1985-03-26

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the first item of business for today is Bill C-23. There have been consultations between the Parties and House Leaders. We have agreed that this matter be called first today and that it be concluded through report stage and third reading stage today.
In addition, I understand that the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) has some motions at the report stage. As I understand it, they will be moved, certainly with our agreement and consent, by the Hon. Member for West-morland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) on his behalf today. I think you will find the understanding and agreement is that the matter will be dealt with in all stages today through third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I have some preliminary matters that I have to indicate in a statement. We have to do a couple of matters by unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent for a House order to deal with the matter through third reading today?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House and to the Government House Leader, but I am not aware of any agreement at this stage. I will inquire. Our House Leader had to leave the House. He will be back within a few minutes. I will consult with him.


Mr. Speaker:: That matter will perhaps come back before the House. I now seek the unanimous consent of the House for the replacement. I observe that the Hon. Member is now here. Am I still being asked to seek the consent that motions be moved on his behalf?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to indicate to the House that there are six motions standing on the Notice Paper at report stage of Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), seeks to return to the provisions of the original Act whereby the Minister is liable to pay to a bank the amount of any loss sustained by it as a result of a business improvement loan after the 18th day of January, 1961.
The Chair has some concern that such an amendment, if carried, would eliminate the March 31, 1985 deadline for these motions and thus would call for a continuation of the existing law. I would refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773, paragraph 7, which relates to the Royal Recommendation and which states:
An amendment is out of order... if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.
I would also refer Hon. Members to May, Twentieth Edition, page 818. In the opinion of the Chair, it would relax a condition of the Royal Recommendation, namely eliminate the March 31, 1985 deadline for liability losses on loans. If the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou wishes to put forward a procedural argument in support of Motion No. 1, I am prepared to hear him at the conclusion of this statement and defer a final ruling until any representations he wishes to make.
If I may proceed, Motion No. 2, also standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou, is acceptable and should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are acceptable and should be debated together. Motion No. 3 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 will dispose of Motion No. 6. A negative vote on Motion No. 5 will create the requirement for a vote on No. 6. Motion No. 4 in the name of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is acceptable and should be debated and voted on separately.
I am now prepared to hear procedural argument advanced, if so wished, by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou. He indicates that he understands the case that I am making. I therefore now indicate to the House that I must find Motion No. 1 to be unacceptable to the Chair. Proceeding to debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had occasion to consult with my House Leader. It is agreeable to us that this Bill proceed through all stages today.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, we also would agree to have the Bill proceeded with through all stages today.

March 26, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act


Mr. Speaker:: For the record, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to the understanding that, there being unanimous consent, the matter shall be dealt with in that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 4 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"not more than fifteen years;"

He said: The rationale for this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that small businesses are often faced with rather stiff loan repayments, especially in the first years, and if the term were extended from 10 to 15 years their payments would be considerably lower, their cash flow would be more manageable, and it would be easier for them to keep operating, particularly in the first years.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, the average repayment period is now 54 months or four and a half years. Since the term proposed under this Bill is 10 years, I fail to see the need to extend it to 15 years when the average repayment period is less than half that. 1 would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that 15 years would be too long and that 10 years as proposed are quite sufficient.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division. Motion (Mr. Gagliano) negatived.


Alfonso Gagliano: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-23, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 8 to 10 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"amount of the loan."
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-23, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 7 to 13 at page 5. Motion No. 6
That Bill C-23, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 12 at page 5. [Translation]
He said: Mr. Speaker, those amendments are necessary because, according to the Bill as it is now worded, the Minister might change the clause at any time and substitute 2 or 5 per cent for 1 per cent, or else, say under Clause 5, he would be empowered to make changes without parliamentary approval.
If we believe in a strong Parliament properly vested with decision-making powers, I would suggest that the Minister enjoys enough discretion to administer the Act as it is. In our opinion, those amendments would deny the Minister the additional powers he seems to be seeking.


André Bissonnette: First of all, Mr. Speaker, every year the committee will have an opportunity to examine our annual report. I must table a financial statement in the House and it is automatically referred to the committee. I do not see the relevance of the Hon. Member's question. Besides, the subclause is essential if I am to provide information to borrowers. In any event, this is not a new clause since it is already in the legislation, and I would ask that it be considered under Motion No. 5. I suggest that it remain unchanged, and the same thing applies to Motion No. 6. These clauses are required if the act is to be properly administered.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment put by my colleague. I think it makes a lot of sense to ensure that Parliament continues its role as final decision-maker.
I listened with interest to the Minister's comments about the report coming before the committee each year. There can be a lot of reports, but that does not necessarily change the way that the Government of the day operates. Therefore, on behalf of my caucus I would indicate my support for the amendment.


André Bissonnette: As you know, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is for small businesses, and small businesses are subject to very swift fluctuations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Minister, but he may not take the floor at this stage since he has already spoken.
Hi
H|
i
March 26, 1985



Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Gagliano) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Gagliano) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
Small Businesses Loans Act


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Gagliano) negatived.


André Bissonnette: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 13 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:

(6) Where a bank advances less than half of the amount of a loan to a borrower, the Minister may, on application by the bank made within one year after the first instalment of the loan was advanced, refund to the bank that portion of the fee paid pursuant to paragraph (4)(6) that is attributable to the unadvanced portion of the loan." "


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Bissonnette) agreed to.


André Bissonnette: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement reached earlier this day, the Bill shall now be read a third time.


André Bissonnette: that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be now read the third time and passed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of short comments before we pass this Bill. I believe it is clear that this Government is really no different in terms of how it receives its instructions from the bank either directly or indirectly. Through the debates in the House and in committee over the last period of time, concerns have been expressed from all sides. I know the Minister himself was concerned initially about the potential of undue influence from the banking community. We realized in committee that the banks were saying-and the small business sector is, I believe, rightfully worried about this-that if the Bill was not changed to go along with the idiosyncrasies of the banks, small business would not get the benefit of this Act. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that in this day and age we still

March 26, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act
have to kowtow to the banks which seem to have as much power over the Government as do the railways.
Having said that, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this caucus will be happy to support the Bill in its new form in order to allow the Minister to get things rolling out there in the small business community.
[ Translation]


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the proposed 85-15 risk sharing amendment to the Small Businesses Loans Act, a motion deemed unacceptable by the Speaker, is an irresponsible proposal. The amendment would make it possible for financial institutions to refuse to lend to small businesses unable to put up the requisite collateral for the 15 per cent being guaranteed by the banks.
The Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) thinks he made a good deal by amending his own Bill.
All Members of this House agree that the Small Businesses Loans Act is a popular piece of legislation that makes it possible for thousands of Canadian entrepreneurs to renew their equipment and facilities by borrowing at reasonable rates, since this kind of loan puts less pressure on their available margin of credit than an ordinary loan would, as the present legislation guarantees 100 per cent of the loan amount.
Thousands of young Canadians have taken advantage of this legislation to start their own businesses. Without the Small Businesses Loans Act, they might have swelled the ranks of our one million and a half unemployed or added their names to a long list of welfare recipients. Thousands of women starting their own business for the first time would never have had this opportunity without the Small Businesses Loans Act. Thousands of Canadians who lost their jobs during the recession have gained enough confidence to create employment for themselves and for many members of their communities, thanks to the Small Businesses Loans Act.
A number of important witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Regional Development when it was considering Bill C-23. Mr. Al. Droppo, Director of Public Affairs for the Canadian Bankers' Association, said the following before the Committee on March 19 of this year, when explaining the implications of the 90-10 risk sharing measure, and 1 quote:

Regarding the 90-10 risk sharing feature, it is, of course, self-evident that this change will inevitably result in a marked increase in cost to the lenders because of additional loss write-off.
It continues:
-it should be recognized that transferring additional risk to the lenders will result in some reduction in the volume of loans approved.

It is therefore obvious that the 85-15 risk sharing now being proposed by the Minister will reduce the volume of loans approved even further. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Clause 2 as amended by the Minister goes against the intent of the Act itself, which is to help develop small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act covers 80 per cent of the purchase cost of buildings and materials. Since 20 per cent is paid by the entrepreneur, and from now on, the borrower must put up collateral for 15 per cent of the loan because of the 85-15 arrangement with the Government, this means he has to invest 35 per cent of the amount before even buying his inventory or looking at funds for salaries, and so forth. Unless this new business person is a millionaire like the Hon. Minister, he will never be able to start a business.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are against Clause 2, which hinders instead of helps small business development.
Mr. Speaker, the same day, at the Standing Committee on Regional Development, we heard Mr. Geoffrey Hale of the Canadian Organization of Small Business say the following, and I quote:
These loans create approximately three jobs apiece, plus or minus 10 per cent. In the present economic climate, any significant reduction in the incremental lending under the SBLA program is unlikely to be made up by private sector financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, according to the information given by the Minister of State (Small Businesses) and Mr. Hale's statement, 285,954 jobs were created between 1978 and 1983, at a cost of less than $200 per job. If we consider the number of loans, 95,318 x 3 jobs, and divide that by $47,745,234 in benefits paid, we get exactly $166.97-one of the cheapest programs going, especially when the program creates jobs.
Mr. Speaker, finally, if we adopt this Bill with the 85-15 clause, we run the risk of a 15 per cent reduction in employment, something we cannot afford with an unemployment rate of around 11 per cent, and that is why I want to propose that this clause be dropped.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this morning we have shown our good faith, and although we do not agree with the changes, we are prepared to adopt this Bill, because even if a substantial number of loans will be lost to small business, it is still better than nothing. So even if we do not agree, we are going to help ensure that the legislation will remain in effect and that, as of April 1, we will still be able to provide loans for small businesses.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Bill C-23 will mean that less loans will be granted by the banks in certain
ti.
March 26, 1985

parts of this country where banks today are very leery or hesitant about giving loans to businesses just starting up or businesses which are expanding, if the businessman does not have a lot of money himself. It is fairly easy to get money if you have money. If you are worth a lot of money, you can get money, That is the way our system operates. If you have a lot of collateral such as land, or if you have a lot of money in savings or investments, you can get all the money you want to expand an existing business or create a new one. That is the way our system works.
However, the Small Businesses Loans Act is there not for those who have lots of money; it is not for the millionaires of this country, it is for people who want to open up businesses or expand them and just do not have the collateral to do it. That is why this legislation was brought in in the first place. That is why it was adopted by the Government. There was a need to assist current and potential business people to establish or expand a business. It provided a Government guarantee on a loan. If that was accepted by the bank, then the person would get the loan.
Let us not forget that that person still had to take money out of his own pocket. He still had to put up 20 per cent, 15 per cent or 10 per cent. We are talking about someone who is trying to start a business and has saved for years and years and years until he finally got the money he needed which, together with the Government loan guarantee, would put him in business. He put all his life savings into that business. The Government guarantee would go hand in hand to enable that man to get a loan in order to start a business or expand a small business.
That is the way it was intended, Mr. Speaker. That is the way it is on the books today. This Bill will change the system somewhat. The bank will now hesitate in issuing the loan because there are now three players in on the act. In the past the small-businessman or potential small businessman had to put his cash on the line. Then the bank had to put its money on the line, but that was guaranteed by the federal Government. Now, under this Bill, the person will still have to put up the cash as a start. The Government will guarantee 85 per cent of what is left, and 15 per cent is held in limbo. Knowing the banks, Mr. Speaker, they will ensure that they are covered. In other words, a person will have to give a personal guarantee on everything down to the kitchen sink in order to get the loan.
If you examine the record of lending institutions in this country, you will discover that banks and lending institutions are hesitant to give loans in certain parts of the country, most of which are rural areas. In Newfoundland banks have traditionally and historically, for the past 20 years, been hesitant to give a loan to a small businessman or potential small businessman. This is the importance of the FBDB, the bank of last resort in a province like Newfoundland. It is absolutely necessary to the system. Many Members in the Chamber may say that FBDB is of no use at all in Canada. It is of use in a place
Small Businesses Loans Act
like Newfoundland where banks historically are hesitant to
give loans.
This new Bill will make the banks even more hesitant because of that shady gray area of 15 per cent that is now left in the middle. That is actually discouraging investments by banks in potential small businesses and existing small businesses which wish to expand in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland. It is a step backward.
There is one thing that should be noted from all of this, which I am sure other Members have noted. The two organizations which claim to represent all small business in Canada are in agreement with this legislation. Mr. Bulloch is in agreement with the legislation. Those organizations claim to have conducted a survey in every province of this country. They say that small businesses agree with the legislation, with the differentials, with cutting back as far as the federal Government guarantee is concerned, and with imposing some sort of fee on the banks. The NDP is even in agreement with that. The NDP stated in this Chamber and publicly in committee that it wanted that fee imposed on the banks. The NDP is in agreement with the organizations representing small business in this country.
For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the NDP or the organizations representing small business would be in agreement with placing a fee on a lender to enable that lender to take advantage of a federal Government guarantee. The lender will pass that onus onto the person getting the loan. No one can deny that. Have you ever seen banks, especially in Atlantic Canada, making an intentional give-away?
At one time a small businessman was able to go 90 days with an overdraft on his account. Then there was a cartel agreement between the banks which allowed only 60 days, and then it got down to 30 days. By their very nature banks do not want to give money away. I believe this legislation is a step backward. But then again, how can anyone disagree with all of the business organizations representing small businessmen in Canada? They are in agreement with this legislation. In order to condemn the legislation one would have to say that the organizations representing small business in the country are wrong. You would have to say that the NDP, the Government and the Minister are wrong.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that I think they are all wrong. That is the bottom line. They are all wrong because this Bill has a built-in discrimination against small business people and potential small business people in the high unemployment areas of Canada. When legislation discriminates against that particular segment of our population it should be frowned upon and should not be supported by the organizations that represent small business in this country. However, I suppose we will have to bow to the wishes of the associations which represent small business in this country and say that perhaps they know more than we do about the reaction of small business and the banks to the underdeveloped areas in the country.

March 26, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to have a few minutes to make a few comments on Bill C-23.
In its original form, this legislation was aimed at amending the Small Business Loans Act, and in the Bill it was proposed that small businesses could be subjected to amendments in the loans they would negotiate. Originally, 90 per cent of the loan was to be guaranteed by banks, with the Canadian Government of course providing the funds. The amendment put forward and passed in Committee brought that figure down to 85 per cent of the loan. The Bill also has been amended to provide for a one per cent fee to be paid by the bank or rather, of course, by the borrower, as suggested by my colleague for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). The lending institution will certainly pass the cost on to the borrower. This is their normal way of doing things. But that fee, based on one per cent of the amount of the loan, certainly will increase paper work in the banks and significantly reduce their revenues. Small businesses will be the losers because there is nothing in the Bill to entice banking institutions to improve the system, to increase their loans to small- and medium-sized businesses.
1 am concerned with the issue because in my constituency, more than half the jobs are created by small businesses. In my area, Ottawa-Vanier, 87 per cent of our firms are small businesses hiring less than 25 employees, and it is very important that they should have access to bank loans. We are somewhat disappointed with the Government's approach in that amendment. We would have thought the Government would have tried to encourage the banks to make loans at the so-called prime rate. This is not the case. Banks will charge one per cent more, and they will charge it of course to the small businesses. This means that this legislation, rather than providing for better conditions for small businesses, is only aimed at getting more money into the Government coffers once again, and if I understood correctly the comments made by the Minister before the Committee, the Government put those amendments forward in order to save money. This fails to recognize the importance of small businesses as the prime force in job creation, in the generation of employment in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. Those provisions which 1 view as regressive are therefore prejudicial to small businesses because they strangle the borrowers instead of helping them modernize and improve their operations.
Mr. Speaker, the ceiling on the overall principal of the loan is subject to be changed by the Government, by way of amendments to the Act or by way of the estimates. I had thought the
Government would have increased the $100,000 maximum now provided for in the legislation. If we are to extend coverage and encourage modern businesses who want to meet the challenge of a computer society, a modernizing society, this $100,000 ceiling imposed upon small businesses in my opinion is too low in this day and age. I had thought that the Government, in this legislation, would have removed the $100,000 limit, perhaps thereby increasing the opportunity for small businesses to improve, to modernize and better compete in this technological age, in this period of change during which they sometimes find it rather difficult to computerize their operations.
Based on these few comments, and with much reluctance, Mr. Speaker, 1 must state that we are disappointed with this legislation. The Government, with its majority, certainly will push this Bill through today and regretfully, we have no other choice but to oppose the legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech? Does the Minister wish to address a question to the Hon. Member? Very well, the Hon. Minister.


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I was going to answer the questions or meet the expectations of my colleagues, especially the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), who said that everyone except the Liberal Party, endorsed this Bill.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is something 1 must ask. Can the Liberals be right when everyone agrees except them? It makes me wonder who is wrong? If the group of John Bullock, that of Geoffrey Hale, the Members of Parliament and the NDP all agree, and the only group to disagree is the Liberal Party, we should perhaps ask ourselves who is wrong. I ask this question seriously, but I think I know the answer.
To come back to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who asked a question about the $100,000 limit set for loans, I must tell him that, last year, the average amount of loans was $28,800. The Government therefore had no need to put the limit over $100,000, but this Bill provides some flexibility, which means that, if the market calls for a higher maximum, we shall be able to act, and to do so quickly. This was the purpose of one of the clauses of this Bill.
To reply to other concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), I should point out that, in most countries who have similar legislation to help small businesses, the ratio is not 85 to 15, but 70 to 30. This shows that we are still being very generous towards small businesses. In addition, the Progressive Conservative Government had consultations about this issue, something that the Liberal Party never did once during its mandate. We consulted small businesses. We consulted the bankers. We consulted the groups which represent small business. We are not too stubborn and listen. We changed our minds on the option of having
March 26, 1985

borrowers pay the 1 per cent fee because, during our negotiations and the consultations that I had throughout the country, the borrowers asked us to make the legislation more flexible and easily accessible to small businesses so that the banks would be attracted by these loans.
We therefore gave this possibility to small businesses. We gave the bankers the opportunity to pass on the 1 per cent fees to their customers, but they are under no obligation to do so. However, they can if they want to.
In return, the banks have promised to promote the small businesses loans program. They have assured us that they will provide information on the program. They have guaranteed that they will do everything to help small businesses to remain in business. We shall develop, with the Canadian bankers, a small business information system because of which there will probably be fewer bankruptcies in the future, which I believe to be extremely important.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to thank all my colleagues in this House who have given prompt and serious consideration to this Bill and I believe that Bill C-23 will be one of the best tools available to small businesses in the years to come and that they will use it a lot.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 1 shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. 1 wish to make two points, the first of which is that we, members of the Liberal Party, are the only ones to oppose this legislation. I want the Minister to know that we do not mind being alone in that, because this bill is regressive any way.
It is a step backward. These new provisions will not serve as incentives but as deterrents. Because we favour progress, we will not support regressive measures such as this one.
To the second question, it was stated that the average loan amounted to $28,000. Anyone who is familiar with statistical data is aware that an average loan of $28,000 means absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. There have been many loans of a couple of thousand dollars each, some loans may have involved higher amounts and the average was $28,000. The point I want to make is that in this era of high technologies, the government should make it possible for people to borrow more than $100,000 to upgrade their operation, purchase new equipment, build new facilities or purchase additional land. The only thing I am concerned about is that they will have the power to do so not with the consent of the House and through amending provisions, but through the Estimates, for so-called reasons of expediency. I suggest that using the Estimates instead of coming to the House and amending the legislation through the normal process will not save that much time. I find the argument which you have put forward rather weak. I feel that if the government wished to amend the legislation, it should come to us. If the new provisions were likely to improve the legislation, they would receive our full support; if, on the other hand, they were regressive in nature, they certainly would not get our support.
Oil Substitution Act
[DOT] (M50)


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.



OIL SUBSTITUTION AND CONSERVATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works; and the motion of Mr. Hockin (P. 3227).
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate last Thursday when this matter was before the House, I was speaking to the motion of the Government to close debate on second reading of Bill C-24. At that time I asked the Government if it would reconsider the March 31 deadline for COSP.
Government Members have received inquiries about extending the program. I have requested an extension of six months. The NDP put forward a motion to extend the program for six months. The Government has received requests indicating varying lengths of time, but for the most part the groups who contacted us request a six-month extension because they feel that period of time would be adequate to service the number of applications to go off oil and on to another form of energy.
Primarily in the Province of Ontario applications are for going off oil and on the natural gas or electricity. In Atlantic Canada, in the Province of Nova Scotia, we do not have the

March 26, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
same latitude. We are unable to convert to natural gas because of limited infrastructure. We are unable to convert to electricity because much of our electrical generation is from oil-fired generators. For that reason, we in Atlantic Canada are somewhat more limited. However, a large number of people would like to convert from oil, if not completely, at least partially. People in Nova Scotia are only able to convert to wood and coal, yet there have been many requests by people who want to do so.
Telephone calls through the toll-free line are being received in the Halifax office from all over Nova Scotia. It is receiving approximately 150 calls per day from people who want to convert from oil or who are making inquiries as to the possibility of doing so. The need is still there.
It would be a very nice token on the part of the Government if it extended this deadline. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his speech that it would cost $35 million to extend the program for another three months. I realize there is a cost involved, but we on this side of the House feel that the best dollars spent in energy are for conservation purposes. We ask the Government to consider this extension. It would be very popular with Canadians throughout the country. It would allow the people doing the work to do it at a time when the weather is more conducive and the equipment is more readily available. Otherwise, a great number of people will be unable to convert from oil.
I realize the Government does not want to do this. We in my Party feel that we have to keep making this point. We are receiving so many telephone calls and inquiries on this particular point that we feel we have to mention it again and again. We ask the Government to extend the limit for COSP for another six months.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. As a new Member of Parliament, I am surprised that the Government moved so quickly to try to cut off the right of expression not only of Members of Parliament but of their constituents. This is a very important Bill in terms of what it will do to energy conservation.


