the best way is to tax the oil companies. Stop giving them all the tax breaks, the incentives and the grants. This Government can save the taxpayers of this country hundreds of millions, nay, billions of dollars. But will it reduce the deficit by attacking the almighty oil compaines? No, of course not. After all, deals and commitments have been made, and these have to be honoured. But what about the commitments to the home owners of this country, the people who benefited from the off-oil and insulation programs? Well, of course, they can be forgotten, thrown to the wind. So when I hear Conservative Members say that this is necessary in order to cut our deficit, I say B.S. If they were seriously concerned about reducing the deficit they would be reducing the costly parts, the supply parts of the energy program. But no, they are not reducing the supply part. They are not reducing the grants and bail-outs to the nuclear industry which has cost this country billions of dollars over the years. They are not reducing any of the grants and subsidies to the oil companies. No, not at all. But the programs which benefit ordinary Canadian men and women, yes, they will reduce those programs. It is
indeed a sad moment when a Conservative Party which claims to be concerned about conserving is in fact the one that kills the program which attempts to encourage conservation.
What about the future? A report prepared by Canertech in December, 1983, suggested that the level of energy savings in this country over the next 10 years is up to the equivalent of
490,000	barrels of oil per day. This is based on 1983 dollars. That, Mr. Speaker, is the output of three or four mega-tar sands plants. In contrast, they would involve capital costs of about $60 billion and significant tax on royalty concessions. That is the potential of conservation in this country. We can conserve some 490,000 barrels of oil a day and do it a heck of a lot cheaper than building and financing mega-projects. But there is not a murmur about stopping any of those programs. After all, deals have been made, commitments have been made, and they must be honoured.
Given all this, surely it must make sense to Hon. Members that this Bill in front of us is foolishness. We must begin to recognize that oil is a finite resource. We must begin to conserve. It is in the national interest to do that. Surely it is about time that as a nation we began to recognize that the days of abundant resources are over. Is it not about time that the Conservative Party recognized its own roots as a conserving Party and paid more than just lip service to the slogan of conservation? They must reverse the legislation. But, no, they go in the opposite direction. Instead, the Conservative Members want to make the Canadian public captives of the oil industry. That is the real agenda that is involved here. They do not want Canadians to be self-sufficient. Rather, they want us to be captives of the oil industry in order to provide for the necessary markets to justify all the mega-projects. That is surely the only rational reason one could arrive at after looking at Bill C-24.
As I have pointed out, reducing the deficit is not a valid argument. If the Government were interested in reducing the deficit it could cut back on the subsidies and royalties it has given to the oil industry. Instead, it is eliminating the Canadian Home Insulation Program. I maintain that the Government wants the Canadian public to be captives of the utility and oil companies. That will cause Canadians to spend billions of dollars in the future to increase our energy and oil supplies. These expenditures would not be necessary to that degree if the Government would play a leading role in developing alternative energies and conservation measures.
Canadians are the largest consumers of energy in the world. In part that makes sense because we are a large country, sparsely populated, with a northern climate. There is much that can and should be done to conserve. Government has a responsibility. It must play a leading role in this. If the Government abdicates that responsibility, I predict that in the next election the people of Canada will turf it out because it has not fulfilled its important function of being a leader in this field.
March 18, 1985


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a word or two in support of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act. I have been listening with great interest to the opposition Members today. If this were not my duty day in the House I may not have been listening to them quite as attentively. However, I have been listening to them with great interest.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in examining this Bill they have missed the point somewhat. When you look at the purpose of this Bill surely you must look at the original legislation and see what the purpose of that legislation was. Upon looking at that I am sure that all of us would come to the conclusion that this Bill was put forward to try to encourage the Canadian public to substitute one form of energy for another. It was aimed at encouraging energy conservation. It was aimed at encouraging all of us to change from oil to electricity, gas, or whatever.
The purpose of that is very laudable. However, is it not true that even if we had not provided an extra monetary incentive there would have been an incentive there to convert from oil and to conserve energy? When one remembers the concern that we all have about the lack of oil in the country and how the price of oil has escalated over the last few years, it is only logical to believe that, without this additional financial incentive, the Canadian public would have converted to another form of energy. The low-income Canadians, whom many of the members of the Opposition have talked about today, would have done it anyway because for them too it makes good economic sense. It certainly makes good sense when one considers that with fuel savings over a very short period of time they can save the capital cost which they would put into a conversion.
With regard to the job creation aspect which members of the Opposition have talked about, those jobs would have inevitably been created in any event. If it makes good economic sense to go off oil, whether or not you are provided with additional incentive, you will do it and you will create those jobs.
The question is whether this program was needed in the first place to create jobs and to encourage Canadians to convert to other forms of fuel. We are inevitably led to the conclusion that this extra incentive is not necessary. It is always difficult to get rid of something which is in place, and all of us would like to get a little money from the Government, but it really did not require that money from the Government to get us to convert from oil. We would have done that anyway and we will continue to do it even without this program. The Canadian public knows how to spend their money better than the Government does. They want to ensure that we have wise financial management in the country. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we get this country back on the right road to wise financial management.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member who just spoke had some time left for his
Oil Substitution Act
speech. I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent of the House and his consent to put a question to him?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, we are proceeding under S.O. 35(2). We have 10-minute speeches. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could rebut some of the arguments of the hon. gentleman who just spoke in relation to areas where the conversions were made to wood and areas of rural Canada where the incomes of the people taking advantage of the program are not all that high. I refer specifically to people who are on fixed incomes, whether it be pensions or government incomes, like welfare. I think the main point that should be dealt with in this debate is that this program should remain in place for those people who do not have the incomes available to them to make the conversion.
When we discuss programs such as COSP, RRAP or any other home repair program in the country, we get into provincial rules and regulations. I am referring specifically to rules and regulations of provincial Departments of social services and welfare. In many cases the provincial Departments will not put up the total cost of such conversions. In fact, a great many social services recipients in the country had converted to heating with wood in rural areas simply because the federal grant was available and the provincial Departments of social services wanted to take advantage of it. In northern areas ol the country, and in certain provinces like Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, provincial Departments of social services have converted the heating systems of particular families from oil to wood, producing a saving for the provincial Department of Social Services as well as for the people concerned.
Some Members have said during this debate that some of the people receiving this money are well off, or rich. They said that they are not the poor or medium-income people but, rather, the fairly well off people. Can you imagine that statement applying to someone converting to wood? I am sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is completely out of the question. Can you imagine a person who is well off cancelling his board of trade meeting because he does not have enough splits for the morning? It is likely that his wife would cancel a bridge party because she had some chainsaw oil on her new dress? Would a rich family discuss during their dinner, the problems of removing mer from softwood, or that they should only use hardwood so there would not be turpentine or mer on their hands? Would they talk about getting a new track for the chainsaw or how to overcome the exhaust problems of the chainsaw? Would those families worry about converting from a 14-inch saw to a 12-inch blade?
It is absolutely ludicrous for anyone to suggest that only rich people took advantage of the program as it relates to wood in the northern and rural parts of this country. Those programs should be maintained for people whose circumstances may have prevented them from being able to convert in the winter

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
months when their heating bills have been as high as $300 a month.
With regard to these northern areas, I am surprised that the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) would not be encouraging the Government to maintain this program, if only for wood conversion.
Statistics show that it is in remote areas where the wood resource is available that this program was used to its greatest extent. Therefore, the Minister of State for Forestry has a vested interest in maintaining this program. People in those remote forested areas would simply pick up the debris off the logging roads if they could not get cutting permits. There is no question that there are enough fallen trees in our forests today to take care of all the woodstoves in any local area.
There are many rural areas in this country where the paper mills and private enterprise take advantage of softwoods. However, there are not many private entrepreneurs who make use of the hardwoods, which are left to die in the forests and create fire hazards. The Minister should have a special interest in this legislation for that reason, and he should suggest to the Minister responsible for this legislation that she maintain this program, if only for conversion to wood.
We are also debating an amendment for a six-month hoist. Such amendments are normally introduced for two reasons: either total disagreement with the Bill or a desire to put more pressing legislation before the Chamber. I think most Members in the House today would agree that there are more pressing matters facing the country today than that of eliminating a direct grant program to individuals. In fact, I would suggest that many would agree to a six-month hoist on all the legislation before the Chamber, because so much is happening that affects their constituencies which has not been explained by the Government. Those matters affect almost everything that happens with respect to transfers to individuals and their ability to take advantage of federal programs.
We have witnessed in the House this massive onslaught on transfers to individuals, no matter what program is involved. This was one of the easiest for the Government to attack. It was the only area in which it could make cuts. The Government will realize that there is very little that can be cut when it comes to transfers directly into the pockets of the Canadian people. Are you indicating that my time is up, Mr. Speaker? I will have to bow to your ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, I enjoy listening to him, but his time has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Trust Companies-Pioneer Trust Company collapse, b) Request for public inquiry; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Canadian Wheat Board-Announcement of quotas and prices, b) Western Grain Stabilization Act-Advance payments; the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy)-National Energy Program-Petroleum gas revenue tax-Status of negotiations with provinces.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works; and the amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p. 3072).
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion to postpone this Bill for six months. I see the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) across the aisle. I do not know if he is familiar with the history of this place. Bob McGregor was the Member for York East for 23 years. Silent Bob McGregor never said anything in the House, but he made one mistake. At the end of 23 years, he rose to actually make a speech, and was promptly defeated in the next election. I do not know what will happen to the Hon. Member for York East, but he is a good Member and participates well in the House. Let me address some remarks with respect to what he said.
I would point out to the Hon. Member that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has not conducted a study into the Canadian off-oil program. It has studied the CHIP program and that study showed CHIP to be a useful program and one that was used by middle and low-income Canadians.
I suggest that the Government would be wise to conduct a study into the off-oil program before it blindly axes a program. I do not believe the Hon. Member would take such action and
March 18, 1985

