1985-03-15

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, on February 6, nearly two months later than the usual date, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced the Challenge '85 student summer job program. Three weeks later, the minister set first March 15, and then March 22, 1985, as the deadline for participating in this program, leaving interested individuals and organizations with only three weeks to submit projects or employment applications. Several groups within my riding have indicated to me that the March 22 deadline does not allow them enough time to submit a project under the new Challenge '85 program.
If the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration is really serious about her program, she should extend the deadline from March 22 to April 22, in order to allow interested organizations to submit projects which meet the new requirements of Challenge '85. Does the government really want the Challenge '85 program to succeed, or is it simply trying to blind Canadians to the fact that the Conservative elite just does not want to help our young people find jobs?
If you believe in your program, give it a chance.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament from Edmonton 1 am deeply concerned with the continuing decline in employment in my city, as well as in all of western Canada. The latest Statistics Canada information has revealed that Edmonton has the highest unemployment rate of any city in the West. That is a travesty for the people in my city.
The unemployment rate in Edmonton is 15 per cent-in construction it is 43 per cent, and in manufacturing it is 30 per cent. The high rates of unemployment, no matter how one looks at the matter, are a direct and unquestionable consequence of the odious National Energy Program which the Liberals perpetrated on western Canada.
Edmonton has one of the highest vacancy rates in Canada. It has empty office buildings and empty apartment buildings. People are leaving Edmonton in a fruitless attempt to find employment. In Edmonton East there are 8,000 fewer people today than there were five years ago.
I urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to take decisive action now. Western Canadians have confidence in government, but that confidence is not limitless. I came to this House because I felt the effects of the previous Government's disastrous energy policy. Let us now demonstrate that we have the courage and the foresight to take full economic measures to stimulate development, to reverse those staggering figures, and to get the people back to work.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the John Inglis Company has announced that it will close its plant in Stoney Creek, Ontario. That will mean the loss of 600 jobs for people in the Hamilton area.
That same company received $3 million from the previous Government in order to effect to take-over of the bankrupt Admiral Corporation. At that time I requested that there be clear job guarantees attached to the granting of that particular sum of money. The Government did not put those provisions in place, and the end result has been exactly what we predicted, the Inglis Company used the money to fund the expansion of its operations in lower wage areas, and used the money to create unemployment in the Hamilton area for the people who have been building the products which Inglis has sold for many years.
I would ask this Government to take action now, to meet with the John Inglis Company, bring to its attention that this kind of conduct will not be accepted by the Government of Canada, and that if the company will not put back in place the jobs which it has proposed to take away, the Government will reclaim the money which that company was given.

March 15, 1985


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), at the end of the week, on March 17 and 18, the Province of Quebec will be hosting an historic event.
Mr. Speaker, the summit meeting between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada is particularly significant for the people of Quebec. We would have to go back as far a 1944 in Quebec's history to find a meeting as prestigious as this one. The entire international press will be covering this event, and for a few days, Quebec will be the focal point of the world's attention. Mr. Speaker, this is a unique opportunity to acquaint millions of viewers with the warmth and cultural riches of the people of this province.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that this event must bother our hon. friends opposite, who over the years have slowly but surely succeeded in letting our relations deteriorate and destroying a friendship that is so essential to the harmonious economic development of our two countries.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are convinced it is both healthy and desirable that two great democracies that share the same continent, that two sovereign nations should entertain cordial and harmonious relations. I say three cheers for the Prime Minister!

[English}


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Liberals on this side of the House agree that federal funds which are targeted for post-secondary education must be used for that specific purpose and not skimmed off for other purposes by provincial Governments. That was one of the major concerns which prompted the previous Liberal Government to commission the Johnson report on post-secondary education.
Since that report was commissioned, the situation has taken what could be called a more conservative twist. In the Province of Ontario, the Tory Treasurer made a grab into the pockets of the students and called for major increases in the cost of tuition. At the same time, while the Province of Ontario will get a 7.4 per cent increase in federal funds which earmarked for post-secondary education, it plans to pass on only five 5 per cent of that amount and steal 2.4 per cent from Ontario colleges and universities.
The Conservative federal Government has already shown a marked antipathy toward post-secondary education. It has cut
back federal research grants for scientific, medical, and environmental research. It has cut back the student loans program which assisted students in paying their tuition. It has massacred the Centres of Excellence Program and removed it from existence. What we are seeing is the emergence of an elitism against those students who are financially less well-off than their richer counterparts.
Through its own cuts the Conservative Government has badly weakened the post-secondary education system at a time when it is acknowledged that education and training are the keys to jobs and economic development.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS-CALL FOR MARKET BASED PRICE SYSTEM
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to lend my support to the negotiations which are ongoing between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the oil-producing provinces, which will achieve the deregulation of crude oil and natural gas. Allowing domestic wellhead prices to match world prices is in complete agreement with our Party's promise of deregulation.
In the present regime at world levels, the domestic price is static and unable to respond to market forces. This is the real problem. The administered pricing regime left to us by the previous Government is outdated, too complex, and discourages investment. The implementation of a market based oil and gas price system will provide benefits for my riding and for all of Canada. This will help in creating a positive environment which would allow us to strive to reach our unlimited economic potential.
Unemployment in all regions of the country has escalated to record highs, a problem with which all members of this House are concerned. In Sarnia we have witnessed a level of unemployment which is higher than any other time in history, a most distressing factor. I am encouraged by these negotiatons, and I feel they will aid, in the long-term, the unemployed of our country.
I encourage the expeditious initiation of deregulation of feedstocks for the petrochemical industry, and a change to all the other elements of the existing system which impose such severe limits-


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

March 15, 1985


EDUCATION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last week the President of the University of British Columbia resigned in protest against the anti-education policy of the provincial Government. On April 1, UBC students face an average 10 per cent increase in tuition fees, on top of a 33 per cent increase last year.
The province no longer makes grants available to needy students but forces them to go deeper into debt while they face greater difficulty in getting employment.
Yesterday in its so-called recovery budget the "know nothings" in Victoria cut an additional 5 per cent from university budgets. The Johnson report on federal financing of postsecondary education shows that the provincial Government of British Columbia has reduced its share of post-secondary funding by 25.4 per cent since 1977-1978, making it the worst offender of all of the provinces.
Education can no longer be considered a leisurely option for a small elite who can afford the high fees. Post-secondary education is essential, not only for individuals but also for all of our provinces and our country if we are going to survive in tomorrow's economy. The Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) and the Government must protect the federal investment in post-secondary education in British Columbia. It is not enough to consult-


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize in the House today the importance for Canadians of this visit by the President of the United States, Mr. Reagan, to Quebec City this weekend.
The President's visit to Quebec City will show our neighbours to the South that since September 4, we now have a truly Canadian Government that includes all ten provinces and all cultures. The fact that the previous Government never succeeded in uniting all regions in this country has caused considerable harm to our economic development.
By treating all regions as part of one nation, the present Government is ensuring that our country will maintain its position on the international scene and promote investment in this country. We are hopeful that this visit will generate positive results for the future and prosperity of our country and all its citizens.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, today the CBC will be reversing one of its cuts. In a public statement this afternoon the CBC will state that CBG Gander will remain on the air.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that my CRTC intervention will now be withdrawn, and the legal position based on the constitutional arguments will be forgotten. These cases were being prepared by the deputy Mayor of Gander, Mr. Winston Baker, who happens to be my brother, by the way.
On the basis of this reversal, Mr. Speaker, I have a duty to thank the many petitioners, the many hundreds of persons who wrote letters, and to congratulate the Gander Town Council, the mayor, the d'Avignon Players, and the CBC management, present and past, who helped, especially Mr. Cliff Hierlihy. I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), the Member of Parliament for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and his staff-

-and for the Minister, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that CBG has now resumed broadcasting.
S)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister home from Moscow-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -where he attended the state funeral on behalf of the Canadian people. Because of the two-hour meeting he is having with the U.S. President this weekend, I would just say by way of comment that we are grateful that the hostages in Kingston have been released and we hope we can have a report in due course from the Solicitor General on that particular issue.
The press was briefed yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by the Government on the agenda and purpose of the Canadian Government, led by the Prime Minister, in this weekend's two-hour

March 15, 1985
Oral Questions
meeting. However, Parliament has not been briefed. We have not seen an agenda. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister if he would indicate to the House what he is attempting to accomplish, particularly on the matter of trade. Will he be asking the President for guarantees on the admission of our steel into the U.S. market, as well as our forest products? Will he be reviewing the auto pact as it relates to the ending of American quotas on Japanese car imports? Will he be dealing with these matters at the Quebec city meeting, and what type of arrangement does he hope to achieve with the President on the very vital issue of trade?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I thank my right hon. friend for his words of welcome, which I appreciate.
During the 10 or 11 hours I will be spending with President Reagan I will be discussing, both in formal meetings and in tetes-a-tetes, the points we have on the agenda. Regarding trade, because our discussions and negotiations are still ongoing and hopefully will conclude in Quebec city, we hope to secure a declaration, or arrangement, which would ensure more secure access of Canadian goods, including steel and other products to which the Right Hon. Member referred, as well as the elimination of irritants between us. These include the undertaking to be more forceful in regard to protectionism which has been rising in the American Congress, and to lay the groundwork for a more productive and helpful trade arrangement between Canada and our largest trading partner in the world, namely, the United States of America.
As my right hon. friend knows, there are in excess of three million jobs which depend very heavily on the maintenance and enhancement of an excellent trade relationship with the U.S. A. This is our greatest friend, our best trading partner in the world, and we plan to take steps to improve both the climate and the trading reality.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
This is the reason why I asked the question, because the Prime Minister appeared to be ready to capitulate on the acid rain question. Is he willing to admit that his meeting with the President of the United States will have been a failure if he does not come out with an agreement that will put a stop to acid rain? Are we going go get a deluge of nice words, or will Canada insist on an agreement providing for joint legislation, or on a treaty to clean our mutual air, something solid and concrete for us Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As far as
acid rain is concerned, we inherited from the Liberal Government a situation on which there has been absolutely nothing done by that Government. Absolutely nothing, strictly zero.
That is what we started with. Since we came into office, we have been working on that, and I think many members of this House have had an opportunity to favourably comment on the initiative taken by the Minister of Environment on a national program-


Mr. Caccia:: You are continuing the Liberal work. [Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, the Hon. Minister who could do absolutely nothing! Recently, one could read in the newspaper Le Droit that the problem with the Liberal Government was that the former Minister had no influence whatsoever with his colleagues in Cabinet. This is why nothing could be done. Under the circumstances, any progress would be a major accomplishment. But we are going to try and set in motion a process which will force Americans and Canadians to clean out our common environment. That is the responsibility of any Government. We accept the responsibility of taking action here at home, and we will try to better convince the Americans to act both in their national interests and international interests of our two countries.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we shall be waiting for the results, even though the Prime Minister is trying to rewrite the true history of this situation.


STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE-PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH U.S.S.R. LEADER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is reported to have agreed to convey Mr. Gorbachev's concerns about the Strategic Defence Initiative proposed by the United States, to President Reagan this weekend. Did he indicate to the Secretary General in Moscow that the Canadian Government had taken a position endorsing and supporting this Strategic Defence Initiative? If so, did the Secretary General feel that the Prime Minister could act as a broker in this particularly delicate situation? Will the Prime Minister tell the President of the United States that he disagreed with the Soviet Union's position, which is to place that item on the agenda for discussion by the two superpowers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my right hon. friend, with regard to the position that the Government of Canada has adopted on the research component of SDI, in bilateral discussions with all of our NATO allies the position of Canada was widely applauded and supported by all of those who believe in freedom and democracy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There was a general view among our allies that to do otherwise would be to diminish the capacity of the
March 15, 1985

West to engage in the kinds of substantial negotiations that we hope will be beneficial to all involved.
I had an excellent meeting with Secretary General Gorbachev. 1 conveyed to him the genuine desire of Canadians everywhere, and of all political Parties, to contribute positively to the search for a durable peace. I underlined the concerns that I have heard expressed in the House of Commons by many Members in all political Parties. There can be no doubt as to the national will of the Government of Canada to play a constructive and positive role in this area. He was very grateful, I think, not only for our interest but our commitment to the process. I was very glad of the opportunity to have contributed, however modestly, to that process.


CANADIAN EXPORTS-U.S. SURTAX PRESSURE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister knows, the United States is anticipating a massive trade deficit in the current year. Conservative estimates put it at about $123 billion or $125 billion. There are indications that there will be growing pressure for a surtax on imports, for example. That is the rumour this week. As the Prime Minister knows, that would have disastrous consequences for the Canadian economy. He will recall that when that was done in 1971 we lost something like 40,000 jobs overnight. This would be much more serious.
I hope that the Prime Minister will seize this opportunity at the summit conference with the President to discuss this specific issue, warning him of the dangers that it poses for the economy. I hope he will seriously address the kinds of subjects raised by the Leader of the Opposition and that it will not be like the First Ministers' Conference, to which I was an unhappy witness, which was simply an extended photo opportunity. Can he give us that assurance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know that my hon. friend from Westmount-unless he has moved to Saint-Henri in my absence-was unhappy with the First Ministers' Conference. He is usually unhappy when he is sitting in the audience.
The First Ministers' Conference seemed to please both the Canadian people and the Canadian Premiers. Of course that would be a matter of great concern and dissatisfaction to the Liberals.
I can assume my hon. friend that we are fully aware of the importance of the trade issue, which is why we have been working very hard to enhance our relationships and to place Canada in a position where we would not be subject to the sort of initiatives to which my hon. friend refers. We are looking for an opportunity to make sure that our bilateral trade relations are enhanced and not in any way affected adversely.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


NATIONAL CONFERENCE AGENDA
Donald James Johnston: Just as an aside-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Donald James Johnston: -the Prime Minister is a former resident of Saint-Henri-Westmount. When he returns to that riding, which I hope will not be in the too distant future, I will be happy to explain the geography of the riding to him. On his return as a private citizen, that is.

Therefore, I would have a second question, this time for the Minister of Finance.
Next week, Mr. Speaker, we will have a show here: the National Conference on the Economy. Some 136 persons have been invited to attend. According to the agenda I have seen, several questions will be dealing with our relations with the United States. I would like to know whether the Government will already have taken a position. Five days before the Quebec Summit, will the Government delete those questions from the agenda, or are we right in assuming that this meeting here in Ottawa next week will really be some "showbiz".


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will provide a seat for him, and that the Hon. Member will come to the conference to see for himself the views of a wide range of Canadians. It will probably be the most expansive discussion of economic matters that this country has seen in its history. It will contribute tremendously to the understanding of the various economic issues, and their complexity and interrelationship, as well as contribute a lot to the policy-making that the Government is faced with in the coming weeks.
The specific answer to the Hon. Member's question is no, there will not be decisions taken in the meetings at Quebec city that would foreclose on the wide range of matters that will be under discussion. We will be looking very closely at the results of this conference in the budget preparation, as well as other matters of policy-making. We have high expectations for this meeting, and I hope that I will see the Hon. Member there.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by adding my welcome to the Prime Minister on his return from his important trip.
Recently in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the former Minister of Defence said that before there would be the locating of any U.S. nuclear weapons in

March 15, 1985
Oral Questions
Canada, the prior consent of the Government of Canada would have to be obtained. Is this still government policy?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that is still government policy. It will continue to be government policy.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the following questions pertain directly to the summit meeting involving the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, I hope that the Prime Minister will answer.


DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is stated in the regulations of the Strategic Air Command of the United States that there will be automatic deployment of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons to Canada under certain circumstances, without consultation. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have a contradiction in terms of what the United States is saying on important matters and what is being said by the Government of Canada. My question is for the Prime Minister. Considering we now have contradictory statements on the linkage between star wars and the modernization of the DEW line on the one hand, and a contradiction on the deployment or locating of aircraft bearing nuclear weapons in Canada between what we are saying and what the U.S. is saying, does the Prime Minster not realize that the people of Canada have a right to see, in clear-cut writing, what we are committed to, before he signs any agreement with President Reagan?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is being unfair. I suspect that he probably knows there is an element of unfairness in his suggestion.
The question of an alleged linkage has been dealt with very categorically. I think it is generally acknowledged by reasonable observers that there is none. I know that some people have a political interest in trying to draw one, but there is no such linkage. By and large I think any objective observer knows that.
With regard to the question of sovereignty that my hon. friend talks about, there is some proof in that. We have inherited a position where our predecessors, over the years, signed international agreements without the necessary provisions for Canadian sovereignty. We are trying to correct that in a very substantial way to make sure that the independence and the integrity of the national sovereignty of Canada will be protected at all times and in all circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister has just given it away, Mr. Speaker. He has acknowledged that, in terms of an agreement entered into by a previous Liberal
Government, the United States will have a right to locate nuclear weapons in Canada without agreement by the Government of Canada. That is part of our concern.
Is the Prime Minister willing to continue to buy a pig in a poke? The U.S. Secretary of Defense, a major advisor on strategic policy to the United States Government, and a State Department official briefing Canadians, say there is a linkage between star wars and modernization of the DEW line, whatever the Canadian Government has to say. Instead of being sort of kid brother to the United States, why does the Prime Minister not establish a policy of being a good neighbour? Why does the Prime Minister not get all of this in writing so the people of Canada know what the Government of Canada is committing itself to?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has clearly established the validity of my assertion with regard to the argument of unfairness. He promptly stood up two seconds after me and distorted something that I had just said. That is the problem with the NDP. If the Hon. Member's Party wants to join NATO they had better get their act straight.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Waddell:: Read Sam Slick.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The next time the NDP forms a Government in Canada and it is called upon as a member of NATO, its friends will want to know where the NDP stands. Stand up and be counted.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are not Reagan's poodle.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact we have no lessons to learn from the NDP in terms of protecting the integrity and sovereignty of this nation. It was a Conservative Government, and a Conservative Party headed by the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker, that took on the Liberals on the question of nuclear arms in Canada-


John Napier Turner: He brought it in.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and it was the Liberals, not us, who went against the interests of Canadian sovereignty. The Conservatives will always defend the sovereignty of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: It was wonderful rhetoric, but what does it mean?