Mr. McDermid:: You are the ninetieth speaker.


Iain Francis Angus: I may be the ninetieth speaker, but my constituents deserve to be heard on this issue. I come from northwestern Ontario where the frost will not be out of the ground for many months yet. The decision of the Government to end the program as of March 31 makes a mockery of such legislation. In fact, it makes a mockery of the Government itself. People in my area are asking what the Government is doing. They are saying: "They know we have snow up here; they know the ground is frozen". Why is the Government giving them a phoney deadline of March 31 when everyone in northern Canada was cut off last fall? Clearly these kinds of steps do not do any good for the reputation of the Conservative Government.
A number of Members who spoke before me encouraged an extension to the end of the summer or to next fall to allow people to convert from oil to natural gas. That makes a lot of sense. My constituency office has received a number of calls. People are now telling us that they cannot even convert to propane on a temporary basis because the appropriate materials or tanks are no longer available in the short term. These people are excluded from the opportunity to cash in on this program. It is a program that has been well used. I give compliment to the previous Government for putting it in place and continuing it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, could you ascertain whether there is quorum or not?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Including myself, there are 20 of us. [English]


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I was not sure what was happening there, whether you had changed the time limit for me or what.
The Hon. Member made reference to the ninetieth speaker. I am quite happy to be here, legitimately trying to delay the decision as long as we can on this side of the House. The longer we delay it, the better chance there is to allow those Canadians who have not had the opportunity to convert a chance to do so. It is extremely important that we as Opposition Members express those concerns and take whatever delaying tactics we can in order to work on behalf of our constituents. I realize I have a few more minutes, but I am going to wrap up my comments. I just want to reiterate that the Government is tarnishing its reputation with Canadians by such a short-sighted and illogical move, particularly in the north.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can speak on this motion. As I understand it, it is a motion to restrict the debate. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am permitted to speak.
I have just returned from Vancouver where the oil negotiations are going on between the producing provinces, the Energy Ministers of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). The consumers are not represented in that negotiation. In those negotiations, they are splitting up a $22 billion pie. The Government has had input from the oil industry. It is now setting down how to give revenues to the provincial and federal Governments and to the oil industry. At the same time, the one little grant, the one little bone, the one little piece thrown away to the ordinary Canadian consumer is being cut off by this Government-a $500 grant to help toward cost of insulation and up to $800 toward converting a
March 26, 1985

furnace off oil, which we are running out of and which is expensive, to natural gas, wood, electricity or solar heating. This Government is cutting that off. I find that ironic. At the same time that it is helping itself to a lot more money from the pocket of the consumer and helping the oil companies get a lot more money from the pocket of the consumer, it is cutting off this program.
In the energy negotiation that is now going on, when they go to world prices, as they are committed to do, when they deregulate the price of oil, that will mean that old oil, that is oil found before 1974 in Canada, will go up from $4 to $7 a barrel to the world price. We produce about 500 million barrels of oil a year. Of the oil we produce, about 55 per cent is old oil. You do not have to be a great mathematician to take 55 per cent of 500 million, which is 275 million barrels, and multiply that by a $4 windfall, taking the lower figure. That is a gross figure, before royalties, taxes and so on, so it will be lower than the figure I give. It is about a billion dollar figure. I reckon that about $200 million to $300 million will go as a windfall to the oil companies.
For that kind of money, we could extend this program easily for another six months. We could extend it for another year. There are people lined up. We have made the case. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) and another Member from northern Ontario as well as Hon. Members to my right have made the point.
I am from western Canada. We are affected somewhat. However, in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada there is more dependence on oil for heating of homes. This is a continuing chance to change that pattern. I predict we will see oil prices come down a little bit and then go up in a few more years. We will then be back to the old scenario of high oil prices and people wanting to get off oil.
I have heard Government Members say that they do not want to give grants, that they are against giving grants. This Government is going to give $1.7 billion in Petroleum Incentive Program grants to oil companies this year.


An Hon. Member:: That is wrong.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I say to the Hon. Member who is heckling that the Government has committed itself to phase out that program. That is consistent. It wants to get out of grants. These grants can be called another name. They can be called tax breaks. They are still going to give a regime of tax breaks for exploration on the frontier. They have given oil companies this kind of regime. Indeed, they have to do that if the oil companies are to go to the frontiers. Therefore, there will be grants. They will not be called grants; they will be called tax breaks. In the old days they were called super-depletion allowances. They say they are going to drill for oil in the Beaufort Sea, but first they have to drill for money in Ottawa. They will get these breaks. It is a fact of life in the energy industry that you are going to get a break in order to explore. If we are going to develop the tar sands in Canada, there will be some subsidies in either tax advantages or direct grants.
Oil Substitution Act
It is nonsense for Members to say that while they are against grants and want to cut off this grant as well as other grants, grants will continue to be given to oil companies in the form of tax write-offs and tax subsidies. That is a grant. They do not give this grant to the consumers, this bone, this small grant, the one thing that the Canadian consumer got out of the National Energy Program other than somewhat lower prices for oil. They did get this grant. The Government says that if it cuts off this grant people will still take advantage of the program. They say that people are rational beings, that they will conserve and fix up their houses, put in the insulation, change their furnace from oil to natural gas or electricity and so on. That presumes that the cost of a barrel of oil will go up, but I submit the consumers are seeing the price of oil coming down. They are not going to rush out and continue the conversions. We are going to lose the momentum. We have had one million people convert. The program is half over. We have 900,000 left to do it.
We would like the program to continue until 1990. We think the Government is making a mistake in cutting it back. It is being penny wise and pound foolish. However, we accept that they are the Government and they can proceed as they want, but for goodness sake, extend the program for six months. The Government knows there are injustices in northern Ontario. This is a cold country. At certain times of the year you cannot put in a gas line. Evidence was adduced in the House that people in northern Manitoba had ordered heat pumps and furnaces. There is also a backlog in Montreal and Toronto, yet the Government has said March 31, that's it.
The Government can extend the oil deal. It has extended that twice. If Alberta is tough, they will extend it, thank you Premier Lougheed. If the banks are in trouble the Government will help them out. I would like the Government to bail out some of the people in my riding who are unemployed and are losing their houses. The Government can bail out the banks and extend the oil negotiations. We are bringing forward a first case where we have evidence of people who want just a little more time, people who are lined up to apply, and we are only asking that they be given six more months. But what does the Government do? It cuts off debate. It cuts us off as well as the people who have applied.
What have we tried to do? We have tried to extend this program. However, there is no one in the press gallery. One says this with some reluctance, but I would say that the press, with the exception of Mr. Caragata of Canadian Press, has not fully analysed and reported this matter. They are more interested in us if we pull our pants down in Question Period. However, they will not properly cover a debate that really means something to the average Canadian.
This Bill will create a real change for the average Canadian. This is an indication of a policy directive of the Government which will create an injustice to those people in the northern parts of the country who are not getting equal treatment. I thought that being Canadian was all about getting equal

March 26, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
treatment. That is why I appeal to the back-benchers of the Government to put pressure on the Government, because it is in their ridings that people are converting. It is in their ridings that the people are finally getting a little bit of help. Put pressure on the Government so that the Cabinet extends this program for six more months. That is all we are asking and I think it is very reasonable.
I believe that a Government that was really concerned about consulting people and about listening would not bring down the guillotine on this debate. I believe instead that it would say that it was prepared to look at this matter and extend it for another six months because it understands the justice and economic sense of such an extension.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate again, but on the other hand, 1 am disappointed in the new Government's lack of enthusiasm for recommendations and claims that we feel are well founded. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed that, in addition to setting a deadline in the Bill itself, the Government should have imposed time limitation on debate. It is too bad we have to repeat the same arguments a hundred times to make ourselves understood. However, I am prepared to do so if the Government can be persuaded to review the Bill before the House today.
It is too bad the Government has not understood our message, a message that is clear and unequivocal. The Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP, and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program COSP, were very good, I would even say excellent, federal programs, whose ultimate purpose was to promote energy conservation.
After carefully listening to and reading speeches by Members of the various Parties, I think we all agree that these programs have been very useful. However, we in the Opposition cannot go along with the Government's decision to eliminate these programs. As my colleagues have pointed out before, the termination of these programs has taken everyone, and especially the private sector, by surprise. If this Government thinks it can cut and withdraw programs without generating controversy, it is wrong. People do not act without analyzing the consequences of what they do. They do not speak before considering what they want to say. A government cannot afford to draft legislation unthinkingly, especially a government that thinks so highly of consultation and consensus. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Government has a certain amount of pride and is thus reluctant to reverse its decisions. However, pride has no future but common sense does. And common sense dictates that we should offer entrepreneurs and consumers an extension.
Common sense dictates that the interests of Canadians should be considered above all else. The Government must act to allay the fears and quiet the feelings of panic that have held this country in their grip since November 8 last year.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have reason to be worried. First of all, when these two programs are cut, homeowners who want to upgrade their insulation and change their heating systems to save energy and money will no longer be able to take advantage of the grants offered by the Government. Second, contractors who are carrying out these conversions cannot possibly cope with any excess demand between now and March 31. Third, what will happen once the contracts have been completed? The answer is simple: there will be a sharp drop in employment, something we cannot afford with nearly one and a half million Canadians unemployed. I fail to understand why, with the kind of unemployment we have, the Government does not at least help maintain existing jobs that were created by private enterprise, if it is reluctant to create jobs directly.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, not only the government has not yet introduced new job creation programs, not only does it hope that those jobs will be created by magic, not only does it deny small businesses the assistance they need to provide more jobs, not only is the government inactive in job creation, but it has also created unemployment by cutting programs.
Since the election, it has substantially cut the budget of several large companies, it has cut jobs, it has increased the federal tax on several items so that private companies have to raise their prices and the consumers pay more.
Mr. Speaker, I will be kind and leave it at that, but I do not need to say more to demonstrate that the Government has been going too far. We should be realistic and understand all the economic implications of the COSP and CHIP programs for the creation of jobs. We have to realize that those programs contribute to the creation of jobs. How many Canadians would have converted their heating system or would have insulated their homes if those federal programs had not been in effect? Far less, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you. This partial subsidy of the conversion costs has helped Canadians make a decision that thousands of them would not have made otherwise. This is why the implementation of programs such as CHIP and COSP was beneficial to many Canadians, allowing them to change their system so that various contractors throughout the country could have work and create other jobs, thus increasing the performance of their business.
When we refer to an improved performance of a business, we mean a wider scale of better services at more competitive prices so that in the future those businesses will have a sound basis and will continue to thrive. However, through the too early and too quick cancellation of programs, the Government has threatened the infrastructure of businesses which were not solidly established. Such an infrastructure takes a long time to set up and an unexperienced government should not be allowed to give it up.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, businesses and jobs are too important in the Canadian economy. Not only are those jobs a major component of our economy, they are also absolutely essential in the Atlantic Provinces, particularly New Bruns-
March 26, 1985

wick. Unemployment back home has reached unprecedented levels and we simply cannot let the situation deteriorate further, far too many people are idle as it is. Now then, the programs under consideration today do provide much needed employment. I should think that a job, temporary though it may be, is better than none at all. But there again, if we give small businesses enough time to get organized, we find out that besides creating jobs those programs have created a demand which would not have existed otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying that the people of New Brunswick could still have used those programs. Lots of houses throughout the province are still underinsulated and most of them do not even have adequate and efficient heating systems. First, the programs are being phased out prematurely and, second, the Government ought to put off the deadline for at least six months to give the private sector enough time to get organized. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Government should not ignore that possibility nor reject that compromise.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this very important debate on Bill C-24. I think it is particularly appropriate that this debate is taking place the day after the Government announced a massive bail-out of one of Canada's major banks. What could be a more glaring contradiction in terms of the policy of this Government? On the one hand it is bailing out a major bank with taxpayers' money, and on the other hand it is cutting off an important program which benefits ordinary Canadians. I would like to take a few minutes to elaborate on that contradiction.
1 might also note that yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) was huddled together with her colleagues from across the country trying to determine ways of making the oil industry more rich, prosperous and fat than it is now. One group in Canada which will lose on the deal which will come from the negotiations between the federal Minister and her provincial colleagues is the consumers of Canada. The consumers will lose on that deal the same as they have lost on Bill C-24.
The Government is prepared to grant massive incentives and give large amounts of money to the oil sector and it is prepared to bail out the banks of Canada, but at the same time it is axing a program which will conserve energy and assist in job creation. Surely, that is the last kind of program the Government should axe under the guise of restraint.
CHIP created more jobs than COSP, but both programs were very effective, particularly in assisting small contractors and small business. Not only has the Government cut off the benefits to people who will be affected by these important programs and the jobs of the contractors who are involved in these areas, but it now has the gall to cut off debate. I would like to commend the NDP critic for his energy and determina-
Oil Substitution Act
tion in not allowing the Government to get away with this attack on the consumers of Canada.
The elimination of these two programs is affected in a very draconian way. The axe will fall on March 31 and there will be no opportunity for those people who have been hoping and planning to convert to other heating systems. We in this Party introduced a motion to hoist the Bill for six months. That would have given the Government six months to come to its senses. It also would have provided six months for contractors to convert heating systems under the present legislation.
There is a variety of options which are being removed. As the legislation now stands, a home owner could convert to heating by natural gas, electricity, propane, wood, wind or solar energy. The buildings which were eligible for COSP were those which were constructed prior to October of 1980. In my constituency there are many older homes and this program has been particularly beneficial.
When I was in my constituency office a couple of weeks ago, many people from Burnaby asked me why the Government, in its zeal to cut the deficit at any price, was prepared to attack consumers when it was giving PIP grants to the oil industry, one of the most lucrative give-aways this country has ever seen. Is the Government attacking the oil industry? Is the Government asking that industry for equality in terms of sacrifice? No, the Government is attacking the little guy. That is not fair.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last weekend said that, yes or no, sacrifices must be made and that Canadians recognize that sacrifices must be equal. Where is the equality of sacrifice in attacking consumers and in eliminating important energy conservation programs, when at the same time the oil sector is getting fatter and fatter? With the assistance and connivance of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, she and her provincial colleagues-except for that enlightened bastion of reason, truth, light, beauty and justice in the Province of Manitoba, the Government of which is holding out for a fair deal for consumers-are prepared to hose the consumers of Canada, just as the Government is hosing the consumers of the country in the Bill on which it has brought down the guillotine. Obviously, the Ontario Conservatives are leading the charge against the consumers. That kind of regressive policy will be reflected in a significant rebuke at the polls in the upcoming provincial election.


An Hon. Member:: What about the Liberals?


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Liberals in Ontario, as elsewhere, will soon be declared an endangered species.
The changes in the legislation will effectively mean the death of COSP on March 31 of this year. The goal of the program was very laudatory. It was to reduce the use of oil in residential, commercial and industrial sectors to 10 per cent of energy use by 1990. It was recognized that the program would involve a very significant degree of conversion to other heating systems, particularly in older homes which are dependent on oil. I believe about 37 per cent of older homes were dependent on oil at the time COSP was established. To date, the program

March 26, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
has been a success. In fact, almost one million units have been converted under the program. Why on earth would the Government see fit to eliminate one of the most successful programs, both in terms of job creation and energy conservation, which we have had in Canada for many, many years? It does not make sense.
Certainly, the program has cost money in the short term, but by conserving energy and assisting in the conversion from oil to other forms of energy, money will be saved in the long term. That is what we in the NDP believe is good planning- spend a little money now so that in the future money will be saved when the cost of oil becomes much higher.
I have already mentioned the benefits of this program in terms of energy conservation. There are also very significant benefits for people across the country and in particular for my constituents in Burnaby where there are many more older homes. There are benefits in terms of job creation. For every $1 million which was spent in this program in 1979 dollars, some 30.5 person-years of employment were created. As a result of the grants which have been made so far, there have been almost 17,000 person-years of employment created. At a time when this country is being ravaged by unemployment, it does not make sense to cut back on a program which creates jobs, and at the same time as it creates jobs, it saves energy.
It makes an awful lot more sense to put money into energy conservation than it does to put money into creating new weapons of destruction. We heard the Prime Minister suggest that star wars will create jobs so let's put billions and billions of dollars into research on star wars, working hand in glove with President Ronald Reagan. If we want to talk seriously about the creation of jobs, let's put the money into sectors of the economy from which we get a lot more bang for the buck than the military sector. I suggest that the energy conservation sector is an important sector. Instead of putting money into the military, we should be putting money into energy conservation.
The Tories, when they were in opposition, certainly did not suggest that this program was going to be eliminated. In fact, they supported the program. I do not recall the Tory candidate in Burnaby during the last federal election saying that if a Conservative Government is elected it is going to eliminate grants for energy conservation. No, there was no suggestion of that. I do not recall the Prime Minister saying on national media that if the people elect a Tory Government one of the first things it will do is cut off very important grants for energy conservation. No, that Party was silent about that hidden agenda.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is a regressive and backward move. It hits the consumers of this country and attacks energy conservation. Certainly on that basis we intend to fight it with every ounce of energy we have.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate once more in the debate on this Bill. We have been debating this Bill in this House for some
time and I think it requires further debate because, obviously, the Government has not yet seen the light. Of course, seeing the light would mean a complete retraction of its initial position. I see some Hon. Members of the Conservative Party across from me, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that their constituents are telling them, like ours are telling us, that this program needs to be kept.
Bill C-24 was introduced in this House as a result of black Thursday, November 8, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) perpetrated his vicious expenditure and program review document on the people of Canada. One of the side effects of this document, of course, is the serious cut-backs in employment and benefits to ordinary Canadians. I am sure that most of the people who would have benefited from this program in the future are the very same people who could least afford to make those conversions on their own.
I see my colleague from Nipissing is here. I am sure that all the people of Springer Township would want that program retained. They would not want it cancelled because they know the value of that program, as do the people of Ottawa West.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) for the tremendous effort he has put forward in attacking this Bill. It was a very necessary attack because this is very regressive legislation.
I received a letter from the Electrical Contractors' Association of Ottawa. I would just like briefly to read part of it to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) has also received a copy. I am sure he has read it as well, but just in case he has forgotten some of its contents I would like to refresh his memory. The letter was sent to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). It reads:
Due to the serious shortage of electrical heating equipment, most of which will not be manufactured until late March, it appears that many home owners who have signed contracts for the conversion of their heating systems will find themselves ineligible for the COSP grant. This is not the fault of the contractor who believed there would be no problem of availability well before the March 31 deadline.
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.
I am sure that it had not occurred to the Minister of Finance that the heating season does not quite end on March 31 in the balmy part of the country he comes from, but in my part of the country we still require heating as do, I am sure, the people of Ottawa West. The letter continues:
Our members are concerned that their customers receive the best service possible and we urge you to consider their proposals immediately. Failure to act on these proposals would be a severe blow to many contractors and most unfair to home owners.
Knowing the interest Hon. Members of the Conservative Party have in the well-being of the home owners of this country, I am sure they would not want to do anything which would unduly harm them. We have heard over the last few weeks of debate from some Conservative Hon. Members who have said: "Well, we had to cut back on this because we just cannot afford it". The Conservatives have decided to cut in
March 26, 1985

certain areas. You will notice, of course, Mr. Speaker, that I said certain areas because I want to demonstrate to you that they did not exactly cut everywhere. I am reading from the CP wire service of this morning:
Roy McMurtry, the former Ontario Attorney General, appointed High Commissioner for Britain last month, will earn between $89,270 and $105,050 annually at his new job-
This, of course, is a retroactive pay increase given to this particular loser. A similar increase in salary is being given to another loser, Lawrence Hanigan. It must make the members of the Conservative Party who won in the last election almost wish they had lost. Just imagine the tremendous salary increase they would have received by losing had they been appointed like Mr. McMurtry, who failed in his bid for the leadership of the Ontario Conservative Party, and Mr. Hanigan, who was clobbered in the riding of Montreal-Laval-des-Rapides by our good colleague from the Liberal Party. I see the Hon. Member from Calgary here. I am sure she is almost wishing that she had lost as well so she could have received an increase in salary of $35,000 or $40,000. That is the reward that has been paid to some Conservative losers.
It is small wonder that we do not have the money to administer government programs when we squander funds on this type of pork-barrelling throughout the country. Since last September we have purchased $173,000 worth of additional limousines. The used car lot beside the west door, Mr. Speaker, is becoming larger by the day. It is extending almost to the next building now. The place is just littered with these automobiles which are used to take Cabinet Ministers from the Centre Block to the West Block or wherever it is they are going. The Conservatives have also spent $100,000 renovating offices. I see the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) is in the House. He is the one who spent the most money of any Minister in decorating his offices. He has paid well for that fancy wallpaper and whatever else they put in those offices with that kind of money given to outside contractors-bedrooms, blue carpet, blue wallpaper, and whatever else they have in those individual offices. If that isn't enough to make all of us depressed to see that kind of "blue" going in, I do not know what is.
The Government has also rented $31,000 worth of cars for those Ministers who happen to run out of cars on particular days when their limousines are parked somewhere. That is the kind of government waste we have been seeing since last September. Then they stand up in this House and have the unmitigated gall to tell us that they have no money for a program which benefits the poor people of my riding and of yours, Mr. Speaker.
1 tell you, the Tories have no shame. Only you, with your unbiased opinion, looking at this from a truly objective standpoint, Mr. Speaker, would understand that it is absolutely incredible that the Conservatives would attempt to perpetrate this on the people of Canada. You know that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West, if they allowed him to speak in this House, if they took the muzzle off him for five minutes, would
Oil Substitution Act
want to say to the people of his riding who have benefited from this program or who are in the middle of contracts which obviously will not be terminated by March 31, that he would try to get their $800 for them. But he cannot. They will not let him talk in this House, which is unfortunate because 1 am sure he would have a lot to say.