1 suggest to him that there are legitimate reasons to delay this Bill for six months with respect to off-oil conversion.
A six-month hoist is usually a symbolic motion indicating opposition to a Bill. However, this is not the case with respect to this amendment. We believe the Government should postpone the completion date of the off-oil program from March 31, 1985, to September 30, 1985.
Many Members have stood up to give examples from their constituencies of why the program should be maintained. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) cited the case of people in his riding who wanted to order parts for off-oil conversion but must wait for those parts to come from Montreal or Toronto. There have been cases of constituents from northern Ontario who cannot put in gas lines because the ground is frozen. A six-month delay of this legislation would allow more gas lines to be installed and for people to take advantage of the program to convert from oil, which is being depleted, to natural gas, of which there is a surplus.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) told us of the line-ups of people in his riding who want to apply for this particular program. The program is not that costly to the Government. Possibly one-third of the funds will go back to the Government in the form of taxes. These programs have resulted in a saving of approximately 45,000 barrels of oil per day, accounting for up to 3 per cent saving in the annual use of oil in Canada. If the Government wants to consult with people and be rational, it will consider our proposal to extend the deadline until September. It is only fair and just. There are Canadians in different parts of the country who cannot take advantage of the program.
I heard the Hon. Member for York East say Canadians will substitute anyway, that Canadians, being rational beings, will go to other forms of energy such as hydro, wood or natural gas rather than oil. I suggest to the Hon. Member that that may not be true and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Take that back.


John Horton McDermid: You are saying Canadians are not rational?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, I am not saying Canadians are not rational.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Canadians cannot afford it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Some Canadians cannot afford it. Some Canadians who may be able to afford it are looking at the price of world oil. I suggest they may be thinking that the price of world oil is going to drop. I think the price of world oil will drop in a short time.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The banks won't let it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is already dropping. Canadians will say, "Why should we bother converting?". I get clippings from lots of different jurisdictions. I have been looking at clippings from some of the American commentators who are warning us.
Oil Substitution Act
They say that we have made lots of progress in energy conservation, but now we are back-tracking. Energy conservation is getting out of fashion with the public because the public thinks the price of oil is going to go down.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Not in the long run.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think it will go down in the short run. We are going to have a problem because it is a depleting resource. The price will eventually go up. The price could go up very suddenly if this Gulf war escalates, particularly as it relates to the conflict between Iraq and Iran which is already escalating. If Saudi Arabia gets involved the price of oil will go up very rapidly. Once again Canadians will be caught.
The Government is giving Canadians $800 out of about $2,000 to change a furnace. It is a little bit of a carrot to help Canadians. Then there is $500 for CHIP. For once we have given the ordinary Canadian a break. Consumers are paying all the costs in this country. Oil companies are not the ones that are paying. It is our oil. Canadian consumers are paying 50 cents a litre for gas at the pump. Here we give poor ordinary Canadians a break. This Government has no problem in giving $1.6 billion to the oil companies. It has turned around and I do not understand what it is doing. The Government's first attack on the National Energy Program, which it justifiably criticized when in opposition-


John Horton McDermid: Which you supported.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Which we did not support. We criticized the same things the Tories criticized. We supported the conservation aspects of the program. It is working. One million households have taken advantage of the off-oil program. Another 900,000 households are waiting. Why cut off the program? We have lean Canadian small business companies involved. What does the Government do, Mr. Speaker? It cuts them off and favours instead the largely fat big foreign-owned oil companies.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The Tories are against small businesses.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why is the Government attacking conservation first? Why do government Members stand up and say they are against grants? I heard the Member here and I heard the Member there. They are against grants. Are they against grants on regional diversification and regional employment? I heard the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) speak. I know his area. I lived in Yellowknife. If we cut off those grants, the whole place would die in a month. I heard the Member over here speak about cutting off grants. Some grants are good, some grants are bad. You cannot generally say that we have to cut off grants. We give grants. Are we going to cut off the home ownership program and the RRSPs? This is the modern world. The Government intervenes all over the place. In this one program the Government intervened on behalf of the ordinary Canadian, the home owner, and gave him a little bit of a break. This Government proposes to attack it now.

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You should be ashamed of yourselves.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I plead with this Government. At least in the interest of justice, give it another six months. You have people lining up waiting who cannot get on the list. Tories say they should have taken advantage of it before. They are human. They did not take advantage of it before.


Ian Deans: Maybe they weren't working.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Now they want to take advantage of it. Now we have a big burst of people who want to take advantage of it. It is a good program.


John Horton McDermid: You will want another six months, and then another six months.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, it will not be another six months. I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary, that he has my commitment on behalf of our Party that we will be prepared, if the Government gives a six-month extension, since the Tories have the majority and it is the Government's way, to let the Bill go through in September with very little debate. Is that not fair, Mr. Speaker? I think it is fair.


Ian Deans: That is perfectly reasonable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It may be fair, but the Hon. Member's time has expired.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I would specifically ask my colleagues to support the proposed amendment to hoist the Bill for six months. There are very cogent and important reasons that this Bill ought to be put on the backburner for at least six months.
First, I would like to comment on the question of consultation. This Government has promised to consult before it takes action. Over the last several months, we have been told time and time again that it is the desire of this Government to consult with interested parties before taking action. What form of consultation took place with respect to Bill C-24? Were interested groups given an opportunity to address the Government and indicate how the termination of this program at an early date would impact upon various important matters such as jobs?
The Government has continually promised that it would create jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs was the promise during the election campaign. It is my understanding that this particular Bill bringing forward the termination date of two very popular programs will result in the net loss of jobs. I am not aware of the number of jobs, but this Government should make every effort possible to ensure that jobs are not lost. I know it is very difficult to create jobs, but when the Government takes very direct action resulting in the loss of jobs, it has to be very careful and vigilant that adequate consultation takes place.
With respect to the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, that program was and is a very popular program in my riding
of York South-Weston. As the House is aware, the program provides subsidies of up to $800 to home owners who convert from oil to another form of fuel. This program was an extremely popular program not only for home owners in York South-Weston, but for home owners across the country.
When the program was initially introduced there was a very serious concern about the shortage of oil here and it was hoped that home owners would take advantage of the program in order to ensure that we did not run short of oil at a very early date. We have, of course, other forms of fuel that are far more economical and abundant. It was the intent of this legislation to provide home owners with some incentive to convert from a limited resource to other resources that are unlimited, if you will.
I am sure Hon. Members opposite will recognize and admit to the popularity of this program. Many Canadians have taken advantage of it. It was necessary as an incentive for Canadians to take advantage of it to provide subsidies to homeowners. Those subsidies were provided and, as a result, Canadian home owners converted. What the Government is proposing is that the termination date, which was originally December 31, 1987, be brought forward to March 31, 1986.
I suspect one of the reasons behind this particular piece of legislation is to save money. We fully recognize that the Government wants to reduce the deficit. I would simply ask Hon. Members opposite to be very sensitive to the cuts which take place and the ramifications of these particular cuts. For the sake of saving money with respect to these programs by bringing the termination date forward, the Government recognizes that jobs will be lost. One of the effects of these programs is the creation of jobs in the heating equipment market for installers of different furnaces and other individuals involved with conversion. In effect, by bringing forward the termination date, the result is a loss of jobs which are so badly needed at this point in time.
The other program which the Government is intending to cut short is the very important and popular CHIP which provided subsidies of up to $500 to home owners to upgrade insulation in their homes. As I indicated, these twin programs are very important and have considerably benefited the country.
The proposed six-month hoist will extend these programs and will give the Government on apportunity to start consulting with various interest groups. If the Government is sincere-and I believe it is-that consultation is key, I would ask what is the program in extending or delaying the Bill for a mere six months in order to give people an opportunity to come forward? Perhaps as a result of that consultative process, the Government might become convinced, where we as opposition Members might fail to convince it, that this legislation is bad. Perhaps it will be convinced by non-partisan individuals who will be harmed as a result of the change in the programs. At the very least, the consultative process could satisfy not only
March 18, 1985