March 15, 1985


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to address questions to the Prime Minister, who seems to be having a wonderful time this morning rewriting history. As he well knows, it was Prime Minister Diefenbaker who signed the agreement to put nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. That is history, not his version of it.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Where is Otto Lang?


Lloyd Axworthy: What we want to raise with the Prime Minister goes back to the discussions he had with the General Secretary of the Soviet Union.
In those discussions did the Prime Minister communicate that his Government has now agreed to accept the new American version of North American defence that incorporates not only the star wars program but also a major new ground based defence system that is designed to set up a screen rather than relying upon deterrence? We have not been able to get any answers from the Prime Minister's Ministers in his absence that this is now the new government policy. What we need to know, Mr. Speaker, before that agreement is signed in Quebec city, is whether this is now the policy of the new Conservative Government of Canada? Is the Government now agreeing fully to the new defence strategy enunciated by President Reagan and by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger that there will be a brand new strategy of defence that will involve a major introduction and involvement of military developments in the northern part of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Somebody elect Tom.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the temerity, there is no better word, of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member's Party signed an international agreement with the United States wherein Canadian Cabinet Ministers had to seek American permission to go to the Canadian North. That is the way the Liberals abdicated their responsibilities. I can tell the Hon. Member that that will never happen with a Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: It was Pearson who did that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want to say to the new critic for external relations for the Liberal Party-


Charles Joseph Clark: Tom's brother.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I wish I had said that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What about Otto's friend?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Otto's friend.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with great clarity and strength, has set out the position of the Canadian Government on that. I know that my hon. friend is not satisfied. He would like it to be otherwise. He would like the issue to be befuddled so that he can try to score a few political points, but Canadians are not having any of it.
The position set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is the Canadian position, the hallmark of which is clarity and the preservation of Canadian independence and integrity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Prime Minister is he judges other people's motives by looking in the mirror. Not everything is motivated by pure partisan political objectives.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


UNITED STATES STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there are millions of Canadians who are deeply disturbed by the actions of this Government in endorsing the star wars proposal. This Opposition is speaking for those Canadians. We want to know whether at Quebec city the Prime Minister will have the fortitude and the willingness to speak for those Canadians as well, and ask President Reagan to put star wars on the bargaining table at Geneva, so we will not engage and support an action that will destabilize the arms race? Will this Prime Minister start standing up for this country instead of acting like the Governor of the 51st State?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition had better put the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry back in charge of some part of the rail thing. He is out of his league in External Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It will come as a great surprise to Mr. Gorbachev who very much told me those topics were on the agenda in Geneva and the Soviet Union proposed to discuss them emphatically.


Lloyd Axworthy: Who will the U.S. discuss them with? That is the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is impugning as he always does, the motives of the United States in every circumstance, and he is saying that the United States is untrustworthy in everything it does.


Lloyd Axworthy: What are you going to do?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We reject that very strongly.

March 15, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member is saying that President Reagan is less committed to peace than the other side. We reject that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Take a cap in your hand and put it on your head.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The United States is trying with the help of its allies to secure a durable peace. We believe it is a complicated issue, and we are going to try to be helpful to both sides in securing that kind of a peace in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. I hope I am not misquoting him; I am certainly trying not to. However, I understood him to have said that his Government inherited certain agreements which did not contain proper safeguards to guarantee that Canada's Government could deny access to Canadian soil to the U.S. Strategic Air Command. Is he saying to the House of Commons that the regulation which is in place in the U.S. that allows the U.S. Strategic Air Command to locate aircraft carrying nuclear weapons in Cold Lake, has been done away with, is no longer in place, and Canada is now in a position where that particular regulation is no longer in force?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the position is abundantly clear. I have stated it before today and I state it again. There can be no stationing of nuclear weapons in any circumstances on Canadian soil without the agreement of the Government of Canada. In so far as this Government is concerned, if we believe that such a proposed stationing would not be in the Canadian interest, we would refuse such a stationing.


U.S. ADMINISTRATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister recognize that there is a different opinion in the United States administration in regard to the regulation which they believe permits them, in emergency situations, to locate aircraft carrying nuclear weapons at Cold Lake, and makes no reference to Canada's right or otherwise to agree or disagree with the locating of those aircraft and those nuclear weapons?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member-and I say this with all the kindness I can muster-would do better to
rely on authorities other than articles which he might read on the op-ed page of The Globe and Mail as the basis of his questioning here.
Let me be categoric about it. In so far as Cold Lake and other questions are concerned, before any nuclear weapons could be considered for stationing in Canada in the event of the kind of crisis that all of us devoutly hope would not occur, this Government, and any subsequent Canadian Government, by agreements now in place, have the right to refuse that stationing. This Government would exercise that right, if we believed that to be in the interests of Canada.


ACCESS OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS TO JAPAN
Mr. Don Bienkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We welcome him back to Canada. He was able to have extensive bilateral discussions with other world leaders. Perhaps economics is a more important matter to Canada because our people want jobs. In his discussion with Prime Minister Nakasone, was he able to discuss further access by Canada of its agricultural products to the Japanese market, and the question of import controls on automobiles produced by Japan and imported into Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had an excellent meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone at which those topics were raised, particularly the latter one to which the Hon. Member referred and which is of great interest to Canada, particularly southwestern Ontario. We had further discussions in regard to the agenda of the meeting at Bonn which we will both be attending. I took the liberty, given the importance of the Japanese-Canadian relationship, particularly the Pacific Rim and the involvement of western Canada, to extend an invitation to the Prime Minister to visit us in Canada this year at his earliest convenience.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the severe criticism which is being offered by major environmental groups, on both sides of the border, about the reported agreement that is to be signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister this weekend? In fact it has even been suggested that Canada is being sucked in, if we go along with this agreement. Could the Prime Minister assure the House and the Canadian people that we will not just sit back and accept some kind of agreement to enter into further discussions on acid rain, but that he will press the President of the United States for real action on this very critical subject?
March 15, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of the Environment introduced a program in Canada, the first comprehensive program of substance, to deal with the question of acid rain, I noted that there were many favourable comments from the other side of the House, coming from the NDP, in regard to what she had accomplished and the manner in which the provinces and the private sector were brought into the process. I think it was generally agreed. For example, the Chairman of the Coalition Against Acid Rain in Canada, the leading environmental group, said that it was a very noteworthy accomplishment, a very great first step by Canada which had never been taken before. It is in this spirit that we deal with what 1 referred to as the savagery of acid rain to our environment.
We are trying to clean up our own act. We are trying to assume our responsibilities. We are trying to persuade, as well, our neighbours that it is a common problem. It must be dealt with internationally. I do not expect, in an imperfect world, miracles overnight, but I hope we will be able to achieve solid progress of which my hon. friend, and I, and others, will be proud.


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I think everyone is aware that the previous agreement struck between Canada and the United States on acid rain simply did not work because Americans did not have the willingness and political will to make it work. Again, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will press the President of the United States to enter into an agreement which goes much farther than just simply saying "we'd like to discuss it"? It has been discussed to death; what we need now is action.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend that indeed we have inherited a particularly sad situation of non-accomplishment by our predecessors in the area of acid rain. I don't think even an objective Liberal would try to suggest that the previous Minister accomplished anything except getting himself squeezed in the back, by the Cabinet door. There was nothing accomplished at all, and we had to start from zilch. It is a complicated, difficult file, which has been marred by bad faith and hostility in the past. We have tried to create an atmosphere within which we can move it ahead in a substantial way. This is what I am hoping to accomplish. This is what I think Canadians would view as a significant improvement, not a miracle, which will lead to the kinds of definitive steps that will rid Canada and the United States of this tremendous problem for our environment.
Oral Questions


EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES SUGAR-CONTAINING FOODS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Since my question deals with something that he did not inherit from the Liberal Party, but that was brought up in a presidential proclamation dated January 29, 1985 which is at this moment limiting the export to the United States of food products containing sugar, and since at this moment entry into the United States of Canadian food products containing sugar is blocked by a unilateral proclamation made by the President of the United States on January 29, 1985, after he came to power, does the Prime Minister intend to raise that question with President Reagan to prevent the closing down of plants and the loss of thousands of jobs as a result of that unilateral decision?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are actually going to try and deal with important questions such as this one by hopefully issuing a joint declaration of principle indicating that we mutually favour freer, more acceptable access to our own common markets because, as I mentioned earlier in answer to my friend the Leader of the Opposition, there are millions of jobs that directly depend on our being able to maintain productive relations with the Americans. It is in that direction, with that goal in mind that I will be undertaking those negotiations over the weekend.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, workers in the food industry will have no use for any Prime Minister's declaration of principles. I am asking for something more than vague statements. I am asking him whether, between two sittings in front of the cameras, he will have time to solve the problem of sugar-containing foods that are turned back at the American border.


Martin Brian Mulroney: How mean can you be; yes, how mean! Liberal frustration permeates even your legitimate questions. I admit you have a legitimate question, but why all those disparaging comments against our historical allies? We in the Progressive Conservative Government are on the side of the 75 per cent of Quebecers who today said in a poll that they favour productive relations with the United States. And this we are going to achieve, not by voicing disparaging comments against our allies. We are here to build strong relations with our allies, especially the Americans.

March 15, 1985
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Conservative Government, in its undignified haste to push through the West Coast Canada-U.S. salmon interception treaty appears to have thrown away the fishery on the Canadian part of the Yukon River, thus posing a serious threat to commercial and tourist operations in that area. Would the Prime Minister admit two things to the House: first, that his office asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to quash a public consultation process so that he could get the treaty before the United States Senate; second, that a wide number of groups from the Yukon which will be affected by this inadvertent decision are attempting to have the Government recover its position on the Yukon fishery which was lost by the haste with which it was pushed through Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that that is absolutely false and really quite unbecoming to the Hon. Member. With regard to the second part of the question, we have heard representations from various groups, and the general view, and certainly my view, is that notwithstanding a 15 or 20-year period in which our predecessors were unable to conclude an arrangement, we signed one which, while not perfect, is in the interests of Canadians and Americans alike. The commonality of the problem has been acknowledged, and we believe that it is a reasonably fair and helpful way to proceed in the interests of both nations.


CONTENT OF AGREEMENT
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated to some of those groups from the Yukon that the Government might be able to salvage this fishery in the memorandum of agreement to be signed at Quebec city. Again, would the Prime Minister do two things? First, would he admit that the treaty is in fact in place and his only function in Quebec city will be to sign it? Second, would he indicate to the House whether or not he has had discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the timing of the signing and approval of the agreement by Cabinet so that it could be placed before the U.S. Senate? Has the Prime Minister had discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the political consequences of the timing involved in getting it before the U.S. Senate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, we have had no discussions. I acknowledge readily that we enlisted the support of a truly accomplished and great Canadian, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, as our negotiator, and he did a superb job, as he always does.
We have tried to act in the interests of the British Columbia fishery. We have tried to be helpful to the British Columbia fishermen. I acknowledge, for example, that there are problems with Clause 8. I am aware of that. They are all perfectible. However, what we are trying to do is always difficult to do when negotiating an international treaty. We never get everything we want. There is a give and a take in every legitimate negotiation. What we believe we have concluded and are ready to recommend to Canadians is a treaty that is designed to enhance the long-term economic prospects of British Columbia and the West Coast fishermen. We believe it is in the national interest, but most important, in British Columbia's interest.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he is known as being committed to peace, that he has a special relationship with the President of the United States, and that he had a discussion with Mr. Gorbachev during his recent trip to the Soviet Union, could he indicate to the House whether or not he feels that Canada, as a neighbour, should play a role as mediator between those two countries?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not see that kind of a role for Canada. I think our bona Tides and traditions as a peaceful nation committed to securing a just and durable peace are well known and appreciated. Mr. Gorbachev himself has a special relationship with Canada inasmuch as it was the first western country he visited. He certainly holds fond memories of it. He was impressed by his meeting here in Parliament with Members of the House. He spoke very highly of that meeting. He also indicated that he views us as a neighbour of the Soviet Union, and the importance of that.
I made the case as forcefully as would any Member of the House, given a similar opportunity, for our non-partisan desire to be helpful in every conceivable way, and to go the extra mile to secure a just and durable peace which involves the reduction and, hopefully, the elimination of arms.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and deals with the meetings he will attend over the weekend with President Reagan. My question is based on the fact that the Prime Minister is going to Quebec city in a very strong position which was made possible by decisions initiated by several Governments preceding his Government, including the initia-
March 15, 1985

tive taken by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who, in 1979, signed a memorandum of intent on trans-boundary pollution with the United States. I would like to remind him that he is benefiting from initiatives that have been taken over a number of years. Therefore, he can go to Quebec city in a very strong position. Would the Prime Minister be willing to accept a U.S. position that would call only for research on acid rain without immediate action to reduce emissions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that was the position put forward by the American Government in response to my hon. friend when he was Minister of the Environment. That is why there was no progress of any kind made during his tenure as Minister of the Environment. We are trying, and 1 think we will succeed in doing much better than that.


NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that reply and I look forward to that conclusion. I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not he can assure the House that he will have on the agenda for the meeting the matter of toxic chemicals in the Niagara River, a matter that we in the House have been pressing for quite some time.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the kinds of historic initiatives set out by the Minister of the Environment in a matter of six months, designed to introduce, and have approved, a quite splendid program, indicate our deep commitment, as members of the Government, to the environment. We will be taking all steps to deal with problem areas in our environment, including the one to which my hon. friend refers.
I say with no reluctance that I am not used to miracles, and 1 do not expect any miracles to occur overnight. What I am working for and toward is substantial progress upon which we can build to clean up our environment.


EDUCATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The Johnson report has again dramatized the fact that post-secondary education expenditures have decreased as a percentage of Gross National Product over the last eight years, primarily because the provinces have not paid their shares. To the Government's credit, it has increased EPF transfers by 7.4 per cent. However, the pattern continues. Ontario has only increased PSE expenditures by 5 per cent, and British Columbia appears to have decreased university and college funding by 5 per cent. Is the Government prepared to act at last to ensure that EPF transfers to the provinces for postsecondary education are in fact used for that purpose?
Privilege-Mr. Lapierre


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for raising an issue that is important not only to universities but to Canada as a whole and to our entire program of economic and social renewal, the full participation of Canada's universities.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that the purpose of releasing the report was to engage all sectors of the Canadian public in the discussion about the future. The Minister of Finance has indicated that the present arrangements would continue for another year, and we are looking at the possibility of a mutually-agreeable arrangement with the provinces for the following financial year.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, March 14, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege prompted by the remarks of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during oral questions period. He used the word "mesquin" in connection with a very legitimate question which I asked him and which is of great concern to me, namely the future of sugar industry workers. The Prime Minister, who is supposed to have deep respect for the House and who fancies himself as a civilized man and has nothing but praise for this institution, used a word which Your Honour will find on page 105 of Beau-chesne's French edition, where the word "mesquin" is given as the equivalent of "cheap", definitely unparliamentary.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might ask the Prime Minister to choose his words more carefully when addressing the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is actually rising on a point of order, but 1 accept his purpose. I heard the word and I took it that it was in reference to the comments which were being made by the Hon. Member, and not his character. At the time I did not find that the word was being used in an unparliamentary manner, although I am sure that Hon. Members on my left understood how Hon. Members on my right might have

March 15, 1985
Petitions
taken it. However, in terms of making a ruling, I do not find it unparliamentary.
As the Hon. Member knows, my dilemma, in terms of checking the "blues", is that once the matter has been drawn to my attention I really have little choice but to deal with it on the spot.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Can I reserve my privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member could reserve his right if it was a question of privilege. However, it is in fact a point of order in the House as to whether language is parliamentary or unparliamentary. The Hon. Member may have a separate question of privilege if he chooses to consult the authorities, if it does not relate to the language itself.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I am tabling in both official languages a copy of the Consolidated Financial Statements of Petro-Canada for the year ending December 31, 1984, which should be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


PETITIONS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of Political Science students at Laval University in Quebec, in which the students submit to this House their views on a constitutional amendment concerning the administration of Canada's public finances.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of several students from Laval University who are concerned about the problems of providing training for young people, and who wish to suggest that in the future, a commission be established whose ultimate goal would be the economic and social development of this country, with particular emphasis on the training and education of young people.


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of an application under Standing Order 30 from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 30 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the threat to Canadian sovereignty posed by United States Strategic Air Command instructions to use Canadian territory as a staging area during international conflict and the clear possibility of a link between the announced North Warning Radar System and the destabilizing Space-Defence Initiative.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa gave me the required notice of his intention to request this emergency debate.
The application is similar to those with which I dealt yesterday, although in his presentation to me he indicated one new element. The Hon. Member referred in his application to what he believes is an automatic provision in the treaty which would entail the repositioning of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons from the United States to Cold Lake, Alberta.
As the Member knows, during question period that matter was raised and there would appear to be a dispute over the facts.
While this element could conceivably form the basis of an argument justifying urgency of debate, the issue itself would not seem to be of the kind envisaged by Standing Order 30. I repeat what I said yesterday, that the concluding of an agreement is a policy decision, and policy decisions are matters for normal debate. Whatever the provisions of the agreement may be, the concluding of such an agreement is the prerogative of the Government.
Two allotted days remain during the current supply period, so there will be an opportunity to debate the issue, although admittedly not before the signing of the treaty.
I hope the Hon. Member will understand that the Chair is bound by the practice and precedents which govern applications made under Standing Order 30. Therefore, I am unable to accept this application.
March 15, 1985


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 166, 258 and 259.


Mr. Stackhouse: l.ln(a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983, what were the defence expenditures devoted to Maritime Command?
2.	What are the present defence capabilities of Maritime Command?
3.	What are Canada's stated NATO commitments in relation to Maritime Command?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Defence expenditures devoted to Maritime Forces for the fiscal years 1980-81 through 1983-84 are as follows:
1980-	81-$1,221,495,000
1981-	82-$1,144,034,000
1982-	83-$1,010,260,000
1983-	84-$1,259,081,000
2.	Canada maintains maritime forces capable of roles in the defence of Canada, defence of North America, NATO collective defence, and international peacekeeping. These forces comprise the following major units: 23 destroyers, three submarines, three underway replenishment ships, one diving support ship, three maritime patrol aircraft squadrons, two antisubmarine helicopter squadrons and one medium range air reconnaissance squadron.
3.	Canada has indicated that all of the above maritime forces would be available in times of hostilities for NATO operations.