Mr. Daubney:: I have a {joint of order, Mr. Speaker. I resent the allegation of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that those of us on this side of the House are muzzled. We are anxious to take part in a reasonable debate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I do not think that is a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: I do not think the Hon. Member has raised a valid point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, our colleague will be credited for that time at the end of his remarks.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 just want to support the Hon. Member who got up. I ask him if he has taken part in this debate. If not, I invite him to get up after this speaker and take part in the debate. Put your mouth where your-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order either.


Don Boudria: I just wanted to say that the Ontario Conservative Party is, of course, party to this whole business of profiteering in the oil business. As you know, they are very good in their investments in the stock market. A number of years ago the Premier of Ontario had a vision, a Conservative vision, mind you; he wanted to buy $650 million worth of shares in the Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania. That would, according to him, create jobs in Ontario. Well, it did. Malcolm Rowan, a Tory bagman that they hired to run it, got a job. One job was created with $650 million. Since then the stock has dropped to about half the original price and the Ontario Conservative Party still lives today in shame over that horrible investment.
I just want to tell our New Democratic friends who were referring a while ago to the Ontario Government's purchase of Suncor that their then leader wanted to buy twice as many shares. So the NDP policy is; if it is a bad deal, you buy twice as much and that makes it better; at least, according to their economic and financial logic.

We in the Liberal Party want to see the Bill delayed as long as possible, in fact we do not want it to be adopted. Since the Government simply cannot understand that it should drop Bill C-24, altogether, I strongly suggest that at least it ought to be prepared to put it off for six months so that Canadian consumers can complete all heating system conversion projects now under way.

March 26, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
I have many other things to say, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately my time has expired. I am, sure that other Members like our colleague who took the floor a moment ago, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), have very interesting comments to make about this measure.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is not with joy but with a realization of the importance of this matter that I rise to continue debate in opposition to the motion before us.


Mr. Malone:: What is it?


Abram Ernest Epp: To end debate on a Bill designed to put an end to the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. With the majority the Tories have they know they can carry the matter through without any difficulty.
In rising to speak in opposition to that motion and in order to keep the debate going, I do so very much in the awareness that this is a very important matter to our constituents who are watching at home. They are listening with a lively interest which I fear Private Members and Ministers in the Government do not have. One of the regrettable things about a Government with a large majority is that it has a sense of omnipotence. Given whatever vision it may have of the future, it can seek to achieve that vision without regard to the needs of the Canadian people.
I am very strongly opposed to this motion. The motion under debate before this motion should have carried. That was a motion for a six-month hoist of the Bill, which would have allowed the Government, together with the Canadian people, to do what is so badly needed. It has become quite clear that at the very least what is needed is some extension of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program which would allow people to make the conversion to natural gas.
I approached the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) on this quite early on, when it became clear that constituents of mine were not going to be able to make the conversion given the sudden imposition of a deadline of March 31. Other Members have indicated since then, in the debate on this Bill, the kinds of difficulties which have arisen in their ridings for the businesses concerned as well as the home owners who want to make the conversion and find that the time left is too short, particularly in the winter when it is impossible to make these installations. Propane tanks, which would allow temporary conversion to get people into the program, have been snapped up and there simply is no means available for people to take advantage of the program.
It is for that reason that some extension of time is absolutely imperative. The decision of the Government to vote down the six-month hoist motion was a denial to my constituents and those of other ridings of fundamental justice; that is, their right to get in on an important program and achieve a conversion which would be to their advantage and the advantage of the country.
Whatever the situation may be these days when we seem to have enough oil and a potential supply which has to be held back, surely we all realize that this is a temporary situation. At some point in the near future, if we continue to be profligate consumers of oil, we are going to run into the most terrific supply difficulties. Everyone knows that. I cannot imagine that Conservative Members from the oil-producing regions of the country are not aware of that reality. To cut off a program which was designed to encourage conservation of that important resource is something which should be rejected for the most fundamental ecological and economic reasons.
We are now faced with a final vote which the Government knows it will carry, and that is one of those displays of arrogance which Governments can fall heir to. In this case it is a display of arrogance based on short-sighted economic thinking and financial reasoning which I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has already begun to appreciate.
Members of the Liberal caucus have been focusing on some of the difficulties that arise here. The decision of the Government to reduce the deficit was laid out for us last November. That has been periodically reasserted in recent days. If you set out to reduce the deficit by taking action which slows down economic activity, the effect is to increase the deficit because of the nature of the programs which this country has long enjoyed and is determined to continue enjoying. The petition on unemployment insurance presented at the economic summit last week showed that the Canadian people are united on the importance of these programs. The Government knows that there are very limited possibilities of touching these. The end result of trying to deal with the deficit directly is to increase it.
Some of us have that fundamental understanding, but if it exists in Conservative circles it is muzzled these days. The muzzling of Members of the Government who know better deserves a little exploration. It is abundantly clear that investment by the Government is a good thing. No one can question the fact that investment by the Government in the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program made the country more efficient in the use of fuels.


Arnold John Malone: Higher taxes.


Abram Ernest Epp: If it takes higher taxes or borrowed money, it is still an investment which makes the country more efficient. People who are convinced that we must continue to cut back should study the circumstances of British Columbia. Eighteen months of that strategy has been enough to demonstrate how you can drive a people close to their knees.
We do not need the wisdom of 1929 in this country. We need the wisdom of 1939 which recognized that, with a great challenge and the available resources, we could find the will. The country may have been borrowing money three or four years later, but people were employed. Taxation was applied to the working people and the enterprises employing people and prosperity was achieved for the country. That wisdom brought us triumphantly through a war and built this country to the
March 26, 1985

greatest heights of industrial achievement it ever reached. It provided a basis for years and years of prosperity after the war. Unfortunately, there is not a bit of that wisdom in the Tory ranks these days.


Mr. Oberle:: Who do you want to start a war with?


Abram Ernest Epp: I don't want to start a war, I want to deal with the great challenges in this country. I want to deal with the problems of poverty and inadequate housing. I want to deal with the situation of our native communities. To declare a war on poverty in this country would be one means of putting to productive use the unused resources in this country. Surely the Minister of Finance knows that when he does that he will be able to increase taxes. It will create a reduction of tax burdens in other areas as the unemployment insurance fund gets back to the level it should be at. Social assistance costs will drop. When investments are made in Canada's well-being the country will be back on the footing we want. People with skills in energy use and conservation will be employed again by the National Research Council. The technology centres we need will be back in operation. That is the kind of program we should have.
I regret that my time has elapsed, Mr. Speaker. One needs 20 minutes, 40 minutes or days in order to deal with the inequities that the Conservatives are laying on us. On behalf of my constituents who cannot get what they so badly need from the Government, I say how wrong this is and how glad I am to be here this afternoon to keep the debate going a little longer to postpone this most unfortunate action.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am somewhat disappointed to have to deal with Bill C-24. Unfortunately, ever since this Progressive Conservative Government assumed power, all the bills it has introduced in the House aimed not at creating new job opportunities, but unemployment.
With Bill C-24, the Government is demonstrating once again that it has no compassion whatsoever for the needs of the Canadian people. The proof of that is that no Hon. Member on the Government side has had the courage to stand up and deal with this Bill. They agree prively that we are right, but they just could not admit it publicly. That means, Mr. Speaker .. . The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamon-don) whom I am looking at was reported in the newspapers as saying that a company was refused a loan and that he had not been consulted. Now that they have been here for over six months, these guys will have to wake up.
I am now looking at the Minister of State (Mines) (Mr. Layton), the real minister. He is not listening. I wish he would at least listen ... He said that in the matter of mapping, he was having consultations. He is waiting for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) to decide. I say he should have the courage to make a stand. He is there to protect Quebecers' interests. He should not wait for the Deputy Prime Minister to
Oil Substitution Act
decide. He should say that he wants the mapping office to go to Quebec. If you lack the courage to do so, you should resign and let someone with guts replace you. That is what we need. It is about time people started to-


Mr. Gerin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we should allow the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to deal with the mapping issue, as his government had allowed the situation to deteriorate for the past 10 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Very well, it is not a point of order. The Hon. Member who just rose is a lawyer. I can appreciate he never understood anything about procedure.


An Hon. Member:: He does not know anything.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Also, I am happy I managed to get one of them to rise. I have achieved what I set out to do, but I still hope the Minister will rise and say: "I want the Mapping Branch".
Coming back to Bill C-24, Mr. Speaker, we should remember that the Minister of Finance, in co-operation with the Treasury Board slasher the Hon. Member for .. . our friend from a Quebec constituency, the so-called strong minister from Quebec, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), has announced a $84 million cut in the funding of the Canadian Home Insulation Program. That means $84 million withdrawn from the economy. That means thousands of jobs, and assistance denied to thousands of Canadian men and women who could use that to improve their homes while conserving energy.
And from the Canadian Oil Substitution Program funding, $95 million will be cut. Those two programs have provided direct help to Canadian men and women, but they do not care. They cut.
From the UFFI Program, $1.5 million have been cut. This also has helped people. Why is all that? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) needs $50 million to change the colour of our Armed Forces uniforms. No problem. They found that easily.
I think it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. To continue-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

March 26, 1985


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar year 1984.
May I remind Hon. Members that, pursuant to Standing Order 46(4), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, Policy and Programs, and their Honours in the Senate will be acquainted thereof.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


[Stage Direction]
has been demonstrated again with four film nominations for Oscars and one winner announced last night.
The Genie Awards were made last Sunday night. The National Arts Centre had to turn away people who wanted to attend, people who wanted to see Canadian films. Yet very few Canadians have a chance to see these Canadian created productions, either by the National Film Board or by independent producers, including those winning the highest awards for excellence.
Film distribution in Canada is still dominated by foreign concerns which are keener to flog their own product and make the profits therefrom than to give Canadian productions a chance. The Government should give high priority to a program of incentives to promote Canadian film production by independent companies and provide support for the National Film Board which has an international reputation and is a regular winner of Oscars. It should negotiate with the provinces to ensure that Canadians in all parts of our country have the chance to see Canadian films.
Measures simply to promote Canadian productions without concern for distribution, as tried in the past, have proven to be futile. The film industry could be a good source of new jobs for Canadians, and it is absolutely vital to our own sense of ourselves as a culture.
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, on April 4 next, the Supreme Court will render its decision on the deportation order of seven individuals of Sikh origin. The Immigration officials have denied them a personal hearing and the Sikhs feel that this is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If the Supreme Court dismisses the government claim in this matter and decides in favour of the Sikhs, it will mean that each refugee status applicant will be entitled to be personally heard by Immigration officials.
It also means that those responsible for the refugee status will be completely overburdened. It has been acknowledged in parliamentary committee that it was essential that each applicant be personally heard. Several Conservative members of that committee agree with me; people should not be treated as mere numbers.
In my opinion, the government should not wait for the Supreme Court order to hear applicants for refugee status. It should be a done as a matter of course.



CANADIAN OSCAR AWARD NOMINATIONS

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the strength and excellence of the Canadian film industry



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the family farm is the backbone of Canadian agriculture. It can produce efficiently as the whole family works without unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, or holidays with pay. When production and prices for farm produce are good, the farmer prospers, but it is always a gamble with weather, prices, inflation, grasshoppers, and interest rates. During the last three years prices stagnated, crops were poor and interest rates high and, as a result, hundreds of farmers across Canada are enmeshed in the worst agricultural crisis since the hungry thirties.
About 25 farmers went bankrupt in 1979, but since then a quarter of a million farmers have gone belly-up, and about
50,000	farmers are currently facing serious financial difficulties. Many of these are our most productive and innovative farmers. In 1979 they borrowed to expand their farms and then got caught in the poor crops, low price and high interest rates squeeze. Many of them have paid in interest almost as much or more than they borrowed, and still owe more than they borrowed. Many banks are on the verge of foreclosing.
In the hungry thirties, federal and provincial legislation forced the financial companies to make sensible settlements, and consequently saved thousands of farms. When the amount of interest paid is close to or greater than the amount borrowed, and the principal is still greater than the amount borrowed, that shows that a farmer can't beat this interest
March 26, 1985

penalty game. We need legislation now to force sensible arrangements and settlements. We must save the family farm.


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



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, import quotas ending March 31, 1985, have limited shipments of Japanese made cars to Canada to between 166,000 and 170,000 units, or to a maximum of 18 per cent of the new car market.
In 1984 a record 125,000 people were directly employed in the Canadian auto industry and parts manufacturing, with a great many more in related industries. Indeed, the automotive sector has increased its employment level by 25,000 to 30,000 workers in the past two years alone, thereby greatly contributing to the economic well-being of our country. In fact a large portion of our recent national economic recovery is due directly to auto assembly and parts manufacturing.
Therefore, should this quota system be revoked and no alternate secure measure adopted in its stead, the domestic auto market risks inundation by Japanese imports with little or no Canadian value added. Consequently, Canadian jobs would be lost due to production cut-backs. Canada cannot afford, nor should it be asked, to tolerate such a possibility.
A two-year survey released this month by the Wilfrid Laurier University Institute for Business and Economic Studies finds that 55 per cent of Canadians are in favour of quotas and 64 per cent favour sourcing parts in Canada.
Therefore I would urgently plead that the Government ensure that either Japanese vehicle importers invest in Canada to the appropriate level in exchange for market access or, in lieu of this recommendation, extend the import quota for another year.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration today, the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) advised our members that his Department has set targets for women within the senior management ranks of the Department of Labour, the lead ministry in this particular area.
The Minister expressed his satisfaction that his Department intends to increase the percentage of women in senior management ranks from 14 per cent to 17 per cent by 1988. That is a disappointing one per cent increase per year. At this rate, we may see equality in the Department of Labour by the year 2021.
The Minister and the Government have made no meaningful commitment to employment equity as recommended in the Abella Commission report. The Conservative Party promised the stars to the women of Canada and has given them merely a flashlight.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has lost the battle over the Abella report. The Government refuses to accept employment equity and set an example. It does not even care. The women of Canada will not be fooled by the Government's lack of commitment and the broken promises of "blarney bulroney" and the band of yes men and silent women in his Cabinet.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the priorities of the new Conservative Government. I have just returned from my riding in Vancouver and I am absolutely shocked at the extent of unemployment in British Columbia. The Government said "jobs, jobs, jobs". Now it is talking about the "deficit, deficit, deficit". Mr. "M", one of my constituents whom I met on Saturday, had been unemployed for 16 months. He lost his house as a result of foreclosure by a bank and a finance company. On my return to Ottawa I find that the Government is bailing out a bank. Government does not bail out the ordinary Canadian but it is prepared to bail out a bank.
Another first act of the Government was to get rid of the successful off-oil program. It represented an $800 grant to ordinary Canadians, one of the few grants to consumers.
The Energy Ministers are meeting in Vancouver today. The holders of old oil will get a windfall of between $4 and $7 a barrel, or $200 to $300 million. There was no one at those meetings representing the consumers or the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
We have seen the bail-out of a bank and the favouring of oil companies. The Government is forgetting about the job promises and is cutting the energy grants. Those are the priorities of the Government. If it continues like this, the honeymoon will soon be over.



ANTI-SEMITISM U.S.S.R.-TREATMENT OF JEWS

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry, which now comprises 237 Members of the House of Commons, I would like to inform the House that the situation for the Jewish community in the Soviet Union continues to deteriorate. Jewish emigration from the U.S.S.R. has all but ceased.

March 26, 1985
Today, hundreds of students from across Canada, representing the National Jewish Students Union network, have come to the city to meet with their Members of Parliament and enlist support in their cause. At this moment they are holding a demonstration at the Soviet Embassy on Charlotte Street to indicate directly the concern of all Canadians.
We have, sitting in the House, representatives of the student organization who have come from all parts of Canada to be with us today. On behalf of the members of our parliamentary group, I welcome them.
We now stand on the threshold of a new era in the U.S.S.R. We have indicated to the Soviet Union that it must address the problem of Soviet Jews and allow those who wish to leave to do so to be reunited with their families.
As we talk today, those brave Jewish citizens of the Soviet Union face continued brutal harassment. Prisoners such as Anatoly Shcharansky and Iosef Begun languish in prison, their only crime that of wanting to be Jewish and openly expressing that desire.
We are all aware that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will be in Moscow next week. We trust this issue will be brought directly to the highest levels of the Soviet Government and that he will convey vigorously the concern of Canadians.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, if I rise in this House today it is to address my constituents of Drummond.
I want to encourage my constituents, the businessmen and women, the business executives, the farmers, and also, of course, the students, to take up the challenge of the employment program developed by our Government.
I refer specifically to the Challenge 85 Program, which should create 95,000 jobs for students next summer.
I hope that my constituency will amply benefit from the amounts made available under this budgetary item of $205 million and under various other programs announced by our Government.
Mr. Speaker, this program invites the business sector to offer meaningful jobs to students and to provide them with useful skills in anticipation of their joining the labour force. I remind those interested that Quebec employers have until March 29, 1985, to submit their applications to their local employment centre.
Challenge '85 has been designed to help employers meet this objective. This program is intended for Canadians in every sector of the economy, and during the International Youth Year, I invite them to create jobs for young people. In addition, this is an innovative step on the part of our Government since it is the first time that a summer employment program calls for the participation of goods and services suppliers and not only small businesses.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Government yesterday announced major salary increases for some of its Tory faithful who recently received patronage appointments. This weekend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rejected suggestions that money be spent to improve the lot of unemployed Canadians. He told Canadians that the deficit must be cut, while the boys in the back room were padding the pay cheques of Tory appointees.
What makes these newly appointed Tories so special that the Prime Minister, the boss of bosses, would make such an about-face within two days? In this new system, Tory losers become winners. Conservative back-benchers must now regret their victories when some of their Tory friends will be making close to twice their salaries.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister made an issue of patronage. He even called for a new morality. Where is the morality now? One of his favourite words is "honour". Where is the proof that there is honour or that it is more than a six-letter word? I invite the Prime Minister to eat his own words. If he has even a modicum of honour, I guarantee he will become as sick as he is making the people of Canada with his double-talk.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, Ottawa was the scene of a conference attended by socio-economic participants from various regions of Canada. It is only in months and years to come that we will know whether the conference was successful.
As expected, each group raised the priorities of its own region, but it must be emphasized that it was the first time the Federal Government was able to gather as many socio-economic spokespersons.
It was a step in the right direction. Hopefully, the House will begin to acknowledge our constructive efforts in the
March 26, 1985

consultation process. There are no ready-made solutions, but we are doing our best.
I do not endorse negative and destructive criticism. The creation of a national consensus calls for goodwill on the part of all Canadians.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF WESTMINSTER SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery of Members of the United Kingdom House of Commons Select Committee on Defence, led by their Chairman, the Right Hon. Sir Humphrey Atkins, M.P.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has something on its mind. Certainly it is not Parliament, as there are very few of its Members here this afternoon. I do not know whether I should direct my question to the House Leader. Preferably I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister, if I may.
During the weekend at the National Economic Conference, the Minister of Finance projected that 50,000 fewer jobs would be created in Canada in 1985 than were created in 1984. With the great business confidence the Government claims to have inspired, why will fewer jobs be created this year than last year?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of what happened in the National Economic Conference this weekend and of the confidence in our economy as a result of that Conference, we will see the creation of permanent jobs this year and in following years, which is more than the former Government can claim.
Oral Questions FINANCE


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at least the Hon. Minister should have a smile on her face when she comes up with that answer.
[ Translation]
Without allowing for seasonal adjustment, 274,000 Canadians who were working the day before the Minister of Finance presented his economic message in November are now unemployed. I therefore would like to know whether the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of State (Finance) will undertake today to persuade her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to bring down a Budget that will promote job creation.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since this Government assumed office, 85,000 more new jobs have been created and 70,000 fewer people are unemployed than there were in September. The Leader of the Opposition should recognize these figures.
Also, I commend to him an article in the paper the other day under the headline "Employment Outlook Best in Years". It was a survey of 1,500 businesses which all said that they expected to hire additional people this year.