the Opposition but members of the public that the legislation is necessary.
I ask Hon. Members opposite to live up to the many promises they made during the election campaign, one of which was to consult with Canadians before taking action. When the legislation was originally introduced and put in place by the previous Government, in effect there was a contract of sorts with Canadian people. They were told that two programs would be put in place, that subsidies would be forthcoming from two particular programs, and that specific dates would be inserted in the legislation to tell people how long the programs would last. In effect, what the Government is suggesting breaches that contract with Canadians.
It is true that there was some advance warning to Canadians indicating that the programs would be ending, but I submit that sufficient advance notice was not given. In order for Canadians to budget adequately with respect to home repairs and other expenses relating to upgrading their homes and heating systems, more advance notice is necessary.
In conclusion, I ask Hon. Members opposite to give some very serious consideration to adopting the amendment in order to delay the matter for at least six months. I am sure each and every Member opposite has many home owners in his riding who have take advantage of the legislation and others who would like to take advantage of it. We know for a fact that many people have converted from oil to other forms of fuel. Also we know that there are many other people who would like to take advantage of the program but cannot because it will end at a very early date.
I thank the House for the opportunity to express my concerns with respect to Bill C-24. I hope the Government in its wisdom will reconsider its actions.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act. I think the use of the word "amend" is a little in error because the effect of this Bill will be to kill two very valuable programs of which many Canadians have taken advantage in their desire and concern to enter into programs of energy conservation. That is all the more the pity. In fact, if anything can be said about conservation measures, it is probably that they have been effective and have worked well. The Government is now stepping in to kill something of great advantage to many Canadians.
In my own constituency many people have spoken to me about the effect of this Bill and about their plans to upgrade their residence, to get off oil and on to some other alternate source of energy. Many of the arguments I have heard over the past several weeks during which the Bill has been before the House and prior to that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced his intention to introduce this measure in his economic statement, have been in complete opposition to what the Government is doing. I heard a government Member indicate earlier this afternoon that he felt there were far too many subsidies given by the Government to Canadians. I
Oil Substitution Act
would readily agree with him, certainly in the way that this Government and previous Liberal Governments have handed out millions, if not billions, of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to the corporate sector. It is questionable as to whether or not ordinary Canadian taxpayers have benefited as a result.
The same argument cannot be made for this type of program. It has been well used. In his speech, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) made some excellent points about the value of the program, not only to individual taxpayers but in terms of the Government representing taxpayers across the country.
A good question to ask is: How much money will we spend to find the last drop of oil in the country? "The last drop of oil" is a definite way of putting it because it is a non-renewable resource. It is totally wrong for the Government to develop policy, to take away from existing policy and in effect to put all our eggs in one basket in terms of energy uses.
The Canadian Oil Substitution Program was introduced in 1980 in order to provide financial assistance for the conversion of heating systems in residential, commercial and industrial buildings off oil to a non oil-fired heating system. At this point I would like to mention a telephone call that I received from an elderly constituent, 82 or 83 years old. His sight has gone and obviously he has difficulty getting around. He would like to take advantage of this kind of program, but he does not know whether at his age it would be worth-while putting that kind of money into switching from oil to gas. There are no programs available to assist him with escalating heating costs. He read some of his bills to me over the last 10 years which showed what has happened to his heating costs over that length of time.
Rather than the Government initiating measures to cut back on existing programs which were extremely useful to many Canadians, perhaps it should have looked at expanding the kind of assistance available. In particular, it should look at the senior citizens of this country who are stuck with oil-fired furnaces, the heating costs of which have doubled if not tripled over the last 10 years. That would have been extremely useful, not only in terms of energy conservation, but in terms of offering assistance to elderly Canadians who really could use it as at this time.
In previous contributions in this House by Members who are now on the government side but who at one point not so long ago were on the opposition benches, and who will undoubtedly be back again if they keep introducing measures like this-


An Hon. Member:: It will be sooner rather than later.


Neil Young: It will be sooner rather than later. One prominent government Member who was then a prominent opposition Member in speaking on these programs, said, and it will come as no surprise that the Member is the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton)-


An Hon. Member:: He is brilliant.

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act


Neil Young: He is brilliant and was brilliant when he was talking about this particular program. What he said is recorded for posterity at page 11099 of Hansard for June 30, 1981. The Hon. Member said, and I quote:
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.
That was obviously said by a man of great wisdom. Members will greatly benefit if they listen to the experienced Members on the government side. This particular Member was a Minister in the Diefenbaker Cabinet. He made a tremendous contribution to the policies developed by the Prime Minister of that day. We all know what happened to that Government, but it was not due to the advice of the Hon. Member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain. I have been at many, many gatherings and meetings around this place since 1980 and I know that the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has said publicly on many occasions that if the Diefenbaker Government had listened to him, it would still be in office. He says it with such authority and conviction, I personally believe him.
If the Government were to listen to this particular gentleman, perhaps it would have a chance of coming back here as the Government after the next election. However, the way things are going, I doubt that very much. Some of them are very sensible people. I see my friend, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). He is a man of great wisdom. I can see in his eyes that he agrees with everything that I am saying. I am sure that at the caucus meeting on Wednesday morning he will advise the Cabinet that, after listening to me and my persuasive arguments, he is convinced that this program should in fact be extended for six months, as my good friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has proposed to the House. If the House has any sense, particularly the government side, it will agree to the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member. I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure unanimous consent would be available if the Hon. Member who just finished speaking would like to continue his remarks. However, I am very glad to have the opportunity to give my position on this Bill.
We have been very critical in Question Period in the House and elsewhere of the fact that this Government has not carried out the promises that it made during the course of the election campaign. What we are here to talk about today is something that it is doing which it never promised. I certainly do not remember hearing during the election campaign that the COSP and CHIP programs would be cancelled. I would have liked to have heard that from the Conservative candidate during the election campaign in my riding and elsewhere in the country. He would have been talking then about two of the most popular programs and most important programs of the Government which are being cancelled with a very short lead in time.
I do not know if Members opposite are in touch with their constituents enough to realize how serious the termination of these programs is. About two hours ago I received a telephone call from a constituent who wanted me to know that as soon as the deadline for conversion off oil was announced, he began to consider doing something about it in order to take advantage of this program. He got in touch with Consumers' Gas toward the end of January because he wanted Consumers' Gas to do the conversion. They would not even take down his name. They told him there was no point in his applying because they were not going to be able to bring him within the statute in time. He told me that there were a number of other people on his street in the same situation. If that was their situation, I am certain that there are thousands and thousands of people across the country who want to convert and are unable to do so because the deadlines that have been given just do not give them enough time.
I know that this Government is committed to trying to reduce the deficit. This is, at first blush, a program that would reduce the deficit because we were using tax money to try to help people insulate their homes and convert off oil. What a crazy program to try to meet the promise to reduce the deficit! This program is available to every single Canadian household. That is why I am so very distressed that this is the one they picked to try to meet their commitment to cut-


John Horton McDermid: That is not true.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Does the Hon. Member want to make a point?
I would be willing to take a question from him right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York Centre has the floor for 10 minutes. There are no questions or answers, please.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) offered the floor to me for a question in his time limit. I am prepared to ask him a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary should be aware of this. If we are going to stick to the rules which we now have, under Standing Order 35(2) each Member is allowed a ten-minute speech. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to put a question, I will have to ask the House if it will permit him to ask that question.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a rhetorical question. Will he please let me finish my speech? He can then have the floor and speak as long as he wants.
These two programs have been chosen by the Government as a means of reducing expenditures. That choice damages
March 18, 1985

other priorities, which were priorities of the former Government, and I hope will continue to be priorities of this Government. Yet those priorities have been damaged by the decision to terminate these two programs.
One of those priorities was the very important government objective of attempting to achieve a balance between the consumption of oil and the consumption of other forms of energy which were more in keeping with the national resources of the country. The Government ought to know that the consumption of oil in Canada is in excess of what is produced domestically, while the consumption of natural gas is below what is produced domestically. The same thing could be said of electricity. If we consider the option of electricity as opposed to oil, oil must be imported, but electricity is a renewable resource which is exported. One of the goals of the programs was to attempt to get Canadians off oil and on to other forms of energy. I think the programs have been very successful. COSP reduced the consumption of oil at the rate of 60,000 barrels per day. That benefit will be lost unless other incentives can be found to encourage conversion.
One of the incentives to encourage conversion which exists is the fact that gas is cheaper than oil. Canadians who convert to gas save approximately 30 per cent on the cost of their fuel consumption. For some smaller homes, and the people who may not have liked the idea of paying the initial cost of the conversion, COSP really met a need. I think in the near future we will have confirmation that this program produced conversions at a rate which ordinary market forces could not meet.
The disappearance of this program will slow down the important conversion process from oil to other more available forms of Canadian energy. In addition, it will affect adversely our balance of payments, because if Canadians used domestic energy as opposed to imported energy, as far as balance of payments is concerned, the transaction would be neutral. The Government has taken a step which will require more foreign currency in order to buy something which Canadians consume. It will place adverse pressure on the dollar at a time when the dollar is close to the lowest it has ever been. I suppose when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) recently looked at the value of the dollar in American terms and said that he was not worried about it, he must have thought, "Why worry about a 72-cent dollar when there are still 72 cents left to go?" I say to the Government that it is something to worry about. Any existing program which is having the effect of protecting our balance of payments and protecting the value of the Canadian dollar should not be terminated, especially when the Government has not yet brought forward a budget. As far as we on this side of the House can gather, the Government has not realistically begun to look at the options which are available in a budget.
This legislation has 1wo negative effects. First, it will slow down the rate of conversion from oil. Second, it will continue to place adverse pressure on the value of the Canadian dollar.
I would like to look at it from another point of view. I hope that the House will not object if I referred to particular cases in my constituency. The home insulation industry is character-
Oil Substitution Act
ized by small business. A lot of young people are setting up businesses. As well, the conversion program, which provides people with alternative ways of heating their homes, was creating a small business boom. The Government has thrown cold water on a very important industry. In introducing this legislation with such a short deadline-and I profoundly believe this-the Government has killed prospects for a number of new small businesses in Canada. In addition, it may well have killed a number of small businesses which are already established. It is an important industry. Energy conservation and conversion were two very important activities which will be adversely affected by this decision.
I would like the Government to tell us about the studies it has done which would justify the step that it has taken with this legislation. I do not see any basis for feeling secure in telling the new businesses in my riding and elsewhere that the Government has considered their situation and that they have reason to be confident that the Government's fanatical dedication to reducing the deficit at any price will not hurt them as badly as I think this legislation will. What does the Government have to say to the small businesses which were created by the legislation that was introduced by the former Government? It was legislation which was designed to and had the effect of achieving important benefits for the Canadian economy.
What will the Government put in place to encourage the very healthy process which has been cut off with such short notice? Many people who wanted to benefit from the programs, at a time when they could afford it or at a time when it suited their requirements, will not be able to do so. So far, the Government has only told us that it is confident-and without any basis for being so-that energy conservation measures will continue to be implemented and that conversion from oil will continue. I am not satisfied that the assurances which the Government has given to us will enable these two Canadian objectives to continue to be met. I would like to know what the Government has in mind for Canadian people who will suffer as a result of the programs which are being terminated.
I see that my time has almost expired. I wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the House to continue, as I have two other points which I would like to make.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) on debate.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is proposing to terminate two programs which have done more good in Canadian society than any programs which I can recall, as far as home insulation and oil substitution are concerned, in the history of this country. The Government is proposing to terminate the Canadian Home Insulation Program on March 31, 1986. I, like other Members, have had telephone calls from constituents about that. As well, the Government is proposing to terminate the

March 18, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Canadian Oil Substitution Program on March 31 of this year, instead of its original termination date of December 31, 1990. As I say, judging from the correspondence, phone calls and even telegrams we have had from our constituents, we are not alone in saying that the CHIP and COSP programs have been very valuable and cost effective. Compare them with PIP grants, one of the disasters of the previous Government. I have yet to see any of the money which has gone into the PIP grants actually produce any real effective results. In fact, according to research done last year, much of the money was thrown down the tube when contrasted with the money spent on CHIP and COSP.


