1985-03-20

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, history and contemporaries may judge governments by how they promote cultural development and growth and how they encourage artistic endeavour. Governments come and go, but the artistic achievements, the works of art produced during their mandate remain as witnesses of history.
Although the present Government has not been in power long enough to leave any tangible proof of its support for the arts, it is certainly not on the right track. If the recent cut-backs in federal expenditures on culture are any indication of the Government's intentions, I am convinced that this Government is prepared to preside over a massive erosion of this country's impressive cultural achievements.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this Government could not care less how it is judged today or in the future on its contribution to the cultural life of this country, but as a Member of this House and as a Canadian citizen, I have no wish to live in a culturally arid climate nor to leave a worthless legacy to future generations. I therefore urge the Government to do everything in its power to enrich our cultural life now and for future generations.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Government, as I brought to the attention of the former Government about a year ago, the fact that there is a very serious omission in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, which was amended and passed into law on April 27, 1983.
We are all aware that the amendments, among other things, raised the amount from $20,000 to $60,000 that one could
have on deposit in an account that would be insured against the possibility of a bank, trust company, or other institution in which the funds are deposited, going bankrupt. The Act, as it now reads, applies to funds in savings accounts, and also to fixed deposits for five years or less. However, funds on deposit that are locked in for a period of more than five years are not included and are not protected by the Canada Deposit Insurance Act.
I believe the vast majority of Canadians are unaware of this and believe that their funds are perfectly safe and protected if the term of fixed deposit is more than five years. Therefore, I call upon the Government to make this information readily available to Canadians, and to change the Canada Deposit Insurance Act so that it applies to all deposits, regardless of the number of years during which deposits are in place.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS DELAY IN SIGNING ERDA AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Vancouver Sun, Premier Bennett said that the 19 Conservative MPs from British Columbia "must fight for British Columbia in a caucus of over 200. They have to fight their colleagues for very limited federal dollars". He implied that they do not seem to have much influence with their own Government, and asked New Democrats to join in the fight. Although Premier Bennett has not communicated directly with us, I want to assure him that we will continue to fight, as we have in the past, for a fair share of federal dollars.
In spite of the demonstrated need in areas such as forestry and tourism, British Columbia is now the only province not to have an economic and regional development agreement with the federal Government. Earlier, Quebec signed a five-year $1.8 billion agreement. On a proportional basis, British Columbia should get $650 million. Why the long delay? Is it because the federal Government is not willing to put up the dollars for British Columbia despite our 15 per cent unemployment rate? Or is it because the provincial Socreds want to siphon money from reforestation to support election gimmicks such as the deficit on Expo '86? Or are both Governments simply playing games? The economic crisis is destroying individuals, families, and communities in British Columbia. Any help the federal and provincial Governments can give must be given now.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Member his time has expired. The Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Hockin).

March 20, 1985


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great feeling that I tell the House today of two constituents of mine, Terry and Tannis Jarvis, who, by their strength and determination, learned to cope with a situation that most of us cannot begin to imagine.
Three and one-half years ago, when their son Taylor was diagnosed as having a handicap, Terry and Tannis, like so many Canadian parents, were faced with the realities of raising a handicapped child. In their efforts to help parents like themselves to learn to cope with their initial confusion, frustration, and fear, they worked long hours to produce a free handbook entitled You Are Not Alone. This is a parent-to-par-ent handbook that gives their experiences, useful information, and valuable advice. It is unique because it was written by the parents themselves, not by psychologists, sociologists, or other specialists in the field.
This handbook was published by a provincial Government. 1 commend it to the House and express the hope that the Government of Canada will see fit to translate it and distribute it free, so all parents of handicapped children, regardless of the province in which they live, can benefit from it.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the arts and cultural industries speak to and of the heart and soul of our great country. They are vitally important to our national spirit, our sense of identity and belonging, and this I see as their primary purpose. Apart from this important contribution to our society, they are also important in material terms. The Government may or may not understand and appreciate the non material contribution of the arts to our society, but I do expect it to comprehend the economic and employment benefits which the arts and the cultural industries offer to our economy.
This is a vital and growing sector of our economy, Mr. Speaker, and the recent cuts to the cultural sector are therefore short-sighted, not only in purely cultural terms but in economic terms as well.
If the Government does not understand our hearts and minds, it does profess to understand the bottom line. If for no other reason than sound economics, I urge the Government to increase, not decrease, its investment in this rewarding sector of our society and our economy.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say few words about the major environmental protection program that will be aimed at reducing acid rain by 50 per cent between now and 1994 and at eliminating more than 45 per cent of hydrocarbon emissions between now and the year 2000.
The action plan announced by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) is the most ambitious program Canada has ever known. It has no equivalent anywhere in the world.
During the next decade, the offensive against acid rain in Canada will cost the Government more than $300 million. The previous Administration lacked the moral energy and political will to go ahead with such a plan.
In accordance with the strategy that has been announced, the Progressive Conservative Government is going beyond the conventional ecological rhetoric to take concrete action. Incidentally, this decision is part of an on-going process of co-operation with the provinces and especially with industry.
In view of the extent of the damage caused by acid rain, our Government has acknowledged its responsibility for the future of this country and has decided to take action to protect the health, well-being and economic heritage of present and future generations of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Canada, a medium-sized nation, by giving concrete proof of its desire to take action in this area, was able to convince the President of the United States, who has acknowledged that acid rain is a joint problem for which joint solutions are necessary.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the artists of Canada have chosen the first day of spring for their march on Parliament Hill. Artists have lobbied before, notably when the Liberal Government a few years ago made important cuts in arts funding. But this marks an important step forward in size, representation, and vigour of the protest.
These artists and arts groups are not only fighting against arts cut-backs, but for better, adequate, above poverty level funding for the arts.
The arts community have convinced Canadian public opinion not only of the justice of their cause but of its practicality. Expenditure in the arts means jobs for Canadians and business opportunities for small businesses, especially in tourism. It is
March 20, 1985