THE ECONOMY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member enjoys playing with facts. She will find a little more difficulty playing with numbers. Those numbers are just not borne out in what she said.
Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister will prefer to pass this question to on to her. Since she likes to quote headlines, I want to quote today's report issued by the Conference Board of Canada, that Canada's major banks and investment firms have reached a consensus that the Canadian economy is "gearing down" to a slower rate of growth in 1985, and that 1986 will be even worse. That is not just a headline the Minister was able to find; that is a report of the Conference Board of Canada.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration next sees the Minister of Finance, will she do her best to impress upon him when he brings down his long-awaited Budget-the longest period between an election and a Budget in modern history-that it should improve the picture and add a few jobs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Finance and I have very productive discussions on an ongoing basis. This is more than I can say for some of the Ministers in the previous Government. However, I

March 26, 1985
Oral Questions
assure him that the survey from which I quoted referred to small business, the increase of jobs and the outlook and potential for jobs in small business. That is where the upturn will come; that is where it is predicted. In that area the Conference Board may not be quite accurate.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of jobs, if this Government can match the record of the previous Liberal Government, it will go down in the annals of history as being one of the great Governments of this country.
My question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Reports are that there are major pension funds, Air Canada, CN, the Alberta Teachers' Union Retirement Fund, the Manitoba Retirement Fund, that are shareholders of the Canadian Commercial Bank. Those assets will be substantially diminished by reason of the negligence of the Government in not monitoring the circumstances of that bank back in September when it first learned of them. What is the Government going to do to ensure that the assets of those pension funds, the assets of thousands and thousands of working men and women, and retired Canadians are protected?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we took very decisive action on the weekend in co-operation with two provinces and six chartered banks to ensure that the assets in those banks and the viability of that bank to produce key growth in western Canada will continue. That is exactly the kind of action we have taken.


PENSION FUNDS'SHAREHOLDINGS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not explain the point very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate any applause I get. The point is that these pension funds hold shares in the bank. Under the proposal, those shares would be substantially diluted. That means that millions and millions of dollars will be lost to those pension funds which looked to this Government to ensure that the bank would never find itself in such circumstances. What protection are those pension funds, as shareholders, not as depositors, going to receive from the Government?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Hon. Member is wearing his name tag today. We had a number of concerns that went into our decision in combination with other partners in dealing with this bank. Our first concern was for the small
businesses that are the borrowers of this bank. The second concern was for the depositors of the bank. We are also concerned about the people who hold assets in that bank in the form of shares. We had our first concern and our priorities straight.


PROTECTION OF BANKING INTERESTS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday we learned that the Government of Canada, either directly or through the Canada Development Insurance Corporation, is prepared to put up something in the order of $135 million to attempt to save the Canadian Commercial Bank. Overnight we discovered that the major Canadian banks, together with a number of foreign banks, had deposits with the Canadian Commercial Bank to the amount of $150 million. Why did the Government move to protect those banking interests by directly expending taxpayers' money, rather than by pursuing the practice that has been followed since 1920 of forcing either a rationalization or a merger among the banks, in order to protect what is in fact the single most profitable banking system in the world?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the deposits from other financial institutions, there are deposits of a number of small business people in the Province of Alberta, and ordinary Canadians. We did not move to save the bank. The Hon. Member should know that we moved to save the borrowers and the depositors of that bank.


RATIONALIZATION PROPOSAL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that the majority of depositors in that bank would have been protected up to $60,000 under the CDIC. Why did the Government not take the steps that have up until now proved to be effective and required of the banking community which, as I said before is the most profitable in the world-do what it has done in the past and come forward with a rationalization or a merger program in order to protect both the Commercial Bank and the depositors as well as those who have pension funds in that bank?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why, when you come forward with information and facts in this House, that is when the Opposition is at its most confused. I repeat, in the process of coming forward with a very responsible solution to this difficulty, we considered a number of alternatives and discussed them with the Province of Alberta and discussed them with the banks. We came forward with the most responsible solution that was available.
March 26, 1985


RATIONALE FOR GOVERNMENT DECISION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that the banks in Canada have shown over the last number of years, notwithstanding the recession, a capacity to make money far greater in amounts than any other banking system in the world, is the Minister now saying that, as a result of discussions with Alberta and the chartered banks, which had $150 million invested in that particular banking operation, it was easier to go to the public of Canada for the money to save them, rather than to ask them to save themselves?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of this country, and this Government, care very deeply about the borrowers in that middle market who deal with that bank, those who have small businesses in a fragile economy and are working hard to create the jobs that these people opposite keep talking about.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses).
A month ago today, I asked the first question about the Domtar case, and at the time, the Government justified its refusal to provide the grant by referring to the size of the deficit. Could the Minister inform the House why the Government has no money for Domtar, when it was able to provide, in record time, $73 million for a bank in Western Canada?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the Domtar case is in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec, and I think I can say we have two eminently responsible people working on this case. If the Prime Minister has anything to announce, I think he will decide when he is ready to do so.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION CONCERNING DOMTAR
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the Minister has no information on Domtar, but I wonder whether he realizes that any delay in the start-up of this project will have disastrous consequences for the construction schedule. Could the Minister inform the House how long it will take the Government to make a decision? I may remind the Minister that it did not take very long to provide $73 million for a banking institution in Western Canada. How much time does the Government need to settle the Domtar case?
Oral Questions


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, Domtar is not in financial difficulty. The matter is being examined by the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada, and when they have reached an agreement, they will announce that fact as soon as possible.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS-FORTHCOMING WHITE PAPER
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Finance. Along with the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank this last week, we have had in the last three years the failure of 10 trust companies. After each one there was a study into what happened. Despite that, the former Liberal Government and the present Government seem to feel that the way to deal with these is to deregulate the industry. I wish to ask the Minister whether the white paper that she has promised will be tabled shortly will be more than a whitewash. Will it be accompanied by draft legislation? Specifically, will it promote uniformity of legislation with the provinces so that badly run and corrupt companies cannot hide in the gap between federal and provincial jurisdictions?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, one of the first things we did when we took office was to recognize that we need to make some major revisions to our financial institutions legislation. We have been proceeding with that as rapidly as possible. I will be producing a discussion paper on that, because the system has not been looked at by the Government for years and years. We will proceed in an orderly manner, and the House will have occasion to discuss it.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY PROPOSALS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not indicate whether, along with the discussion paper, there would be legislation. Will she have the committee that is working on the matter look at some of the recommendations that were made by members of the NDP at the time we studied the bank profits question in 1982? At that time we suggested that directors of financial institutions be prohibited from steering loans to companies in which they had interests, and that foreign loans be strictly limited. Would she have the committee look at those proposals so that we can get some real action?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would never ignore the recommendations of members of the NDP.

March 26, 1985
Oral Questions


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister as the senior Minister responsible for international trade. The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association says that if Japanese auto quotas are not continued beyond March 31, imports, mostly Japanese imports, could take up to 40 per cent of our market and 20,000 Canadian jobs could be lost. Will there be an agreement in place on March 31 either to continue the quotas on imports of Japanese cars or to have in place new commitments by the Japanese to create jobs, to produce and to invest in this country on a basis equivalent to that required and carried out by the North American producers?
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member, as he undoubtedly knows, discussions have been taking place on a very current basis between Canadian industry representatives, representatives of the Government of Canada, and representatives of the Japanese firms and the Japanese Government. An announcement will be made in due course.


PROTECTION OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Government pledge that if there is no agreement in place by March 31, it will implement standby measures to prevent a sudden flooding of the Canadian market with Japanese cars until there is an agreement either to continue quotas or to have the Japanese producers invest or create jobs here, in order to give this country a fair share of the North American investment? This would help the Canadian industry and would also help add to the thousands of jobs that already exist in the industry.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, I will take his representation as just that, an official representation from the Official Opposition.


REQUEST THAT QUOTAS BE RETAINED
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Government seems to be willing at least to consider abandoning the quotas, and that would be an absurd policy unless it is replaced with something that would guarantee jobs. Considering that Nissan, the most internationally oriented of Japanese car producers, has already said that it has no intention of investing in Canada, and that Honda and Toyota have made a paltry investment in terms of their sales here of $100 million so far, will the Minister recognize the importance of this industry not only to communities like Windsor, St. Catharines, Oshawa and others, but to Canadian exports as a whole, and assure us that the Government will not abandon those quotas?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Oshawa, I will again take his representation as just that, a representation from the NDP. I would only add that the $100 million figure to which he refers as being the total investment of the Japanese concerns compares to the approximately $2.5 billion that they have either put in place or have committed with respect to the United States.


JAPANESE INVESTMENT IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is absolutely right. The Japanese have made serious commitments to the American economy in the last few years and have not done so in Canada. In that context, since this industry is not only crucial to jobs but was also responsible for some $25 billion in exports last year, would the Minister assure the House that he will not abandon the quotas until he gets, at the very least, a commitment from the Japanese to invest in Canada in proportion to their sales in Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Oshawa refers to abandoning quotas, I surely do not need to remind him that the quotas were not put in place directly by the Canadian Government. It was an arrangement whereby the Japanese agreed to put in place voluntary export restraint provisions. That is what we are now discussing with the Japanese. We are discussing their future intentions.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State will know of the tragic plight facing many Jews living in Russia. Does he intend to have this important topic discussed with the Soviet officials when he visits Russia next week?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I do intend to raise that question with Soviet officials and have had the benefit of extensive conversations and briefings in Canada with members of the Canadian Jewish community.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, just so there is no confusion on the part of members of the Government, we are not wearing name tags, we are wearing badges of
March 26, 1985

support for Soviet Jews. I am surprised that the Hon. Member for St. Paul's is not aware of that.
My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In response to a question put by the Hon. Member for Sudbury yesterday, the Minister said:
The Hon. Member should not use the one case as an indication that it is occurring either across the province or across the country.
He was referring to the child tax credit issue in Newfoundland. In his letter to me the Minister said:
It is not the policy of the Government to require that individuals sign over their child tax credit as a condition of receiving financial aid.
He further stated that the form which was used was not a form which had been authorized by the provincial Department of Social Services nor by its regional office. Does the Minister stand by these statements?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was wrong yesterday and he is wrong today. I have here a copy of the form, and further I have the names of other Newfoundlanders who are prepared to sign sworn affidavits indicating that they were required to sign this form before they could receive any help with their electrical bills. Will the Minister promise the House today that he will introduce legislation to forbid this practice? Will he instruct the Newfoundland Government to refund child tax credits to all those Newfoundlanders who were penalized by what has been a current government practice of the Government of Newfoundland?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked me if I stood by those statements. In the letter to which she referred, I indicated that that was the situation as I now understand it. If she had read the entire letter, she would also have read those conditional words.
Additionally, we have checked further into the very issue because I thought she might raise it today. If she were to take a look at the agreement between the provinces and the federal Government regarding family allowances and child tax credits, she would see that those things cannot be written over. Officials of my Department have spoken to officials of the Newfoundland Government who have stated very clearly that that is not government policy. Obviously if there are cases other than the Parsons case, they would be dealt with the same way as was the Parsons case, namely, that that is not a policy that this Government endorses nor that the Newfoundland Government will pursue.
Oral Questions TRUST COMPANIES


PIONEER TRUST COMPANY-PLIGHT OF DEPOSITORS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance, and returns to the matter of banks. My question refers to a possible double standard in what the Government is doing regarding the banking industry. There has been assistance from the federal Government for the Canadian Commercial Bank, a bank which has a great many very large depositors such as chartered banks and foreign banks which have deposits amounting to $150 million. On the other hand, no government assistance has been given to Pioneer Trust in Saskatchewan which has among its depositors a great many ordinary Canadians and ordinary organizations like school boards, sports organizations, the City of Regina which has deposits amounting to $1 million, and a hospital in Estevan that is run by nuns. Why is the Government so quick to assist its wealthy friends, the large bankers, when it will not provide the same assistance to school boards, hospitals run by nuns, and ordinary Canadian people?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I might point out that many financial institutions, including the Canadian Commercial Bank, also have municipal depositors, hospitals, and other ordinary Canadians as depositors and borrowers, as did Pioneer Trust. I might also point out, in the case of Pioneer Trust, that management voluntarily closed the doors after spending a considerable amount of time trying to find capital which they could not find.


ASSISTANCE GIVEN TO CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, what is the difference between the Canadians to whom she referred who have deposits in the Canadian Commercial Bank and the ordinary Canadians who had their money in Pioneer Trust in Saskatchewan and Alberta? What is the difference between those Canadians and the nuns who run a hospital in Estevan, retired farmers, and school boards in the West?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the combination which was put together in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank, after consideration, made it a viable operation. Because of an isolated problem it ran into difficulties. In the case of Pioneer Trust, there was no ability on the part of the company to raise capital because the company faced serious ongoing difficulties.
3376

March 26, 1985
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to pursue questions which were put to her yesterday regarding the Government's decision to count severance pay as income under the Unemployment Insurance Act, thereby delaying the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. All of us have received a lot of protests from all over the country regarding the harshness and unfairness of that provision. Some Canadians were going to use severance pay to re-establish themselves in employment, some were going to relocate to other parts of the country, and some were going to put the money into an RRSP for pension purposes. Now those people will not be able to do that because they will have to use it for the bare necessities of life.
Considering the many protests, and the petition which was signed by two-thirds of the delegates to the National Economic Conference on the weekend, and considering that there was no consultation on the measure, will the Minister agree to postpone it until she has held the proper consultations, and the full implications of that measure are widely known?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member was yesterday, nor where he has been for the last six months with respect to this issue. This measure was first introduced on November 8 of last year. There was consultation on how it could be implemented in the fairest manner. I heard representations from other Members of the House during that period. It has only been in the last week that the Hon. Member seems to have discovered the issue for the first time. I can tell him that the measure will be implemented at the end of this month, and that it will be phased in gradually over the next two years.


CONFERENCE DELEGATES' PETITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, that is an insult to all the Canadians who have been writing to us for the last few months. Would the Minister tell us what impact studies were done before the Minister of Finance announced that measure, and will she make those studies public? In addition, how can she ignore two-thirds of the delegates at a convention that her Government called? The only clear-cut decision which they made at that conference sought to delay that provision. Is this just another example of Tory media politics?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if I had known that the Hon. Member was so desirous of being at the conference I might have arranged to have him there. He could then have heard some of the very positive suggestions which were put forward, and he would know in which areas consensus was achieved. As I mentioned yesterday, one of the issues which was discussed
in a workshop on unemployment insurance was that the unemployment insurance program was not meeting the needs of Canadians. Therefore, one of the very firm proposals which was put forward suggested we make changes which would better meet the labour market needs of the country. Indeed, that is something on which we hope he will put forward suggestions as well.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the United States Undersecretary of Defense for Policy has made it clear that Canada has been invited to participate in the development of star wars technology, could the Minister tell us whether Canada has in fact accepted that invitation? If so, how does Canada, and indeed, how does the United States justify that under the terms of the ABM Treaty, when Agreed Statement "G" of that Treaty prevents the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. from sharing with other states "technical descriptions or blueprints" relating to ABM systems?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, Canada has not received an invitation. Mr. Ikle was wrong.


ABM TREATY PROVISIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, that is the tenth time the Conservative Government has said that someone in the United States who had made a clear statement was wrong. When is it going to accept responsibility?
The Minister did not reply to a very serious infringement of the ABM Treaty-Agreed Statement "G". The Minister may not know what is in Agreed Statement "G". I have just tried to explain it to him. Will he tell the House whether or not it is the case that the sharing of technical expertise and knowledge by the United States or the U.S.S.R. with other states is prohibited by Agreed Statement "G" of the ABM Treaty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that no invitation has been received by Canada. I also repeat that, in the event there is an invitation, any response by Canada will be absolutely consistent with the principles of the ABM Treaty.
March 26, 1985


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister has on many occasions been made aware of the plight of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry. Positive action is urgently needed because employment in that industry has dropped from 14,000 to 7,000 in direct employment, and thousands of jobs in related industries have dwindled to a mere trickle. What steps will the Minister take to revitalize and give some positive hope to this very important and much needed Canadian industry?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has correctly pointed out an industry in Canada which is being severely impacted by world conditions. He will be encouraged to know that we have met with the labour unions which are involved with that industry, as well as with the owners. There is some optimism with respect to the offshore activities which are taking place. We have projected, through to 1992, the total government procurement that will either deal directly with shipbuilding or with associated activities. It amounts to some $4 billion. Finally, our negotiations with the United States include specific reference to improving our position with regard to their shipbuilding, including the possibility of getting more defence procurement that the U.S. Navy needs.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As of the 31st of this month, retiring members of the Canadian Armed Forces will lose their UI benefits because of their severance pay, announced by the Minister of Finance as part of the changes to the UI regulations. The Minister of Employment and Immigration went along with those changes. Further changes will take effect next January which will deny many Armed Forces members the benefits of unemployment insurance by counting their pensions in mid-life as income.
Can the Minister today assure the House that she has accepted the recommendation of 83 of the participants at last weekend's economic conference, as well as the thousands of other representations that have been made the Members of Parliament, and stop these unfair changes which are affecting the Armed Forces in Canada? Where has she been the last six months that she has not been listening? Where is the consultative process? Have the Armed Forces been consulted?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member raised that issue. As I indicated earlier, there will be
Oral Questions
a review of the Unemployment Insurance Act. One of the anomalies in this situation is how it impacts on the Armed Forces. I can see that issue being dealt with at the time of the review. I would welcome any input which the Hon. Member has in that regard.


NEEDS OF RETIRING MILITARY PERSONNEL
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, during last summer's election campaign the Conservative Party promised members of the Canadian Armed Forces that it would be especially sensitive to the difficulties faced by the Armed Forces in adjusting to civilian jobs in mid-life. Does the Minister not agree that the changes announced by the Minister of Finance, obviously agreed to by herself and the chopping Minister of National Defence, do indeed show insensitivity to the special needs of retiring military personnel? You can't promise them sensitivity on the one hand and show insensitivity on the other.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to read my notes to know that we on this side have sensitivity to the Armed Forces of this country. I want to say to the Hon. Member that I have indicated that this particular aspect would and should be dealt with at the time of the unemployment insurance review so that the anomaly which has been created can be changed within the Unemployment Insurance Act. We are now looking at ways in which that could be done. I would hope the Hon. Member would also come forward with his suggestions.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On January 24 the Minister gave assurances to a large assembly of chiefs of the Nishnawbi Aski nation in Thunder Bay that he would grant, according to the circumstances of the case, band or reserve status to a number of Indian communities in northwestern Ontario, by April 1 of this year. Could the Minister tell us if that is in process and if he intends to meet the deadline?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that indeed that commitment is clear. The process is going on now and we are hoping we can meet the deadline.


FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in view of his answer I wonder if the Minister would assure this House that appropriate financial arrangements will be made

March 26, 1985
Oral Questions
with those communities so that they can administer projects at the local level? Will he further assure us that discussions will commence forthwith with the Province of Ontario to ensure a land base for those communities which do not have one at present?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is probably aware, the discussions which took place in January contemplated both of those conditions. We will move on both of those conditions, first, with respect to the financing and, second, with respect to the negotiations with the Province of Ontario, as fast as we can.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that the architectural firm responsible for the design and construction of the new terminal building in Fort McMurray has now been barred from architectural work in Alberta by the Architectural Society. Will the Minister assure myself and the House that there will be no delay in the construction of the terminal building which is long overdue? And have contingency plans been put in place to replace the architectural firm which is now unable to practise in Alberta?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which is currently being considered by departmental officials. I do not anticipate an undue delay in the construction of the facility.

[ Translation]



IMMIGRATION


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last week, following media pressure, the Minister asked for an investigation on the system used to promote immigration officers, which is based on the number of illegal immigrants they can intercept at various entry points in Canada.
Can the Minister tell this House whether this quota policy exists only in Toronto or whether it is applied in all regional offices in Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member knows that my Party and I are certainly opposed to any such standard as quotas. We have said that right along. Nothing has
proven, from any internal investigation, that there are quotas in the immigration system. Certainly I have every confidence in the impartiality of the employees in the Department of Immigration in this regard. I do want to tell the Hon. Member, however, that there has been review undertaken of the way in which performance evaluation criteria are used, so that there could be no negligent use of these criteria or anything done in any way which would impact on people coming into this country or, indeed, on the employees themselves.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell the House why she did not put an end immediately to this unfair practice which discriminates against immigrants for the length of the investigation? In addition, can she assure us that this report will not be strictly internal, but that it will be made public as soon as possible?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that this independent review which is taking place, is being carried out with the view in mind of eliminating any possibility of employees being pressured to do things they should not be doing. That is really what is at stake here. I want to see that that does not happen in the Department of Immigration, or in any other aspect of the Department for which I am responsible. I cannot answer for what happened previous to the time that we assumed office.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that confusion reigns over the announcement of severance pay coming into effect on March 31 with respect to unemployment insurance benefits, and in view of the fact that the regional and local offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission do not have the administrative guidelines and regulations governing those provisions, is the Minister prepared to table in the House, and to provide to Hon. Members, copies of those administrative guidelines and regulations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot do so today because I don't have them with me, but I will at the first possible opportunity.
March 26, 1985



THE ADMINISTRATION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he explain to this House why the Government has chosen to give Messrs. Lawrence Hanigan and Roy McMurtry salary increases ranging as high as $38,000 a year? This increase alone is as large as the income of an upper-class family of four. How can the Minister reconcile this blatant abuse of power with the campaign promise of making political appointments "a new morality" for the Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will well know, in the case of Mr. Hanigan, as a result of policy changes introduced by the Minister of Transport, his relative responsibilities will be greater than those of his predecessor.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Penner:: Smile, Joe.


John Napier Turner: That's a good try, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am pleased to see the enthusiastic response of Hon. Members of the Liberal Party to that decision.
With regard to the question of the Canadian High Commissioner in Great Britain, it is the view of this Government that the compensation to our High Commissioner in Great Britain should be on a par with the compensation to Canadian Ambassadors in Washington and in Paris, and not lower, as was the case with the Liberal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AID

[Stage Direction]
Committee Reports


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canada and the United States agreed at the summit to establish a basis for future co-operation between the two countries regarding research into and development of technology, including space-based systems. Article V of the ABM treaty says:
Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based-
Or:
-space-based-
How does he reconcile these two diverging statements?