John Horton McDermid: PetroCan takes the most.


Pauline Jewett: I know the Parliamentary Secretary yells a lot, but he does not get up and defend this iniquitous legislation.


John Horton McDermid: This is the first time I have seen you in the House.


Pauline Jewett: As he knows, we are proposing a six-month hoist. If this Bill goes ahead and passes at second reading, it will pass in principle. It is all very well for Members opposite to say it will be going into committee, but there is no way, from my knowledge and experience, that the committee is going to be able to amend this Bill in such a way as to extend its application or restore the original dates of termination. So while there is always much benefit to be derived from legislation going to a Standing Committee of the House for further refinement, I think the fundamental point to be made here is that this Government simply would not accept in committee any changes to this legislation. The little bit of tinkering it might accept would have nothing to do with restoring the original termination dates or even extending the current termination dates of both programs.
As many Hon. Members have said, if the Government is serious about attacking the deficit, why does it not look at some things like the PIP grants which do not benefit Canadian society? Indeed, in many documented cases, the money has been thrown away with nothing having been achieved. Many of my constituents have already taken advantage of the CHIP and COSP programs and they are aware of their value.
Let me remind the House again that of the $885 million paid out in CHIP grants to the end of 1984, approximately $200 million flowed back to the federal and provincial Governments in the form of taxes. As well, 2.5 million housing units, representing about one third of the eligible housing stock built before 1977, have taken advantage of the CHIP program. That is about one third. Perhaps the point most significant of all is that the total energy savings attributable to CHIP is estimated at the equivalent of perhaps 45,000 barrels of oil per day. It is true that Energy, Mines and Resources estimates that in the absence of CHIP some 35 per cent of these savings would not have been achieved, but this still means that CHIP is calculated to have resulted in incremental energy savings of roughly 30,000 barrels a day of oil equivalent, and that is a
major saving. Furthermore, the Department believes that if this program were continued, there would be further energy savings of 30 per cent.
Hon. Members will recall that the objective of COSP was to convert two million housing units off oil by 1990. If the Government could argue that we were not on target and the program had not been successful, we might understand the wish to terminate it. But in fact thus far almost one million housing units have been converted, and that is right on target. So why abandon the program?
It was observed in the other place that with the experience gained thus far in operating these two programs, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources projections indicated that there are substantially greater energy savings to be made than even the Department had originally anticipated. It was also noted that for older, poorly insulated and weather stripped homes, energy savings could be had at a cost of $5 per barrel of oil equivalent. Under some circumstances, the cost could be as low as $2 or $3 per barrel of oil equivalent.
So I ask once again, why should the Government remove two highly efficient programs which are on target and which meet the needs of Canadians? They help energy conservation in this country, so why is the Government abandoning the programs? We would like to hear from the Government to know the answer to that question.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I note that there are only a couple of minutes left and I will not get into the meat of what I had to say. Perhaps I will save that for another day. I cannot help but think, though, that this Government has managed in a short few weeks to redefine simony and turn it into a political art form. Once it was the selling of ecclesiastical preferment; now it is the selling of political preferment, and I cannot help but feel that this Bill exemplifies that as well as anything we have seen over the course of the last few months.
I want to tell you that I had the opportunity recently to consult a person who is perhaps not an international authority but certainly an authority in this field, namely, Heather Grant, who raised with me some of the serious problems that could flow from the discontinuance of this program. I want to share with the House this afternoon or tomorrow or some day later in the week-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member will have that opportunity. When the House meets again on Bill C-24, the Hon. Member will have nine minutes left in his speech.

Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
March 18, 1985



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['All right. But the subject is far too broad for two minutes.\nI just want to summarize in a few words the speech I prepared this afternoon. It is unfortunate to see the lack of order in this House, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, 1 sincerely believe I cannot support the proposal being made in Bill', 'March 18, 1985\nAdjournment Debate\nC-218. I think this Bill should be voted down by the House, and in fact by any reasonable individual who does not believe in Santa Claus and who sincerely believes that we must be ready to cope with any situation that might occur. This is a Bill that cannot be taken seriously, and I do not think it should.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 162?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
# * *



Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved: that Bill C-218, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, and I think it is an appropriate day, to take the opportunity to present this Bill to the House. It calls for Canada to declare itself a nuclear weapons free zone. I would like to begin by quoting a few words that were uttered in 1959. "I believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than are governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it". That was said by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then President of the United States.
How true are those words. Twenty-six years later this Bill addresses the undeniable will of the majority of Canadians. It gives them what they want, a nation free of participation in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Time and time again the people of Canada have given us a clear direction. Almost half a million people signed the peace petition caravan which called for the establishment of Canada as a nuclear weapons free zone. There are over 80 such self-proclaimed zones already in Canada. I speak of various cities and municipalities. No Member of the House can ignore any longer the results of referendums that those communities held, the numerous polls, and the growing number of peace organizations dedicated to disarmament. It is clearly the will of the Canadian people to take this action.
I know support exists among Members on all sides of the House as well. Why is it then that we still allow the proponents of nuclear arms to continue to call the shots? I remember when it was still in fashion to believe in the ability to survive a nuclear war. We told our schoolchildren that all they had to do was to hide under their desks and close their eyes during an attack. Those children have grown up, and they are not buying that one any more. We have tried to assure them that a nuclear war will never happen as long as both sides maintain a suicidal level of the nuclear ability known as mutual assured destruction. However, understanding politicians as people do, they are not falling for that one either.
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act
A case in point, Mr. Speaker, is the article on page three of last Friday's Globe and Mail. The headline reads, "Pentagon Cites Nuclear Winter as Reason for Arms Build-up". Now they are getting specific. No one wants a nuclear winter, so no one will start a nuclear war. Is it any wonder Canadians doubt the sanity of those who participate in that kind of an argument? Could you imagine what would happen if the Government adopted the same policy for gun control as the Pentagon has for nuclear arms control? It has to be a definition for the word "insanity".
We have also tried to give assurances that arms negotiations will eliminate the threat of nuclear war. I am sure all Canadians applaud any attempt at negotiating arms reductions and a lasting peace. We cannot deny, however, the fact that a generation of good intentions has passed and we are quickly approaching the point where a nuclear holocaust will become a mathematical certainty.
The majority of Canadians are no longer fooled. Despite the overwhelming amount of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation disseminated by the proponents of a nuclear deterrent, Canadians are mobilizing, as General Eisenhower predicted, to demand an end to the development of nuclear arms. Canadians realize that there must be a continuing diplomatic effort to reduce world tensions and that Canada must play an important role. But they also understand that as far as the nuclear threat is concerned, we must also take immediate action against the technology itself.
These weapons were first developed for use against the Germans and the Japanese. Since then we have befriended our previous enemy and have armed ourselves against a previous ally. Politics and alliances change, but human nature does not. There will never be real security in the world as long as nuclear weapons are allowed to exist, and they will never be dismantled if we leave it to the discretion of the superpowers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Unless we as Canadians address the moral question of the existence of nuclear weapons, we will find ourselves debating the same red herring argument of deterrence a generation from now under a completely new set of world conditions. That is, assuming that this House and the people it serves are still in existence.
As a veteran committed to the sovereignty of our nation I see no hypocrisy in wishing a strong, legitimate defence for Canada without participation in the nuclear arms race. This Bill is a very important beginning and one which naturally follows previous Canadian precedents as a world peace keeper. In 1967 the UN General Assembly welcomed, with Canadian support, the conclusion of a treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin America. Since then there has been considerable interest in the United Nations about the establishment of other nuclear weapons free zones. In 1975 Canada voted in favor of resolutions supporting the denuclearization of Africa and the consideration of creating nuclear free weapons zones in south Asia, the Middle East, and the South Pacific.