Mr. Dingwall: 1.	How many government employees are on the Executive Exchange Program and working in Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the name and address of the company, in each case?


Walter Franklin McLean: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	Two.
2.	International Centre for Ocean Development P.O. Box 997
1583 Hollis Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X2
Technical University of Nova Scotia P.O. Box 1000 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4
Oil Substitution Act


Mr. Dingwall: 1.	How many resident Nova Scotians in the private sector are involved in the Executive Exchange Program?
2.	Which departments are they involved with and what is the duration of the contract, in each case?


Walter Franklin McLean: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	Two.
2.	Both are on assignment with the Department of External Affairs for two years.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 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 from Thursday, March 14, 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 read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: I am ready to deal with the matter that was raised yesterday, however the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vani-er (Mr. Gauthier) has served notice that he would like to make a comment.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, if we refer to the "Projected Order of Business" for today, I believe the Chair was ready to make a ruling on the time remaining for 20-minute speeches, in connection with the comment made yesterday by the Government House Leader about the ringing of the bells. Mr Speaker, many Members on this side of the House are wonder-

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
ing what constitutes debate. Yesterday, the Chair made a ruling on the 10-minute period allowed after a Member's speech. I recall clearly that Your Honour said the questions and comments allowed following debate are not debate as such but rather a period outside debate.
Hon. Members are all aware that we have eight hours of debate, which includes the 20-minute speeches. These eight hours, however, also cover the 10-minute comments or questions following a Member's speech. There may also be points of order or questions of privilege. All of these are included in the eight hours. We are now nearing the end of the traditional eight hours of debate on Bill C-24. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair exactly what debate is. I submit that debate is a Member's speech plus the questions and comments relating to that speech. That is debate, and if I am right, yesterday, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was rising during the normal period of debate and therefore had a right to move the motion of adjournment as he did. Mr. Speaker, I should therefore be grateful if you would explain to me and the other Liberal Members of this House what debate means. How are we to define debate, and is, according to yesterday's ruling, the 10-minute question and answer period not to be considered debate? What exactly are those ten minutes? And does the Chair intend to continue to count the 20-minute speeches, the 10-minute periods plus all points of order and questions of privilege as part of the eight hours?
Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, we shall have to bear that in mind. However I submit, with respect, that if we are supposed to have eight hours of debate, we should subtract the ten minutes of questions and comments and questions of privilege and points of order. Mr. Speaker, I also submit that it must be clearly understood what the Standing Orders mean in relation to a matter that is very important to us all.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. I expected an argument which would begin the way the Hon. Member began his argument, given what I had to say yesterday.
Yesterday, the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised a point of order as to whether or not the time taken by the ringing of the bells prior to voting on the motion to adjourn the House should be counted as part of the eight hours of debate on Bill C-24 during which 20-minute speeches are followed by 10-minute question and answer periods. The Hon. Minister quoted a precedent whereby it was ruled that the time taken by the ringing of the bells was counted as part of the two hours of debate allowed on a motion moved under former Standing Order 75(c), now Standing Order 82. The last sentence of Standing Order 82 reads:
Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
That wording seems to me to be quite clear. No similar wording, however, is to be found in Standing Order 35(2) which deals with the length of speeches during the second reading of a Bill.
We have a precedent dating from May, 1983, which indicates that the time taken by bell ringing was not counted in the eight-hour period of debate. On May 17, 1983, 84 minutes of the eight-hour period were left on the debate on Bill C-151, the Borrowing Authority Bill. After five minutes of debate, the motion that the House do now adjourn was moved and the bells rang for six hours and forty-eight minutes. The adjournment motion lapsed at the ordinary hour of adjournment and the next time the Bill was debated, on May 26, the Bill was debated for a further 79 minutes during which 20-minute speeches followed by 10-minute question and answer periods were allowed.
I think that the validity of this precedent can also be borne out by reference to the authorities. At page 385 of Erksine May's twentieth edition, it is clearly indicated that a motion for the adjournment of the House, or of the debate, is a distinct question which interrupts and supersedes the question already under consideration.
In Abraham and Hawtrey's Parliamentary Dictionary, under the heading "Dilatory Motion", it is stated:
A dilatory motion is a superseding motion because if it is accepted by the Speaker he proposes the motion as a new question which supersedes the original question and must be disposed of before the debate on the original question can be resumed.
The authorities cited, of course, were not dealing with a procedure which allows for the unlimited ringing of the bells. However, in the light of these citations and our own precedents, I believe it is logical to conclude that the time taken by the ringing of the bells prior to voting on an adjournment motion should not be counted in the time allocated to the debate on second reading of the Bill under Standing Order 35(2).
Therefore, there remains one hour and three minutes of debate on Bill C-24 during which 20-minute speeches may be followed by 10-minute question and answer periods.
I do suggest, however, that the question of the bells is a problem which needs to be addressed, and one hopes it is on the agenda of the special committee on reform of the House of Commons.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, i rise on a point of order. I rose the other day to take part in the debate on Bill C-24 and I did make a motion to adjourn the House. Therefore, I gather, I lose my chance to continue my debate. It seems to me that if the ten-minute question and comment period is not part of debate, as Your Honour has ruled, it would seem that I am available for ten minutes of questions and comments. I did make reference when I opened my speech to this particular Bill, and what it said.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been a certain amount of creativity in the House over the last day or two. The House is observing the Speaker think.
March 15, 1985

1 believe the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has a reasonable point. He did move a motion which ended his time to speak; he did in fact speak on the motion, and he is correct, given all of the arguments about debate versus questions and comments, that in fact there remains a ten-minute question and comment period on the speech of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) could explain to the House some of the problems which his constituents have had because of the off-oil program being cut so quickly?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as Ministers say when they are asked a question by one of their own back-benchers, I thank the Hon. Member very much for the question.
The Hon. Member's question is an important one. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, that the House should understand that what these Bills do is bring two programs to an end at different times. We are finding-and many Hon. Members have approached me about this-an injustice in certain parts of the country. I will give you examples of how injustices have occurred to some of my constituents.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, eliminates the off-oil program known as COSP, the Canadian off-oil special program, through which home owners receive financial assistance to convert their furnaces from oil-because we are at a point where we are starting to use our resources which are non-conventional and therefore a lot more expensive-to a heating system generated by natural gas, electricity, wood or solar energy.
This program was used to switch users to other means of energy such as natural gas, which we have a lot of; electricity, which we produce in abundance; wood, which we are blessed with; or solar energy, which we are developing with our new technologies and which, by the way, is a clean modern renewable form of energy. This program was to last until 1990 and now it is going to come to an abrupt halt on March 31, 1985.
1 find it really ironic that the Conservatives when they were the Opposition attacked the 1980 National Energy Program of the Liberal Government. The irony is that the first Bill put forward by the Conservative Government dealing with energy attacks the one part of the National Energy Program which was working. The National Energy Program was working in respect to conservation and energy alternates. It made a lot of sense. When the Conservatives were in opposition they agreed with it.
The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) is a senior Hon. Member of this House. He was a Minister in the Diefenbaker Government. I was a young lad interested in politics, I remember, at the time of the Diefenbaker Government. I remember that people used to say that that fellow from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was one of the "thinkers" of the House of Commons. The context was that they really didn't have too many thinkers. Things, of course, have improved since then. We now have two thinkers. We have
Oil Substitution Act
increased by 100 per cent. He said, and I quote from Hansard of June 30, 1981, at page 11099:
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.
He spoke in support of COSP, which we passed in an hour in this House in 1981 and which we made retroactive to 1980. The Conservatives supported it and the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain spoke in the debate. He also said:
I do not think there is any question that the House in general understands and supports the purpose of the oil substitution program-
The Conservatives were on board then, so what is the problem? The problem is that we are only half way toward our goal. We will now go back to the system where we are favouring the oil companies, who in this country are generally fat, foreign and very influential with this Government. Contrast that with the alternate energy people who are lean, Canadian and, unfortunately, out of influence with this Government.


Mr. McDermid:: Wrong.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member says "wrong". Why is he then cutting this program? The program seems to be working, and cutting it means some injustices. I will give you an example.
The NDP Member from Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) wrote to the Minister on February 8, and I have a copy of his letter, saying that his people in Thunder Bay would like to take advantage of switching to natural gas. They pay a lot to heat their homes in northern Ontario and they have a chance to switch to natural gas. They are waiting for the gas to come in, and it is coming in. The Hon. Member said in his letter that many home owners wish to take advantage of COSP grants before the March deadline for completion of the installation and they are being denied assistance. He asked the Minister to allow extensions under the extenuating circumstances apparent in these cases. Here is an example of some constituents of a fellow MP who are having difficulty. It is an injustice because they cannot take advantage of the program as they are still waiting for the gas lines to come in.
I have another letter from the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). His problem is that some of these small businesses that want to take advantage of the program are still waiting for parts to come in from Toronto and Montreal. They are going to suffer because the program is going to be cut off.
I am asking the Government to extend the deadline. That is a fallback strategy, because I would like the Government to keep the program until 1990. If it cannot be, then why not give a short extension so the injustices in Thunder Bay, Churchill and in other ridings can be rectified? I know that in my riding people are lined up to take advantage of the program before it expires.

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act


Mrs. Sparrow:: Where were they two years ago?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will tell you where they were. It is not-


John Horton McDermid: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has been up for nine minutes with one question. He is making another speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is correct. The reason I let the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) go on for such a long period is that I had not recognized at the time that we had asked for questions and comments. He was the only one who was up. But I will give the remaining time to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), if he wishes.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address that point of order. I think the point of order is out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 was in the midst of answering the question from my colleague and from the Member over there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No one may monopolize the 10-minute question and comment period.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the Speaker can arbitrarily cut off the Member when he is trying to answer a question that takes some time to answer, or is indeed answering another question that came from the floor? There must be give and take in the debate and the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) just indicated another question for me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will read from the committee report on the spirit of the 10-minute question and comment period. The committee envisaged that exchanges which would take place during the 10-minute question and comment period would be short and sharp. More than one Member should be allowed to take advantage of the 10 minutes available, and the Member whose speech is the subject of a question or comment should be given time within the 10 minutes to reply to the point raised. No specific rules should govern the length of the intervention, that being left to the discretion of the Chair. However, the committee did not wish to see one Member monopolizing the 10-minute period in cases where there are several Members who wish to intervene. Furthermore, the Chair should control the intervention to promote a series of exchanges to enliven debate and other constructive elements lacking in debate simply consisting of a series of speeches.
That was the intent of the committee and that is why I think no one should monopolize the question and comment period. We have one minute left for the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) with a short reply by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


John Horton McDermid: He did not have a chance to give his speech and he is trying to do it now in 10 minutes.
1 want to make it very clear that the Government has provided an extension of the program for those people who signed contracts before November 8 and through no fault of their own could not complete their conversions by March 31. It was extended to the end of June. There has also been an extension on inspections in that they do not have to take place by March 31. They can take place after, but the work must be completed by March 31.
Naturally, everyone wants to get in on the program when they hear it is closing. But to extend the program for three months would cost, by a conservative estimate, $35 million. The NDP want to just throw the money away. We cannot do that now, and there are other methods of supporting renewable energy in this country and promoting off-oil programs without increasing the expenditure the Government has had to make in the last number of years. It has been beneficial and we do not argue with that, but it is now time to bring this program to a close because we feel the Canadian people now recognize the value of going off oil and will do so on their own because of the major economic benefits to them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) with a short reply.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Cheap reply.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Short reply. What I am trying to say is that it is cheap for the Government. It saves 115,000 barrels a day of oil equivalent, or 25 million to 30 million barrels a year. The Government is actually going to make money on this program. I cited two injustices in northern Ontario and in Churchill. I thank the Government for its limited extension, but maybe it could consider a further extension for those particular cases. People are not lining up just because the program is ending. They understand the program better. As well, we really have a problem with lower income people who do not have the money to spend. They need some Government help and the Government is going to save money anyway. That is why we are pressing so hard to have this program extended by at least another six months.


John Horton McDermid: It is not the low-income people who are taking advantage of it.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-24 during the closing minutes. It is interesting to note that when the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) speaks it is always with the great reluctance to engage in a discussion on any of the Bills before the House.
This Bill is not designed to eliminate conservation or deny the real desire of the Government to make whatever changes might be appropriate regarding alternative energy, or any

March 15, 1985

other reasonable option in this field that Canadians may have. This Bill debates the ending of a government program which has served a useful purpose.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) indicated, it has contributed something by encouraging a change from dependency on oil to other sources of energy. At this point in time it has a limited function. By this time many people, if not most, have had an opportunity to take advantage of the program. For reasons that have been well described in terms of our financial position and disposition as a Government attempting to get the country going again, this Bill must be passed in order to wind down this particular plan.
There have been a number of useful interventions, most particularly by the Parliamentary Secretary and others on this side of the House, discussing the actual program and what it has accomplished so far. The Government's intention to make the changes were announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) last November 8. I think that all Members will recall the broad and well defined program described by the Minister of Finance at that time in an effort to achieve restoration of government management and expenditures that will serve the long-term needs of the country. This was one of the significant parts of that program described by the Minister of Finance. This Bill represents the legislation required to achieve that prescribed end.
We have all had an opportunity to assess the reaction to the plan of November 8. I think it is quite clear that the people of Canada, including those involved in providing materials, equipment, and services for this particular program in residential oil substitution and energy conservation, acknowledge that outright consumer grants for these purposes are something that the Government of Canada can no longer afford. A large potential exists for further oil substitution and energy conservation in the residential sector. The pursuit of that potential remains an important priority for Canada. In a time of restraint the Government must find less costly ways to support those objectives. I will return to this subject later in my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
Having been Opposition Members of Parliament for too long, we on this side of the House have had an opportunity to look into efforts and initiatives that have been taken by previous governments. In the conservation area particularly it has always been clear that any efforts that have been made have fallen far short of the real potential which exists. We have had an opportunity to study in some detail the magnificent opportunities which occur in conservation across the country. This is a very finite section of the implementation of conservation opportunities. There are many that have been taken in industry, for example, which is not affected by this Bill at all, which have achieved magnificent results because they were reasonable and cost effective things for them to do.
Oil Substitution Act
I cite that only as an example that many of us had an opportunity to become familiar with as we were sitting in Opposition. We are now in Government and therefore in a position to build on those opportunities. While this specific program has served a useful function, it has now reached the point where, comparatively speaking, it will probably not fulfil much of that additional potential.
The Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has mentioned specific instances where there are some difficulties. However, I believe that if this program were to be wound down in four years from now the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway would probably give the same speech he gave today. There will never be a perfect time to start or stop. There will always be people who might have become involved in a particular government program in a particular way. No one is claiming that this is the perfect time, but it would not be perfect in five years from now either. We must do the best that we can. The adjustments which the Minister has already indicated will be made will help, in a large part, to overcome some of the difficulties that may have been faced.
The two programs that we are talking about are the COSP and CHIP programs. COSP is the off-oil program which was introduced in 1980. It has provided taxable contributions of up to $800 toward the cost of converting oil heating systems to natural gas, electricity and propane, as well as to wood and other renewable energy resources. The existing legislation provided the termination date of December 31, 1990 for this program. The amending Bill will change that date to March 31 of this year. Again, I would emphasize that since November 8 of last year most Canadians understood that this Bill would be forthcoming and that the program would terminate on March 31 of this year.
A limited exception has been provided to allow applicants a further three months, until June 30, to complete conversions if they had signed contracts prior to the November 8 announcement, and if they face difficulties in getting the work done by March 31. The need for inspections to be completed by March 31 has also been waived in recognition that backlogs of inspection requests may occur in some areas.
A number of representations have been received proposing that three, four or five extra months be allowed to complete conversions in respect of commitments signed by applicants before March 31. It has been argued that it is impossible to convert to natural gas between November and April or, in any event, more costly to do so than during warm weather months. Both gas and electric utilities have also expressed concern that the pressure to get work done by March 31 may adversely affect the quality of the work. In some cases, because of limited inventories of equipment, less than optimum systems may in fact be installed.
We are all sympathetic to these concerns, Mr. Speaker. Consideration was given to an extension until summer for the period for eligible conversions. However, a general extension could not be permitted in view of the additional program costs that would have been involved. For example, a minimal useful extension of three months up to June 30 would increase