Charles Joseph Clark: The ABM treaty speaks of ballistic missiles; the North Warning System does not.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport in both official languages.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister cut programs and ask Canadians to tighten their belts when he himself, as a Cabinet Member, can agree to such extravagant favours being given to supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party while every day Canadians have less money to live on?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the major change with the new Progressive Conservative Government is that from now on, salaries of public employees will be public knowledge. They are being made public. In the past, under the Liberal Government, the truth about them was always kept hidden. That is over!



REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, to which a comprehensive response is requested pursuant to Standing Order 69(13).
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings. ]

March 26, 1985
Petitions


TABLING OF EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY RESPECTING SALARY REVISIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table an extract from minutes of the meeting of Commissioners of Internal Economy held on Monday, March 25, 1985, concerning revisions of the salaries of employees of the House of Commons effective April 1, 1985.


PETITIONS
Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from 254 residents of my riding of Grey-Simcoe who strongly voice their concerns and are calling for the return of capital punishment for those who commit premeditated murder or first degree murder of policemen, security guards and civilians, and who have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, 960 residents of Fleurimont and of my constituency wish to avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present this petition to the House and to ask the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), through the Medical Research Council of Canada, to grant the Medicine Faculty of the University of Sherbrooke financial support which will allow it to maintain its present level of research and rate of development.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by many residents of Calgary, Alberta, calling on the Government to make sure that changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act as they relate to severance pay and pension income be not introduced on March 31.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many people from my riding calling upon the Government to rescind its proposal to change unemployment insurance, particularly as it relates to severance pay and pensions.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Calgary calling upon the Government to withdraw its move to have severance pay deducted from unemployment insurance payments. This is
a matter which is crucial to maintaining family income when people are laid off.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and privilege to present a petition signed by over 100 residents of the Ear Falls district of my riding who, in common with the majority of the participants in the Economic Conference, petition Parliament to allow laid-off employees to keep their severance pay and receive unemployment insurance without deductions being made for severance pay.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition and it reads as follows. Whereas the Minister of Employment and Immigration has announced that workers laid off after March 31, 1985 will have their severance pay deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits, thus effectively eliminating the benefit to the worker of the severance package, and whereas the severance pay is essential-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member care to summarize the petition, please? I think he knows that rule.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thought I was allowed to present my petition.


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying to say to the Hon. Member that the rules do not allow the reading of the petition. They allow a summarizing of its contents. That, I am sure, is what the Hon. Member is trying to do.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, at various times in this House, especially in the last Parliament, Members read the full extent of their petitions a number of times.


Some Hon. Members:: Never!


Mr. Speaker:: The fact that someone else did it does not make it within the rules. I have tried since the beginning of this Parliament to make the point to all Members and that is why I am rising gently with respect to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). All Members should know by now that the rules say please summarize your petition, and with great respect I invite the Hon. Member to summarize his petition.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will gently summarize it. It says that the petitioners object to the fact that severance pay is now being deducted from unemployment insurance and they respectfully petition this Parliament that all laid-off employees keep their severance pay and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which I am pleased and honoured to present to the House. It is signed by a number of Canadians living in Alberta who are aggrieved at the Government's announced intention to make certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the regulations at the end of this month. They ask this House to protect the Act and request the Minister to rescind this intention to make amendments as of March 31.
March 26, 1985


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition to Parliament dealing with the plan of the Government to use severance pay as a basis for delaying the payment of unemployment insurance benefits as of March 31. These petitioners pray that that be cancelled and all laid-off employees be allowed to keep their severance pay and receive unemployment insurance benefits without deduction.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Kootenay West dealing with a decision pending by the Government which hopefully will support an application by Cominco Limited to build a new lead smelter in Trail. The petition represents more than 10,000 signatures received by myself.
* *
*
[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 134 and 263.


Mr. Malone: 1.	In (a) 1983 (b) 1984, what was the advertising budget for Canadian National Railway?
2.	What portion of the budget was directed towards (a) television (b) radio (c) print media advertising?
3.	Has the CN Rail Corporation market share been retained or has it grown as a direct result of their advertising efforts and, if so, by what (a) relationship (b) percentage?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	(a) $9.6 million
2.	(a) $3.6 million
(b)	$215,000
(c)	$5,785 million
(b) $13.2 million
$ 4.8 million Nil
$ 8.4 million
3.	The portion spent on the individual CN companies' service advertising cannot be directly traced to market share changes as many factors contribute to the sale of services such as sales effort, unpaid media publicity, pricing and competitive activity.
Order Paper Questions CANADIAN PATROL FRIGATES


Mr. Skelly: 1.	To the knowledge of the Government, did the owners of the Saint John Ship Yards remove the present management team of the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program and replace it with a management and a consultant group from the United States?
2.	To the knowledge of the Government, are the majority of the members of the new management team from Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, and will the cost of their management services to the Program be in excess of $100 million?
3.	Will the Bath Iron Works management team be the sole possessors of the management skills required to build the frigates?
4.	Will Paramax, a subsidiary of the American Sperry Corporation, be providing weapons systems, sensor systems and communications systems and will other foreign companies, the majority of which are American, be manufacturing the propulsion systems?
5.	Will other nations who wish to purchase this frigate be faced with the fact, that all of its systems required for its construction and delivery would be available only in foreign markets, primarily in the United States?
6.	Should all systems required for the construction of the frigates be available only in foreign markets, who will build the six new frigates which the Minister of National Defence, on January 10, 1985, committed the Government to build?
7.	Were the designs for the frigates completed when the contract with the Saint John Ship Yards was signed and are design changes now taking place?
8.	Will the new designs for the frigate's hull require the contractor to (a) dispose of the hull steel already purchased and delivered (b) re-order steel from Algoma Steel of Sault Ste. Marie and, if so, will the new designs and new order necessitate Algoma Steel re-tooling to produce the new steel for the hull?
9.	What will be the length of the delays which will result due to the new hull designs and to what extent will be the cost overruns of the program?
10.	Will the Government offer to bring the parties on strike at Marine Industries Limited, (M.I.L.), at Sorel, Quebec, and the builders of three frigates, together so that this labour dispute will not delay the building of the frigates or result in further cost overruns?
11.	To the knowledge of the Government, will the Saint John Ship Yard owners position on the ongoing labour contract negotiations and the subsequent formation of a Council of Unions in opposition, create a major work stoppage at the yard resulting in further delays and cost overruns to the program?
12.	Will the cost of the program be in excess of $3.85 billion, as previously announced, and will delays in the start-up date result in the failure to obtain the frigates on the dates contracted for their completion?
13.	Will the cost overruns be absorbed by the contractor so that the program will not cost the taxpayer any more money than originally promised?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Saint John Shipbuilding Limited has announced a reorganization of its CPF management team including the appointment of a new program manager. The rest of the management team members remain essentially the same, although there have been a number of organizational changes.
2.	The new management team is essentially the same as the old, with the addition of only one new senior member. The Bath Iron Works involvement with the project is a technology transfer agreement with the shipyard. This contract has been in effect for several months and is included with the existing CPF contract price.
3.	The management skills required to build the CPFs will be resident in Saint John Shipbuilding Limited and in Paramax Electronics. The majority of personnel in both organizations are Canadian and will remain so.
The significant contribution being provided by other major Canadian firms in the design and construction such as Ver-

March 26, 1985
Order Paper Questions
satile Vickers Inc., Marine Industries Limited and Versatile Vickers Systems Inc. should be noted.
4.	There are two parts to this question, one concerns combat systems the other, propulsion systems.
Paramax Electronics Inc., a new Canadian based subsidiary of Sperry Corporation, was formed to perform the role of combat systems integration. Paramax, a systems integrator, is responsible for the procurement of the individual systems, some of which are offshore, but many of which are Canadian.
Saint John Shipbuilding Limited has had to go offshore for those propulsion system equipments which are not produced in Canada.
The industrial benefits requirement of this program require that offshore purchases be offset by corresponding purchases in Canada.
5.	To the extent that equipment is obtained offshore, the answer to this question is yes. However, by no means are all the systems being obtained offshore. The ship design and major systems integration is Canadian and will remain Canadian.
6.	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, Citation 357(G).
7.	A contract design was submitted and evaluated prior to contract signing. The CPF final design was not "completed" at contract signing and this was never intended. One of the major activities of the Implementation Contract is to complete the final detailed design. The "design changes" to the extent that they are occurring, are a normal process in the production of warship detailed design.
8.	There is no new hull design. All steel ordered and delivered by Algoma Steel to date has met Saint John requirements for construction of the first Canadian Patrol Frigate.
9.	The current re-examination of program status at Saint John is not as a result of any new hull designs. There is no cost overrun to the program as implied by this question. Saint John Shipbuilding met with officials of the Department involved in the CPF Project on January 29, 1985 at which time an overview of some intended management reorganization was presented. It was agreed that Saint John Shipbuilding Limited would report back to government officials in the first week of March with additional information relating to organization and program schedule.
10.	Versatile Vickers Inc. (VVI) is responsible for the construction of the 3 Canadian Patrol Frigates in the Quebec shipyards. MIL is under contract to VVI to perform CPF work. It would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the negotiations between this supplier and its union.
11.	The labour negotiations in the Saint John Shipyard are known to have been under way for a number of months and it would not be appropriate for Government to intervene with this process. It is hoped that the matter will be brought to a successful conclusion without incurring any work stoppage, delays and cost overruns.
12.	The contract between the Government and Saint John Shipbuilding Limited is a ceiling price arrangement. There has been no increase to the ceiling price since the original announcement by the Government and none is contemplated under the current circumstances. The possible impact of startup activities on the project schedule are the subject of ongoing discussions by officials with the company.
13.	There is no cost overrun to the program as implied by this question. There is a ceiling price contract between the Government and Saint John Shipbuilding Limited.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works; and the amendment of Mr. Hockin (p. 3227).
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying this morning, when I started speaking to the Bill before the House, ever since the present Govenment came to power, the only Bills we have had to discuss have been Bills that were bad for this country, and that is unfortunate. I think it is important to recall, for the benefit of all the Conservative Members here in the House who have probably neither read the Bill nor realize what is being cut, that the Canadian Oil Substitution Program represents $95 million that this Government has cut. This program was helping consumers to convert their heating systems to electricity, natural gas or other forms of renewable energy.
There is $85 million in the Canadian Home Insulation Program. This program provided for taxable grants of up to a
March 26, 1985

maximum of $500 for home insulation. Now these grants are going to be cut from 60 per cent to 3316 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this Government cannot find the money to meet the needs of Canadians but it can find the money to send 1,000 more members of our Canadian Forces to Europe at a cost of $100 million per year. They have no trouble finding money there.
Mr. Speaker, instead of getting involved in star wars, this Government should have gotten involved in the war against unemployment. If it refuses to withdraw this Bill, it should at least extend the program for six months so that everyone who applied after the Minister's announcement that he would make cuts in his program, will still have a chance to benefit from those grants.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by the President of the Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association of Canada:


Mr. Prime  Minister@: Aware of your interest in Quebec problems-
He did not know what was coming when he wrote that.
-we take the liberty of making a request concerning the Canada Oil Substitution Program (COSP).
As you undoubtedly know, COSP has been very popular in Quebec. As a result of its termination slated for March 31, 1985, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of orders from manufacturers of equipment needed to convert to electric heating. We have received so many orders that we fear they may not be filled without compromising equipment safety and quality.
We therefore urge you to extend the deadline, at least with respect to the installation of new equipment. Applications might be submitted until March 31 and the equipment installed between now and August 31, 1985. Such an extension would not require additional expenditures.
Well, Mr. Speaker, these are experts and specialists in energy conversion who are urging the Government to extend the program for at least six months so as to enable Canadians to apply and make sure that conversions meet all safety standards.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the Government cannot find any money to help needy Canadians and has to cut their benefits. However, when a banking institution is about to go belly up, it has no trouble finding millions of dollars. When it comes to increasing the salary of its friends, its former candidates, as my colleague pointed out with respect to Mr. Hanni-gan, then money is the last of its concerns.
Mr. Speaker, not only did the Government drop the insulation program, it also shirked its responsibilities concerning the removal of UFFI, another cut-back of $1.5 million. Many Canadians were counting on grants of up to $5,000 to renovate and remove UFFI products from walls in their homes.
There again the Government did not bother to consult anybody before imposing cut-backs on all Canadians, as it did in the case of unemployment insurance, housing and insulation. No consultation with the people. But when it comes to showing off, our Prime Minister has proved that as a master of
Oil Substitution Act
ceremonies, he is second to none, presiding over major conferences where spokesmen for industry, unions and consumers represent their fellow Canadian citizens.
And then, at a cost of $1 million a day, they decided to have a huge consultation, but everybody knew full well that the federal government had already made up its mind, contrary to the promise that party had made during the election and the day following its victory, and contrary to the statement the Prime Minister himself had made, as reported in today's Citizens: "You're going to see tens upon tens of jobs being created just as quickly as a new government can be sworn in." Since September 4, because of its stupid decision to try and bring down the deficit on the backs of workers and middle and low-income Canadians, what the government has created is not new jobs, but increased unemployment.
I know that most of my colleagues, that members from both the NDP and the Liberal Party are firmly against this bill. I know also that the greater majority of my colleagues of the Progressive Conservative Party are privately against this bill too, but that they lack the necessary fortitude to stand up and say so publicly. They prefer to hide, play the ostrich and bury their heads in the sand, Mr. Speaker.
You are signaling that my time is about to expire, Mr. Speaker, but I hope a number of Tory members will finally wake up, remember that they were elected to protect the interests on their respective constituents, and not to spin yarns on behalf of their leader.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I always try to take Governments and Opposition Parties at their word. So far we have had about 17 hours or five sitting days to debate this Bill at second reading. All Parties in the House agreed on the original legislation. Therefore, I do not think it was remiss on the part of Members on all sides of the House to use a few days debating a major change in the legislation which the entire House supported unanimously in 1981.
As an ordinary country boy from the Prairies, I had assumed that even the Conservatives knew that you could not lay a gas pipeline on the Prairies in February or March. They not only want to shut off the debate, they want to shut off 150 homes on Rural Route 2 northwest of Regina. I admit that I have some interest in that area. Under the present Conservative Government of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation had devised a good policy to take natural gas to more villages, hamlets and individual farms in the Province of Saskatchewan. These people and the Saskatchewan Power Corporation have been planning to instal a number of new lines based on their number of potential users. They used this Bill as the premise to make a survey of potential customers. Now that the program is to be cancelled, people are not finding the immediate cost effectiveness that there was before. Saskatchewan Power is putting in a new line on Rural Route 2 outside of Regina. It is slated for completion in June. There

March 26, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
are 150 people along that line who have signed up for the service. I suspect that Sask Power operates similarly to power corporations in other provinces which require a sign-up of 65 per cent before they proceed to build a gas pipeline or power line. In this case there is a 100 per cent sign-up. I presume the Tories must have been in Florida all winter if they believe that a plastic or steel pipeline can be installed in February or March.
I realize that a six-month hoist amendment is usually a parliamentary ploy under the rules to kill a Bill. However, this is a rare instance when we moved a six-month hoist in order to delay the passage of this Bill so that the ground could thaw and people who signed up for grants could benefit. That was the simple reason for our proposal.
My hon. friends across the way should recognize that the ground is still frozen and if they want this legislation to pass now I invite them to dig the trenches and install the gas pipelines for 150 homes, mostly farm homes, northwest of my city.
Surely the Government must recognize the sense of encouraging people to convert to less costly fuel services. In 1981 the COSP legislation, which was retroactive to 1980, received second reading in one hour in the House. That means there was unanimous consent by all Parties. This legislation was to have effect until 1990. All the power corporations in every province, every municipal utility corporation and tens of thousands of Canadians based their plans on that assumption. It is not right to change the rules in the middle of the game.
If the Government wishes to change the policy under this legislation it has every right to do so, but there should be reasonable notice given before it proceeds. While our Party has recommended a six-month hoist, I believe this legislation should be delayed for at least one year to account for thousands of Canadians who wanted to convert to natural gas. Some of these Canadians have had to convert to propane temporarily until natural gas pipelines are installed. They are now faced with the problem of the lack of propane tanks.
The effect of this legislation will be the exact opposite to the Government's intention to increase the number of jobs. The COSP Program provided more jobs than will be created if it is ceased. We made a simple proposition but the Conservatives believe that a plastic or steel pipeline can be laid before the end of March, which is only a few days from now. The ground in Toronto may still be frozen even by the end of April. However, it seems that the Conservatives do not understand that logic.
We should support any program that will reduce the requirement for imported oil, that saves Canadian foreign exchange, creates more jobs and gives the Government a return on its investment. I remind Hon. Members that this program is an investment, not an expense. I hope that my hon. friend, the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), would agree that this is an investment whose returns will outnumber the cost to the taxpayers.
It is obvious that a reduction in the requirement for imported oil in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces will provide extra jobs and increase the use of Canadian resources, particularly natural gas.
In conclusion, let me quote the Hon. Member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who has been a respected Member of the House from western Canada for almost 30 years. As a major spokesman for the Conservative Party in the debate in 1981, when the Conservatives joined with the Liberals and NDP in supporting this legislation that was to be effective until 1990, he said, as reported at page 11099 of Hansard for June 30, 1981:
I do not think there is any question that the House in general understands and supports the purpose of the oil substitution program-
Is the Government trying to help Imperial Oil sell more oil or is it trying to help individual Canadians reduce their heating costs? Let me quote further from Hansard of June 30, 1981. The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said:
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.
The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain concluded by congratulating the Government and the Minister, on behalf of the Conservative Party, for bringing in this legislation. He said, as reported at page 11101 of Hansard:
1 hope he will consider the suggestion that I have made to improve the legislation and make it available to all Canadians. If so, we could achieve this conversion from oil to other energies more rapidly than this bill can by itself.
I ask my hon. friends opposite to reconsider what they are doing. I ask them to maintain the commitments made in 1981. I ask them to permit this Bill to be extended and I hope they will persuade the Minister to do so, so that tens of thousands of Canadians, provincial power corporations and municipal utilities can live up to the contracts they have signed.
I cannot understand why the Government is reversing its position after those people have acted in good faith. I hope that Members of the Government will persuade the Minister to reconsider this legislation. If so, they will get full support and approbation from both Opposition Parties.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Government to repeal the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act is another indication of its insensitivity, in that these programs helped many average and low-income Canadians. The people who will lose the benefits of these programs are out there today watching the actions of the Government and wondering what they elected on September 4. While these programs are going down the drain, what happens? The office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is given a 57 per cent increase in its budget, and its staff is increased by 30. Also the public relations budget of the Government has been increased by 10 per cent. That money
March 26, 1985

will be used to advertise its conferences, seminars and other meetings rather than to do things for Canadians.
We have heard much in the House about the consultative process. I wonder how many average and low-income Canadians were consulted about the cutting of these program. They have heard much about expensive conferences, but they have not heard too much in support of their efforts to conserve energy. The Upper Ottawa Valley of eastern Ontario has some of the highest levels of unemployment since the Diefenbaker Government.


John Horton McDermid: That is a great endorsation of the Grits.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The highest levels of unemployment, I say to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). The Grits brought in programs which were useful to the people of that area and in turn to their communities. Coming from a highly populated area of this province, the Hon. Member would not be as sensitive to that.


John Horton McDermid: Oh.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: What he is doing right now clearly demonstrates the insensitive character of the Government.
The UIC regulations are another example of this insensitivity. It will now take into consideration every penny a person earns over a period of time in order to cut back in UIC payments. In many small communities where employment was scarce, people made use of COSP and CHIP. They switched from oil to another form of energy. Any benefit they received for changing from oil to another form of energy automatically increased their disposable income. In the Town of Deep River, three years ago, one home out of three was heated with electricity. I would expect that the number is even higher today as a result of COSP over the last few years. Undoubtedly more people went off oil. Canadians in small communities and in rural areas are conservation-minded. They are the ones who repair their windows.


Frank Oberle: And their doors.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That is correct, they fix their doors. They repair their basements and their foundations. They improve the insulation in their homes. In some cases even the small contractors that benefited from CHIP complained that the program was inadequate. I hope the Government realizes that by cancelling these programs it is actually taking away business from small business at a time when it is bragging in the House that it is in favour of small business. Also it is taking away the jobs of Canadians who work in those industries.
In recent years there has been much research into solar energy and the use of wood to heat homes. It is part of the off-oil system.