March 18, 1985
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act
Our country agreed not to encourage the further development of nuclear weapons when we signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. We further agreed:
Each non nuclear weapon state party to the treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or of control over such weapons or explosive devices, directly or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
We further supported the inclusion of a provision placing an obligation on nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty to negotiate effective restraints on the nuclear arms race and to meet their commitment to seek a halt to nuclear weapon testing. Surely, at the least, the spirit of this agreement has already been violated by the testing of the Cruise. The weapon itself is not functionable in this case without the testing of the delivery system. It is all one and the same. The spirit of the agreement has been violated by the manufacture of weapons components in Canada, not to mention the fact that there have been nuclear arms on Canadian soil.
However, if this agreement still reflects our intentions on this issue, then let us send this Bill to committee and take some positive actions toward the objective of the agreement we signed when we gave our word 17 years ago. It has been 17 years, Mr. Speaker, and we are still playing Simon Says with the two schoolyard bullies who have been taking no initiatives to get out of the game. That is what it will take: initiative, action and courage. But some Hon. Members will have a problem with getting up the courage to take a pacified stand on this issue. They will say, "Why should we if they are not going to as well?" But there will be followers. As we join New Zealand and a number of other nations, others will join us, and the positive effects of the international movement by countries like ours will eventually cover the globe.
There may be some who call the Bill anti-American or anti-NATO, but we have no commitment or no responsibility to NATO on nuclear weapons and there is no disloyalty in excusing ourselves from our friends' company while they are engaged in an activity which is morally wrong and not in our best interest. Did our mothers not teach us that?
The Bill is not anti anything other than nuclear weapons. It won't affect other forms of nuclear technology and it will not open the doors to a communist or any other invasion. We will have to debate this Bill for what it is, a bold move toward peace and an even bolder move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. It has to start somewhere; it may as well start here.
It is impossible for this Bill to protect immediately the people of Canada from nuclear war, though I believe it will help in the long run. However, it does protect us from the ignorance of nuclear deterrent advocates and the false sense of security that they create in the minds of Canadians when they expose their simplistic myth of maintaining nuclear balance. Having taken a stand on this issue and having had our awareness raised, new opportunities of hope will be found.
Obviously, even more discussion on this topic raises hope. That is why the Bill also supports the idea of a world referendum on disarmament. Some Members will suggest that the idea is silly because no one wants a nuclear war, but there is nothing silly about a world discussion on this issue, leading to a democratic expression. Neither is there anything silly about the amount of support this initiative has around the world. Even the Soviet Union has said that it is prepared to investigate the methodology of the referendum with other interested countries. No, there is nothing silly about that, and all for an estimated cost of two cents per participant when done in concert with regular elections. I hope other Hon. Members do not have a problem with this part of the Bill. Certainly all Parties showed support for this initiative prior to the election when they were surveyed. When surveyed, 76 Liberal candidates said yes, nine said no; 84 Conservatives said yes, nine said no; and all 128 new Democrats who answered the survey said yes. Of the Conservatives showing support, 19 are now Cabinet Ministers.
I hope we can expect general support for the proposal for a world referendum as a golden opportunity to further the cause of peace through world discussion.
I have tried to make my comments brief. The Bill has been debated in the House on previous occasions. I am sure all Hon. Members have enough information to be able to form an opinion.
There are two other reasons that I urge the House to allow this Bill to be referred to the appropriate standing committee. One concerns Canada's credibility. We have had a marvelous record in peace-keeping. In beginning a good record of peacemaking, if we are a nuclear weapons free zone, we can go to other countries to talk about a nuclear arms freeze, reduction and eventual elimination in a stronger position. If we are not party to or in possession of nuclear weapons or allow others to have nuclear weapons or delivery systems on Canadian territory, including the testing of weapons or delivery systems, we will be in a stronger position. There must be no hypocrisy when our nation goes to other nations to discuss this issue. This has nothing to do with our NATO commitment.
The other reason is that both the United States and the Soviet Union have a nuclear capacity within their territories and on the oceans that is sufficient to wipe all of us out anyway. There is no real necessity for Canada or dozens of other countries like us to be party to the possession of or to allow the stationing or testing of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to try to influence the deterrent or balance of power.
In the event that either or both of those nations were to launch a nuclear attack, they would overfly us and destroy us anyway. Any contribution that Canada would make to such a catastrophe would be so small as to make no difference in such a final suicidal result.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the adoption of Bill C-218, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, has many implications which go well beyond the Bill's
March 18, 1985

apparent, simple declaratory statement. The Bill, in effect, would require Canada's withdrawal from the security of 35 years' membership in NATO into questionable isolation and would abrogate a number of defensive bilateral agreements that Canada has with the United States.
On June 30, 1984, Canada removed the last remaining nuclear-tipped GENIE air-to-air missiles which were to be used in wartime in an air defence role by Canadian CF-101 Voodoo interceptors. The air defence role has now been taken over by CF-18 aircraft which can do the same job using conventional weapons system only. There are no nuclear weapons stationed on Canadian soil. Overflights of American aircraft with nuclear weapons, were they to occur, would take place only with the expressed permission of the Canadian Government. The same consultations and permission would be required for the deployment of any other nuclear weapons within Canadian territory.
Declaring Canada to be a nuclear weapons free zone would be a unilateral measure which is not supported by the Canadian Government. Unlike the originators of Bill C-218, the Canadian Government continues to believe in the concept of mutual security-a collective effort to deter aggression or to counter it if it occurs. That is why we are in the North Atlantic Alliance, which is also the framework for the NORAD agreement with the U.S.A. The Alliance relies on a deterrent strategy in which nuclear weapons play an important part. This is unfortunately unavoidable in the world as we know it.
The idea of a nuclear weapons free zone for Canada, with all its implications, would be realistic only if the Canadian Government were prepared to withdraw from the Alliance which has served us well and has helped to preserve peace for more than 35 years. The Canadian Government continues to believe that our defence partnership, co-operation and defence production sharing arrangements with our allies make a greater contribution to preserving peace and security than would our withdrawal into the uncertain isolation of a nuclear weapons free zone. As I have already mentioned, the Canadian Government does not support the idea of unilateral disarmament.
It is necessary for us to maintain our support for our NATO alliance until such time as disarmament is mutually agreed to by the great powers. In this context, we are particularly encouraged by the agreed objectives for the American-Soviet negotiations which are under way in Geneva, the prevention of an arms race in space and its termination on earth; the limitation and reduction of nuclear arms; and the strengthening of strategic stability, leading ultimately to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
Canada is a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, and has now been a member for thirty-five years. We joined the Alliance because we believed in the concept of collective security, a united effort to deter aggression or to counter it should conflict occur. There were many advantages to such an
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act alliance. However, the most telling advantages were then, and continue to be, the united strength which accrued to the Alliance enabling it to resist undue external political and military pressures and reduction of the cost of defence by dispersing the burden of armaments among the member states. Similarly, NATO has enabled the West to speak with a unified voice on critical issues of international security and to pursue the progressive development of East-West relations in a coherent fashion. It is an invaluable forum for nations such as Canada to express their views and to exert a constructive and moderating influence on the policy directions taken by the Western powers in their relations vis-a-vis the East bloc.
The Alliance has relied for its security on a deterrent strategy in which nuclear weapons play an important role. Clearly, an alternative approach which could provide an equal measure of stability and strength, but which would not rely on nuclear weapons for its effect, is a desirable objective. Unfortunately, we have been unable to fashion a post-war world in which such policies would be either realistic or desirable for the maintenance of peace.
The NATO Alliance remains an indispensable tool for Canada to maintain an effective and influential voice toward the improvement of East-West relations.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What has NATO got to do with it?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The idea of a nuclear weapons free zone for Canada would be realistic only if the Canadian Government were prepared to withdraw from the Alliance.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You are on the wrong Bill.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Would Canadian withdrawal from the Alliance enhance the prospects for peace and help to diminish the likelihood of nuclear catastrophe which continues to loom so threateningly in the distance? Were Canada to declare itself a nuclear weapons free zone, would this in any way reduce the devastating effects which a thermonuclear war would wreak on this country, and indeed the world?


Cyril Keeper: Yes.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Would Canada's voice be listened to more seriously and would our words carry greater weight in the corridors of power around the world because we were no longer a member of the NATO Alliance?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What has NATO got to do with it?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The answer to these questions remains unequivocally "No." Canada's possibilities for influencing these events would be greatly weakened and the stability of the East-West balance immeasurably shaken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. This is Private Members' Hour. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Weiner) has the floor. I would like to hear him-

March 18, 1985
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: -I do not know about the other Members here. I would like to know whether his speech is relevant, but I cannot do that. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has the floor.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we would still remain vulnerable to the effects and results of a nuclear holocaust, but in the process, would reduce our influence and our capacity to help avert the very disaster which it is our most fervent desire to prevent. Not only this, but Canada would be forced to shoulder its defence burden alone, with infinitely greater expenditure, and Canada would have reduced security in the bargain.
The proposed Bill would also prohibit the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. NATO does not oblige Canada to test the Cruise missile. The decision by the previous Government to allow the United States to test unarmed air-launched Cruise missiles in Canada was seen as consistent with that Government's support for NATO's two-track policy which led to the deployment of ground-launched Cruise missiles in several NATO European countries. This Government decided to allow the United States to continue with its testing program because it believes that the Cruise missile is an essential element in the global balance of deterrence and is part of the Western response to the modernization by the Soviet Union of its offensive and defensive nuclear systems during the 1970s. This Soviet modernization continues into the 1980s.
The policy of allowing the United States to test air-launched Cruise missiles in Canada will be reviewed from time to time in the context of evolving progress in arms limitation and reduction negotiations.
Bill C-218 would also prohibit the manufacture of any components of nuclear weapons in Canada. Regarding Canadian co-operation in the production of U.S. Cruise missiles, Litton Systems Canada Limited was awarded the subcontract by the U.S. Department of Defense through its parent company in the United States, Litton Industries, to produce a portion of the inertial guidance system for the Cruise missile. Litton's participation in a small part of the Cruise missile vehicle program would not be taken as a change in Canadian policies instituted at the end of the 1960s to divest our Armed Forces of a nuclear weapons capability. It is, however, consistent with joint defence efforts with our NATO allies who rely in part on the maintenance of a credible nuclear deterrent in the face of the growing military threat from hostile forces.
Bill C-218 also proposes another unrealistic measure. It directs that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) shall, at the earliest opportunity following the coming into force of this Act, propose a motion to the General Assembly of the United Nations calling for a world referendum on nuclear disarmament.
The Canadian Government does not support the idea of a global referendum on disarmament. The proposal fails to acknowledge that the current situation in the disarmament and arms control field is largely the result of the lack of adequate
international security arrangements and confidence among states which would ensure their security and national integrity at lower levels of arms. In the absence of such conditions, movement on disarmament will only come about after long and difficult negotiations among the parties involved.
Measures, such as the call for a world referendum on disarmament, will not solve these basic underlying problems which are preventing progress in this field. Real disarmament requires long and careful negotiations aimed at establishing mutual confidence and constructing adequate international security mechanisms to guarantee the safety of each state. We believe that the outcome of a world referendum is predictable: the vast majority of people who have even a basic understanding of the question would express support for disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, even though there would undoubtedly be vast differences of view on how to go about achieving it. Therefore, a world referendum, if held, would represent an expression of public opinion in favour of disarmament, but could not be a substitute for actual negotiation of verifiable international agreements.
There are other, more effective and less costly ways of bringing to bear on the militarily significant powers the world public's views on the need for arms control and disarmament which is, essentially, the objective of the world referendum. The Canadian Government's current effort through such mechanisms as the Disarmament Fund, is to seek to make Canadians more aware of the existence of the various issues and the background to them and to encourage a balanced discussion of them. The objective is to provide Canadians with the basis for making reasoned judgments on these issues and to enable them to make their views known more effectively.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does not support a declaration of nuclear weapons free status for Canada because, while in some respects we may be regarded as a de facto nuclear weapons free zone following the withdrawal of the last nuclear capable aircraft from service with the Canadian Forces, we continue to participate fully in a defence alliance, NATO, which deploys a nuclear deterrent. The declaration of a nuclear weapons free zone in Canada would be inconsistent with membership in the Alliance as well as being inconsistent with the defence production sharing arrangements which we have with our allies.
You might want to ask a person out of work whether he would rather stay in the breadline instead of working in an arms factory. We had a defence procurement team which went across Canada helping Canadians find jobs and helping keep Canadians at work. They will be buying arms, whether or not we in Ontario want to sell them. There is some $320 billion worth of available business for Canadians to access into the United States. We now have about a $1 billion part of that business. As far as Canadians are concerned, it is a method of putting Canadians back to work. It is quite clear in our minds that we already have an ability to put people back to work. It is quite clear in our minds that we already have an ability to put people back to work. This Government was elected to
March 18, 1985