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
outlays and government costs in the 1985-86 fiscal year by up to $35 million. This would reduce by more than one-third the program savings pledged in respect to COSP toward the deficit reductions announced by the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board.
The second part of the program is the CHIP program. This has provided taxable contributions of up to $500 toward insulation and draft proofing measures in existing homes. It was introduced in 1977 and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act provided for its termination at the end of 1987. One of the surprising things about this program was the very slow uptake of this opportunity by Canadians. For the first several years it was questionable whether this program would be a very useful adjunct in our energy policy. The crunch did not really come until it was clear that energy prices were reaching such levels as to make this a clear cost advantage. In fact, the proportion of people who took advantage of this program in the end are not generally in the category that the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway indicated. When energy prices started to increase dramatically people who were following budgets closely were the ones who responded quickly by taking advantage of the program. I was surprised at the low initial uptake of those programs.
The amending Bill will provide for a two-stage phase-out under which the Government's share of eligible costs is reduced to 33.33 per cent from 60 per cent effective January 1, 1985. The program comes to an end on March 31, 1986. In the final 15 months of CHIP the maximum contribution is unchanged at $500.
An extra year is provided for CHIP, which is beyond the termination date of COSP, in recognition of the fact that suppliers and installers of residential conservation materials across Canada needed the time to prepare for the withdrawal of the CHIP Program.
The end of the program has been anticipated for some time by both industry and Government. For example, the reduction of the contribution rate to 33'A per cent is a natural and important step which follows an early reduction of the rate for materials to 60 per cent from 100 per cent. Moreover, homes have been admitted to the programs sequentially on the basis of their date of construction and the process is now in its final state. The last group to become eligible-the 1.3 million homes built between 1971 and 1977-will have had two years to use the program by the time it concludes next year.
That further period will also be helpful to many small contractors across Canada who are working in a trade that is still relatively young. They have rarely had notices of changes in CHIP and this phase out period gives them some time to expand the scope of the conservation work that they can do, and also improves their ability to explain the advantages of conservation to householders.
In this respect, we are indebted to the National Insulation and Energy Conservation Contractors' Association which represents insulation installers across Canada. We are indebted to them for advice and support, not only in the phasing out of the program but throughout the entire CHIP Program.
The Association recognized early last fall that CHIP might have to be discontinued and it volunteered options for the orderly conclusion of programs. The suggestions were very helpful in preparing the recommendations which have now been brought forward. The Association was later able to identify the likelihood of a backlog of orders for work and materials that would arise in advance of changes in the contribution rate on December 31.
A modification which has been accepted permits applicants to sign for the work by December 31, but to have it performed in the first three months of 1985 at the 60 per cent rate. More than 80,000 applicants have taken advantage of this provision.
In the budgetary savings that we expect from the changes in the CHIP and COSP Programs, the expenditures in the current fiscal year, that is the budgetary savings, will total almost $350 million. The termination of COSP and the phasing out of CHIP will provide continued savings from the appropriation levels for the two programs of $180 million in 1985-1986 and $315 million in 1986-87. These are major and necessary contributions toward reduction of the federal deficit.
Our decisions have been made not just because we addressed the deficit, however. Our decisions recognize that the market place has changed and that the Government's role with respect to both oil substitution and energy conservation must change with it.
COSP was first introduced in October, 1980. At that time, OPEC dominated the world's view of the future for oil. It was expected to control world supply and push world prices much higher. Almost 40 per cent of Canadian homes were heated with oil and most of those home owners had little knowledge of oil substitution. Residential oil substitution was identified as a priority and a large consumer grant was introduced as the instrument to make it happen. It is difficult to establish how much of the activity which has taken place since 1980 can really be credited to COSP. Almost a million units have been converted under the program, representing oil displacement of 32,000 barrels of oil per day. Over this period, the financial benefits of oil substitution have become more than familiar to home owners. A trend has been established toward installation of medium and high efficiency natural gas furnaces which are being made available at a steadily declining and more competitive price.
Dual energy systems such as plenum heaters and heat pumps are offering savings and comfort to home owners and advantages in load management to the utilities.
A broad range of controlled combustion and woodburning systems is now available. Hundreds of thousands of homes across rural Canada use wood as their only source of space heating and obtain their supplies at very low cost.
To preserve a share of the residential market, oil dealers and manufacturers of oil heating equipment are marketing new, high efficiency oil furnaces and retrofit packages for existing oil furnaces. In this maturing competitive environment, we can
March 15, 1985

expect to see the continuing rapid decline of the residential use of oil after COSP is withdrawn.
CHIP has provided assistance toward conservation measures for more than 2.5 million Canadian homes. Significant energy savings, averaging 17 per cent, have been achieved in the homes that use CHIP and an evaluation of the program has established that CHIP played an important part in achieving those savings.
It is estimated that the equivalent of 28,500 barrels of oil a day are being saved as a result of work done under CHIP.
As with oil substitution, the benefits of energy conservation in reduced heating bills and increased home comfort are much more fully understood by Canadians now than seven or eight years ago. Installation specialists now certify their work to accepted national standards.
However, there remains a significant gap in understanding and action on the part of both consumers and industry. Consumers still lack confidence in the quality of work and the advice that they are offered. They see conservation and heating system technologies as being complex and they doubt their own ability to sort it all out. Major technical issues remain to be resolved and the work standards now in place need to be refined, expanded in scope and backed up by the installer training programs. These are very real problems but they are not resolved by Government grants.
There are continuing objectives. One is to reduce the use of oil energy in Canada, which remains an important and highly desirable national objective. Very large potentials for savings exist not only in the housing stock but in the other sectors as well. These include commercial and industrial buildings, buildings operated by various institutions and even the operations of the federal Government's buildings.
We know that in many cases it can be less costly to invest in conserving energy than to bring on the same amount of new supplies. In the existing housing stock, the average potential for savings from cost effective conservation measures has been estimated at 30 per cent. For millions of Canadian households, it will be a very attractive investment, with a rapid return on dollars spent, to insulate, draft proof and improve or convert their heating systems.
We cannot, and should not, continue to expect the public treasury to use borrowed dollars for the payment of consumer grants to try to ensure that this energy investment takes place.
A more limited and balanced role for Government is clearly preferable, one that is sensitive to the information needs of energy users and suppliers, to the technical problems still unresolved and to opportunities for further development of energy use technology.
The legislation before the House today is therefore a necessary step, but only a first step in reorienting the Government programs in these sectors.
I have also indicated that other programs under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the area of conservation of renewable energy are to be thoroughly and critically
Oil Substitution Act
reviewed. This Bill in no way should indicate to anyone that the Government does not wish to fully encourage through every means possible the expansion of conservation measures and to ensure a proper place for the role of alternative energy. That is a goal that we believe we can and should accomplish in the interest of all Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member said, "We know that it is less costly to preserve energy than to bring on new supplies". While I cannot quote him exactly, I think he also said that the public treasury should not use borrowed dollars so that this investment in conservation and so on takes place by consumers. Is that what the Hon. Member said?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. With respect to the second part, I am not exactly sure of the phrasing the Hon. Member was trying to use so I would not want to say yes or no to what he has asked.
The indication was that direct grants to consumers may no longer be the only cost effective way of achieving the desired results in conservation and switches to alternative and non renewable energy sources.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, that is incredible because the consumers who the member does not want to subsidize are the ones who are paying 50 cents a litre for gas at the pump. Will the member not admit that the budget for the Petroleum Incentives Program-which is grants to oil companies, not to consumers-was budgeted at $8.6 billion over a five-year period? The Government's own budget this year provides $1.6 billion in grants to oil companies to go up to the frontiers and off shore and sink $100 million wells.
There is also a grant of $1.3 million to East Coast Energy Corporation which was run by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) buddies, including Fred Doucet, who was a director of that corporation. The Prime Minister's buddies got these grants. Yet, the Canadian consumer is being cut off because in the Member's words, "Well, you should not give grants to the Canadian consumer because they can borrow their own money". The Member admits that it is less costly to preserve energy. Therefore, why spend $1.6 billion bringing in a new supply and cutting off consumers from the grant, a small pittance compared to what is given to the oil companies? After all, the Canadian consumer pays it all out of his pocket. Why do that, Mr. Speaker? It does not make any sense compared to what the Government said and what the Member said. He said "we know it is less costly to preserve energy than to bring on new supply".


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his concise question. An interesting piece of information came across my desk in the last month. It was a comparison of energy costs in which the Hon. Member and I will be interested. It concerns consumers. Every person going to the gas pump to fill up in Canada is paying a certain price. I usually end up paying 50 cents a litre. This comparison that

March 15, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) came across my desk is very interesting. On a dollar for dollar basis it is now costing the average American consumer who goes to the gas pump in the United States equal or less money than he or she paid for gas in 1959. That takes into account inflation, the change in the dollar and everything else.
I have to question the common sense, the decency and even the intelligence of the Member opposite in making the kind of comments he makes, when it was he and his Party who supported the National Energy Program which resulted in all the disastrous changes which the energy consumers across this country have had to bear. The Hon. Member has to take responsibility for that; he was part of it. He does not even explain the PGRT and the PIP grants properly.


POINT OF ORDER-MR. CLARK (YELLOWHEAD) SEIZURE OF TURKISH EMBASSY IN OTTAWA-TURKISH GOVERNMENT WARNING
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the indulgence of the House and will not be long.
Members will know that on Thursday, yesterday, in response to questions on the Turkish Embassy I told the House of Commons:
There was a request made in mid-February. There was a response made by the Government of Canada which was deemed satisfactory at the time by the Turkish Embassy. There has been no communication with the Turkish Embassy or the Turkish Government since that time.
That was my statement, Mr. Speaker. That statement was made after a thorough inquiry of Canadian officials who might have been contacted by Turkish authorities.
I have just learned that, contrary to the information given to me earlier, a representative of the Turkish Embassy here may have raised this matter with Canadian officials in late February or early March. I have ordered an immediate investigation and will report to the House.
I wanted, however, to take this earliest opportunity to correct the record and to apologize to the House for inadvertently conveying information which may have been inaccurate.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there will be questions in Question Period tomorrow about this.


An Hon. Member:: Tomorrow?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry, Monday.



OIL SUBSTITUTION AND CONSERVATION ACT


[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 read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to remind the Hon. Member that we voted against the Petroleum Incentive Program. The Hon. Member was in the House. The NDP did not support the National Energy Program. His Party voted for it. I ask him to check the record. Does he recall voting for the Petroleum Incentive Program? He voted against other aspects of the Energy Program as did my Party. We both voted for the conservation program.
Is the Hon. Member aware from his own department that this program is half complete? The object was to convert two million housing units off oil by 1990. So far one million units have been converted, at a saving of 75,000 barrels a day. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) said last week in Vancouver that the energy costs can be reduced by up to 30 per cent to cost effective conservation investments.
In view of the fact that the program seems to be working, it is only half way through and, according to the Minister herself, we could still reduce by 30 per cent the demand and use of oil, and in view of the restraint programs much as in my province of British Columbia where one day, one year, it is for restraint and on the next day the province suddenly finds its sense and isn't, why is the Government cutting back and saving a small amount of money on a perfectly sensible program that is saving oil? This is one of the few aspects of the energy program that is working? Why is the Hon. Member's Government eliminating that and not eliminating things like PIP grants of $1.6 billion a year to oil companies, along with tax advantages? Why is the Government picking on the poor consumer and forgetting about other areas where money could be saved?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is the Hon. Member's duty and disposition to be pessimistic. One of the things he really does not include in his thinking or in his comments is the fact that even prior to COSP there were significant conversions. There is no reason to expect that there will not be a significant number of conversions after. We intend to continue and even expand our efforts to encourage people and to inform them of the benefits that can come to them if they switch off oil when it is appropriate and reasonable for them to do so. Natural gas is probably one of the best examples. Electricity can be used in other areas, but there could be a reasonable
March 15, 1985

debate as to whether that is a long-term totally desirable objective.
The Hon. Member continues to try somehow to cast two sides of this scene in terms of consumers; people on the street who need to buy gas, oil, heating oil, and other energy requirements, in contrast to the needs for development in Canada of our resources and the needs of Canadian industry, Canadian oil and gas producers-small ones, not the big ones which the Hon. Member talks about. There is no question that that industry is taxed heavily. The PGRT is the basis of providing PIP grants. Maybe PIP grants are not right either. There are really not two sides. When the system is running smoothly and when there are benefits to producers, industry and secondary industry across Canada will benefit. When everything is working, who really benefits is the Canadian taxpayer and those people who have to buy oil and gas products are the real beneficiaries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.

Order please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon. I shall then give the floor to the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, the Chair promised that the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) would be given the floor after the luncheon recess.


Alfonso Gagliano: March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
The legislation implemented by the Liberal government was of course a complete success since the goals were almost completely met for the 1980-83 period.
Indeed, 95 per cent of the 780,000 housing units to be converted to alternative sources of energy were converted during that period especially in Quebec, where provincial energy companies have drawn up complementary programs. Conversion was very successful. Indeed, 132,000 of 244,000 housing units converted in 1984 were in Quebec. In 1983-84 alone, Quebecers received $99,396,000 from the federal government, and they could benefit from substantially reduced heating costs. Those savings were reinvested in various areas which surely stimulated our entire economy. Are Canadians being punished for taking maximum advantage of a legislation that met urgent and real needs?
Even in Quebec where already 41.3 per cent of all conversions expected for 1990 have been made, 59.7 per cent of housing units to be converted will be denied subsidies if Bill C-24 is passed.
On the national scale now, what about the mere 37.7 per cent of projected conversions actually completed under the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act?
Mr. Speaker, not only will Bill C-24 deprive more than one million homeowners of direct grants averaging $735, it will also drain the economy of the huge savings which lower heating costs would have generated. Each owner would have reinvested his savings in our economy and tens of thousands of productive jobs would have been created.
Mr. Speaker, the figures I have just quoted are readily available, so why did Progressive Conservative Members, from Quebec or elsewhere, fail to mention them in the House?
Once again I suspect that, through this irrational and harmful piece of legislation, the Progressive Conservative Government is trying to divert attention from its lack of planning, and especially the discrepancies in its election program.
We all know that economic development and the fight against inflation over the coming years will depend above all on our energy policies, but the Progressive Conservative Government wants to do away with one of the most essential and effective measures in that sector.
Planning for the future is definitely not this Government's forte. Our dollar is in a nosedive, the Government knows that oil prices will soar the moment Bill C-24 becomes law, yet the Conservative administration once again wants to turn us into "Oil-god" slaves.
Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that it has become impossible to govern a country without planning and serious analysis. Here again the Progressive Conservative Party shows its inability to govern and keep track of national priorities.
Does the Government not demonstrate utter ineptitude by being so complacent about our energy requirements and the need to develop alternate energy sources?
It never fails, Mr. Speaker, we have a good program like this one or like the small business loan program, so the Government puts an end to it or changes it to make it useless.
Mr. Speaker, I fear that the Government's irresponsibility will increasingly undermine our future prospects in the coming months, but I keep hoping that Bill C-24 will be shelved so that we will maintain a modicum of energy planning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow).


Herbert O. Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend commented that the oil reserves were diminishing rapidly. He is absolutely right; the conventional oil reserves are diminishing rapidly. I wonder if he really knows why this was so.
Perhaps the Hon. Member has forgotten that the National Energy Program, which was brought in by his Government in the 1980s, brought the oil and gas industry to its knees and sent many drilling rigs out of the country and many people South of the border, to Australia or to the North Sea. Those who did not leave the country went on the unemployment or welfare lines. A great many jobs were lost in this particular sector. I can also state that the spin-off effects caused unemployment to rise by some 90,000 people in the Province of Ontario.
As well, the Hon. Member's Government introduced PIP grants which were extremely discriminatory. PIP grants forced more of the natural-resource companies to explore on Canada Lands and therefore to explore in the Beaufort Sea and off the coast of Canada. Unfortunately, this took away the people, technologies and moneys necessary to develop and explore on provincial lands in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. That is why our conventional reserves are diminishing.
Another thing the former Government legislated was the 25 per cent back-in on Canada Lands after a discovery. I must tell my hon. friend that this particular legislation drove out and prevented foreign, and even Canadian investment. As a matter of fact, that program can be directly related to the moving of some $17 billion out of the country. Before the Hon. Member goes on to say too much about diminishing oil reserves, I think he should take a look at why this is happening.
My hon. friend also said that we were covering up and not putting forth all the correct figures. Perhaps he has not been able to hear the six or eight Conservative members who have spoken in regard to Bill C-24. They have all stated the facts and figures.
As well, we are not discriminating against Quebec. The programs will be terminated right across the country. We all
March 15, 1985

realize that the COSP and CHIP programs have been extremely successful and I agree with my hon. friend about that. However, the time has come when Canadians can no longer be subsidized in every area. We will save over $800 million by terminating these programs, and that money will be put directly toward the deficit.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, according to the Hon. Member, the Liberal administration did everything wrong.
I know, however, that this program, which the Conservative Government wants to abolish, is very popular. The people in the Province of Quebec are very concerned because as of March 31 the program will no longer be available. The Government announced on November 8 that the program would be discontinued. It should extend the program for at least six months to provide an opportunity to the people who want to take advantage of it. I do not understand what the Hon. Member is driving at. I definitely did not speak about discrimination, I said that Quebec was the Province which was the largest user of that program and the people of Quebec are not being permitted an opportunity to continue to use that program after March 31.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) said that this Government was prepared to mortgage the future. I found that to be an interesting comment.
We have taken over from a Government which had almost a $200 billion debt. This year, there will be a $35 billion deficit. He is talking about this Government mortgaging the future of Canada, when it has to borrow money to pay for this program in order to give that money back to the Canadian taxpayers to convince them to insulate their homes or go off oil. I believe that Canadian people are more intelligent than that. They do not have to be bribed. They must be educated on the importance of going off oil, insulating their homes, using passive solar and solar opportunities, and renewable products. But for the Hon. Member to stand up in the House and accuse this Government of mortgaging the future of Canada, that is somewhat facetious.


Alfonso Gagliano: The Hon. Member said that the Government was borrowing money to give this program to the Canadian people, so that Canadian people could reduce their heating bills and invest the money which they save. I think that is a good thing. However, he does not realize that the Government is taking money away from the Canadian people. That is the problem.


John Horton McDermid: It's their money!