An Hon. Member:: Oh?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Hon. Member does not seem to be well informed. I am glad that I am speaking about it; perhaps he will gain some knowledge. In recent years new stoves have
Oil Substitution Act
been designed to use wood in the heating of homes. This is related to the off-oil program. Many other new technologies have been adopted. For example, waste is being used in burners to heat sawmills which produce the waste in the first place. This provides great efficiency. That program was sponsored by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It assisted small businesses, sawmills and planing mills to change from oil to a system capable of burning waste products to heat their premises. Also attention has been paid to considerable heat loss problems.
Along with all these benefits, these programs have made people more aware of the necessity to conserve energy. The system by which farm homes are heated today has changed dramatically. If any part of the industrial society requires all the assistance it can get, certainly it is the agricultural industry. Many people do not look upon agriculture as an industry, but indeed it is an industry, one of our largest. We should do everything we can to assist it in saving money by changing over to cheaper methods of operation. That is certainly in our interest. It all comes down to the industrial plants which produce the products used in the off-oil program and those which produce the insulation and other materials used to improve home heating systems. Surely that great old slogan that we heard so much about-jobs, jobs, jobs-is the very thing that comes to mind. By the repealing of this legislation, the Government is taking away jobs from people. That is another form of insensitivity.
We have heard a lot about consensus building. What kind of consensus building was done when the decision was made to remove this program? I wonder if at the same time that this Government is planning to remove this program which benefits the average and small-income people, it is thinking of greater technology and the production of other jobs in that area. There is the projected Slowpoke III reactor that uses 5 per cent enriched uranium and produces heat very cheaply, there is a prototype of the slowpoke IV reactor being made at this very moment at Whiteshell, Manitoba, with 5 per cent enriched uranium. It produces both heat and energy. These are some of the things we will have to look at in the future.
A lot of research has been done on waste connected with the operations of nuclear energy. Canada should continue that route of putting emphasis on nuclear energy in this country, the production of heat for homes and municipalities at a cheap rate and with even greater benefit than has been produced in the hydroelectric field by the Candu reactor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Bill C-24. This legislation is very important for Canadians. The debate in the House today is on whether or not we are prepared to maintain these two government programs and thus create many jobs here in Canada.

March 26, 1985
Oil Substitution Act

For some reason the Government seems to have forgotten about ordinary Canadians. For some reason it has decided to eliminate the Canadian Home Insulation Program, to get rid of that program and the off-oil program. Both these programs would help a lot of ordinary people. They would create jobs for those who put in the insulation, convert the furnaces, dig the trenches for gas lines and other jobs of that sort.
I want to say in particular a few words with regard to Saskatchewan. I see the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) and one or two Albertans in the House, although Bow River is in southern Alberta. The ground is frozen in Saskatchewan until at least March 31. This point was made by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). It is very difficult to put in a gas line in frozen prairie ground.


An Hon. Member:: Use dynamite.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My Tory friend from Quebec says they should use dynamite. I would like to see him come to Kam-sack, Saskatchewan to put in a gas line and convert a furnace from oil to gas. The former Prime Minister would not agree with that. That shows the insensitivity of this Government. I know that the Member who was formerly Prime Minister of this country would agree that it shows the insensitivity of the federal Government to the special problems of northern Canada and the Prairies that it would end the off-oil program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program while the ground is still frozen on the Prairies. There is no understanding of the reality of that situation in central and northern Saskatchewan. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to extend this program for another year, or certainly extend it for another three, four, five or six months so that it will be fair to all Canadians. Why are some Canadians more special than others?
The Government says that through this program it will save approximately $350 million a year. This very same Government is going to give corporate welfare to the oil companies this year to the tune of some $1.7 billion. It is a continuation of the old Liberal policy called PIP. It is good enough for the rich, but there is no money for ordinary Canadians. The former Prime Minister must be very embarrassed about this Bill in Parliament today. He is fidgeting in his seat. 1 know he would love to get up and speak against this Bill.
I also know that he has a lot of respect for this institution of Parliament. If he were Prime Minister, he would not bring in a Bill of closure that affects ordinary Canadians. Today we are dealing with closure. I remember speech after speech of Conservative Members in the last Parliament when going after Liberals, saying they had no respect for Parliament, that they were bringing in closure on matters that affected ordinary people. This Government is doing exactly the same thing that it whined, cried and complained about when in opposition. That is a bit of hypocrisy that I did not expect to see when we had a change of government in this country.
The other important issue is the whole question of the creation of jobs. During the campaign, we heard speech after speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) saying that the
most important issue is jobs, jobs, jobs. I would like to see some Conservative back-benchers get up and tell me why it would eliminate this program, which would create thousands and thousands of jobs for people who need them because they are unemployed, and at the same time spend $1.7 billion under the PIP program to assist the big oil companies in this country. Over five years, it will cost $8.6 billion of taxpayers' money. I know the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) must be very upset and frustrated by this continuation of Liberal policy. I know that he will be supporting us in this debate. I know that he will get up and speak on behalf of ordinary Albertans. It must make him as angry as it makes me to see this program for insulating houses and saving oil being discontinued.
By the way, we would save about 75,000 barrels of oil a day, a lot of it Albertan oil, if the programs were continued. Instead, this Government is going to cut them off and spend the money helping wealthy Canadians, the big oil companies. Yesterday the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall) said we would spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to help salvage a big bank in Canada, the Canadian Commercial Bank. We are making interest-free loans. There is all kinds of taxpayers' money being used to prop up this bank. Who are the depositors? The Canadian chartered banks and the foreign banks have $150 million on deposit. The trust companies have money on deposit. Greymac had money on deposit. This Government is spending millions of dollars of our money propping up these banks but it will not extend the home insulation and off-oil programs for another three months which will put more people to work and save oil in this country.


John Horton McDermid: CHIP goes on for another year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not the off-oil program. It expires on March 31. A Torontonian may not understand that in certain parts of the country the ground is frozen until after March 31. That is the kind of discrimination there is against parts of northern Canada.


An Hon. Member:: He is from Brampton.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Brampton is pretty close to Toronto. I suppose it is all the same thing.


John Horton McDermid: No. That is how much you know.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I wish that some Members from southern Ontario would realize that this country is not a homogeneous country. There are geographical differences, and they should be sensitive to that when it comes to the off-oil program. I hope they will rise and give us a bit of support in the House.
The riding of the Hon. Member for Mackenzie is north of mine. I would hope that he would rise and assert his independence and speak on behalf of his constituents. I would hope that he would not be simply a puppet of the Conservative Prime Minister who happens to sit across the way.
March 26, 1985

Those are some of my concerns. I am concerned that so much of our public money is going to help the rich, the powerful and the privileged. I have mentioned the Commercial Bank of Canada with its big depositors. Yet Pioneer Trust with its ordinary depositors is not getting the same kind of help. School boards have deposits in the Pioneer Trust Company as do a hospital run by nuns in Estevan, the City of Regina, sports groups and retired farmers. A retired businessman from my riding sold his business and put all his savings in Pioneer Trust. That money has gone down the drain and there has been no assistance from the Government. Yet the Government will spend $1.7 billion this year helping the oil companies through the PIP program.
Perhaps this is what Progressive Conservative means. I do not know, but it seems to be a real contradiction that government back-benchers will sit mute when it comes to helping ordinary Canadians. They will not say a word and they will applaud like sheep when the Government helps the big banks and the big oil companies in a continuance of the Liberal policies of old.
Now the Government is bringing in closure to end this particular debate, a debate that would help people in my riding and indeed in ridings right across Canada. The Government wants to save money so it can give more to the oil companies. Let government back-benchers rise. There are a few moments left. Let them justify the spending of $8.6 billion on the PIP program over five years and the spending of over $1 billion of taxpayers' money on the PIP program this year, while cutting off a program that will help the ordinary citizens of the country.
I put that challenge to Hon. Members. I believe they should assert their independence and not be afraid to speak. Are they a bunch of blind sheep who are following the directives of the PMO? When government back-benchers sat on the opposition side, some of them expressed themselves freely. Of course, at that time they had a Leader who was more open and generous and who believed in an independent approach to Parliament. He was a guy who understood western Canada and the entire country. Now we have a different Conservative Leader and it is more of the same old insensitive Liberal approach that we have seen for so many years. I appeal to the independence of back-benchers in the Conservative Party?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of what has already been said by our energy critic and by the critics of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Government's decision to use closure for this Bill is totally unacceptable, especially since we all know that many residents of Quebec, Ontario and other Canadian provinces have been unable to take advantage of this program, due to Canada's geography, and I am referring to frost, Mr. Speaker. To illustrate my considerations I would like to read a few telegrams, which should be of interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid).
Oil Substitution Act
Mr. Speaker, I have here a telegram from the riding of Laval-des-Rapides in Quebec, and I assume others were sent to Progressive Conservative Members, requesting at least an extension to take care of all contracts signed before March 31, and I quote:
Reference COSP. Only ten days before the expiry date, we-
The electricians of Quebec,
-cannot meet our commitments to our customers. Equipment not available. Increased demand as a result of your measures-
That means the measures taken by this Progressive Conservative Government
-has created untenable situation in which consumer will be one to suffer-
Mr. Speaker, the consumer is going to suffer as a result of a Bill. Today the Government is asking for closure, even if in some cases, because of our geography, it will be impossible to make any changes before March 31.
-demand-
That is, the electricians of Quebec,
-urgently demand review of measure to stop COSP.
They are demanding, at the very least, that March 31 be considered the deadline for signing contracts and not for finishing the work.
Mr. Speaker, any Member representing a riding in the northern regions of Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta or Newfoundland can tell you that the March 31 deadline as it applies to contract completion is totally unrealistic because it is physically impossible for electrical contractors or gas companies to fill all orders before that date.
Mr. Speaker, instead of imposing a closure motion as it is doing today, the Government and Conservative Members ought to make the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) understand that Canadians should at least have the right to apply for conversion until March 31. That is why we in the Liberal Party are against this Bill, for we know very well that all Canadians have had nothing but praise for COSP.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention other Government agencies where people understand how you go about converting from oil to other forms of renewable energy. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA for short, has announced that the Canadian Government will be making a grant of over $8 million to Kenya to do just that, to undertake a similar program of conversion from oil to other forms of renewable energy. I want to commend the Canadian International Development Agency, we have at least one Government agency that understands how important it is to switch from nonrenewable to renewable energy. The sad part of the story, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government will deprive Canadians of a similar program.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we do not have a quorum.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will check.

March 26, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
We do have a quorum. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see that Progressive Conservative Members do not want to hear anything about a Bill which is definitely not in the interest of Canadians. The Parliamentary Secretary does not know that CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, has announced today a grant of more than $8 million to Kenya-at least CIDA is aware of the fact that conversion from oil to other renewable energy sources is highly recommended. Unfortunately this Government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources do not seem to understand that Canadians would benefit from that kind of conversion. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that what should happen-


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the actions of the Hon. Member, I think it should be a matter of record that at the time the quorum was called, there was one Liberal Member in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. [Translation]


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is too bad that even senior Progressive Conservative Members do not know the Standing Orders of the House, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad, but that is the way it is. They are always in the Opposition, so they do not know how to run a government.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please give the Tory Members a chance to reconsider their decision to impose closure.
I am surprised there are so few Members here. There are 40 of us on this side. We sit on all sorts of committees. I am the labour and housing critic. I also sit on the Labour, Manpower and Immigration Committee. In any case, Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party are willing to debate this very interesting issue. On the Government side, there are 211 Members, most of whom have nothing to do because they are not Ministers nor Parliamentary Secretaries and because they are not willing to debate in the House a subject that is so important to all Canadians, especially those living in the northern areas of our provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I know that our Prime Minister, a so-called representative of the northern part of the province of Quebec . . . why is the Prime Minister and why is this Government tabling a Bill that discriminates against the people in our North? It discriminates against Quebecers who live near James Bay, it discriminates against Ontarians who live in Timmins, Timiskaming, Blind River and all the other parts of Ontario where they cannot possibly dig in pipes before March
31. The Government should at least accept a motion to withdraw this Bill or grant a six-month extension to give the electricians of Quebec who are sending telegrams to Ministers and all Members of this House a chance to finish the work contracted before March 31.
Mr. Speaker, it is, I hope, common knowledge that this kind of construction creates a lot of jobs for Canadians. Home renovation and especially this kind of renovation is very labour-intensive. Mr. Speaker, we have just had a conference to find out exactly how we are going to resolve our economic problems in this country. Why do the Conservatives want to cut a program they already said was a good program? Why are they accepting this form of closure instead of fighting for their constituents in Cabinet and in the caucus, so they will at least keep some of the promises that have been ignored since September 4, ignored not only by Cabinet but by Members on either side of the House. Mr. Speaker, we urge you to speak for Canadians and to ask this Government to wait at least six months and withdraw this motion for closure which amounts to disenfranchisement of the rights and freedoms of all Members.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture (a) Beef import quotas (b) Government position; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Labour Relations (a) Canadian National railways lay-offs (b) Government position; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)- Canadian Armed Forces (a) Dismissal of lesbian personnel (b) Request for assurance of no further dismissals.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee
March 26, 1985
[Stage Direction]
on National Resources and Public Works, and the motion of Mr. Hockin (p. 3227).
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to what has already been said. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Government of Canada have decided to cut off the Canadian Oil Substitution Program which was established some four years ago. In addition, the Government has decided to terminate, ahead of schedule, the Canadian Home Insulation Program. The Government has said that these programs are being terminated to save money. According to certain Conservative Members, the most needy have already been taken care of and only the fairly well-off have not yet taken advantage of the program. However, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated, the main intent of the Bill is to save money for the Government of Canada. As previous speakers have pointed out, it does not make sense when compared with other initiatives which the Government has taken.
I would like to make reference to a point which was made by a member of the NDP with respect to PIP. He asked why so much money-indeed, billions of dollars-was being spent to pay oil companies for the cost of drilling. The amounts are absolutely staggering. They run into billions of dollars. The answer to the Hon. Member's question is quite simple. The answer lies in the reason PIP was introduced in the first place and why the Government cannot simply discontinue the Petroleum Incentives Program. If the Government did that, the oil companies would not drill for oil in the offshore areas. There would be no activity off the coasts of Newfoundland or Nova Scotia if the Petroleum Incentives Program were not in place. It is interesting to note the amounts of money which are involved and the fact that the money goes directly to the oil companies from the federal Treasury after the drilling is finished.
The Government of Canada is in a difficult position. During the election campaign it said that it would do away with PIP and replace it with a tax incentive program at the end of the year. However, we have not heard anything about that. In fact, the Estimates still show the same amount of money for the oil companies which are exploring. Let there be no doubt that once that money is removed, a lot of oil companies which are presently drilling for oil off the east coast of Canada will also be removed. I suppose it is only fair to make reference to that, since we are debating COSP.
Many people imagine Newfoundland as being a rich territory, like the Clampett's on television used to live in where there was black gold and Texas tea and everybody became millionaires because of oil. The fact is that the only thing which most Newfoundlanders know about oil and gas is that the prices have increased drastically. The prices have increased for two main reasons. Of course, one of those reasons is the taxes which have been placed on the bottom line by the provincial Government of Newfoundland. When people have to pay 22 per cent on the bottom line to fill up their cars on top of the increased charges-because Newfoundlanders are at the end
Oil Substitution Act
of the line as far as the distribution system for gasoline and oil is concerned-then we can see why this program is so important.
It is important that some financial assistance be given to the people who want to convert and get away from burning oil in their furnaces and stoves. It should always be kept in mind that without the incentive which that program provides, a great many families will not be able to convert to wood.
There has been a lot of discussion in the House about the conversion to other sources of energy, but not very much of that discussion has concerned wood. If we examine the figures that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources presented to the House, we see why wood conversion is so important to provinces such as Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. When we look at the projections of the Department, we find that some 59 per cent of the residences it thought would qualify and convert to wood have not to date converted. When we look at the yearly figures we discover that the projections of the Department have shown far fewer people than the numbers which actually utilized the program. There has been 126 per cent achievement over what it projected would take place during the years this program has been in effect. So we are left with 59 per cent of the total number of dwellings which were thought would convert over a ten-year period. We are still left with that 59 per cent in Newfoundland which have not converted mainly to wood.
We also have to keep in mind that this Bill today does away as well with the possibility of having more hospitals in the Province of Newfoundland convert to wood chips. This was something which happened over the last few years because of this legislation and the incentives which were provided.
I think the bottom line is that we have in this chamber today a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who brings in legislation to remove money from the hands of ordinary Canadians and poor people who need that little grant to install a wood stove in the basement in order to give that person some heat. Those people don't want to pay $500 a month for oil in the months of December, January, February and March. They want to be able to put a chunk of wood in their furnace in the evening when they go to bed, and that one chunk of wood in the type of stove now being used would last the entire night.
These poor people who are looking for a little bit of assistance, a measly $800 to convert to wood, are now having that opportunity taken away from them. They will now be left to the fortunes of whatever side of the bed the federal Government gets out of in the morning. That will determine what the price of oil is which these people will have to pay to operate their furnaces.
Before the election the Conservative Party said it was not going to increase oil and gas prices-just the opposite. We can talk all day about the PIP program and all of the philosophical arguments about the rich being the only ones left who did not take advantage of the program. We can talk about the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in January

March 26, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
approved a program to sell oil cheaper to the United States refineries than to Canadian refineries. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources decided to reduce the foreign charge on oil to the Americans but did not reduce the taxation charges to Canadians. So Canadian oil is sold at a cheaper price to the United States than it is to Canada since the month of January. Here we have the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. We come from all that philosophy down to this Bill, and this Bill takes away a simple $800 from the pockets of a poor person in Canada who wants to convert to wood or to another energy source. That is the bottom line in this debate and that is what the bottom line should be. Let no other Hon. Member proclaim again that only the rich people are left, that all the poor people have taken advantage of the program. As I mentioned before to an Hon. Member, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, someone earning $100,000 a year having to go out and get splits for his stove? Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, someone earning $ 100,000 in Newfoundland wanting to convert to wood? That is absolutely ludicrous. It is the ordinary person who wants to save money. That is the person who takes advantage of this program. It is not the man who goes to the Board of Trade or the woman who goes to a bridge party.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to take part in this debate. May I say at the outset that I was extremely disappointed that the Government with its huge majority should choose to move closure, all the more so since this program has always been and still is quite popular in Quebec. In recent years, this program has gained wide support and acceptance among Canadians because they realized that it had two major objectives. The first major objective was to reduce demand in traditional energy sectors, in keeping with Canada's energy policy.
The second objective, aspect or benefit is that conversion in one case and insulation in the other led to a significant decrease in heating costs so that, as a direct consequence, hundreds of thousands of Canadians found it less expensive to keep their homes well heated. All of a sudden, practically overnight, they simply decide to cancel both programs. To me, this was a very harsh and totally unacceptable decision, so much so that for months now our offices have been swamped with hundreds of letters urging us to give consumers more time to benefit from this program which has proved to be extremely popular.
I can only say that the reaction of our constituents is quite understandable. Not so long ago I came across some statistics concerning the Maritime Provinces where the program gained such wide acceptance that nearly 80 per cent of eligible households applied under these programs. The situation in Quebec may not be as encouraging, but still 30 per cent of eligible applicants did benefit from the program.
I can appreciate the attitude of the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) when he says that Quebecers
know one thing for sure-the Conservatives are not there to pamper Quebec, they are there to administer Canada.
Well, perhaps I might remind Government Members who gained the confidence of Canadians last September 4 that they may not be there to pamper Quebec, but that is no excuse to disregard basic principles of justice and fairness in the distribution of public funds.
I think we should also recall that before the election on September 4, the present Government had promised to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. They promised they would deal with the problem on a grand scale. They promised to deal with the problems of the agricultural sector. They promised to reduce interest rates. They promised to stabilize the dollar. They promised that more services would be available. It did not turn out that way, however. Not only have they failed to deal with any problem of substance, they have managed to create a host of new ones. Unemployment is as substantial as it was before September 4. Interest rates are rising. The dollar is losing ground every week. And now, in addition to all those problems, they are adding one more, which comes as a shock to Canadians who were counting on making certain changes in their homes in the next few months, in order to reduce their heating bills.
I think the use of closure is absolutely undemocratic. We must not forget that the Government has 211 Members. On the basis of this historic majority, the Government should give the opposition parties a chance to demonstrate the relevance of all the arguments in favour of this program and let them try to persuade the Government to act fairly and equitably towards all Canadians and especially those who, for various reasons, have not yet been able to proceed with conversion and take advantage of the grants available.
In concluding, I would urge those Members who are supposed to represent the interests of Quebec to consider the flagrant injustice of the fact that not quite 30 per cent of Quebec homeowners have been able to take advantage of this admirable program, while statistics for Western Canada show that 80 per cent were able to take advantage of the program in those provinces. Therefore, we must provide an extension. We must extend the deadline to provide a fair deal for these Canadians who, like many others have already done, would like to take advantage of a program that has proved its worth from every point of view.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is as follows: Mr. Hockin, seconded by Mrs. Mailly, moves:
That the question be now put.
March 26, 1985

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Toupin
Oil Substitution Act
Messrs.
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
++NAYS
Vankoughnet
Vezina (Mrs.)
Vincent
Warner
Wenman
Winegard
Witer-142.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Messrs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed will
please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Consequently, the next question is the following one. Miss Carney, seconded by Mrs. Champagne, moves 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. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to have the record of decision on this vote be the same as the one on the previous vote, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin), who was not present for the vote just taken and whose vote she would like to be recorded against the second reading motion which Your Honour just read?


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose the Hon. Minister is rising for the same reason?	'


Mr. Lapierre:: But not on the same side.


Mr. Speaker:: Not on the same side, as the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) said. Yes, I realize that.