create jobs. We can do it effectively by making use of some of the armamentarium we have available to us.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-218, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. This Bill would declare Canada to be a nuclear weapons free nation. It is true that today, we have no nuclear weapons in Canada, so that the purpose of this Bill is to guarantee that in the future, there will be no nuclear weapons on our territory.

The Official Opposition supports the introduction of Bill C-218. We feel it is an appropriate time-


John Horton McDermid: That is something new.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I said that we support the introduction of Bill C-218. I do not see anyone in the House who would disagree with what I just said. The principle of debating a Bill in this House is something which all of us have supported at first reading, so I support the introduction of this Bill. That is clear. It is appropriate that at this time in Canada we debate the issues at hand and that the vital question of declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone be the object of a public debate.
In offering our support to this motion, we wish to make it absolutely clear at this time that we are neither for nor against the concept of a nuclear weapons free zone in Canada. Rather, we feel, as I have said, that this is an appropriate time in our history to have an in depth review of this complex matter so that all Canadians might participate in this crucial debate and help parliamentarians determine our future direction with regard to this question which is of fundamental importance to all Canadians.
We feel certain that the Government opposite will support this motion in light of its promise to the Canadian people to conduct an open government, one which will listen to the Canadian people and will strongly encourage the participation of all Canadians in our political system.
This question deserves a serious hearing. It deserves input from all Canadians. We have been promised over the last few months that indeed the House would be receiving two green papers-one on defence and one on external affairs. Here again we have an occasion to get to the essential matter of these important questions which preoccupy Canadians.
I do not want to debate the matter very long. I think there is some merit in having it discussed and referred to committee. I would just like to say that I strongly support the principle of the Bill. The implications, the ramifications, the "zap you are frozen" attitude is a bit naive. I should like to see more input from all Canadians who are interested in this matter. They can tell parliamentarians what they feel should be done. We must take time to listen. We must take time to consider.
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act
Because of what the Parliamentary Secretary said and because I think there are some arguments which will prompt debate, serious consideration should be given to refusing to pass the Bill today. To avoid any difficulties in this regard, I would suggest that indeed the subject matter is very important.
It is essential that we discuss it. The Bill could be withdrawn- and there is a formula for that-and the subject matter of it could be referred to a committee along with the other papers which will come forth, I understand, after we are finished with the "blarney summit" in Quebec City. I understand that the two papers I referred to will be tabled-the green paper on defence and the green paper on external affairs. Perhaps at that time we will address this question and have a chance to talk seriously about the matters of nuclear disarmament and a nuclear freeze in Canada.
Some time ago I had the honour and the pleasure of seeing a gentleman named James Stark run for the socialist party, the NDP, in my riding. Mr. Stark and I have had a long, ongoing relationship. I could point to letters which I have exchanged with Mr. Stark. I will not read them into the record because I have a personal view on this issue which I think is very valid; people in my riding know where I stand on the issue.
I should like to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that' and substituting the following therefor:
"That Bill C-218 be not now read a second time but that the order be
discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the
Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Mr, Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). In listening to his motion, I began to wonder whether or not the Opposition would treat the special committee on foreign affairs and national defence with any sense of seriousness.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What special committee?


Mr. Hawkes:: Surely the subject matter of the Bill before us today belongs in the hands of that special committee. It must be an important part of what that committee discusses. It is almost inconceivable that we should conduct a thorough review of Canada's foreign affairs policy and Canada's defence policy without dealing with the nuclear issue. I think it would be a shame to have it fragmented into two forums.
If the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier ever comes to a vote, I would urge Members not to split the issue into two committees of the House. The proper context for discussion of this issue surely must be in that special committee which will hold hearings across the country and will totally explore our foreign affairs and defence policies.


Pauline Jewett: It is not set up yet.

March 18, 1985
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I urge Hon. Members to do that, if in fact they face a vote on that matter.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: There is no special committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I have been here since five o'clock. Before the weekend I became aware that this subject matter would be brought up for debate today.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am following the debate and I am very interested in listening to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). To what special committee is he referring? To the best of my knowledge, no such special committee has been set up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. This is Private Members' Hour. The time is slowly approaching six o'clcok. There are other Members who would like to speak on this Bill. The Hon. Member for Calgary West has the floor.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of Members one of the differences that happen when you are elected to serve in this Chamber. Prior to election, one serves one's nation generally in the capacity of a private citizen. One of the obligations of citizenship in a democracy is to propose sets of ideas which should be discussed in public and should be advanced by different types of groups with different interests. The minute you join this Chamber, you assume a responsibility for decision-making. You not only propose, but you must dispose. You must make decisions.
I do not think there is a Member of this House of Commons who does not want and does not yearn for the day when nuclear weapons become a thing of the past, for the day when they no longer constitute a threat. It is the responsibility of those in this Chamber which is something different from that of private citizens, to make decisions which, to the best of our knowledge, are likely to lead us a step closer to that day. It is not just a forum for discussion. The responsibility of Members of Parliament is to reach decisions about the steps which might take us one step closer to the eradication of nuclear weapons on the face of the earth and the removal of that threat.
That is a special obligation. Our debate today would be wise to focus on whether or not the proposal which appears before us in the form of Bill C-218 is a wise step. Would it serve Canadians well? Would it serve the people of the world well if we were to take that step? It is our responsibility to make decisions.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) stood and the basic argument that he advanced in trying to encourage Members of this Chamber to support his Bill was the argument that if Canada were to take this unilateral action, other nations would follow. There is a germ of truth to that because Canada does enjoy a reputation for leadership in world affairs. I think it is correct to say that some nations would follow Canada's lead in this regard, but as responsible
decision-makers, we have to ask ourselves which nations would follow. Would the U.S.S.R. or any member of the Eastern bloc follow our lead?
I recently had, what is a very unique opportunity for Members of this Chamber, that of being a member of Canada's delegation to the United Nations for 11 weeks this past fall. It was a unique opportunity to interact five days a week with representatives from the 159 member nations, the observer nations and the observer groups. Canada has taken the lead. Canada has been one of the leading nations in putting forward many initiatives. Who followed and who did not? Canada is a leading national when it comes to democracy. We believe in democracy. We espouse it. We say it is the best form of Government. It is the most humane, most sensitive and leads to the best standard of living for the most.
I stand here in the month of March 1985, knowing there are 159 member nations in the United Nations, less than 30 are democracies. We take the lead. We declare ourselves. We act in that fashion, and there are less than 30 others who join us in that activity, and none from the East bloc.
At the United Nations this fall, we worked very hard on getting passage through third committee and through plenary of two very important initiatives. One was the development of an international instrument that would enable us as a world community to do a better job of narcotics control. Another was the passage of an international covenant that would outlaw torture. I saw nations of this world and their delegations try to trade off. They said that if we would back off on our concerns about torture, they would support our concerns in terms of international narcotics control. All of that was taking place in a context where after 17 years the basic human rights covenant at the United Nations was signed by nearly half the nations. A large number that have signed it refused to sign the protocol which would allow for verifiability.
The reality is that we live in a world where the overwhelming majority of member states, led by the East bloc countries, will not allow an international organization like the United Nations to come into their country and verify whether or not torture is taking place and whether or not they are producing and transhipping drugs. That is the reality of the international community today. To stand in this Chamber and to think that a unilateral action, no matter how desirable the goal or the direction might be, is a way of leading the world defies the reality of experience.
The member nations do not follow just because you do. They do not follow in the direction that you go. They certainly do not follow by signing documents and allowing a kind of open door that would enable you to verify whether or not they keep those international covenants. That is how those member states behaved in the General Assembly context of the United Nations and in the private perspective.
This Bill says there shall be no nuclear arms in Canadian coastal waters. If we were to take that action as a nation state, the odds are reasonable that member states within the NATO alliance would respect our desire in that regard because they are democracies and they respect the sovereignty of states.
March 18, 1985