healthy for the Canadian economy, as well as being absolutely vital for the Canadian soul.
Yet what has been the Government's response to this resurgence of artistic organizing? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) refused to meet with them. He will use artists, and indeed even be an artist, as in the gala performance in Quebec earlier this week, but when artists come to Ottawa to discuss the very serious matter of adequate support for an independent Canadian culture, he is too busy.
Spring is the season of rebirth. Let us hope that this spring the artists of Canada will convince the Government of the need for reformulation of its policies on culture.
Uppity artists, on behalf of the NDP caucus I say: "Welcome to Ottawa".


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the long run effect of deficits can be a major obstacle to economic and financial stability. That verdict, given yesterday by Gerald Bouey in his annual report as Governor of the Bank of Canada, may seem like plumbing the depths of the obvious. But it does not seem a bit obvious to the political parties, organizations, and corporations, two of which we have heard from today, that continue to barrage the Government with demands for grants and subsidies. They are still convinced that the Government of Canada has the best credit card in the world, because they think it never has to be paid.
That is why there is a cancer growing in our economic body. It is the cancer of uncontrolled public debt. Only deep therapy can give us the cure, and that is why the House should support government policies that are designed to control expenditure and reduce debt. If Canada does not do that, we will be like passengers on the Titanic, speeding toward the iceberg.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the heart of our cultural and artistic community is being threatened by this insensitive and anti-Canadian Conservative Government. On November 8 last the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced reductions in federal spending, the details of which were provided by his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). The reductions in cultural programs were a major blow to the arts and cultural industries, yet if one examines them closely they have no real impact on the level of over-all spending or on the deficit. In other words, little was made in the way of savings, but a great cost to our cultural life was exacted.
Oral Questions
The arts and the cultural industries are important to Canadian society in terms of their primary role and purpose. They are also important to our economy. To make such small savings at such a great cultural and economic cost is, in my view, false economy of the first order.
The Government must understand that federal support to the arts and the cultural industries is a sound investment, and must begin enhancing that investment now. The arts and the cultural industries are important contributors to Canadian society and the Canadian economy, and merit recognition as such on the part of the Government. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the reductions and reinstate meaningful levels of support to cultural activity. To do otherwise is to pierce the very heart of our nation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here today. I was going to wish him a happy birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Since I cannot be in the House tomorrow, I would like to take this occasion to wish my colleague, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, a happy birthday today, and to say that he has my good wishes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It just goes to show that I am the only guy around this House getting younger.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I want to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. During the election campaign the Conservative Party told the Canadian Conference of the Arts, and I quote the words of the declaration from the Conservative Party, "we are committed to maintaining federal funding for the agencies and councils in line with inflation". In effect, the Conservative Party promised during the election that even if the Tories cut the deficit they would not cut support to the arts and the cultural community.
Despite that firm commitment given to the Canadian cultural community, why have the funds been slashed by the Minister of Finance? In the case of the CBC, despite a commitment to integrity and independence, why has there been a breach of that integrity and independence, and why is that slashing