Alfonso Gagliano: In the long term, this Government will put the country into bankruptcy.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary said that this program is costing the Canadian people money. However, the program is taking money away from the people
Oil Substitution Act
who can least afford it. This program was aimed at consumers, people on fixed and low incomes, and the unemployed. Those were the people who were taking advantage of the program, and those are the people who will lose.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the deficit. The deficit has increased since this Government has been in power. The Government cannot even bring in a budget or give us the date on which the budget will be brought down. It is not only the question of the funds which this program gave to people, but also the provision of information, guidelines and a toll-free line which people could call to ask questions about insulation and off-oil programs that is very important. Those were programs, aids and ideas which the people needed. We have not yet heard what the Government will do in that regard, or what information the Government will provide to Canadians.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member what difference it will make in his area, when people are no longer able to get the information or an assurance from the Government that the furnaces and systems which are put in place will be approved by CSA, or in fact whether it will be equipment which will meet the standards?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on April 1, when this program is no longer in effect, a lot of home owners will not be able to convert from oil heating to electricity or gas, especially in Quebec. As well, the Montreal area does not have very many natural gas lines, and because of the hard winter which we have had, it has been very difficult to create those lines in order for people to have gas installed in their homes. April 1 would probably be a convenient time to start work on the projected natural gas lines, however the program will not exist at that time. I am sure, as well, that the termination of that program will mean the loss of many jobs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary and other Conservatives have been saying that this program must be cut because this is a time of restraint. They are saying that we should let the people invest for themselves and that we should not subsidize consumers. They are saying that the people are sensible and that they will invest in the market.
A Montreal economist, Diane Bellemare, submitted material to the Macdonald Royal Commission from which I would like to quote. It reads:
It may be that subsidies are necessary to encourage people to use more efficient forms of energy. Without them, consumers may not be able to afford the investment needed to conserve or switch from one form of energy to another, either because their levels of earnings are too low or because they feel that sooner or later prices will drop back to more attractive levels.
I wonder if the Hon. Member agrees with that. Has he found in his riding that lower-income people do not have money to invest in the market? Has he found that people have the money in their pockets to spend without a Government grant? We must keep in mind that we are talking about million-dollar programs. However, the oil industry is receiving PIP grants in the amount of $1.6 billion from the Government. PIP grants are subsidies. We have an interventionist economy. It is not a free-market economy. Anyone who thinks it is a

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
free-market economy, as far as energy is concerned, is crazy. Even Texaco and Gulf know that it is not a free-market economy.
Does the Hon. Member feel that his constituents need help to participate in energy conservation programs?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but the time for questions and comments has expired. I would like to recognize the next speaker on debate for ten minutes. As per Standing Order 35(2), the next speaker will be allowed ten minutes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that the Chair has already made certain comments with respect to the application of Standing Order 35(2)(b), which will now limit the speeches to ten minutes. The Table will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there have been 21 speakers and that the eight hours provided for debate have expired. Therefore, according to the rules, the House is now within the ten-minute speech period.
However, I would like to point out to the Chair that there is a difference in interpretation about which I would like to speak. Indeed, the French text and the English text of the Standing Order are not exactly the same. In English, Standing Order 35(2)(b) reads:
-twenty minutes following the first three speakers, if that Member begins to speak within the next eight hours of consideration;-
In other words, eight hours of consideration. The word is "consideration".
[ Translation]
In French it reads, and I quote:
-les huit heures de debat-

"Consideration", Mr. Speaker, I take it could mean to encompass the speeches of 20 minutes plus the ten minutes for comments and questions. It could even include points of order, points of privilege and all of the things which traditionally, since we changed our rules, have been included in the global eight hours. I submit to you that by doing that, Mr. Speaker, you are restricting certain privileges of Hon. Members to speak for 20 minutes.
The point can be made that we have had 21 speakers debate Bill C-24 to date, but we should have had 24 speakers, that is, three speakers per hour for eight hours. So we are short three speakers for 20 minutes plus the usual ten-minute period for questions and comments.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the reason we changed the rules. I would like to go back to the days when debate was 30 minutes plus-with unanimous consent-questions being put to the speaker. We had a series of monologues at that
time. We tried to improve things by bringing some dialogue into the House. We said that after a Member's remarks one could ask questions of the Member debating, as to the relevancy and effectiveness of his speech or the arguments he was putting forth.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this House will have to consider whether we should continue with this procedure or go back to the monologue form of debate where Hon. Members on all sides of this House are called upon to debate issues. If the ten minutes is restricted to comments and questions, without being considered as debate, then in my view we should say so openly and not call it debate, as our rules so imply-

-in French. Although this might be a wrong translation, Mr. Speaker, I submit there is a substantial difference between "consideration" in English and "debat" in French. I should appreciate it very much if you could enlighten me on these provisions and on these remarks.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I cannot disagree with my hon. friend about the new rules, but I think in questioning the time he will find that the Table has kept an accurate record. I was surprised when I saw for the first time ever how accurately the Table keeps the time. With respect to the question of the time we have now arrived at, I think the Table is probably very accurate in saying that the eight hours have passed. If we are getting into a debate on the new rules under this point of order, I don't think this is the time. If we are making recommendations on debate, let me say that I happen to like the new rules because I think we have now to a great extent gotten away from the monologues. We do have this exchange of ten minutes which gives a little life to the debate.
I cannot comment on the French and English aspect of "debat" or "consideration", but I would hope that if we are making recommendations-and I gather that is what the hon. gentleman is doing-we would maintain the system we have now, because it has added some life to the House and some enjoyment in the debate. I prefer that to sitting here listening to the monologues about which the Hon. Member talks.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that with the new rules we have seen an improvement; we are getting away from the monologue and into debate. I would like to reiterate what the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has said. What I see is an inconsistency. It is an inconsistency between the French and the English when we deal with "debat" and "consideration". What has been included in the eight hours is not only the debate but the question and comment period. It was a thought perceived by a lot of people initially, I think, that questions and comments were considered as part of the debate. However, that is not what the Speaker ruled yesterday.


John Horton McDermid: Yes.
March 15, 1985


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: No. And that is not what was ruled here earlier today in this House. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) rose on a point of order and asked if he could continue. He acknowledged the fact that he had forfeited his time by moving the motion to adjourn yesterday: that is, his 20 minutes had elapsed. He asked at that point if the period for questions and comments could continue. The Speaker reflected and then said, yes, it could. If questions and comments are considered part of the debate, then the Hon. Member should not have been able to continue with questions and comments. One can't have it both ways.
I have no objection to my friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, having the ten minutes and continuing with questions and comments. He deserved that. He moved an adjournment which I thought was very worthwhile. If he had not done so, someone from this Party would have done so. He paid the price of forfeiting his 20 minutes, and he deserved to be able to continue with questions and comments. However, we have a very definite inconsistency. Regardless of what the procedure has been and what has been determined that the rules say, we have a very definite deviation from what has been followed by the rulings of the Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We've been short-changed on that one.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: That's right. We have suffered and have been short-changed an hour at least. Now everything is concluded and counted as debate. That was not the ruling of His Honour, the Speaker, today. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that eight hours is fine. A time limit on 20-minute speeches is good. Eight hours is good. But those eight hours should consist only of the actual debate; not of points of order or questions of privilege or questions and comments, but debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Having heard the representations made by the three Hon. Members, I think that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who has raised this point will certainly agree with me that the occupant of the Chair is bound by the interpretation of Standing Order 35(2) which includes the 10 minutes. I will be pleased, however, to convey his representations to our Committee on Procedure and Organization in order to see whether changes could be made to satisfy all hon. members, if the House so wishes.

The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on debate, and I would remind him that we are now in the ten-minute period for debate without questions or comments following.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in questioning the Government's decision to do away with the most successful part of the national energy policy, a part which has had demonstrated results in terms of not only provoking activity, but also in very substantial saving of our oil supply which Canada will need some time in the future. It is acknowledged, I think, on all sides of the House
Oil Substitution Act
that our oil and gas supplies are not inexhaustible and that our petroleum in particular is far from inexhaustable. We will be needing it for certain purposes such as air travel, for plastics and petrochemicals and in certain areas where it cannot be replaced by other products. Therefore, it does not make any sense to use oil for home heating and other uses where substitutes are in fact easily available.
The Government's decision is not only wrong and imprudent in the long term, but it is also wrong and imprudent in terms of the priority which the Government announced when it came to office. We were told that "jobs, jobs, jobs" would be its priority. I have had insulation contractors talk to me in my riding with respect to what will happen to their businesses after the phasing out of the CHIP program. The Government's own review of CHIP indicated that two-thirds of the CHIP work would not have been done if the program had not existed. About 40 per cent or 50 per cent of all retrofitting taking place in homes for insulation purposes is motivated by CHIP, but that will go in the course of another year's time.
I have had people in the furnace business tell me similarly that their businesses are just going to slump and they will in fact be forced to lay off their staff and in some cases be unemployed themselves because of the ending of the COSP program in just a few days.
I happen to have benefited from the COSP program last year. I did not anticipate that the Government would take this step but in September I took the initiative and arranged to have a gas burner installed in my house in place of my oil burner. The consequence is that from now on we will be saving about 50 barrels of oil a year, and that is a lot. That is a benefit which is going to go on for a very long time, and the cost to the Government after recouping tax on the grant would be of the order of about $500 or $550, whatever my tax rate may happen to be. That is a very small investment and it illustrates that it is far cheaper to get new oil supplies through conservation and alternate energy than it is through finding new supplies.
However, the Government is going to remove the petroleum gas revenue tax which will cost the taxpayers some $2.5 billion at the same time it is eliminating these two programs which are far less costly and far more productive, given their ability to literally mine oil from the walls of people's homes and furnaces because of the switch-over to other forms of energy.
It seems to me that the reason for the Government's decision is a bias in favour of western oil interests and a bias against the very prudent method of saving petroleum energy. The biggest budget cuts last year were to the CHIP and COSP programs, and cuts to the National Research Council, to the tune of $60 million for conservation and alternative energy research.
What binds all of these together is that they were measures which threaten the continued growth of the industry until the oil runs out. We are threatening short-term profits for the oil industry. But in my opinion and that of my Party these

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
measures are all necessary if we are to be able to give to our children and grandchildren a country which still has viable amounts of petroleum resources for the future. With conservation, the value of savings grows as energy prices rise. The job impact of conservation and alternatie energy, COSP and CHIP, is a great deal greater than it is in getting new oil out of the ground.
When you consider the other energy alternative, it is significant that the Government does not cut a penny from Atomic Energy of Canada despite the fact that it is spending $340 million a year, yet after 35 years nuclear power has still not reached the point where it can support itself without the need for very heavy Government subsidies. If you want to save money, why not get it there rather than forcing poor Canadians to pay through the nose when they do not have the money?
I wish to move a motion which will have the effect of hoisting this measure for at least six months. We would like to see it put off longer because we are opposing the Bill, but it is a parliamentary device which will demonstrate what we think abnout the Bill, as well as being a response to the very specific needs of large numbers of people in my riding and elsewhere who are not now able to benefit from these programs, COSP in particular, because the deadline has arrived, and they can no longer get a contractor or oil company prepared to take their particular case.


Mr. Thacker:: Still some rich NDP who have not taken advantage of the public purse?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Many of my constituents have taken advantage of this as well.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: His, too, I bet.


Michael Morris Cassidy: In fact, the take-up in Alberta has been stronger than in almost any other part of the country.
Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor: "Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."
One of our concerns is for those ordinary Canadians who were not able to take advantage of this program before, and for whom even the dollars to pay their share were difficult to acquire. They are certainly not going to be able to take advantage of conservation and off-oil measures if they have to come up with all the dollars at once. Some of these people are Canadians in Alberta and British Columbia who do not have jobs right now, yet they find that the oil bills are coming up to $1,000 or more a year. They know they can save if they go off oil but they cannot afford to do that because the very first move the Conservatives announced was to cut this particular measure.
These programs have benefited us all by saving the energy petroleum resources we will need in the future.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Only the rich took it up though, like you.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That particular statement is demonstrably untrue. This program was taken up by people-


Blaine Allen Thacker: You took it up.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -on all sides of the House. I was too busy with politics beforehand to take it up or I would have done it back in 1977. I would suggest as well that if the Hon. Member feels he has a point and feels that some people on high incomes, who were paying tax on their grants, should not have gotten the grants, then it was open to the Government to have redesigned the program and redirected it to people with ordinary incomes. But I remember one of the first steps of this new Government when it came to power. The Conservatives said in opposition they were opposed to the tax increases which were due to take effect on October 1, tax increases which hit ordinary Canadians across the country. But did the Hon. Member's Party come in and reverse that tax increase which it had inherited from the Liberals? No, it did not. They imposed tax increases which had the effect of penalizing average Canadians to the tune of some $500 million a year.
That may be straying a bit from the Bill but I would suggest that if the Government genuinely cared about ordinary Canadians, if it felt that some groups in our society had not benefited from this program, it was elected on a mandate of change and reform and it could have come in with a new approach to make sure that every family in the country with an annual income of less than $20,000 or $30,000 would have been assured the opportunity to take advantage of this program before it ended.
I appeal to my hon. friend from Alberta, and his colleagues, to join with our Party in hoisting this Bill for six months in order to give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources time to take up that very valuable suggestion. If the program is to be changed, it should be changed in order to benefit ordinary Canadians who were not able to benefit from the program during the six or seven years it has been in force. I remind you that the program benefits all Canadians, because if we keep on wasting oil at the rate we are doing it today there will be none left by the time our sons and daughters come to take their places in this House of Commons.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt my friend but I just want to get the procedure right. I heard you call a voice vote and I am not quite sure what happened.
March 15, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was just introducing the motion for debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I heard a lot of people saying-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There were a lot of voices at the time. 1 got a loud response.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I just wanted to make sure the motion was not lost inadvertently.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, we are starting debate on the motion.


John Horton McDermid: I am assuming, then, that the Chair has accepted the amendment and we are now debating the amendment to the main motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is correct in his assessment of the situation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this motion is to hoist this Bill for six months. I was not aware that that motion was going to be moved, and I was rising to speak on the main motion. But I am pleased to participate in debate on this amendment. I think my constituents, at least, will understand the impact it will have on them.
The CHIP and COSP programs were put into effect between 1973 and 1977. At that time I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the Hon. Barney Danson. I vividly remember working on these programs to persuade Canadians of the importance of energy conservation?
One must think back to 1973 to appreciate the urgency and economic difficulties that Canadians were experiencing with their heating costs. Oil prices were rising at a very rapid rate. Most of us were using oil to heat our homes. Consequently, the costs of heating were becoming difficult to bear. As a responsible Government at that time, we felt it was necessary to convince Canadians to insulate their homes better and to transfer from oil to other sources of energy such as gas, electricity, and wood, which became very popular after this crisis.
The CHIP program which is addressed in Bill C-24 provided grants to homeowners who invested in residential energy conservation. The COSP program provided grants to encourage these same Canadians to convert from oil to other forms of energy. The programs were very successful in my riding and were used to the limit. The riding I represent in the Ottawa-Carleton region is the oldest section of Ottawa and much of the housing was indeed in need of better insulation. Our own house was insulated with newspapers and sawdust which had packed down, resulting in the tops of the walls and the attic being very cold. The problem of insulating against the cold of winter was not addressed because oil was cheap. It cost 12, 13
Oil Substitution Act
or 14 cents a gallon so one did not bother with insulation which was very expensive and hard to instal.
The recent decision of the Government to abolish this program is not easy to take. It indicates to Canadians that we have now reached a plateau of energy conservation which we think Canadians understand. It is quite possible that the Government is right in saying that Canadians must now take up their responsibilities and should themselves insulate and, if they want, change from oil to other sources of energy. They should do it themselves. I feel that part of our obligation as parliamentarians is to tell Canadians how we see problems and issues and how better to deal with them.
With regard to the question of energy, in the last 12 years we did a good job of telling Canadians that better insulation would save them money. We told Canadians that the oil crisis which the world has undergone was indeed a serious problem to cope with.
The Government has now decided to cancel these two programs. It has the right to do that since it is the Government. I do not agree, and from the correspondence that I am receiving I believe that many other Canadians do not agree either. The decision to terminate the program causes some difficulties for certain Canadians. I have a letter here from the Electrical Contractors' Association of Ottawa. It says:
Due to a serious shortage of electric heating equipment, most of which will not be manufactured until late March, it appears that many homeowners who have signed contracts for the conversion of their heating systems will find themselves ineligible for the COSP grant.
That is not the fault of the contractor, or of the consumer. The letter goes on to say:
We propose that the COSP program be extended to September 30, 1985, a more realistic date, considering the heating season in Canada does not end March 31.
My colleague, in his remarks on Bill C-4 talked about the gas companies which were also experiencing certain problems with installation and conversion. We all know that the ground freezes over in the winter time making it difficult to instal pipes. The electrical contractors tell me that they have had difficulties getting equipment. They tell me that it would be reasonable to ask for an extension of this program until September 30, 1985.
I do not want to take any more of the time of the House on this subject, except to say that if the Government can see its way to prolonging this program until September 30, 1985 it would be appreciated by a lot of consumers and contractors who have applications for the COSP grant for conversion. They are good applications which could save Canadians money in the long run. They should be received and carried forward by these contractors.
Before the Government says no, would it consider that perhaps an extension would be useful? The amendment to hoist this Bill for six months would give the Government time to address the immediate concerns of Canadians in the area that I represent. We have had a hard winter. We have not had the time or the capacity to make the conversions. Please give us the spring and summer to do the work we want to do.
80164-5!

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Canadian homes have been completely renovated but, given the stubbornness of Government Members, the most we can do is request a six-month hoist in order to give Canadians a chance to make use of this good program.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act. I have been waiting for something like eleven days for this opportunity to speak. I had planned to speak on the debating habits of this House, how insults fly back and forth and why my constituents back home do not really appreciate it. They are people who are productive. They work hard. They are prosperous.
I would have liked the Hon. Member, whose riding I have forgotten, to be here today to talk about prosperity. He has a riding on the edge of Ottawa. He says his people are poor, that their annual income is $1,000 less than the national average and 81 per cent of them own their own houses. I would like to tell this House that my riding is quite prosperous. The people earn $2,000 less than the national average, but 71 per cent of their own their houses.
I talked to the Hon. Member across the floor and discovered the reason. Part of his riding is in this dream world called Ottawa. Salaries of the people in Ottawa are quite high but the salaries of those who live away from Ottawa are more realistic or in the poorer range. Thus the Hon. Member comes out with a high average. He claimed there are very poor and very rich in his riding.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his comments about Ottawa being a dream world. I represent 80,000 people who live in Ottawa. They do not consider it a dream world. It is a real world for them. Some work for the Government and some do not. I do not think any Hon. Member should make that kind of comment in relation to constituents of another Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the question raised by both Members is more a question of debate than a point of order. The Hon. Member for Perth.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the methods of debate and about the insults that are hurled across the floor. I want to speak a little more about this if I may. We have heard words such as "bum-boy", "yes-man", and there is a very derogatory phrase that I hear coming across the floor, namely "Mike the Knife". I dislike that terribly. Of course, we have called Members opposite malcontents and rats. We are going to be careful about doing that in the future-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member to speak on the Bill.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I will speak on the Bill although 1 find it unusual in this House for Members to speak
Oil Substitution Act
on the Bill. It seems that Members speak on many other things.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Speak for yourself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A.H. Harry Brightwell: I have to sort through my papers, Mr. Speaker, because that comes much later in my speech.
1 would have liked to speak about how my constituents feel concerning the way in which we delay items in this House. We are presently in a delaying posture here. The question we are talking about is how the Opposition chooses to delay Bills going through this House and why this should happen when the end result we know is inevitable. My constituents say to me: "You have the manpower; go to Ottawa and make things happen in the House". I hope when my constituents read this speech in Hansard they will understand that the reason we are being delayed is through the use of these funny rules by the Opposition on the other side.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Funny rules?