Does the House agree with that procedure?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what business does the Government House Leader have in mind for the ensuing few days?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Opposition House Leaders, it is my intention to call Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the first item of business tomorrow, followed by Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada. It was my intention to call the motion on the Order Paper, No. 17, with respect to CN pensions as the first item of business for tomorrow. In view of the fact that unavoidably and due to a tragic circumstance, the critic for the Official Opposition will not be in the House until Monday, it is my inclination to have that motion called at the beginning of next week when it is convenient to all Parties, with the concurrence of the Minister and the New Democratic Party. That will be the business for today, tomorrow and Thursday. Keep tuned in for further announcements.


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

(1700)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Order No. 105?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Svend Johannes Robinson: that Bill C-225, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-225, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. This very important legislation has been introduced in this House on several occasions. The purpose of the Bill is straightforward and yet fundamental, and is set out in the Explanatory
March 26, 1985

Notes. It is to implement the repeated recommendation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that "sexual orientation" be added as a prohibited ground of discrimination at the federal government level. At the present time under federal law, gays and lesbians receive no legislative protection from discrimination under federal jurisdiction.
The Bill would include as a prohibited ground of discrimination "sexual orientation" in addition to the other grounds which are set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act. As well, provisions of the legislation would require that the Canadian Human Rights Commission conduct a comprehensive study of all federal legislation and regulations to determine which, if any, might discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and to report the results of that study to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) within one year of the coming into force of the Bill. Subsequent to that report, the Minister would be required to report back to the House on the steps that he has taken to remove the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation from all existing federal legislation.
I might say initially that this occasion is, I suppose, somewhat historic in the following sense. This Bill or a similar Bill has been introduced in this House on a number of occasions. On each occasion on which it has been introduced, members of the Opposition or members of the Government have talked the Bill out. I am very pleased that the Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Speyer), has agreed that for the first time in the history of this nation this very important question will in fact be studied and given the thoughtful study that it deserves.
I understand that the Government is prepared to allow the subject matter of this Bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That committee has struck a special subcommittee which is charged with the very important responsibility of examining the implications of the coming into effect of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
One of the issues which is being addressed by that subcommittee which I have the honour to be a member, is the whole question of the extent to which current federal legislation and practices may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore, I welcome the commitment of the Parliamentary Secretary as well as of the Chairperson of that subcommittee, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), who has recognized the importance of study without in any way precluding a decision to be made by that committee.
The parliamentary subcommittee is considering the whole question of equality rights. As I have indicated, one of the questions that has been addressed by the Minister of Justice in that study is the question of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I have noted as well that each year for the last four years the Canadian Human Rights Commission has strongly urged Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act as I have suggested in this Bill, that is, to include the provisions dealing with sexual orientation.
There are some who ask why it is necessary, why the Government should add sexual orientation as a prohibited
Canadian Human Rights Act
ground of discrimination and what is the need for change in this area of the law. After all, we are not dealing with a visible minority. Certainly there continues in Canada today to be a great deal of discrimination against visible minorities. The report Equality Now, an excellent report which was tabled in the last Parliament, has documented the extent of discrimination against visible minorities.
I would suggest that gays and lesbians in Canada today continue to be subject to discrimination and to many of the hardships and much of the pain that is faced by visible minorities. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that if all of the gays and lesbians in Canada were to suddenly become tomorrow a visible minority, Canadians would realize the extent to which gays and lesbians are active in our community, indeed are active in communities across Canada at all levels of our society.
There is still a great deal of discrimination. Gays and lesbians are still the victims of too much pain and too much violence in Canada. Discrimination exists in hiring practices at the federal level. One of the most glaring examples of that discrimination, of course, was the recent firing of five women from the Canadian Armed Forces, women with an outstanding record of service to the forces and to their country. They were treated as common criminals. They were interrogated by military police. They lost their jobs and lost their livelihood.
I would urge that this Parliament recognize that that is a grave injustice. Policies which allow for the Firing of gays and lesbians from the Armed Forces, policies which prevent the hiring on the basis of sexual orientation in the Armed Forces, RCMP or External Affairs, are policies which have no place in the law books of Canada today.
I would suggest as well that we must look seriously at federal statutes, including the Criminal Code, the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Employment Act, the Income Tax Act and the Immigration Act. To the extent that this legislation discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, that legislation too should be amended. In the case of the Criminal Code, for example, there are still far too many discriminatory provisions in the area of gross indecency which perpetrate an unequal age of consent, provisions with respect to bawdy-house laws which have been used in a repressive manner against the gay community and which, once again, should not be in the Criminal Code today.
I spoke earlier of pain and I spoke of violence. Once again, we do not have to deal just with the pain and the violence of the five women who were fired from their jobs in Nova Scotia. We are reminded of the tragic death, the suicide of a middle-aged married man in St. Catharines who burned himself to death after he was arrested on a gross indency charge. I would suggest that to the extent that this Parliament fails to act to put an end to discrimination against gays and lesbians, we must all share to a certain extent in the tragedy and in the responsibility for tragedy that occurs because such discrimination continues.
I recently met with a group of gays and lesbians in Sudbury in northern Ontario. One of the people who was there was a

March 26, 1985
Canadian Human Rights Act
young high school student. He spoke to me of the harassment, the taunts and, yes, the beatings that he faced in his school because of the fact that he happens to be gay. That cannot be acceptable in Canada today.
The National Gay Task Force of the United States documented in an excellent report on anti-gay and lesbian victimization the fact that violence continues to be far too widespread. The introduction to the report reads:
After centuries of oppression, invisibility, and isolation, gay and lesbian people have claimed the right to participate fully in society and to enjoy the same rights and privileges accorded heterosexuals. In the ensuing struggle, ever greater numbers have "come out" and built new relationships, institutions and communities.
While greater visibility has helped to strengthen gay/lesbian self-respect and community, for many it has resulted in greater vulnerability to violence and crime. Now that lesbians and gay men have a higher profile, they are more readily identifiable to those who deliberately seek to victimize them because of their sexual orientation.
The report goes on to document the very serious statistics indicating that more than nine in 10 of the respondents to the survey put out by the task force indicate that they experienced some form of victimization because of their sexual orientation. That can include threats of violence and being punched, hit, kicked or beaten.
As well, there is an added dimension of oppression and pain and that is the oppression of having to conceal one's sexual identity from one's friends, one's family and one's fellow employees. That particular form of oppression can be just as invidious. When the Canadian Coalition of Lesbians and Gay Men appeared before the Constitution Committee, this was put very eloquently in the following terms:
In the present circumstances, gay people are either vulnerable to discrimination, or are forced to try to escape such oppression by concealing their sexual identity. Neither alternative can be countenanced in a democratic society. The first alternative offends the principle of minority rights. The second alternative is surely one of the most oppressive forms of discrimination-to pressure people into lives built around deception and lies. Imagine what it would be like for heterosexuals to be either exposed to unjustified discrimination against them, or to be forced to conceal their husbands and wives from co-workers, to never be truthful about their home lives.
That is the situation today.
1 would like to make it very clear that this Bill is not in any way a statement of endorsement of a particular lifestyle. Once again, it is clear that the Bill is not suggesting that the majority does or does not endorse homosexuality as a way of life, but rather that we genuinely accept the principle of supporting the rights of a minority. It is one thing to recognize that someone has a right to do something, and something quite different to say that it is the right thing for that particular person to do.
The majority of Canadians recognize that democratic civil liberties require the elimination of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Just as the native Indian needs protection from racism and women need protection from sexism, gay people need protection in law from homophobia.
There are other forms of violence to which gay people are subjected. The violence of certain extreme elements of the Evangelical community like the Jimmy Swaggarts of the t.v. world incites people to violence under the guise of Christian philosophy. I suggest that this is a perversion of Christian philosophy. When people say things like Jimmy Swaggart did in his publication The Evangelist, we know that there are problems. After quoting from the Old Testament, he said:
In Old Testament days the practising homosexual was stoned to death.
He went on to quote from Romans and then said:
God is saying here that not only is the homosexual worthy of death, but (perhaps) also those who approve of homosexuality.
That kind of hate literature has no place in Canada today. Those same purveyors of hatred have promoted the hatred of gays and lesbians by taking advantage of public concern over the deadly disesse AIDS. There is in our community today a health care crisis. In the last three years in Canada, 105 people have died from AIDS and the incidence is increasing dramatically. It is therefore essential that we improve the level of funding of research as well as education about this deadly disease in a sensitive and responsible manner.
In conclusion, I would argue that the time has surely come for us in Canada to recognize that no man and no woman should be denied the fundamental equality of access to jobs, housing and services on the basis of his or her sexual orientation. Changes in the laws will not overnight change the hearts and the minds of people whose response to gays and lesbians promotes pain and oppression. However, such changes are an essential first step toward the creation of a society in which each individual is recognized for his or her inherent worth and dignity as a human being. Such changes in the law will hopefully also hasten the day when no man or woman and no young student in Sudbury or anywhere else in the country will be the victim of fear, violence and intolerance because he or she happens to be gay or lesbian. That day cannot come too soon.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago, a parliamentary subcommittee was established for the purposes of studying in detail across the country the question of equality rights in Canada. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has quite accurately stated that the subject matter of the Bill on which he spoke should properly go before that subcommittee.
I would like to emphasize that in no way does my Party associate itself with the comments made by the Hon. Member. Nevertheless, he is correct that the matter should be referred to the subcommittee because the subject matter ought to be studied and voted upon and a report ought to be made to the Justice Committee and in turn to the House.
I suspect that very soon in this debate there will be another motion which would refer the entire subject matter of the Bill to the subcommittee on justice. The Government accedes to that request because it has already had many other such requests and notices of testimony that will ensue with respect to that subject matter.
March 26, 1985

I do emphasize that the reflections and submissions that have been made today by the Hon. Member for Burnaby in no way reflect upon what I personally believe nor upon what Hon. Members on this side of the House believe.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak on this matter and to move a motion. I do not know whether or not a member of the Liberal Party wishes to speak. If not, I will speak briefly and move the motion to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred.
First, I would like to congratulate the Government for setting up the committee on equality and I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) who is present. He is a new Member. I would like to point out that he had better be successful with this committee. I grew up in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. If the Hon. Member is not successful, I will come back and run against him. I am sure he will have some measure of success with this committee.
I was listening to the words of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). He said that just as the native Indians need protection from racism and women need protection from sexism, gay people need protection in law from homophobia. In 1984, it still takes courage to say those kinds of things in the Canadian Parliament. People will read Hansard of today years in the future and will wonder why I am saying this. However, it is a fact of life that it is still very courageous for someone to take on those issues.
The riding of Vancouver-Kingsway was once represented by Angus Maclnnis. Against a tidal wave of public opinion, he took up the cause of the Japanese-Canadians from 1941 to 1945. Unfortunately, he is not here to see some of the results of his labours and realize that in 1985 something is being done to correct the wrong that was done to the Japanese-Canadians. We are now acknowledging the hurt and the consequences of the actions which the Government took back then. It took a long time for society to respond to that issue.
His wife, Grace Maclnnis, was the only female Member in the House of Commons in 1968. Today, there are many female Members in the House who are very active. When we see the swell and tide of the women's movement today we realize that sometimes it takes a long time to accomplish things.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby is courageous, outspoken and on the cutting edge of some of these issues. I applaud him, and apparently his electors do as well, as he received a handsome mandate in the last election.
The Hon. Member made reference to the gentleman who committed suicide after an unfortunate incident in southwestern Ontario. There could be a lot of debate about that issue, but I believe that all reasonable Canadians must feel that that suicide was a waste. Did that man have to do that? Are we in a society which forces a person to feel so much guilt that he has to commit suicide? He was a family man. There is something wrong. That suicide should not have happened. Therefore, I
Canadian Human Rights Act
look forward to hearing representations on these matters in committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary should not back off too quickly, because basically we are recognizing equality. I feel as a social democrat-and I think my feeling is shared by others- that we are discussing equality. I think we all agree that people should be treated equally, without discrimination. We should end discrimination wherever possible in Canada. I think we are all committed to that. It is one of the things which makes Canada such a great country.
I welcome the Bill and the fact that the Government has referred it to committee. In addition, I am glad that the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is chairing the committee. I am sure he will do a good job as he is well qualified. Again, I salute the Hon. Member for Burnaby for his courage, tenacity and willingness to tackle these very important civil liberty issues in Canadian society. It is a tradition which was evident in the CCFf and is evident in the NDP and in other Parties. People such as Gordon Fairweather, John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau also worked very hard on these important issues.
I would like to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-225, and Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be not
now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn
and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, is unanimous consent required?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion is debatable.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few remarks on the Bill under consideration introduced by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), not to mention the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).
First I want to congratulate both Members on their courage to raise in the House an issue which is highly controversial but which, in my opinion, in 1985, must be discussed in Parliament, be it here in the House or in one of the committees.
As Hon. Members know, illegality surrounding the whole question of homosexuality disappeared with the adoption of an omnibus Bill introduced by a Liberal Government in 1968. At the time, it was said that the Government did not have any business in the bedrooms of the nation. To put it shortly, the purpose of the 1968 Bill was to remove any suggestion of criminality from homosexual relationships. However, the mes-

March 26, 1985
Canadian Human Rights Act
sage conveyed to the Canadian public was not that this House, the then Government and the Opposition Parties wanted to encourage or promote homosexuality in Canada by adopting that Bill. On the contrary, the House was attempting to tell Canadians that they should show tolerance and acceptance of principles which are not necessarily endorsed by the majority. In a sense, it was a way of alleviating the tyranny of the majority over minorities, over people who oftentimes share marginal ideas.
The fact remains that there is a widely spread sentiment among Canadians today, including those who do not share the views of the gay community, that persons who belong to that minority group do suffer from discrimination, that time has come to debate the issue in the Canadian Parliament and to take appropriate measures so that protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be readily available to all Canadians.
I think that the matter ought to be referred to committee. Indeed, I commend the Government for seeing it that way. Besides, I would suggest that the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway makes it easier to debate the issue: we are not going to refer the Bill to committee, only the subject-matter of the Bill. The question is: Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide enough protection against discrimination with respect to homosexuals?
Mr. Speaker, we need only mention the provincial charters and especially that of my own province, Quebec, which contains provisions to protect people against discrimination on the basis of homosexuality. I think that unless we want to go through life with blinkers on, we can hardly object to the subject of the Bill being referred to an appropriate committee of the House for discussion. I realize that some Canadians may not agree with a proposal to add a provision protecting homosexuals. However, if the subject is referred to committee, they will have a chance to express their views, and it will also be an opportunity for those who favour this point of view to come here to Ottawa before Parliament to express their opinion.
Personally, I support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I think the time has come to discuss this question openly here in Parliament.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak quite briefly and not in any way to challenge the intent of the amendment or the original indication of the Parliamentary Secretary that this matter be referred to committee. I would just like to go on record as expressing regret for part of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), namely, his reference to Evengelical Christians. I do not think those comments added to the merit of his address. In fact, they detracted from it, and I think that someone in this Chamber should make that point for the record.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that one does not increase understanding and tolerance for one group of Canadians by indicating intolerance and rejection for another group of Canadians. Let us try to maintain in as wide a frame of reference as possible this desire for understanding and try to get inside the point of view of those with whom we disagree. We should ask ourselves what they are trying to say and what they represent.
I certainly, as much as the Hon. Member for Burnaby, abhor any incitement to violence against any group of Canadians. However, I think we must respect the values and convictions which have been part of Canada and its traditions, traditions which Canadians must honour.
I welcome the decision of the Government's spokesman to refer this matter to committee for a number of reasons. First, I think we need to take a very searching look, as a Parliament, at this proposal. We cannot do that within the time available in this hour. We need the more thorough inspection which can be given by the committee. We need to hear from the various groups within Canada who will make representations to the committee, and we may, indeed, find that worth-while things are said against the proposal, things which this Parliament needs to hear and considerations this Parliament needs to weigh. We do not have the opportunity within this hour, but I certainly anticipate that the committee, in giving a more thorough examination to this question, will afford us that opportunity.
Most of all, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the examination of this issue by the committee will enable all Hon. Members of Parliament, regardless of Party and personal convictions, and will equally enable all Canadians, regardless of their backgrounds, to consider a very important distinction which must be drawn between personal morality and the law; common law or criminal law. We do not need, because of personal convictions, to use the law to enforce those convictions on others. Conversely, we do not need to suggest that in the law being changed we imply a change of moral perspective on the part of individual Members of Parliament or Canada as a society. I do not feel it at all necessary for us to imply any approval of homosexuality because of any change which may be made in the status of homosexuals before the law. Whether we approve or disapprove is a matter of personal conviction which we as individuals take, and have a right to take, and we may insist in taking that stand as individual Members of Parliament with regard not only to our own behaviour but to our own attitude toward other individuals.
All Canadians have a right to equality before the law. All Canadians have a right to what is referred to in the original motion as "human rights". We have those rights for one reason alone, namely, we are people and, therefore, we have the right to claim certain rights and privileges which require no other claim but our humanity.
I look upon this motion in those terms and I welcome the opportunity of this committee and this House to examine this proposal again. But in no way should it imply to the Canadian people that we as a Parliament are changing our attitudes as individual Hon. Members with regard to personal behaviour or
March 26, 1985

personal values. We are but taking a searching look at the rights of Canadians, in particular one group of Canadians, and these are rights which we would want for all people simply because they are people with us.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak very long and I do not intend to address the subject matter of this particular motion. I do however question the necessity to refer this matter specifically to the committee. One reason is that April 17 will be a very momentous and historic day in this country. On that day the equality rights provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes into effect. The Government is proposing Bill C-27, which will be discussed tomorrow. The Government also issued a discussion paper entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law. In effect, what the Government has proposed to do in Bill C-27 is to deal with the non-controversial items of equality, which are basically housekeeping matters in the existing legislation, that is, changing husband and wife to "spouse" and changing son and daughter to "child". The Government has then referred the more controversial aspects of Section 15, equality rights, to this special subcommittee headed by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer).
I personally question the necessity for that particular subcommittee. On April 17 of this year, Section 15 will be the supreme law of this country. No federal majority can in any way change that supreme law because it will be part of the Constitution and of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will be a matter of interpretation by the courts to determine the extent of this particular section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Much to my chagrin, and to the chagrin of all those who fought so very hard during the constitutional debate, the Government has not taken definitive action to correct the inequities, imbalances and discrimination which exist in present federal legislation. In that respect, I understand there are over 1,000 pieces of federal legislation. The former Government initiated an audit of the legislation, and it was the intent of the previous Government to amend the laws in major ways to conform to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead of providing the necessary leadership to articulate what the Government feels the definition of equality to be, the Government has decided to allows the whole matter to have more public debate and more consultation. Therefore, the special subcommittee of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will travel across the country to hear the views of Canadians.
It was said by one human rights activitist that one does not define minority rights by the views of the majority. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that that is what the Government is suggesting. The subcommittee will travel across this country and listen to the views of people, and no doubt the majority views will be articulated. There comes a time when the Government has to provide the necessary leadership. There comes a time when the Government has to make the tough decisions. The time has come, in my view, Mr. Speaker, for this Government to tell Canada what it believes to be the definition of
Canadian Human Rights Act
equality, what those words in Section 15(1) mean in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those 46 words will produce, no doubt, millions upon millions of other words in legal jurisprudence to define that particular subsection.
The Government, by its actions in refusing to provide leadership and amend the legislation to obviate the inequality which exists in federal legislation, is forcing litigation. It is forcing those minority groups, Indians, women, the visible minorities, gays and lesbians and all the others, to fight their battles again. When they fought their battles in 1982, they won and the result was Section 15(1). But now the Government is saying that these people have to refight those battles and come before a committee to articulate again their views and concerns. It will then be up to the subcommittee to make recommendations to the Government. Then they will have to wait, the oppressed and the discriminated against, for further legislation to amend the existing legislation.
It seems to me that if I was discriminated against, I would not bother appearing before this special committee. It would be a colossal waste of time. What I would do is to issue a writ. I would go to court immediately and have the courts define what Section 15(1) means. It is, as I indicated previously, the supreme law of the country now. This Government alone cannot change Section 15(1). Indeed, it requires the consent, as I understand it, of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population before this section can be changed. I concede that there is an override provision, but it seems to me that it ought not not be used, and I am even somewhat concerned that it exists. Section 15(1) says:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
What is missing is sexual orientation. It is not here. No doubt this matter was debated at length in this House and in committee, and a decision was made. I was not here at the time but many compromises had to be made in order to ensure that we had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of those compromises was that the legislation would be delayed three years in order to allow the federal and provincial Governments to ensure that their respective laws conformed to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, although the previous Government initiated the audit of our legislation and started the process, this Parliament has not completed it. I fully expected that this Government would have introduced that legislation to make April 17 a more historic and momentous day.
The discussion paper the Government tabled, called Equality Issues in Federal Law, indicates that the list under this section is open-ended in the sense that sexual orientation is not excluded because it is not enumerated, but that the items enumerated are not exhaustive. By the wording of that particular section one could challenge discrimination based on sexual orientation in the courts and could very well be successful.