March 20, 1985
Oral Questions
being co-ordinated by three political commissars under the regime of the Minister of Communications?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, without the poor administration of the previous Government it would have been easier to deal with this matter. This Government was elected, first of all, to clean up Canada's public finances, something the previous Government was not able to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: As soon as the new Government took up its duties, the Minister of Finance was obliged to make important and basic decisions in accordance with the mandate we were given. All government departments were therefore asked to review a number of programs in order to help the Minister of Finance do his job.
Considering the importance to this government of the cultural sector of this country, we found that, although it seemed necessary to make a number of cuts within my own portfolio, it was nevertheless very important to ensure that the cultural institutions of this country receive the help they need from the Government. That is why the average budgetary cutbacks in the Communications portfolio have been lower, on average, than in government departments as a whole.


BUDGETARY CUTBACKS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to his colleague, the Minister of Finance. This question is directed to the latter.
It is a fact that the arts in this country have exceptional job-creating potential. Considering the poor performance of the Minister of Finance in creating jobs, why did he make such drastic cut-backs in the arts in Canada, when he is all too well aware of the importance of Government support in terms of job creation?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the significant link between job creation and arts and culture. In recent years, employment in Canada's cultural industry has shown a stronger rate of increase than the national average, and bearing this in mind, Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with those responsible for other Government departments, including my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, we are taking steps to ensure that-and this will be a first-the cultural sector will be able to take advantage of job creation programs in this country, thus receiving assistance that was long overdue and which the previous Government had never thought to offer them.


EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR DIFFERENT REGIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister insists, I will ask him a question. Why
is the Minister making the Western and Atlantic Regions bear the brunt of these budgetary cut-backs? The Minister took a $19,000 trip in a private plane to British Columbia, to inform the cultural community in Vancouver that the Government considers it does not have the means to waste that money on the arts. I am using his words. So, finally, Mr. Speaker, when does the Minister intend to treat Canada's regions more equitably?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, when we took over from the previous Government, we inherited a number of major problems, including the fact that for years, the previous Administration had refused to conduct a necessary and essential dialogue with the provinces on an area of particularly shared jurisdiction, namely the cultural sector. In September we had to get this dialogue started again. Unlike the previous Administration, 1 visited each provincial capital, to ensure that when a meeting was held with the provincial ministers and the Federal Government this year, all the provinces would be present, and, not like previous years, only a few provinces, and as a result, in Vancouver-since you referred to my trip-for the first time since 1980, all the provinces were present around the table, something you had never been able to do for years. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, when I asked him questions on the North Warning System, in his reply he said that those airstrips in the North were there to service radar aircraft. In the memorandum of understanding on air defence 1 have read that steps will be taken to allow fighter interceptors and AWACS operations, and to have alert hangars, POL storage, missile and ammunition storage, and other necessary airfield upgrades.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Has the Minister read the agreement before coming into the House? If so, when will he rise in the House and admit that the agreement, signed with the Americans this week, will create a sophisticated series of military air bases in the Canadian North, without informing Canadians in advance?
*


March 20, 1985


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that interpretation by the Hon. Member is incorrect. His question yesterday had to do with "a series of airstrips built everywhere in the North", to quote his question as reported in Hansard. There are in fact two types of airstrips being affected by the developments.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not sure whether the Member from Toronto, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, who has become the spokesman on standards and morality for the Liberal Party, wants to give me the opportunity to answer or wants to continue to heckle.
There are two types of airstrips that are being affected in the North in the area described yesterday in the question of the Hon. Member. The first has to do with modifications which will allow aircraft carrying radar to be stationed. The second has to do with the possibility of upgrading airstrips in the far North to allow interceptor aircraft-NORAD aircraft, aircraft not armed with nuclear weapons, aircraft carrying only conventional weapons-to go into the North in the event of an alert so that if we detect something flying over our territory we can send up aircraft to find out exactly what it is. Surely the Hon. Member would believe that that was prudent.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when you carefully read the agreement you find that there is much more that has been written there. There are possibilities of making some changes at any time in this agreement between Canada and the U.S.A. Where it states in the program that there will be alert hangars, for example, that means in military terms that there will be airplanes there on an alert basis 24 hours a day with pilots in their cockpits.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Will the Minister not admit that he is giving this House of Commons some double standard answers, and tell us the truth? If they want to give the Canadian territory to the American Government for operational purposes, he should admit that. We will discuss that, but we cannot accept that they are trying to hide the truth from the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member was going to have us operating our radar defence with Twin Otter aircraft exclusively in the North. Today he is living in some fantasy land where we are going to have fighters where there are pilots sitting in the cockpits 24 hours a day. He is living in some kind of fantasy land. The fantasy that he is describing has nothing to do with the agreement that was signed. It has nothing to do with the facts. The facts have been spelled out
Oral Questions
clearly. I wish the Hon. Member would stop abusing his position in this House of Commons in a way that creates fear in the country.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Over the weekend the Prime Minister used the talents of Canadian artists for the gala performance in honour of President Reagan. Unfortunately, he has decided that he did not have time to meet with the same artists today and discuss their problems. My question is this: Would the Minister finally acknowledge the contribution of Canada's artistic community and reconsider the budget cutbacks?