A.H. Harry Brightwell: I withdraw that. Funny rules is not proper. The use of the rules to delay is what I mean.
I will come to the meat of this debate now, Mr. Speaker. I consider it a waste of time to reiterate the figures about the two programs. This has been done so aptly by other Members. I have a few comments to make. I must admit there are very few comments about the Bill and there are more about the other things, but you have told me that I cannot make those comments, Mr. Speaker.
At least two speakers have spoken about the direct subsidies to home owners and the insulation and home fuel industry. The last speaker talked about the attack on lower income people and how they would like to have jobs created by funds from the federal Government. I believe this is a prime example of the Opposition's fuzzy thinking about governments and deficits. The Opposition believes that if we run up a deficit it does not cost the average home owner a cent. When I wrote this speech, I was thinking about a $30 billion deficit this fiscal year. 1 know now it is about $35 billion. The carrying charges for that amount to about $ 120 for every person in Canada for one year. The savings on oil are savings forever. We have heard Hon. Members say that you may save a dollar today and it keeps saving forever. But a deficit of $35 billion keeps costing forever because it is authorized into the future.
No one can possibly say that deficit reduction is somehow divorced from the welfare of every Canadian. My Party, this Government, was elected by the people who know that this is a major problem for Canadians. People know that government spending is out of control. 1 hope I can say "was" out of control. People want changes and the changes that we propose today are just another step in that particular direction.
I agree with Members across the floor that the programs were successful, and the changes that have occurred since 1977 are a reason for them not being in place any more. There has

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
been a remarkable increase in the knowledge of energy conservation. This conservation knowledge has been applied to new construction. Now about 5 per cent of the homes that are lived in have been built since 1977. That is about equal to a quarter of the ones that have been improved under the program. Along with new structures has been the demolition of many of the old structures, the ones that needed insulation and the off-oil program the most. The energy conservation philosophy is firmly in place and the need is declining. CHIP should be terminated; it is no longer needed.
I do not think anyone has spoken about the costs of inflation or what has happened with inflation since 1977. I took the trouble to look the statistics up. The cost of gas has risen 230 per cent and electricity 170 per cent. Perhaps, as the Hon. Member said, we were so over-charged on electricity before that the costs have not changed very much. Oil has increased in price 300 per cent.
At the same time the price of insulation has increased more than 50 per cent. The buying power of the dollar has decreased quite a bit more than 50 per cent. Thus the $500 grant of 1977 is no longer worth what it was in 1977. At the same time the need to change from oil to other kinds of energy has increased almost three times. The relative value of the grant has decreased to the point that it is almost worthless in the hands of the people using it. Perhaps it is a carrot, but it is not anywhere near the big carrot it was in 1977.
The off-oil program was born when everyone was in the grip of inflation and the great threat of the OPEC oil cartel. This inflation psychology was led by the Government of the day and it led to at least two other unfortunate decisions, namely the National Energy Program that decimated our oil industry and the massive investment by farmers in more land. Let me quote my local farmers. They say "they don't make any more land".
This massive investment encouraged by government and by banks set the scene for the tremendous agricultural problems we have today. I do not want to suggest that COSP was equally bad, only that it was born then in the same type of psychology when the situation was different. We had just realized the energy crisis was at hand. The economy was not yet putting its crushing hand on our affairs. I realize now that I wasted too much time up front, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Much has changed. These two programs have been successful. They are no longer needed. The new technology, particularly in the high-efficiency furnaces, and also in alternate sources of energy, will be of greater assistance to our personal economics, our environment and our energy reserves. I am sure this conservation attitude will continue not only because of economic pressures but by choice of responsible Canadians exercising their right to free enterprise.
For the reasons I have outlined, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-24.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act. These two programs relate to the substitution of conventional fuels with natural gas as well as to the conservation of energy in the construction of homes. In fact, the entire energy conservation program of the former Government was one of the most successful ever put before any country. International observers, such as OECD and other international bodies, judged that energy conservation program to be one of the most progressive, enlightened and effective ever to be put in place.
We live in a world today in which the price of oil is dropping from something below $29 American per barrel to as low as $22 to $23 in the next three or four years, according to the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Also according to the estimates of EMR, Canada will be self-sufficient in oil on a net basis through to the end of the century. We have been able to increase Canadian ownership of the petroleum and gas energy field to some 40 per cent.
However, let us think back to the autumn of 1980 and throughout the year 1981. It was a very different world then. It was a world in which our best hope was to be self-sufficient in energy, even on a net basis, by 1995. In fact, that was achieved by 1983 which in itself is a miracle. At that time we talked in terms of reaching 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990, and in fact we have come from 28 per cent in 1980 to about 40 per cent today.
We have achieved many of the goals of the National Energy Program as a result of massive exploration and development projects in the Beaufort and on the offshore East Coast. They have been stimulated by the Petroleum Incentives Program and other programs of the federal Government. Equally important, and perhaps more important, is the entire energy conservation program of which COSP and CHIP were valuable parts. There were programs such as oil upgraders to take residual oil in places like Sarnia and Montreal and upgrade it into fuels, gasoline and so on for use in the country and to back out more and more barrels of oil on the East Coast from the fragile Middle East situation and to bring in oil from Mexico and Venezuela. Not only should we look at those plants which were used to upgrade residual oil and to convert it. We should also look at the programs of enhancement and those to upgrade the heavy oils of Lloydminster, the western sedimentary basin, the Syncrude project and other projects in the Fort McMurray area. Certainly we have tremendous reserves in the Fort McMurray area, but I do not think the Government can go at it in the same way as did the Government in 1979 and 1980. Rather than massive projects, we can have smaller ones to bring on stream the tremendous reserves of heavy oil in that area.
To average home owners in northern Ontario a suggestion such as that is rather abstract. It is important and they know about it, but the substitution program is more important to them. In my own constituency bulldozers are at work today on
March 15, 1985

the north shore of Lake Huron, building the north shore natural gas pipeline. This $51 million or $52 million pipeline will carry gas from Sault Ste. Marie to Blind River, to Elliot Lake and ultimately, if I have my way, to every community along the north shore.
There is complete chaos on the other side of the House. The Government is spending some $33 million under DSEP to build a pipeline to provide natural gas to that area. At the very same time money is being spent and bulldozers are moving earth on that project, the Government is cutting out COSP so that home owners in Blind River and Elliot Lake, especially those with low incomes, will be denied $800 grants to instal natural gas in their homes. For persons in the upper income brackets, this will probably not make any difference. They will spend the money and, since they are in high income brackets, they would probably lose half the grant anyway. However, working mothers, widowers and pensioners spending $1,100 or $ 1,200 per year on heating oil would like to take advantage of COSP. Instead of spending some $2,300, they could have a saving of $800 and spend some $1,500. Over the course of approximately three years they would have enough savings from the cost of natural gas and from the benefits and efficiencies of a new furnace to pay for the original cost of the furnace.
The Government is building this natural gas pipeline and is providing two-thirds of its cost, yet it is cutting the grants which assist low-income families in taking advantage of it. I have indicated to the Minister that it would look better if the Government spent some $33 million on the construction of that pipeline and extended COSP to this coming autumn or perhaps longer, so that people who will have natural gas made available to them in October and November of this year could take advantage of the program. I do not hesitate to call upon the Government to set aside the Bill and to leave the programs in place.
If we look at the Estimates of the Government of Canada which came out a couple of weeks ago, we see a commitment to spend $ 1.6 billion for Petroleum Incentives Program grants. These grants will be very beneficial to the East Coast offshore, the high Arctic and the Beaufort Sea exploration activities which are taking place and will be particularly beneficial to Canadian-owned companies.
If we have money for the supply side of the energy equation, it seems to me that we should have $160 million or $170 million available for the COSP and CHIP programs. The CHIP program saves us energy and the COSP program saves us oil by converting oil-burning furnaces and industries to natural gas. Those were the objectives of those programs which have been so successful and, in my opinion, should be maintained.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have seconded the motion put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), that this Bill be given a six-month hoist. While we
Oil Substitution Act
on this side of the House recognize that the best thing would be for this Bill to be withdrawn, we also recognize that a six-month extension of the program would be helpful to those people who wish to take advantge of both the COSP and CHIP programs.
It is interesting to see that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton), is present in the House today. I am sure that he received, as did I, a request from the electrical contractors of the area asking that there be a special extension of the program for Vancouver Island. Those on Vancouver Island were unable to take advantage of the COSP program until 1983 because a few years ago there was election talk about the possibility of building a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Because of that, residents of Vancouver Island were unable to take advantage of the oil substitution program except by putting in very expensive heat exchange pumps. It was not until 1983 that they were able to take advantage of the program by converting to electricity or wood-burning stoves. An appeal has been made on behalf of the residents of Vancouver Island that the program be extended.
It makes sense to me that the two programs should be extended for all Canadians. These programs have served a useful purpose in the past. They are only half way through the objectives which were stated for them at the time they were introduced and I think they should be allowed to run their natural course. Instead of having COSP terminated in 1990 as was planned, it should be able to continue.
According to the Tory Government, these programs are being terminated because Government Members want to attack the deficit. This seems to be the Tory philosophy. However, I question whether or not that is the case. Can it really be that Government Members are that interested in attacking the deficit? If they looked at the economics of the situation, they would realize that the economics simply do not add up.
We can ask about the origin of the word "economy". It means the laws of the household; and another meaning of the word "economy", aside from its abstract meaning, is to effect savings. To eliminate these two programs is to eliminate some very economical measures.
In the speech he made yesterday, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) outlined some of the economics of the situation. If the Government were really interested in the economy, it would pay attention to what he and some of the other Opposition Members have been saying.
By encouraging Canadians to move off oil, the COSP program has saved some 15.3 million barrels of oil a year. This is enough to heat some 650,000 homes. A great deal of this saving has occurred in eastern Canada where, as we all know, we have been involved in some very expensive subsidization programs because of the cost of bringing in imported oil.
We can look at the economics of the situation in terms of jobs. Between 1977 and 1982, the CHIP program provided some 44,000 person-years of work, 53 person-years of work for

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
every $1 million that was spent. Between 1981 and 1985, the COSP program provided some 16,750 jobs or 30.5 person-years per $1 million that was spent.
We should be looking at the economics of the situation in terms of the best use of a finite resource. We all know that oil reserves will not last forever. We face declining reserves of conventional crude, the cheapest kind of oil we have in Canada. The National Energy Board estimates that by the year 2005, production of conventional crude will have declined to approximately 28 per cent of its present level. Other sources of energy are very expensive and cost anywhere between $30 and $70 per barrel equivalent. The COSP program has been able to save oil at a cost of between $3 and $5 per barrel. Obviously conservation creates the cheapest oil we will ever get.
There are different ways of looking at statistics. The Library of Parliament has compiled a summary which indicates the following:
Total energy savings in building units which have used CHIP and COSP are estimated to be at least 115,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent. Of this saving, a rough EMR estimate is that 40,000 barrels per day would have been achieved if CHIP and COSP had never been introduced, suggesting that the incremental energy savings which have resulted from CHIP and COSP amount to some 75,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent. This is a reduction in equivalent oil demand of 25 to 30 million barrels per year.
The kind of savings that we have been able to achieve because of these two programs is something the Government appears to be putting to one side. Government Members speak as though the private sector will take up the slack. That is simply not so. A study that was done by Energy, Mines and Resources a few years ago found that in the period 1977 to 1982, CHIP insulation activities constituted 43 per cent of all retro-fitting work done in the market-place; 65 per cent of CHIP insulation activities would not have occurred had it not been for CHIP; 37 per cent of CHIP users would not have insulated at all had the program not been in place, and 75 per cent of all the dollars spent by CHIP users would not have been spent without the program.
It becomes very obvious that the private sector is not going to be taking up the slack when these programs are terminated. We are going to lose jobs and we are going to lose the energy savings that would have resulted. We are going to lose the financial savings that home owners would have gained as a result of these programs.
I would like to remind Hon. Members opposite that any money saved by home owners through these programs will be spent in other sectors of the economy and will result in stimulus to the economy. The last thing the Government should want to see is any further depression of our economy unless Government Members are totally dedicated to following the horrendous example of the Social Credit Government of British Columbia.
We need to emphasize that the private sector is not going to take up the slack. The other thing that needs to be emphasized is that the people who have benefited from this program are not simply the well to do. In fact, a higher proportion of
low-income home owners have drawn from the program than have home owners from other income groups.
I urge the Government to consider the motion to delay the Bill for six months. That would allow more people to take advantage of these good programs. In fact, we would prefer it if the Government scrapped the Bill altogether, but a delay would be second best. It is false economy for the Government to pretend that it is attacking the deficit by destroying two good programs which have benefited ordinary Canadians, saved energy, and provided jobs and savings both for the people of Canada and the Government.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the motion which was moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I think the motion deserves a great deal of support as it is in the best interests of Canadians.
In Bill C-24, the Government has brought forward a proposal which will mean that those people who applied for the Canadian Oil Substitution Program before November 8 will be able to follow through with that program even if the work is not completed by the March 31 deadline. However, the work must be completed by the end of June of this year. For those people who did not apply prior to November 8, there is no assurance, if the work is not completed by March 31, that they will be able to receive the benefit. In fact, the Bill states emphatically that if the work is not completed by March 31, the $800 benefit will not be forthcoming. I believe that is extremely difficult for and also hard on a great many Canadians.
The Government has said that if the applicants are able to complete the work by March 31, regardless of whether they applied for the grant before November 8, the inspection could be done after March 31. That is a help. There is no question that that will be of assistance. But what about the many Canadians who applied after November 8? Anyone could say that the reason so many people applied after November 8 was that they either knew or felt that the program was coming to an end. Of course, that would account for the great deal of interest which has been shown since November 8. From October 1, 1984 to February 26, 1985 over 17,900 applications were submitted to Consumers' Gas, in southern Ontario, to convert from oil to gas. However, from October 1, 1983 to the end of February, 1984 approximately 4,500 applications were submitted. There were almost 18,000 applications this year, as opposed to 4,500 applications last year.
With regard to the installation of electric and gas heating systems, there is a tremendous demand to have those systems installed prior to March 31. It is extremely difficult to instal those systems. Of course, some people will not be able to have the work completed and, therefore, they will not receive the benefit of the program.
Difficulties originate in different forms. First and most obvious, too many people have applied for conversion. Second,
March 15, 1985

the weather is not as conducive to installing gas pipes in the winter months as it is in the summer months. Third, at this time of the year the companies who would be making furnaces for conversion to gas are making air conditioners for the summer season. So the companies are now forced to retool completely and change their systems in order to make furnaces to meet the demand. How many furnaces will the companies be able to make when they also have a tremendous demand for air conditioning systems?


John Horton McDermid: Name the companies.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Name the companies? Just ask them. There are many companies making gas furnaces.


John Horton McDermid: Name one.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to name one company. He should call Consumers' Gas. That company will give him the names. The opposition from the Government is getting very testy. Which is the Government and which is the Opposition? It would seem that the Government is opposing the will of the people and the facts which the Opposition is providing. The Government is on the defensive. That should tell us something. The justification for terminating the Canadian Oil Substitution Program is not there.
The NDP has moved a motion that second reading of this Bill should be delayed for six months. The Liberal Party has requested that the program be extended for six months. Essentially, we are asking for the same thing, to give people who have applied for the program a chance to have the equipment installed. That is not asking too much.
The Minister has said that there is no need for the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program. However, the Electrical Contractors Association of Ottawa has indicated that there is a serious shortage of electric heating equipment. Not only are we talking about the installation of gas systems, but there is not enough electric heating equipment.
There is a great demand from many Canadians, especially in southern Ontario, for this program. There are many other areas in the country which are facing the same problem. There is not enough time or equipment to be able to convert from oil heating systems. If the program was delayed six months, that would allow time for companies to manufacture the equipment, it would provide a better time of year in which to instal the equipment, and the applicants could be serviced during that time.
In addition, there is a reduction in the contribution which will be made under the Canadian Home Insulation Program. The Government has reduced the contribution from two-thirds to 30 per cent, effective January 1. Certainly that is not a complete termination of the program, but for those who do not have enough money to insulate their homes, it is a serious diminution of the contribution which they would have
Oil Substitution Act
received. Essentially, a lot of Canadians are saying that the program is beyond their reach.
The concern is that Canadians should be able to take advantage of these programs. They are good programs. I do not think there is a Member in the House who would say that COSP and CHIP were not good programs. They provided a very definite benefit. As I said earlier, it was not only the $800 which people received under COSP, or the $500 under CHIP, but the information which they received, particularly with respect to COSP. The programs provided information with respect to costs, alternatives, and the standards which had to be provided by the suppliers of the equipment. The furnaces had to be CSA approved. Through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Government provided a toll-free line so that Canadians could call the people who were administering the programs to get the information that they very badly needed. It was a quality program which helped a great many Canadians. I have not heard the Government say how they were going to give this same information and the same kind of assurance and protection to Canadians.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this Bill. I must say I am somewhat surprised that none of the Conservative Members have seen fit to rise on behalf of their constituents to express concerns about the termination of two very important


John Horton McDermid: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the Hon. Member would not want deliberately to mislead the House. An Hon. Member of the Government just spoke a few moments ago, the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell). I am sure that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) would not want deliberately to mislead the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He hadn't finished his sentence.


John Horton McDermid: I would ask him to apologize.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) may resume debate on Bill C-24.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am sure that the Hon. Member who has just spoken would wish to withdraw his suggestion that I was deliberately misleading the House. He knows that those words are unparliamentary and I would ask the Chair to so find.