March 26, 1985
Canadian Human Rights Act
I now go back to the process suggested by the Government and the NDP. They are suggesting that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and presumably it will also be referred to the subcommittee which will be travelling across the country. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with this travelling road show because I think the Government should provide leadership and amend the legislation and provide Canadians with a definition of equality, no doubt sexual orientation will be one of the items discussed before the committee. Therefore, in conclusion, I question the need for this process. Perhaps the Government is trying to give a message with respect to its position on this Bill. I personally do not think it is necessary specifically to refer the subject matter because no doubt it will be discussed before the committee. But once again, in my view, those who would waste their time by attending this subcommittee would perhaps better serve his or her cause by immediately going to court and getting a judicial interpretation of what equality means in this country now.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House and one who has the honour to be Chairman of the Subcommittee on Equality Rights, I cannot let the comments that were just made pass without some rejoinder. I came into the House this afternoon not intending to speak but simply to be here and listen to what the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) had to say in the course of discussing this Bill, which is now to be referred to the Standing Committee. That is as I think it should be because the subject-matter can then be carefully considered and all points of view can be heard. Therefore, the last thing I wish to do is to talk at length now and run the risk that this Bill will be talked out and the subject-matter not referred to the committee.
But with respect to what the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has said, I will speak briefly now and when we have debate on Bill C-27 I will return to this Chamber again and speak at greater length, because he has taken a point of view which, if it were to be shared widely, either by Members of this House or by citizens of this country at large, would be harmful to the quest on which we have now embarked to establish true equality among men and women of all backgrounds who make up this country and are proud to call themselves Canadians.
When I hear the Hon. Member say it would be wasteful for people to invest time and energy to appear before our committee, then I think he does a profound disservice to the parliamentary process of this country. When I hear him say that his best advice to anyone would be to issue a writ and appear in court and try to assert his or her remedies under the Charter, then I say that that is the most narrow legalistic view that could possibly prevail. Indeed, I invite the Hon. Member to reconsider the traditions of his Party as well as of other Parties in this House in developing equality in programs and laws as the legal foundation on which men and women can stand and be seen to be equal, not only under the law but before the law.
To say that this is just a matter of law is to miss almost entirely the point and the purpose. The issues that are being referred to the Subcommittee on Equality Rights are not narrow legal issues. Yes, they come from the Constitution. Yes, they involve constitutional law. Yes, lawyers will have points of view on them. But, more profoundly and most important, we are looking at the social, economic and cultural policies of this country which are reflected in laws enacted through the decades. Our quest is to see whether those laws can now be changes. Wherever distinctions are made, we must ensure those distinctions are valid and do not employ any form of discriminatory practice or attitude. In making those changes we are going to carefully consider what has gone before so that we do not take part in unravelling important social relationships that have been developed in the laws and practices of Canada over many decades.
I see, Mr. Speaker, a three part process on which we are embarked. One is the narrow side of housekeeping amendments to eliminate from federal statutes the anomalies that are discriminatory in nature. That is what Bill C-27 is now before this House for. On the other side we also have the process whereby the conflicts and disputes will come before the courts of law and judges will decide whether rights are being infringed upon and what must be changed. That process will indeed start on April 17, but it will continue as long as Canada is a country and as long as we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The main purpose and process, the one on which we are now embarked as a committee, is to look at the broad and difficult policy considerations that are thrown up by the new provisions of Section 15.
Put very simply, Mr. Speaker, if we as Members of Parliament do not take that challenge to review profoundly the 1,100 federal laws in order to ensure that they are changed and brought into line with the spirit and the letter of Section 15, then we will have abdicated our role as parliamentarians, and the law makers of the country would be the appointed judges who sit in our courts. I, for one, much prefer to see the laws of this country made in the Parliament of Canada by men and women who are here elected by the people of this country.
I do not shrink away from the consultative process that is embarked upon. I think it is much preferable to have the men and women of Canada speaking on the issues. Reasonable men and women can differ on the issues before us. It is far better that the matter be turned over to a committee to weigh all these points of view and hear them together than that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) should make these points and decide what the laws should be.
The Member for York South-Weston referred with some pride to the fact that the previous Government had started an inventory of federal laws. In fact, less than two hours ago when our committee was meeting we heard from the Minister of Justice that the review of federal laws in light of Section 15 was not commenced within the Department until January of 1984. With that fact on the record and known to other
March 26, 1985

members of his Party, it does not do him any great service to come to the House and lament the fact that there has been foot-dragging on this issue. Along with trade issues, this subject is very much the issue of the decade. It deserves the careful time and attention that it will receive.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Waddell) agreed to.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, am I entitled to speak on the main motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Yes, you may debate the motion as amended.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer). I was indicating that by the Government's lack of action and by its refusing to make the tough decisions, the Government is forcing minority groups to go to court. If one is serious about equality, one would be well advised to go to court rather than wait for the subcommittee to hear deputations and wait for legislation to be introduced in the House. I question what the results of this travelling committee will be. Certain questions are raised in this particular discussion paper. In a news release of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) he asks the question which this subcommittee should address, that is, whether requirements relating to length of employment for maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act should remain greater than requirements for regular benefits.
This issue will be discussed before this special committee and ultimately the Government will have to make a decision. Does the existing legislation constitute inequality? Should the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended? The Government will have to make that decision. It seems to me that the Government wants to govern by plebiscite and public opinion polls. The Government is afraid to make the tough decisions and afraid to protect minority groups. It is afraid to offend anyone. If you are sincere and true and believe in equality, you will make those tough decisions.
By re-opening the old wounds and issuing a discussion paper, the Government is telling these minority groups that everything is up for discussion again. The equality provisions have already been included in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we must now define what equality means. Mr. Speaker, I thought that was what the debate was all about in and before 1982.
Adjournment Debate


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but he did indicate earlier that he had no intention of talking this particular motion out. I would hope that, in the spririt of co-operation which he showed earlier, he might recognize that there is a danger of doing that.


John V. Nunziata: With respect to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), I did not indicate that I did not intend to talk this Bill out, and I do not intend to talk it out, but I think it is necessary to respond to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I have very serious concerns about this committee re-opening discussion on the question of equality. It is forcing these people to litigate if they truly want to further their particular goals. The Government should be making those decisions with respect to the issues that are raised in this discussion paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Shall the motion as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Robinson) as amended, agreed to, Bill withdrawn and subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Wise), I put a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture concerning the Government's plans with regard to meat import quotas, especially as they relate to European Economic Community beef and U.S. beef coming into Canada.
On December 21, after three and one-half months, the Government invoked the meat import law as a result of the massive shipments of subsidized beef into Canada in the fall of 1984. The Government set the quota at 146.5 million pounds of beef. Although it took the Government three and one-half months to make this decision, I think it is a commendable move by the Department, especially in light of representations

March 26, 1985
Adjournment Debate
which we are receiving from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and other groups.
The quota allotment for the EEC was fixed at 5.9 million pounds, yet since that time the Government has already let some seven million pounds into the country. I understand as well that the Government has negotiated an increase of some 44 million pounds from the 21 million pound quota for the United States, to some 65 million pounds.
According to a CP press report on March 15, it seems that the EEC is demanding a quota of some 23 thousand tonnes, or 51 million pounds of beef. It is trying desperately hard to increase that quota of 5.9 million to some 33 million pounds in this calendar year. They have registered a countervailing duty against a number of farm commodities, such as honey, maple syrup, tobacco, mustard seed and a number of other items, for $51 million. It would appear from the response by the Acting Minister of Agriculture that the Government is proceeding to negotiate with the EEC. However, I see no reason for negotiations when the EEC was dumping subsidized meat in unprecedented amounts by up to 48 cents a pound into the Canadian market in 1984. The historical average from 1978 to 1983 was some 5.9 million pounds and I do not understand why the Government should negotiate for up to 33 million pounds or even higher.
In order to put the question in perspective, the United States allows some 11 million pounds of meat into that country. The United States with 240 million people has a market that is ten times the size of the Canadian market. If that 11 million pounds is suitable for the United States, 5.9 million pounds or less would be suitable for Canada.
The Minister said that he is currently negotiating. I am concerned about allowing the 33 million pounds that the EEC is apparently demanding. This would mean that our meat imports from all sources-from Australia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, the United States and the EEC-would be some 216 million pounds.
It is important for the Government to stiffen its backbone and to stop acting like a jellyfish. It should march into the GATT tribunal in Geneva and fight for our beef producers in light of the 51 million pounds of subsidized beef which was allowed in last year and what the EEC is demanding now. Mark my words, if the Government does not do that, Canada will become a dumping ground for the entire world, because other countries will know that the Government of Canada is not prepared to go to GATT and fight countervailing duties such as the one which is now being proposed by the EEC.
It is very interesting that the Australian Minister of Primary Industry expressed his concern and support for Canada. In fact, I understand Australia offered its support in the GATT tribunal to stop the wholesale dumping of subsidized beef into the Canadian red meat market.
I certainly hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate that the Government is prepared to stand up
and fight for our beef producers and to maintain the integrity of our meat import law which has been set at 146.5 million pounds for this calendar year.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted to frame one of the sentences my colleague from Algoma (Mr. Foster) pronounced a few minutes ago, when he referred to a measure taken by this Government as good. It must be the first time. I will have to re-read Hansard, since I have not been exposed to very many words of praise coming from my hon. friend from Algoma.
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Government is not backing down under pressure. However, it is consulting more with the exporting countries, as was announced when the import quotas were imposed. Mr. Speaker, Canada has a number of international trade obligations and rights and as a result, our trading partners are entitled to take part in a consultative process, as is happening at the present time.

In the case of the EEC, its publicly announced intention to retaliate against Canada's system of import controls in accordance with its perceived GATT rights is not the overriding criterion by which the Government is being guided. Rather, it is by our announced intention to work out an arrangement which would continue to safeguard Canadian industry from unfair and damaging import competition.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that a negotiated settlement is preferable to a series of attacks and counter-attacks which benefits nobody and which could not serve as the basis for a long term trade policy. The Canadian people clearly indicated their stand when they elected us on September 4.
I suggest that the era of confrontation is over. We must negotiate and deal openly with our partners. It is all very well to stand up and fight for Canadian farmers. But we are not here to fight but to solve problems. Mr. Speaker, we have solved quite a number of problems since September, without too much fuss about it. What matters is providing Canadian farmers with a sound administration both of our export and domestic markets. That is what the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has been doing all along, and that is what the government will go on doing in the weeks and months to come. There is no need to worry, in my opinion, about the way this matter is being dealt with. I think that we did what we had to do and I can assure the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) that Canadian beef producers can count on our monitoring the situation constantly.
March 26, 1985


LABOUR RELATIONS-CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS LAY-OFFS. (B) GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like this afternoon to pursue a couple of concerns I raised in the House about lay-offs at the CNR. 1 expressed concern sometime ago about the lay-off of railway carmen announced in early March, a lay-off which the CNR explained in terms of a reduced workload in the area of passenger rail equipment. This reduced workload is related to a VIA decision not to go ahead with plans to removate old equipment, a decision which I think will prove to be a mistake. When service is restored to several passenger rail routes this June, they will need all the equipment they can get and the new equipment will not yet be on stream.
I expressed concern more recently about even larger lay-offs announced just several days ago of some 474 railroaders across the CNR system. The injustice of this lay-off has been compounded by the fact that the CNR chose to give only two weeks' notice to these workers when normally they would be required to give several weeks' notice. The CNR has used the regulation in the Canada Labour Code which provides that companies can waive the normal notice period if employees will be in receipt of supplementary unemployment benefits.
Yet, many of the younger workers laid off at the Transcona shops, for instance, will not be eligible for such benefits as they will not have worked for the company the required two years, and yet will still only receive the minimum two weeks' notice. In my opinion, this is a violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Canada Labour Code. The CNR should be ashamed of itself. How the president of CNR expects to increase productivity or to improve its corporate image by acting in this way is beyond me. I certainly would not break my back for someone who was ready to cut off my livelihood on two weeks notice in order to improve his quaterly profit margin.
What is needed is a commitment to employment security, something the rail unions are in the process of negotiating. This was in conciliation at the time of the lay-off, and still is. What is the CNR up to? Is it trying to reduce its workforce before it agrees to a no lay-off clause or is it just the usual disgusting tactic of having a lay-off during the negotiation process, a tactic which has gone on for years and years?
I say to the Government and to the Minister that if the new Government is serious about trying to create a new era of labour management relations, it will at the very least instruct the CNR to give full notice to these employees who were laid off as a result of the most recent announcement. If it is really serious, it will order the CNR to cancel the lay-off altogether in view of the fact that negotiations are proceeding at this time, and stop asking railroaders and their families to pay for the short-term financial needs of this Crown corporation.
The CNR has been allowed to rent rolling stock from American railroads. These thousands of cars are not repaired
Adjournment Debate
in Canada, but returned to the U.S. for repair to create and sustain employment in the United States of America. Is this the new Government strategy, I ask, for creating jobs, jobs and more jobs here in Canada? Instead of renting American equipment, we should be employing all the Canadian rail workers we can to repair and maintain our own fleet of rolling stock, both passenger and freight, proceeding with the boxcar rehabilitation program that was planned for Transcona, and eventually building in Transcona the new hopper cars of which a prototype is about to be developed.
Keeping people working on the railroad is an investment in our future. It is a way of increasing the confidence the Government is always talking about. It would be a way of helping put to an end the erosion of the workforce of both the CNR and CPR as a result of short-term profit strategies, combined with an uncritical attitude toward technological change that is increasingly putting employee and public safety at risk.
The work force of the CNR and the CPR has been decreasing literally by the thousands for a number of years. It the railways have their way, it will decrease by a lot more. Whether it be the attempt to run cabooseless trains, the changes at the hump in Symington Yard where far too much is being expected of a new generation computer and human judgment is being removed altogether through the removal of the manual car retarders, the plan to have robot locomotives work in the yard, the attempt to reduce car inspection frequency and quality by utilizing trainmen instead of carmen to do inspections, or the attempt to abolish divisional points like Nakina, Ontario; all add up to a need for the federal Government to yell "halt", and to give Parliamentarians and the public an opportunity to take a second look at just what is going on with the railways in this country.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to a question asked of me in the House by the then Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). I know the Hon. Member is aware that some of the questions with which he prefaced his statement will not be answered by the Minister of Labour.
Regarding the plans of Canadian National Railways to lay off 474 workers in Montreal, Winnipeg, Moncton and various other locations across Canada, I would like to explain that under Part III of the Canada Labour Code, 16 weeks' notice and the establishment of a joint planning committee are required whenever 50 or more employees are terminated over a four-week period within a single industrial establishment. The group notice requirement does not alter the fact that each individual employee to be terminated is still entitled to two weeks' notice or two weeks' pay in lieu thereof.
A lay-off does not constitute termination under the Code when, for example, it lasts for less than three months or it is longer than three months and the employee receives supplementary unemployment benefits, or it lasts up to 12 months and the employee maintains recall rights pursuant to a collec-

March 26, 1985
Adjournment Debate
tive bargaining agreement. However, a lay-off is deemed to be a termination whenever the foregoing conditions cease to exist, such as upon the exhaustion of supplementary unemployment benefits, or when the lay-off lasts beyond 12 months in a recall-rights situation under a collective agreement.
A complaint of non-compliance with the group termination provisions in Division V.2 has been investigated by officials in the St. Lawrence region. I am pleased to advise that CN intends to pay each employee five weeks' supplementary unemployment benefits for each year of service, and furthermore that each employee has recall rights for life, under the collective agreement. At this time, there is no apparent violation of the group termination provisions of the Code. The lay-offs in question do not constitute terminations under the Code, because the employees will receive supplementary unemployment benefits.
Regional officials of Labour Canada will monitor the situation in order to ensure that all affected employees receive the benefits to which they are entitled under the Code, and that the provisions of the Code are complied with, particularly since the supplementary unemployment benefits will expire at different times because of the varying years of service of each employee. I believe that that would indicate to the Hon. Member and to the House our intention to ensure that the Canada Labour Code be adhered to. We in Labour Canada are determined always to adhere to the legislation under which we operate.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-DISMISSAL OF LESBIAN PERSONNEL. (B) REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF NO FURTHER DISMISSALS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on March 5 last, I questioned the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) with respect to a very serious situation in Nova Scotia in which five women who were members of the Canadian Armed Forces and who happened to be lesbians lost their jobs at Canadian Forces Station Shelburne. At that time, I pointed out to the Minister that the women posed no threat whatsoever to Canada's national security and that they were qualified members of the Armed Forces. I asked him why he allowed a policy to remain on the books which discriminates so blatantly against Canadian gays and lesbians.
1 would like to take this opportunity to amplify that question and express the very serious concern that today in Canada this kind of firing can take place. The current policy of the Canadian Armed Forces is set out in Canadian Forces orders and regulations 19-20. It is a Draconian order. It states:
7. Service policy does not allow homosexual members or members with a sexual abnormality to be retained in the CF.
It goes further. It forces individuals who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces to identify anyone that they may suspect to be a homosexual. Paragraph 2 of the regulations states:
If a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline becomes aware, or suspects that a member of the Canadian Forces... is a homosexual, or has a sexual abnormality, he shall report the matter to the commanding officer-
The military police are then brought in and the individual is apprehended and questioned. In some cases, the person is questioned over a period of days. In this particular instance, one of the women was questioned for several hours in a small room, as if she was a common criminal.
I would suggest that the policy of the Canadian Armed Forces in firing qualified men and women who happen to be gay or lesbian is completely unacceptable. It is a very serious denial of the fundamental rights and freedoms of those individuals.
What is the basis for that policy? In 1981, the former Chief of Staff for the Canadian Armed Forces said that in such a milieu, persons having unusual behaviour traits may attempt to inflict them upon others. He said that there was only one method of assuring the service men and women that their rights would be respected and that was by denying employment to homosexuals. That argument is patently unacceptable. Of course, anyone, anywhere in Canadian society who does not respect the rights of other individuals with whom he or she works is subject to the full sanctions of the law.
Another excuse was given by Admiral Falls. He stated:
As a matter of fact, experience has shown that the presence of homosexuals can be most disruptive. Such disruption often takes the form of physical attacks on the homosexual(s) concerned, and it is possible to prevent this sort of thing only by avoiding the employment of homosexuals in the first place.
We have heard that argument before with respect to blacks, women and other minorities. We would love to be able to employ them but they might be beaten up if we hire them, so we will not hire them! Once again, I suggest that this Parliament should reject that kind of reasoning.
The final argument which was made by the Armed Forces in denying the right of men and women to join the Armed Forces who may be homosexual, and in firing others, is that those individuals may be a threat to national security. There are all sorts of bases upon which an individual might become a threat to national security, but how can it possibly be suggested that someone who makes no secret of their sexual orientation is a threat to national security? Surely, that argument is patently ridiculous. I would suggest that even the Armed Forces today does not attempt with any great degree of conviction to put that argument forward.
Pending a review of this particular policy by the Subcommittee on Equality Rights which has been charged with this responsibility, not only in the context of Section 15 of the Charter or Rights but also in the context of the referral of the Bill which I proposed today that would end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I would urge that the Government not wait until that study has been completed. There has been too much pain and suffering inflicted on people who are not criminals, but who happen to be gay or lesbian. Certainly, these are people who are outstanding members of the Armed Forces. I would call upon the Government to institute a moratorium. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
March 26, 1985

of National Defence (Mr. Wenman) to give a commitment that, pending the review of this very serious question, and in recognition of the denial of rights of the individuals involved, the Government will undertake that no men or women will be dismissed from the Armed Forces, will lose their jobs and their livelihoods, on the basis of their sexual orientation.
It is not only a source of great pain, considerable financial loss and personal hardship to those individuals who are the victims of discrimination, but I would remind the House that for those many individuals who remain within the Armed Forces, at all levels, and who happen to be gay or lesbian, there is an additional element of oppression by virtue of the fact that they must maintain the secrecye of their sexual orientation. That oppression in many cases is certainly as serious as the oppression suffered by individuals who are kicked out of the Armed Forces.
I have had correspondence and telephone calls from a number of these people, and I emphasize, at all levels of the Armed Forces. Let us bring the Canadian Armed Forces into the twentieth century. Let us recognize the right to equality for men and women in the Armed Forces who happen to be gay or lesbian and put an end to this policy of blatant discrimination.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the points and questions raised by the Hon. Member in his question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) on March 5 are worthy of thoughtful and serious consideration. I am pleased to say that our Government has decided to give the matter that kind of thoughtful and serious consideration through the process of a parliamentary committee. We will follow the work of the committee with considerable interest and await the outcome in the very positive spirit with which the House of Commons has just considered the motion of the Hon. Member.
Referring to the Hon. Member's specific question, as the Hon. Member will recall, the Minister pointed out that he is in
Adjournment Debate
fact part of the formal grievance process which flows from the prevailing National Defence Act. On March 5 the Hon. Member stated, "There is no grievance provision in place for these women". I would, however, like to inform the Hon. Member that several of these former members of the Armed Forces are now in the process of pursuing their redress according to the law. They are now at the level of the Chief of the Defence Staff and could possibly go beyond that to the Minister and, indeed, to the Governor in Council.
The Hon. Member is aware that the Minister made mention of the existing Canadian Armed Forces policy and regulations in this area. However, since the sub-committee on justice and legal affairs has begun its meetings on the broad issues, and since a report is expected from this committee some time next September, it would be inappropriate for the Minister to comment substantively on these regulations and specific cases, so as not to prejudice or disrupt the sub-committee's work.
The Hon. Member is aware that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) appeared this afternoon before the sub-committee dealing with these issues. Parliament will have to await the results of its deliberations and I am sure its report will form an important part of the information for the Government in dealing with these very important issues.
I am confident that the intent and interpretation of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will assure justice and equality among Canadians. The Hon. Member is now assured of his opportunity to express his point of view further in this committee and in this House of Commons, as are those who will present their opinions both for and against these points of view. We look forward to that discussion on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces.
[ Translation]


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 27, 1985