Marcel Masse: For the
first time in our country's cultural and economic history, Mr. Speaker, the cultural community will be invited to participate fully in this weekend's Canadian economic conference. The Prime Minister is now busy preparing that meeting.
Secondly, I had a meeting this morning-and another one is slated for this afternoon-with the representatives of the Canadian cultural community. I fully share their concerns and sentiments with respect to their place within Canadian society.
In addition, I discuss with them some of the programs being prepared by my Department in cooperation with colleagues in other Departments. I can assure you that the Prime Minister is giving due consideration to cultural circles and that he has challenging ideas for them.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF FUNDING CUTBACKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister had to take three minutes to say no!

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance whose responsibility it was ultimately for proposing these cut-backs. It was 50 years ago this year when we had a Conservative Government which recognized the need to take government action to protect and enhance Canadian culture by creating the CBC, an action which we applaud. Does a modern Conservative Government not recognize that in a country swamped by a nation to the South, with 10 times as many people and much more wealth, we need to have a significant increase in contribution to the arts? If he does recognize that, will he take steps to restore those mindless cuts affecting the cultural community?

March 20, 1985
Oral Questions


Marcel Masse: In
answer to the question concerning the CBC, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the Government follows in the footsteps of its own Party. The CBC was created by a Progressive Conservative Government, it was supported by a Progressive Conservative Government in Mr. Diefenbak-er's time, and it will continue to get the assistance of this Progressive Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker.
That being so, we do want to maintain the mandate of the CBC, with the participation of Canadians. In our estimation, Government assistance to the CBC cannot be channelled through negative or positive budget operations. The problem as the Government sees it is that it is necessary to review the system-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret-


REGIONAL CBC PROGRAMMING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this is a last effort to get a positive response from one of the people responsible for over-all government policy, either the Minister of Finance or the Deputy Prime Minister, to a question concerning the arts. By the way, I would say to the Minister that it was a traditional Conservative Government that created the CBC, and a modern Conservative Government that will destroy it. That is the difference.
The problems for the artistic community are even greater in the regions, and therefore there is a need for financial assistance to be channelled to the regions by the central Government. In particular, a major regional outlet for CBC programming in Labrador City has been cut completely, and also the toll-free line-


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


John Edward Broadbent: I will come right to the last part of my question. The toll-free line has been removed affecting artists in B.C. and Atlantic Canada as well. Will the Government restore that toll-free line, and restore the local programming in Labrador City?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to drafting policies consistent with regional interests, I agree that the previous Government never gave much thought to that aspect of Canada's cultural issue. With that in mind, and to depart from the established trend, when we announced a review of Telefilm Canada policy last week in Toronto we did take into consideration the legitimate and sensible concerns of Canadians. For the first time, Telefilm Canada will keep such matters in mind.
As for administrative decisions made by such autonomous agencies as the CBC and the Canada Council, I will make note of the Hon. Member's suggestions and convey them to management.