John Horton McDermid: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the Member was deliberately misleading the House. I said that I know the Hon. Member would not want deliberately to mislead the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member satisfied with that?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show clearly that the implication of the Hon. Member was that in

March 15, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
some way I was seeking deliberately to mislead the House. I think he would want to withdraw that suggestion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the Hon. Member for Burnaby, the Chair did not have that impression. Therefore, the Chair rules that the Hon. Member does not have to withdraw. The Chair gives the floor to the Hon. Member for Burnaby on debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), I would say that if at this point there is a single Hon. Member on the Government side who is prepared to stand and defend this Bill, I would be quite pleased to sit down and listen with care and concern to the viewpoint of that Hon. Member. I would be pleased to defer to any Government Member anywhere who is prepared to stand and defend this Bill at this time. I would be quite prepared to suggest that we adjourn while the Hon. Member finds someone.


John Horton McDermid: You have the floor. Give up the floor.


Svend Johannes Robinson: No one is standing, Mr. Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: We can't rise. You are on the floor. Sit down and let someone rise.


Svend Johannes Robinson: No one is prepared to rise and defend this Bill.


John Horton McDermid: Sit down and try us.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is not surprising, Mr. Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to resume debate, please.


John Horton McDermid: Sit down.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that those Hon. Members will have an opportunity on Monday-


Mr. Gormley:: We have somebody standing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I correct in believing that the Hon. Member has completed his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: A typical NDP challenge.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby has the floor.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is legislation which is of vital concern to my constituents and to the people of Canada generally. What the Government is effectively doing in this important Bill is putting the interests of the corporate sector ahead of the interests of ordinary Canadians. If the Government was serious in its desire to reduce the deficit, then surely what it would have done is looked at the
massive hand-outs given to the oil companies instead of attacking Canadians who are taking advantage of a very sensible proposal to promote energy conservation. I know that Hon. Members of the Government will recognize that what this Bill is doing is effectively eliminating two very important energy conservation measures, the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
We are opposed to this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am speaking now in support of the motion put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), which suggests a six-month hoist of the legislation. If it were possible to hoist it for six years or six decades, I would be prepared to move that as an amendment. But at the very least, a six-month hoist is an opportunity for Canadians to make their Members of Parliament on the Government side realize that the Government should not be kowtowing to the interests of the multinational oil companies in the way it is.
This important program was introduced in 1980 in order to provide financial assistance for the conversion of heating systems of residential, commercial and industrial buildings off oil to non-oil-fired heating systems. Owners convert to heating by natural gas, electricity, propane, wood, wind or solar energy. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in my constituency of Burnaby in British Columbia there has been a very successful response to this program. Many of my constituents have taken advantage of the fact that they can be reimbursed for up to 50 per cent of the eligible costs of material and labour for conversions, with a maximum grant of some $800. It was a bitter disappointment to us to learn that the Government intended to eliminate this important program.
I checked back very carefully, Mr. Speaker, to the records of Hon. Members who are now in the Government when they were out in the hustings on the campaign trail. I looked very carefully indeed, but nowhere, not anywhere in the country, did Hon. Members on that side of the House suggest to the people of Canada that they were going to attack energy conservation programs such as the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program. No, Mr. Speaker, they were silent on that.


John Horton McDermid: Check my speech on that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The constituents of Brampton-Georgetown apparently were told that their Member of Parliament was prepared to stand in this House and vote for the elimination of these programs. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the constituents of Brampton-Georgetown who are watching today should be aware of the fact that their Member of Parliament supports the elimination of these important programs which promote energy conservation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Unbelievable.


Svend Johannes Robinson: At the same time, those Hon. Members of the Government are silent with respect to the gravy train for the multinational oil corporations-for instance, the PIP program which those Hon. Members have supported and which
March 15, 1985

they will continue to support. They are in bed with the Liberals on the national energy plan, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Get your tongue out of your cheek.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Canadian Oil Substitution Program was to have run until 1990 but as it stands now it is going to terminate on March 31, 1985. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the axe fell effectively for Canadians on November 8, not just on this program but on many other important social and economic programs as well, including environmental programs, cultural programs and a whole range of other important programs. We have already seen with a vengeance in the Province of British Columbia the kind of restraints which have been foreshadowed by this federal Government. The termination of this very important program is simply a further illustration of the ideological closeness between the federal Conservative Government and its allies, the Social Credit Government of British Columbia.
This is a program which has actually met with considerable success. At the time the program was introduced, the home heating sector was 37 per cent dependent on oil. In fact, according to the officials within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the program has been successful. Almost a million units have been converted from oil to alternate sources of energy. I would note that the program, had it been allowed to continue, would have resulted in over one million homes being converted from oil to other forms of energy. We are saving oil.
The Canadian Home Insulation Program is another program which is being axed by this Government. I note that the existing criteria in fact have been changed recently in a way which is certainly harmful to my constituency in Burnaby. I know, Mr. Speaker, that in the coming days and weeks other Hon. Members on this side of the House will be taking the opportunity to draw to the attention of the Government our very serious concerns about the extent to which the Government has been in bed with the Liberals on the national energy plan and are now attacking important energy conservation programs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. I do regret having to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the hour allotted for Private Members' Business has expired.\nIt being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1)."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 175?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
_____________________________________3081
Senate Reform SENATE REFORM



Blaine Allen Thacker: That this House takes note of the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform, tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, January 31, 1984.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of the motion that the House take a serious look at the report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Senate Reform. As you know, the whole question of Senate reform is once again a hot issue with Canadians. They want change, there is no doubt about that, and we have a very short window within which to make the appropriate changes.
I want to express my thanks to those most recent appointees of the former Prime Minister who have raised the issue anew by obstructing the will of this House as expressed in a unanimous resolution of all Parties. It may well be that we will now have some degree of Senate reform and I hope Members will look at the Special Joint Committee report with a view to pushing the Cabinet and provincial executives towards its adoption. We know the primary reason for those Senate appointees attacking this House was really to get at the status and power of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). He is, of course, no friend of theirs. Their secondary reason was to embarrass the Government. In fact, what they have done is to embarrass themselves. They have shown their true stripes and as a result we may have a satisfactory conclusion to a selfish act on their part.
My goal today is to urge the Cabinet to use this special report as a starting point. If I had my way, I would ideally like to see a resolution put before this House adopting the regulations and then use Section 38 of the new Constitution Act and put it to the provincial Premiers and legislatures. If they take the report to the people, they may be surprised at just how popular it would be. I also want to urge Members of the House, particularly the hundred or so new Members who, given all the pressures of becoming a new Member of Parliament, have not had an opportunity to read the reports from previous committees of the House on this issue, to have their staff dig out the Special Joint Committee report on Senate Reform because it is a worth-while document.
The committee reported in January, 1984. It was composed of some eight Senators and ten Members of parliament. I was fortunate enough to sit on that committee for the last half of its hearings and the report stage which took about a year to prepare. The committee travelled to every province, each of the two Territories, and over 300 submissions were made by individual Canadians and groups from across the entire country. I believe it is an important contribution to the ongoing process of parliamentary and Senate reform. I may say that it is a practical report because it was drafted by practical working politicians. As such, it reflected the balance which is necessary in this country between the federal the provincial levels, as well as the balance between a lower House which is elected on the basis of representation by population, and an

March 15, 1985
Senate Reform
upper House which would reflect the diverse regional interests in this grand country we call Canada.
Confederation was a deal between separate and independent colonies. They came together to form this country and we have done well. But from time to time pressures build and there is a need to restructure the deal. This report by practical working politicians is a basis for a new deal to be struck. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a serious and considered look at the report.
On an over-all basis the committee found that the status quo was simply not satisfactory. Again and again individual Canadians and groups came before the committee and said the status quo is not acceptable. They want change. The majority wanted change in the direction of an elected Senate. The proposal we made would clearly indicate that the Cabinet would have to be more sensitive. If the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee were the law of the land today, we would never have faced the National Energy Program. We would never have faced that first constitutional program. The Cabinet would have to have been much more sensitive to the regions and the interest of our diverse peoples.
As well, Mr. Speaker, the committee found that the role of the Senate would clearly be to represent the regional nature of Canada. We accepted the fact that the lower House would always be weighted in favour of the two central provinces on the basis of representation by population. That was important because we have to represent the majority of the people and the reality is that some 15 million people in this country reside in Ontario and Quebec. The principle of representation by population is one that our ancestors fought and died for and we did not think we should switch from that. But as a counterbalance the upper House could quite legitimately be weighted in favour of the regions and therefore be a proper check and balance to the unreasonable use of the concentrated power of the central provinces in this, the lower House, the House of Commons. That is why we recommended the Senate be elected and that it be a check on the lower House.
Another thing which came through loud and clear during the committee hearings was that Canadians want Parliament to be an important dimension to their lives. People have no trouble at all in wearing two hats in this country. They are proud to wear their Quebec hat or their Alberta hat but they also want to have a Canadian hat. They want to be proud of that Canadian hat. However, under the way Parliament exists now, people in the regions particularly have trouble with their Canadian hat because they do not believe their legitimate interests are represented.
For example, in the west we found, as a result of the National Energy Program and that first constitutional proposal, a real and deep sense of alienation. However, had we had the Senate that we propose, that would not have happened. When we talked to the people of Quebec we found they wanted to be proud to be Canadian, yet they felt that the power of this lower House, which from their perspective is so much weighted to the anglophone population, was such that they did not see it as offering adequate protection to them.
Under our proposal they would have that protection. Therefore, everyone can have a Canadian hat and be proud of it.
In my own mind I believe that is the most important reason why we have to change the Senate. Certainly the Progressive Conservative Party, now that it is in power, has Members and Cabinet Ministers from every province and there may be a lessening of the tensions right now. But we want to form a Senate for the long-term good of the nation. To do so we need to have a Senate with the attributes that we recommended for it.
That brings me to the actual recommendations of the Special Joint Committee. As I said earlier, we first of all agreed that the Senate would have to be elected. Indeed, the first sentence of the report reads:
We have concluded that the Senate should be elected directly by the people of Canada.
That sentence is the result of the hard work done by the former Member for Perth, Mr. Bill Jarvis, who worked long and hard on this committee. Indeed, while he was a Member of this House he worked long and hard for the sake of all of Canada.
As I say, the first sentence in the report says that the Senate must be elected. That was, without a shadow of a doubt, the feeling of Canadians. An appointed Senate today simply lacks the political legitimacy to exercise any authority. In order to have that authority it must be elected. We found that it should come from single member constituencies so that it would be accountable. There is a school of thought in the country that the Senators should come from the multi-member constituencies and that the constituency should be a whole province. The committee found that that would mean that the larger centres in the provinces would elect all of the Senators and the outlying regions would not have representation.
For example, if all of the 12 Senators from the Province of Alberta were elected, they would all come from Edmonton and Calgary. In Ontario they would come from Toronto. Therefore, we recommended that they come from single member constituencies so that the rural, outlying areas in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and the other provinces would have Senators in the House and their views would be represented. It really is a transfer of power to the people as compared to a provincial Cabinet.
There is also a school of thought that the provincial Cabinet should be able to appoint the Senators to this federal House. Our committee found that that would not be acceptable because, if there is going to be a transfer of power, it should be to the people who should have the power to remove Senators rather than the provincial Cabinet.
The other dimension vis-a-vis provincial appointment, Mr. Speaker, is that if the provincial Cabinets appoint the Senators to Parliament that would, in effect, give them complete sovereignty over the Section 92 powers and half of the Section 91 parliamentary powers. In effect, two-thirds of the power in the nation would be controlled directly by the provincial Houses.
March 15, 1985

We felt that that was too much of a weighting in favour of the provinces and against that broad Canadian interest which we all represent and which must be focussed here in Parliament. It was not out of a sense of malevolence that we recommended against that; it is just that Parliament should be supreme. We should be elected to Parliament on the basis of a Canada-wide election which should not be weighted in favour of the provinces.
Another recommendation was that the Senate be composed of 144 Senators; 48 from the western provinces, 48 from Ontario and Quebec, and 48 from the Atlantic Provinces and the Territories. We spent a lot of time on that issue. There is a strong school of thought, particularly in the west, that there should be an equal number of Senators per province. We discussed that at length. There are several reasons why we decided that that was not acceptable. It is obvious that having 48 Senators from the west, 48 from the Atlantic region and the Territories, and only 48 from the centre, would amount to an enormous transfer of power to the regions of the country as compared to the present base of power in Ontario and Quebec. That is an enormous shift of power in real, practical, political terms. With that shift of power we would have never had the National Energy Program or the constitutional proposal.
The people who argue that we should have an equal number of Senators per province often use the United States as an example. It is a good example. It may be that if we were starting from scratch and every province was equal and sovereign and we were coming together to form a new Parliament, that may be the negotiated deal. The reality is that Ontario and Quebec each have 24 Senators today. To convince them to go from 24 down to 10 or six would require some consideration. In making a deal they will not give up that power, nor should they. We do not have to get them down to an equal number in order to be able to balance them. Under our recommendation, the weighting in the Senate would be strongly toward the regions.
With regard to the example of the U.S., in spite of the fact that there are two Senators per state, there is not one state in the U.S., including California, that has more than 10 per cent of the American population. However, here in Canada, Quebec has 27 per cent of the population and Ontario has 36 per cent. That is quite a difference. The most compelling reason to me is the fact that if we had a Senate with 10 Senators per province, the Atlantic Provinces and the Territories, with 13 per cent of our population, would have over 50 per cent of the Senators. We came to the conclusion that that would be as bad for Canadian unity and as oppressive as the existing situation is for those who argue for an equal number per province. Therefore, from a practical, working, political perspective, we felt that the recommendation of 48 per region for a total of 144 would be reasonable.
With regard to the term for each Senator we recommended that they be elected. However, we added the proviso that they only be elected once for a single term of nine years. If the report has any weakness, it is in that area.
Senate Reform
I would like to explain to Members why we came up with that recommendation, although it could easily be negotiated away. We wanted a Senate which would not be as partisan as this House. We are trying to minimize the effect of partisan politics in that upper House. We could all give examples from our ridings of someone in the community who would be a fine Senator but does not want to be a partisan Liberal, NDP, or Conservative.
We felt that the only way to ensure that the upper House would be a true representation of the regions and a place of sober second thought would be to have Senators campaign and be elected. However, they would only serve for a single term. Some people say that that is a conflict, that if you are elected and never have to stand again you can never be accountable. The reason they would be accountable is that there would be a Senate election every four years. One-third of the Senators would be re-elected from each province. In my home province of Alberta, every four years three of our 12 Senators would have to stand for re-election. Therefore, if all of the Senators were Progressive Conservatives and were not representing the genuine needs of that region, within three years there would be an election and some of their colleagues would be defeated. We felt that would retain the principle of accountability. It would also get away from the problem of having to be re-elected. The minute you have to be re-elected you need a political organization behind you. That necessarily means that our three major Parties would step in and we would have a Senate that would be as partisan as our House here. Our goal was to try to get away from that. We may not have succeeded and there may be other proposals which would be more reasonable, but that was the thinking of the committee and the reason we came up with that recommendation.
Likewise, Mr. Speaker, that is why we wanted the Senate to have only a suspensive veto. We believe firmly that the power must reside in the House. A veto would mean that Cabinet has to be responsible to the other House, the Senate, which is incompatible with our form of responsible government. A suspensive veto of 120 sitting days means about nine months. In politics that is a long time. The National Energy Program took about one year to pass this House. If it went to the Senate and the Senate did not like it, they could delay it another nine months. Cabinet would then have to bring it back and pass it through the House again in order for it to become law. That would mean another year's delay. No Cabinet will spend that amount of time on one issue when they have many other issues to determine. Therefore, the Cabinet would be responsible. A Senate with a suspensive power would have just as much effective political power as one with a veto.
I can see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I would sincerely ask my colleagues to dig out our report and take a good look at it. If they feel it has some merit to recommend I would ask them to drop a note to the Cabinet asking it to put it forth as a proposal to the provinces so that it does not just gather dust on the shelves like so many very excellent reports of this House.

March 15, 1985
Senate Reform


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), for proposing this interesting resolution to the House today. It is often the case in Ottawa and in the House that much time is spent producing reports. These are very worth-while reports and are introduced with some fanfare, but after the media gives particular attention to these reports for a week or so, they tend to disappear.
As we know, the current controversy concerns the Senate because of some problems in the last number of weeks regarding a money Bill. Of course, when that happens it tends to attract the attention of many people who have forgotten about the Senate.
I thank the Hon. Member for bringing forward this resolution so that we are reminded not only in the House and the Senate but throughout Canada at large that these very worthwhile reports do exist, especially the one to which the Hon. Member has referred.
However, with the greatest respect, at a time when governments should be devoting most of their efforts toward economic renewal, I wonder if there is much likelihood that the convening of a constitutional conference would lead to a speedy resolution of the Senate question. Can we expect at present that a consensus would emerge from such a conference as to which avenue Senate reform should take?
It is not for lack of proposals or want of proponents that the reform of the Senate may be an uncertain undertaking. Rather, it is due to the differences of opinion which people hold as to what modifications are best, and the problems associated with reconciling these differing viewpoints on fundamental change to the institution of the Upper House may require a lengthy process of intergovernmental discussion.
To illustrate some of the many proposals that have been made in recent years alone, we might recall the report of the 1972 Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution of Canada. In that report, the committee noted that historically it has been intended that the Senate's role should be to protect provincial, minority and regional interests, as well as to review legislation in a forum of "sober second thought".
The committee took the view that the Senate required reform, not abolition, given that the reasons behind its creation in 1867 were still present. It recommended that all Senators continue to be appointed by the federal Government, but that as vacancies occurred one-half of the Senators from each province and Territory should be appointed in the same manner as at present, with the other half appointed by the federal Government from a panel of nominees submitted by the appropriate provincial or territorial Government.
The Government of British Columbia recommended in 1978 that the Senate should not be abolished but should be substantially altered. It believed that the primary purpose of the Senate should be to institutionalize provincial or regional
participation in the federal law-making process and that its secondary purpose should be to review legislation passed by the House.
It recommended that Senate members be appointed and removed by the provincial Governments, with the leading Senator from each province being a provincial Cabinet Minister. I am not sure that that system would work well.
On the other hand, in that same year, 1978, the Ontario Select Committee on Constitutional Reform of the Ontario Legislature, the Canada West Foundation and the Progressive Conservative Party recommended the abolition of the Senate and its replacement by a "House of the Provinces". The Ontario Advisory Committee suggested that members be appointed by and represent the provincial Governments, and could include members of provincial Legislatures, Premiers or Cabinet Ministers. Federal Government representatives could participate in the House of the Provinces by introducing and speaking on Bills, but would not be permitted to take part in the voting.
The Canada West Foundation recommended that the House of the Provinces consist of provincial and territorial delegations casting a single weighted vote, and that these provincial delegations be composed of Cabinet Ministers and Legislative Assembly members, as well as civil servants. If the Hon. Member had stayed in the provincial House, he might have made it to the Senate.