They would respect that, but would the East bloc? Would the Warsaw Pact respect the sovereignty of Canadian territorial waters? Do they today? Would they simply do so because we proclaim it? We are talking about nations that will not allow an international tribunal to come in and verify whether or not torture or human rights violations are taking place. It is incomprehensible from what we know about the Warsaw Pact countries and the way they operate that a debate such as the one that is taking place today, with people in the galleries and the press in the galleries, could even take place in those countries. Those people would not know about our initiative, unless their Government chose by means of propaganda to make them aware of it. We contrast that-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go ahead, smother it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The desire of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is to take this unilateral action in the belief that others will follow. I have tried to contrast that with the reality of the international community as we experience it. That is the reality. In my opening remarks I stated that we in this Chamber have a special responsibility for decision making on behalf of Canadian people. We have the responsibility to ensure that they can live in safety, without the fear of being taken over.
We could look at Afghanistan some five years later. We are a nation which has never started a war. We could also look at Iran and Iraq which have had 600,000 or 700,000 casualties in the last few years due to war. Those are real situations which exist in the world. Because Canada does not start a war it does not follow that other nations will not start a war. Our special responsibility in this Chamber is to make decisions, and hopefully, with respect to nuclear weapons, those decisions will be taken in the direction which will bring about a nuclear weapons free world.
I would like to read into the record a small part of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said at the United Nations about Canada's commitment to the topic which we are discussing today. In September of 1984 he said:
We shall seek, through concrete and realistic steps, progress toward a comprehensive test ban treaty. We shall encourage superpower and multilateral discussion on all outer space weapons, and shall commission further studies on how a space weapons ban might be verified. We shall work for the success of next year's Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, in order to prevent the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. We shall bring to bear our technical expertise in verification measures to ensure mutual confidence and security in areas where arms control agreements can be achieved. We shall encourage agreement on a mutual and balanced reduction of conventional forces in Europe, and hence reduce the danger of escalation to nuclear war. We shall continue to press for a verifiable convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. Canada will continue its financial support of the World Disarmament Campaign. We shall, in addition, expect that the newly-created Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security will contribute its share of studies and advice on specific arms control proposals and measures to reduce international tension.
In other words, Canada is committed to achievable and realistic measures. It will continue to be an active participant in the Geneva conference on disarmament, in the Stockholm conference on confidence and security-building measures and
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act disarmament in Europe, and in the Vienna mutual balanced force reductions talks.
Those are the kinds of steps which I hope would have all-Party endorsement. Then we would be a real player in the real world. Within that context, we could always move to help member nations take tiny steps toward the goal which we all want. Or we can cease to be a player. That may raise the position of our soapbox, but it will reduce the size of our influence. Surely members of all Parties in the Chamber would prefer that Canada have influence. It is an area in which there should be little political gain or loss. The over-all goal of restoring peace and stability in this world, and the goal of nuclear arms reduction and ultimate elimination, are goals which we all share. That is only achievable in a real world, by using real methods which are designed to work.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, since you have given me the floor, and pursuant to Beauchesne's, Citation 234, I therefore move, in accordance with Standing Order 8(4)(a), and I have the text of my motion here, to extend the time for this debate so that we can hear more Members on this subject-	,


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Mr. Prud'homme, seconded by Ms. Copps, pursuant to Standing Order 8(4)(a), moves that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour for daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-218. Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And more than 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since more than 25 Members have risen, I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Prud'homme) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) on debate.

Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that I may speak until the end of the agreed time limit? I had prepared a very interesting speech, now unfortunately-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has
two minutes.


Claude Lanthier: All right. But the subject is far too broad for two minutes.
I just want to summarize in a few words the speech I prepared this afternoon. It is unfortunate to see the lack of order in this House, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, 1 sincerely believe I cannot support the proposal being made in Bill

March 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
C-218. I think this Bill should be voted down by the House, and in fact by any reasonable individual who does not believe in Santa Claus and who sincerely believes that we must be ready to cope with any situation that might occur. This is a Bill that cannot be taken seriously, and I do not think it should.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding the question I asked the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) on February 8 concerning Pioneer Trust. In my question, as on numerous other occasions, I asked the Minister and the Government to allow a public and independent inquiry into the affairs of Pioneer Trust and the reasons that it closed its doors. I believed at that time, and contiue to believe, that it is in the public interest that there should be a public inquiry.
Numerous people across western Canada have lost money because of the demise of Pioneer Trust. Many of them are retired and small-business people. Money belonging to widows is held in trust by various law firms. Such public institutions as the Government of Saskatchewan and the City of Regina and various hospitals throughout the province will have lost money because of the demise of Pioneer Trust. Therefore I think it is important that certain answers be given to the entire story behind the demise of Pioneer Trust.
It is important that the federal Government state clearly, through such an inquiry, what are its role and responsibilities. I feel that CDIC and the federal Government have been remiss in various instances regarding their duties as a financial watchdog. We find that the federal Government did not know the amount of uninsured deposits. It had to phone the provincial Government's Department of Finance to get a figure of some $24 million. Yet today that figure is up to some $40 million. In fact, I doubt if anyone really knows at this stage what the exact figure will be. This indicates that the Government, and particularly CDIC, are not equipped or capable of handling the situation.
On numerous occasions we have had the Minister state that the CDIC and the federal Government are not capable of carrying on their functions. For example, in an article in the Ottawa Citizen of March 2, 1985 the Minister said that the insurance system is plagued by serious problems involving
everything from its financing to its function as a financial watchdog. On another occasion the Minister is quoted as saying in the Montreal Gazette that the extent of Pioneer's troubles were not known in time. One can gather from that, that the federal Government and the CDIC were not fully aware of the problems of Pioneer Trust. These are examples of how CDIC has been remiss in its duties as financial watchdog.
In a letter she sent me on March 7, the Minister admits she had not yet requested or received written assurances from the provincial Government regarding some guarantee to Pioneer Trust. Again I suggest that she and her Department were remiss in their duties. They extended the licence for Pioneer Trust without receiving those assurances from the provincial Government. As well, the Minister's letter indicated the Saskatchewan Government made the decision on February 4 not to proceed with the guarantee for Pioneer Trust. We want to know who knew about that decision before Pioneer closed its doors on February 7. We want to know if there were any people who knew this inside information, took advantage of it and either sold shares or withdrew uninsured deposits from Pioneer Trust.
We also find that the provincial Minister of Finance in Saskatchewan stated on several occasions that it is the federal Government who "held the gun to our heads" by threatening to lift Pioneer's licence. The provincial Minister of Finance seems to put much of the blame for the demise of Pioneer Trust on the Federal Government. I think a public inquiry would be helpful in ascertaining exactly who was responsible.
We have heard through press reports that some person in the Prime Minister's office seems to have given some assurance to the uninsured depositors that there would be a public inquiry. I hope that the spokesman for the Government today will be clear as to what type of inquiry the Prime Minister's office was promising.
I think it is important that we have a public inquiry for the sake of management. The senior management of Pioneer are prominent Saskatchewan business people. It is important for their reputation, if they are to continue to do business in the Province of Saskatchewan, that there be a public inquiry that shows exactly who was responsible and why Pioneer went broke. It is in their interest that a public inquiry be held to show that they did not make unethical loans or use bad business practices. It is important to senior management that such a public inquiry be held.
One must look at the role of the provincial Government. It made a guarantee without looking at the books of Pioneer Trust. I find this somewhat awesome from a Tory Government in Saskatchewan which claims to be business oriented and business minded. They made this guarantee without looking at the books and then withdrew the guarantee, making a bad situation ever worse. We do not know how much this will cost CDIC. We do not know how much the provincial Government will have to cough up. I think it is about time we had a public inquiry that firmly showed to the public, the depositors, and
March 18, 1985

the shareholders of Pioneer Trust exactly what happened and who is responsible.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier). He has three minutes.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond again to this important issue raised by the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). I recall vividly that he has raised this very same issue on several occasions before, including during a previous adjournment debate on February 12 of this year. Nevertheless, I am pleased to discuss the matter of Pioneer Trust and to once again put on the public record the Government's appropriate actions in these circumstances.
The Member will recall that on March 7 the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) sent a detailed letter to him outlining the issues surrounding the collapse of Pioneer Trust. In that letter the Minister of State for Finance clearly indicated the statutory authority of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. As the Member for Regina East knows perfectly well, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation can enter into an agency agreement only if an arrangement is the least costly method of meeting its obligations to the insured depositors.
At a meeting on February 4 the Board of Directors of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation concluded that the least costly method would be to pay off depositors immediately, up to the insured limit, once a winding up order was issued. Of course, once a company is placed in liquidation an agency agreement is no longer possible. The Member for Regina East will also be aware that there is no authority under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to make direct payments to uninsured depositors.
The Minister of State for Finance was asked today in this Chamber whether the Prime Minister's office had suggested that she conduct a public inquiry into the collapse of Pioneer Trust. I have been asked by the Minister of State for Finance to reiterate that the Government is of the opinion that no public inquiry is warranted. The fact that we are here again discussing this very same issue is evidence that the Government is prepared to provide all Members of Parliament with as much information as possible about the circumstances surrounding the collapse of this company.
I would like to conclude by reminding all Hon. Members that in both the Speech from the Throne and the November 8 economic statement, this Government indicated that revisions to financial institutions legislation is a priority. In addition, a private sector committee, chaired by Mr. Robert Wyman, is currently examining the mandate and operations of Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. I think that these facts indicate clearly the commitment of this Government to the reform
Adjournment Debate
of financial institutions, as well as the priority of our Government's response to the Pioneer Trust situation.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-ANNOUNCEMENT OF QUOTAS AND PRICES. (B) WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT-ADVANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, last week I put a question to the Minister of State for the Canada Wheat Board asking when the Government would announce its initial price for grain and the quotas for grain. Traditionally, those announcements were made around the first of March so that farmers, when planting their crops for the year, could make wise and rational decisions based on the information provided by the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board.
When the Minister was a member of the Opposition, he was the first to complain if that deadline of March 1 was not met. The deadline has come and gone; it is now March 18. We want that information for the agricultural producers and grain farmers of western Canada.
There is a great deal of uncertainty this year due to reports that our grain exports will drop by some 25 per cent, from $5.5 billion last crop year to about $3 billion in this crop year. The day after I asked the question of the Minister in the House, a CP report from Vancouver indicated that grain shipments there were very low and over 100 elevator workers have been laid off. The article states:
Buyers, including the Soviet Union and Japan, are turning to other suppliers, leaving the port without its usual lineup of ships waiting at anchor.
"I've got practically no vessels," said Gary Dewar, a director of the Alberta Wheat Pool. "We've got all kinds of grain, but we've got no sales."
George Hedalen of the Canadian Wheat Board, the federal agency that markets grain, attributed the situation to record crops last year in many grain-exporting countries. He said the strength of the dollar is also driving buyers to Australia, Argentina and Europe.
Mr. Dewar said the Soviet Union allowed its grain contract with Canada to expire earlier this year and has not yet negotiated a new one. The current contract with China expires in July, while Japan, another big customer, is maintaining only minimum purchases under its agreement.
There is a great deal of concern and the Minister's tardiness in making the announcement is only causing that much more concern in the farming community of western Canada.
I suggest there is also a great deal of concern due to the policies of the United States Government which is reducing its support price on loans. There is a fear that the price will drop dramatically, and I believe that Canada should send a strong signal to the producers and the grain trade around the world that we intend to support and encourage our producers.
Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is meeting with the President of the United States in Quebec City, I am disappointed that there is no indication that he took up this important issue that is causing great concern in western grain producing circles.
I think it is important for the Government to announce those prices, the demand and quotas so that grain producers can make rational and wise decisions for the upcoming planting that will start within the next month.