Mr. Boudria:: That's more than I can say for you.


John Horton McDermid: Moreover, all provincial Premiers would serve ex officio as members of the House of the Provinces, with each Premier serving as President of the House on a rotating basis. The Progressive Conservative Party recommended that the majority of members be delegated by the provincial Governments, with a small complement of federal appointees.
The Canadian Bar Association, in its 1978 report "Towards a New Canada", believed that the upper House should be reconstituted to represent regional interests in federal matters. The Bar Association recommended that members of the upper House should be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the provincial Governments while the federal Government would be empowered to name non-voting spokesmen to that House.
We all recall the 1979 Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity. That significant report indicated that a new second chamber should be known as the "Council of the Federation". It would be composed of delegations representing the provincial Governments and therefore acting under their instructions. The provincial delegations could be headed by a delegate of cabinet rank. The Hon. Member from the Ottawa Valley would not fit in that category, that's for sure.
As well, central Government Cabinet Ministers would be non-voting members, having the right to present and defend central government proposals before the Council of the Federation and its committees. The Federation des Francophones
March 15, 1985

hors Quebec, for its part, recommended in 1979 that a House of the Federation be created, with elected members.
The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, in its 1980 report on certain aspects of the Canadian Constitution, better known as the Goldenberg-Lamontagne report, recommended that although all appointments to the Senate should continue to be made by the federal Government, every second appointment should be made from a list of names submitted by the provincial or territorial Government concerned. The primary criterion would be to maintain a good balance in the representation of different segments of society and of the expertise required for effective performance of the Senate's functions.
If I continue with this, it will show Canadians are right in their observation that all they have done around this place is have reports on the Senate. For example, I could go on to talk about the Quebec Liberal Party, which presented proposals in its beige paper; "A New Canadian Federation".


An Hon. Member:: What party is that? Are they still there?


John Horton McDermid: They are still around, I understand.
In 1981 the Canada West Foundation revised its previous position. In 1982 the government of Alberta published its position in a discussion paper entitled "A Provincially Appointed Senate: A New Federalism for Canada".
Finally, I come to the report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons known as the Molgate-Cosgrove Committee on Senate Reform, which report was released in January, 1984. That report concluded that the Canadian Senate should be elected directly by the people of Canada. It would strengthen the authority of Parliament to speak and act on behalf of Canadians in all parts of the country.
However, the committee noted that its conclusion was not reached lightly or easily. It summarized the differences of views in these frank terms:
Although a substantial part of the testimony we heard favoured direct election, a roughly equal part opposed it, mainly on the grounds that a Parliament with two elected houses cannot be reconciled comfortably with the principle of responsible government as it has operated in the British and Canadian traditions. Some highly respected people in public life and in the academic community prefer a reformed system of appointment to election. Among this group is one member of our Committee.
Thus I come back, Mr. Speaker, to my original question, after all those divergent views, namely what sort of fundamental reform of the Senate should be undertaken. Is there any way to ensure that a constitutional conference at this time could eliminate forthwith the absolute veto of the current appointed Senate, which is the most pressing concern for this House, and, at the same time, put into place a new or reformed body? I think not, Mr. Speaker, not if such reform is to be carried out in a considered and orderly fashion that allows for a full examination of the different options and the eventual achievement of consensus. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we
Senate Reform
must first deal with the absolute veto of the present Senate before we commit ourselves to a process of reform which will take time to conclude successfully.
I am hopeful, now that all these reports are in, that this Government will in the next three of four years, once it tackles the depressing economic concerns of this country, take time to examine these reports and recommendations and bring forward a recommendation so we can start the very important process of Senate reform which is so badly needed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause from all sides of the House being afforded me at this time.


An Hon. Member:: Only for the moment.


Don Boudria: I am pleased to participate in this debate. It is the third such debate we have had in the last several days on reform of the Senate. I was not party to the second debate, but as you will recall I participated in the debate on the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) the other day in which, if my memory serves me correctly, he wanted reform of the Senate, but in his view if we failed to reform the Senate, we should abolish it. I took exception to that remark. In my view in no way should we as Canadians ever undertake to dismantle one of our parliamentary institutions.
We have often said that our parliamentary institutions are in danger right now with the large concentration of power the executive has over our legislative branches of government. It is obvious to me that if we eliminate one of the branches of our legislative part of government, we will, therefore, pass that power on to the executive. We will have more and more concentration of power and that worries me, Mr. Speaker.
We should also remember, as I indicated the other day in a speech I made in this House, that the Senate in the past has been a very useful instrument. It has been very effective. We often measure any form of initiative by any perceived or otherwise efficiency that it may have had or that we think it may have had. We should, however, measure any institution by its successes. I referred the other day to the Parliament that was elected in 1979 which had only two Government Members from the Province of Quebec. One of the two founding linguistic groups of our nation was represented in the Government by only two Members. We had a very difficult situation at that time. Without the Senate it would have been impossible for the Prime Minister of the day to appoint Members to the upper House, prominent Francophones, subsequently being able to appoint them as Cabinet Ministers.


An Hon. Member:: Pierre Juneau.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member on the other side will recall that in 1979 the now President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) as well as Senator Asselin and a number of others were appointed to the Senate in order for that province to be represented in the Cabinet of our country. I am sure the Member sitting across from me would be the first to agree that

March 15, 1985
Senate Reform
it is important for all the regions to be represented in Cabinet even if there does not happen to be an elected person in this House from a particular province. A province deserves to be represented in government nevertheless.


Mr. Holtmann:: Rent a Minister.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member said "rent a Minister". I had nothing to do with the appointment of the now President of the Treasury Board to the Senate at that time. Perhaps he would like to discuss with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) why that individual was appointed-


Felix Holtmann: Remember 1980.


Don Boudria: -which is fine with me. The Member on the other side could bring that up with the appropriate Minister at his leisure somewhere behind the curtains. Notwithstanding that, I for one think it is important for all provinces to be represented in Cabinet. If we have achieved a consensus here today that every province deserves to be represented in Cabinet, then I think we have accomplished something. If the Hon. Member disagrees with that, perhaps he can tell us later that some provinces do not need to be represented in Cabinet, if that is his view.


Felix Holtmann: I did not say that.


Don Boudria: In the last week I received a letter from a constituent. It is rather interesting. It is dated March 8, 1985 and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Boudria.
This sudden resolve of the Tory Government to abolish the Senate is one of the fastest about-turns we've seen lately. It is also entirely unacceptable. The Liberal Party must never allow the Canadian Parliamentary system to be mutilated in this way. The Senate must remain. A one-House Parliamentary system constitutes a serious threat to Canadian democracy.
The Senate does however, need a great deal of reform. An elected Senate, representative of the various regions of Canada, is a very attractive alternative to the present House structure-
With a House of Commons so heavily loaded with one Party, it should be obvious a strong Senate is absolutely required to balance the system.


An Hon. Member:: Who wrote the letter? Your mother?


Don Boudria: My constituent who wrote this letter will, of course, get a copy of this Hansard, which will include the heckling from the Member who just made that remark. Perhaps it will be useful to assist that constituent in her decision as to whom she is going to vote for in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Perhaps some of the Conservative Members do not take this issue seriously, but I think the Member who moved the motion today does. I would like to commend him for the seriousness he gave the topic. I think his expose was far more representative of how the Canadian people feel than the one I heard the other day when we participated in a similar debate.
I am of the view that the Senate should be elected. I think we should move in that direction. Whenever a Senate position
becomes vacant, the position should then be filled by way of election.
One would ask how this could be done at the present time while trying to represent the views of a region or a province in our Canadian parliamentary system. My view is that we should elect Senators at provincial elections. The Province of Ontario, which is the province I have the pleasure and honour to represent in this House, has 24 Senate places. Assuming we use the present system of 24 Senators for Ontario, we should elect half of the Senators at every provincial election. That would ensure continuity in the Senate. In other words, there could never be any more than 12 Senators changing at one time, assuming that every single one would be defeated, which is somewhat unlikely. Using that assumption, that would be the greatest transformation of the Senate at any particular time. If we elected Senators every second election, or half of them every election, which is what I am really saying, we would have a situation whereby Senators would be elected every six years. I remind the House that that is quite similar to the American system.
Let us take the average term in provincial legislatures across the country. It is roughly three years. They have five-year terms, as is the case here, but provincial legislatures tend to have elections somewhat more frequently. I think they average roughly three years. If we average out the situation in the federal House, it is not much higher. In any event, we would have a situation whereby members of the upper House would be elected every six years.
The Hon. Member who proposed this motion said that electing Senators on a province-wide basis would be difficult. I tend to agree with him. We should divide each province into electoral districts for the Senate, in a way which would not be totally dissimilar to the situation in Quebec. As we know, Senators from Quebec represent electoral districts based upon the old system of seigneuries. Of course, that would have to be amended to reflect more clearly population distribution within the particular province, but it would be a good system with which to start.
I feel this begs another question: How would one ensure that the Senate has a federal tone to it in any way, shape or form? Hypothetically, under this system people could elect only PQ Senators from Quebec, which could make it rather difficult to work with the Senate. That would have been the case, especially at the time that provincial Government was elected in 1976. To avoid that, a Party would have to have a minimum number of seats in the House of Commons before being eligible to have candidates for the Senate. For example, it could be 10 seats in the House or some such formula. It would ensure that Parties represented in the House of Commons could run candidates for the Senate, but because the Senators would be elected in provincial elections across the country, the mood of the people of a particular province, when they voted at the provincial level, would be reflected in their election of Senators.
March 15, 1985

Perhaps this sounds like a simplistic way of looking at the situation, but I have given it quite a bit of thought. I have sat in the Ontario legislature and l am now a Member of the House. I also had the pleasure of serving three terms at the municipal level. 1 have served in all three levels of government and I have looked at the situation from all three perspectives. I feel this would be a form of compromise to some of the suggestions which have been raised previously.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, a Member of this House mentioned earlier there had been a proposal to the effect that the Senate should have the same number of seats, or rather, the same number of senators for each province, since that situation exists in the United States. However, 1 feel this would be totally unacceptable under the system of government we have here in Canada.
It is quite obvious that Quebec, for instance, would refuse outright to be represented on the same basis as, let us say, Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick or other provinces. And I think Quebecers would have every reason to consider such a formula unacceptable.
As a Franco-Ontarian, living in Ontario but of Quebec origin, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that 1 could not go along with that kind of system either, because we must remember the history of this country and not just refer to what is going on today. We all know that this country was founded as a result of the union of the United Provinces of Canada-Canada East and Canada West-with the Maritimes Provinces, and that when at the time of Confederation in 1867, under the British North America Act, Canada was united, this was done bearing in mind the differing views in the various regions and ensuring that each region was equally represented. The three regions at the time the Maritimes, Canada East or Quebec and Canada West or Ontario, were equally represented in the new Senate. This was to ensure, since representation in the House of Commons was based on population, that if the population in provinces other than Quebec, for instance, were to increase, Quebec would not lose entirely its position of importance in our Canadian federation. That is why a formula according to which Quebec would have one-tenth or one-eleventh, if we count the territories, of the total number of senators representing our country, would be totally unacceptable. It is important that Quebec should have more than just one-tenth or one-eleventh of our country's representation in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would not make any sense at all to have Quebec represented by the same number of senators as the other provinces. Quebec deserves this special status.

I just want to draw to the attention of the House that in the last few weeks the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and perhaps some Government Members, although I am sure it would not be the ones who raised resolutions in the last few weeks, were attempting to smoke-screen other very important and
Senate Reform
pressing problems in the country by entertaining debate and suggesting that the Senate should be abolished. The other day in the House the Prime Minister tried the smoke and mirror act. He tried to tell us that if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) gave instant, unanimous approval to a proposition to abolish the Senate, he would do it right then. That suggestion was totally ridiculous. That power does not lie with the Prime Minister, much less with the Leader of the Opposition. Since when does Government legislation start with a Bill which needs the assent of the Leader of the Opposition? That is totally unthinkable. Of course, it was not taken seriously by anyone, including members of the press.
It should be remembered that the country is in serious financial difficulty and that the Government made quite a few promises during the last election campaign. I have spent some time in the House reminding the Government of the 338 promises it made to the Canadian people. These problems and the unfulfilled commitments with which the Government of the day is stuck create a difficult situation. The Government is attempting to have debates on issues which focus attention away from youth unemployment, from its past attempts to abolish the universality of social programs and from its other failures in the last few months. This has not worked and it will not work. Only last week the Government House Leader said to the press: "You can't abolish the Senate without unanimity, the reason being that it affects the formula under the Constitution". If we need the unanimous accord of all 10 provinces and both Houses of Parliament, why is the Prime Minister, the Leader of our Government, suggesting that the only thing needed to abolish the Senate, which he did not intend to do to start with, was to move some sort of resolution and have the approval of the Leader of the Opposition?
Obviously the Leader of the Opposition saw through that proposal very quickly. Our Leader understands these issues more than the present Prime Minister, who does not have much experience in the House. Our Leader understood that we could not get away with such a resolution. Of course, the Leader of our Party was Minister of Justice for many years and has been apprised of constitutional issues. Only you, Mr. Speaker, with your objective and non-partisan position, would understand and agree with me, I am sure.


An Hon. Member:: He wasn't Prime Minister for long.


Don Boudria: An Hon. Member has said that the Leader of my Party was not Prime Minister for long. He will be Prime Minister yet and he will be Prime Minister for a far longer period of time than the Hon. Member's Leader will be Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: Keep hoping.


Don Boudria: He says that we should keep hoping. We know that the honeymoon with the Tories is over. If anything, it lasted too long. The people of the country had enough of the last Tory Government after nine months. It is now seven months that we have had this bunch in power and the people

March 15, 1985
Senate Reform
have had it with them already. The people will put up with them for now, but in four years I am sure the Leader of our Party will be Prime Minister again.
To conclude, I want reform of the Senate as do Hon. Members across. Let us do it in an orderly way but let us not focus attention away from the trouble with the economy of the country.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion put by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) that the House take note of the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, January 31, 1984. I am prepared to support this motion, as I was prepared to support the motion put last week by another Government Member, because I think a discussion of the Senate report would open the way for an examination of issues that are deeper than those contained in the report. The report has never been discussed in the House and I think it would be a good thing to have the questions contained within that report raised in the House.
The actual proposals contained within the report are not realistic. If we were to be creating a new country, as happened with the United States a few centuries ago, there might be something to be said for having directly elected Senators from single-member constituencies distributed regionally, one-third from the Atlantic, one-third from the centre and one-third from the west, having them serve one term of nine years with staggered elections. If we were to create something in an abstract way, that might work. I am not sure that it would, but it would be well worth considering. However, we are not creating something abstract. We are dealing with a situation that has been muddled by 100 years of having a Senate that does not work for the majority of the people of Canada.
The feeling across the country toward the Senate is simply boredom. We do not need a second House. The provinces have given up on second Houses. Great Britain seems to be having less and less use for its House of Peers. However, Great Britain is stuck with its House of Peers because its peers are hereditary. The British Government had to do something with those peers so they put them in the House of Peers. Normally, not much attention is paid to them. I do not see any reason to continue the pretence that we in Canada have a reformed version of the House of Peers.
I think that having two Houses simply confuses the public and divides the jurisdictions. We now have constitutional problems between Ottawa and the provinces but to emphasize further a division between the Senate and the House of Commons only makes legislation more difficult to understand by the people on the street and in fact more difficult to understand by those who are making the legislation.
The argument that we need all wear two hats, one Canadian and one regional, is an old argument. In fact, I suppose it was the argument used, in those words or others, when the Senate was first created in the last century. It is a very abstract argument, and interestingly enough it is used principally by those who wish to maintain the status quo, by those who want to keep change limited and by those who do not want any real transfer of power from the wealthy to the less wealthy.
The Senate has been a very good bulwark of the wealthy. Whenever a Parliament, under pressure from the public, puts through legislation to limit the powers of the banks, by the time the Bill gets through the Senate the Senate has enlarged the powers of the banks. The Senate has many ties with the banks. Not all Senators do; there are a few who do not have ties with the banks. However, the job Senators do on banking legislation is certainly very valuable to the banks and very harmful to the farmers, working people and small-businessmen who must suffer the results of lopsided legislation in favour of the banks.
The argument that national unity is protected by a second House has nothing to recommend it. It has never been demonstrated that it would in fact promote national unity. What it does is perpetuate a system in which issues of real importance to working people and farmers are befuddled either by appeals to solve this mysterious problem between the French and the English or between the English and people of other languages or the mysterious problem of the regions. Problems do not get solved by having a Senate; they simply become more mystifying.
This motion calls upon us to examine the Senate Reform report, and I would support the motion for that purpose. However, when we do examine the report, I do not really think we will find its recommendations workable. I think it is necessary to go through those recommendations, find that they are not workable, and then deal with what has for half a century been the only clearly workable solution to the Senate problem, and that is abolition.


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the motion now under consideration by the House with respect to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform. One thing that struck me is that this issue was not even on our agenda during the last election campaign when Canadians gave massive support to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our party. Earlier today, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) referred to the 338 promises made by our party, yet none had anything to do with the Senate. On the contrary, we promised Canadians new leadership and that is why, on November 8, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) set a new course for Canada. There was nothing about Senate reform on our agenda because we thought it was a lot more important to
March 15, 1985

get the economy back on an even keel. Then, all of a sudden, Liberal senators in the other place, frustrated at having been turfed right out by Canadians from coast to coast, started behaving like a Government in exile, anxious to thwart the will of duly elected Members of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, that was-
Senate Reform


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do regret having to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the hour allotted for Private Members' Business has expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.