March 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Another concern is that with the drought and the increased input costs and falling land values there is even that much more uncertainty in western Canada and in the grain belt. I hope the Minister will be able to announce those initial prices tonight. I think it is essential that those prices be at least as high as last year. Clearly in-put costs are continuing to rise. Therefore it is essential that those initial prices be held up.
The other point I raised in my question to the Minister was the question of the payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. That Bill was not brought into the House until well into the new session. We dealt with it here in less than a day. It is reported that the total payment for the year will be about $1 billion this year. If it is a billion dollars it seems to me we should have an interim payment of at least $700 million so that the farmers who are suffering economically will have those funds available to them for the planting season. I hope the Minister is able to announce in the House, and not shillyshally around, not only that he is going to make a $700 million interim payment but that he will have those cheques in the farmers' hands within a month so they will be available for that important period of time when they are buying seed, and facing the rest of their in-put costs, all of which have risen during this past year.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I think he rises some interesting points. I have to disagree with him on a couple of counts. He talks about the Government shilly-shallying around and wanting the Government to come clean in terms of the date on which the initial payments were announced and the date on which the pre-seeded acreage reports were in the paper.
Let me point out to the Hon. Member that in the last two years-the Hon. Member wanted us to have this out by March 1-the 1983-84 crop year, the initial payments were not announced until April 5, and in 1984-85 the initial payments were not announced until April 13. Two years ago pre-seeded acreage reports were put in the mail on April 20, which traditionally is about 10 days ahead of seeding. That is probably well after seeding starts in southern Alberta. The kicker is, and the Hon. Member is complaining about us not doing it on March 1, last year those reports were not in the mail until May 17. I farm. I have had a permit for 30 years. Basically we had an early spring last year. Seeding was all over by then.
The Hon. Member talks about pre-seeded acreage report. I said last week in response to the Hon. Member's question that it was going to press. We hope to have it finished and out well before the dates-I have just read them to him-that his government, the one of which he was a part, had them out a year and two years ago. The report will not be in the form of a pre-seeded acreage report.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You are two weeks late now.


Charles James Mayer: We are two weeks late according to the Hon. Member. Actually, if we did it now we would be about six weeks ahead of what the Liberal government did a year ago.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I have the press release. It was April 15 last year.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member indicates he is concerned about what producers are doing. We are certainly looking at making what has come to be known as a pre-seeded acreage report a lot more useful to farmers, because we are putting much more information in it. I hope it is something that farmers will find useful in helping with their planting. It will be out in time to be of some assistance to them in planting their crops.
There is one other thing I would like to point out to the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member asked me in his question, although he did not refer to it today, about announcing guaranteed quotas. I am not so sure he knows what a quota is.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Initial quota is what I said.


Charles James Mayer: Let me tell him that the last year it was ever done was in 1980-81 when quotas were guaranteed. He knows, and I pointed this out to him when answering his question, that there is no doubt western producers in particular are suffering a double whammy. At the very time we had low crops the rest of the world had virtually record or near record crops. Whether we like it or not we are very much dependent upon the export market for what we receive for our own products in this country.
One other point in conclusion, if I may, Mr. Speaker, because the Member refers to the Western Grain Stabilization Act payment. We very much appreciate the co-operation of all Parties in the House in passing the amendments. As I said before, and I will say it again, we will have payments in the hands of the producers in the form of an interim payment prior to spring seeding, namely, prior to May 1. It will be as large as we can possibly make it. I do not think it serves any useful purpose to speculate on the amount or to raise expectations and not be able to meet them. This certainly does not help producers as far as buffeting them around. We will make it as large as we possibly can and have it in their hands prior to the first of May.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM-PETROLEUM GAS REVENUE TAX-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES
Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to elaborate the question I directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) concerning the National Energy Program.
The NEP brought into being in 1980 devastated the oil and gas industry in western Canada, especially in Alberta. That devastating policy was brought in somewhat by design. Up to that period of time Alberta had a thriving economy and things seemed to be going well. Once some of the provisions of the
March 18, 1985

national energy policy were implemented, especially the one which hurt the industry the most-the PGRT-big and small producers alike, especially the small ones, were brought to their knees. Many rigs left Alberta and crossed the border to the United States. The unemployment situation, which was around 3 per cent in Alberta, rose in Calgary to 13 per cent, 14 per cent and 15 per cent, and the last indication is that in Edmonton the unemployment rate is 15.7 per cent.
This policy was brought in by design by the former Liberal Government. We as Conservatives criticized it and said that we would amend, change and phase out that national energy policy. Negotiations between oil producing provinces and the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have been going on for a few months. There are indications that they will come to an agreement. It is essential for that industry to be in a position to function like any other free enterprise company in the country. If we look at the PGRT provision, we find that it is discriminatory. It is a front-end tax. It taxes the oil industry on gross revenue and does not take into consideration that the industry first has to make some money before it is taxed. In this way even the consumer is being punished.
I hope our new Government will bring about a change in its taxation policy as far as the oil and gas industry is concerned. That industry is one that can create jobs in Canada. Not only will it create jobs in western Canada, but in central and eastern Canada as well. It is an industry which has a potential for growth. That is why it is important that it function normally.
The oil and gas industry is being singled out, not only by the Liberal Party but also by the NDP. I heard them today in the House criticizing the big fat cats. They forget that the industry has to find the oil, bring it out of the ground, refine it and sell it. It only receives a small portion of the total revenue. For example, the producers' share of a 50 cent litre of gas is only 6.5 cents. That is not too much. If they make any profit, they must pay taxes on that. Therefore, talking about big fat cats is not reasonable.
I hope that the negotiated conclusion will favour the oil and gas industry situated in western and eastern Canada. There are only a couple of weeks left. The negotiations are supposed to be terminated by the end of this month. Let us hope that the Government will have the foresight to allow this industry to function under its own steam.
Adjournment Debate


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) for expanding on his question to the Minister regarding the PGRT. He quite frequently participates in the House and it is a pleasure to reply to the Hon. Member this evening.
I think it is fair to say that this Government has been committed for quite some time to resolving the outstanding federal-provincial energy agreements. This House will remember that our election platform was based on this commitment. As early as June 1984, we presented Newfoundland with a draft of the Atlantic Accord. That was fulfilled on February 11, 1985. The quick and efficient manner in which this final accord was achieved is a perfect example of co-operative federalism. Of course, we are displaying the same co-operative approach with our friends during current negotiations with the western oil producing provinces.
We note the keen interest of Government Members, the Hon. Member for Calgary East being one of them, in the progress of these negotiations. I must reiterate that the Minister said as late as today in the House that negotiations have reached a sensitive point as Governments attempt to unravel a highly complex oil and gas pricing system and assess the impact on government revenues and, of course, the industry itself. To date, the parties to these negotiations have been successful in resolving a number of important issues and they are confident that an energy pricing agreement, which will be beneficial to all parties, will be struck in the near future.
As these negotiations have progressed, the federal Government has demonstrated its commitment to achieving a less complex and more beneficial energy system. This is what the Hon. Member was talking about. We have in place a flexible pricing arrangement for crude oil exports to the United States which, in concert with adjustments made to the National Energy Board's crude oil nominations and licensing system, should minimize the requirement to shut-in crude production from Alberta and Saskatchewan fields in the coming months. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) regards this federal relaxation of export controls as a significant step toward ultimate deregulation of Canadian crude oil prices and marketing procedures. Additionally, natural gas exports to the United States worth $4 billion last year are subject to flexible pricing arrangements between the buyer and the seller.
I conclude by saying the extension of the existing agreements between each province and the federal Government to March 31, 1985, was undertaken to ensure that the eventual

March 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
agreements reached will reflect the best possible meeting of minds on an area of critical importance to the Canadian economy. We on the Government side of the House have complete confidence that this will be achieved. Undue haste or unseemly negotiating in public would not contribute to this objective.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 19, 1985