BUDGETARY CUTBACKS-POSITION OF PROVINCES
Marcel Prud'homme: Before last year's election, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government made original and unmistakable commitments to increase funding in real dollars for federal cultural programs and expand the federal Government's over-all investments in that sector. The Minister told us that all provinces were represented in Vancouver. Is the Minister trying to tell us that all provinces endorsed the budgetary cutbacks imposed on the artistic community that had expressed its confidence on September 4?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the question of my colleague is twofold. First, the Progressive Conservative Party has been elected for a four-year mandate and I am convinced that, with the help of my colleagues, we will be able to honour our election commitments.
Second, during the conference where all provinces were represented, relations between the federal Government and the provinces were the major topic of discussion. Since such gatherings were not all that frequent when the previous Government was in office, they could not be aware that such relations between the provinces and the federal Government can be productive. We made sure that we would get together to consider the problems which budgetary cutbacks might create in some regions. After that meeting, I had the opportunity to meet the CBC president, among others, to explain some of our difficulties, and he will do his best to correct the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Minister, but his answer is too long. Supplementary question?


MINISTER'S POSITION
Marcel Prud'homme: You will note, Mr. Speaker, that my questions are short and direct.


An Hon. Member:: And so they are!


Marcel Prud'homme: The Minister is ever pleased to tell us that he is an honourable son of the Progressive Conservative Party and that he has no intention of killing the CBC. We happen to know as well that he is a genuine product of the Union nationale.
Can the Minister tell us-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!
March 20, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Marcel Prud'homme: The question is simple. Will the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: If you will kindly shut up, I will put my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now might be a good time for me to ask everyone in the House to listen to all the questions and all the answers, so that all the questions and all the answers can be heard. Would the Hon. Member finish his question?


Marcel Prud'homme: Very simply, will the Hon. Minister stand up and fight for the artists, the arts communities, and the art industries? Will he become the champion and stand up to the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board? That is his duty as Minister of Communications.
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, having done the first thing I was asked to do-to stand up-I can reassure my colleague in the House and tell him that since September we have been cooperating with Cabinet Ministers, the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus and the provinces as well, something with which the Liberal Party is quite unfamiliar. However, the cultural field particularly is still shared jurisdiction in Canada, and the provinces have a leading role to play in cooperation with the people and the community involved. It is in that sense that I have never said anything negative whatsoever concerning the meetings held by artists throughout Canada. Those meetings were important to us.


GOVERNMENT NON-INVOLVEMENT IN AFFAIRS OF CULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Minister promised he would support the principle of Government non-involvement in cultural agencies. However, he has cut the budgets of independent agencies like the CBC and the Canada Council, and increased funding for his own department. Does the Minister see any contradiction between his so-called support for Government non-involvement and the fact that he is attacking independent agencies?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the logic of the Hon. Member's question. There are a number of agencies that have had no budgetary cutbacks: the National Library, the Public Archives, the Canada Museums Construction Corporation Inc. and the National Museums of Canada. These are only some of
Oral Questions
the agencies which for various administrative reasons have had no budgetary cut-backs of any kind. Just because some agencies have had cut-backs does not mean that a department does not have the right to proceed with sectoral increases for departmental personnel. I fail to see the logic in the Hon. Member's question.


LEVEL OF FUNDING
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Minister has said something very revealing. He does not understand.
He seems to take the arm's length relationship to mean that because he does not tell the Canada Council to accept one artist's grant and deny another artist's grant that he is respecting it. But he is taking money away from the independent agencies and putting it into his cookie jar. Does he understand that the arts community regards that as a betrayal of Conservative promises? He promised there would be increases in arts funding. He also promised to consult and to maintain- that is, his Party did on his behalf-the arm's length relationship.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, from the outset the Government made it clear that it favoured an arm's length relationship with the cultural agencies. The Government has taken steps to consult with the members of this sector in a way that has never been done before. The Government has taken steps to maintain normal and positive relations with the provinces. The Government, through its other departments, has made it possible for members of the cultural sector to apply for certain programs. The Government has taken steps to maintain close liaison, as was shown today by my colleagues, many of whom met members from the cultural sector. The Government has made a commitment to keep its promises, and the steps we have taken to date are part of that commitment.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I posed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asking if this country had any intention of becoming involved in the research and development program which is related to the American star wars efforts. At that time he refused to give Parliament an answer.
In reading the memorandum of understanding, both Clauses 1 (c) and 20(a) give a clear answer: the two countries will join efforts in relation to the research and development of technology, including space-based technology.

March 20, 1985
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: That's right.


Lloyd Axworthy: We finally have one Conservative Member who is prepared to address the truth. The same memorandum states that the two countries will be engaging in joint research on advanced defence systems.
Contrary to every statement which was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister prior to the signing of the agreement, why is the Government now preparing to enter into agreements and negotiations with the United States to involve this country in the star wars research and development program?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are not.


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, If that is the case will the Hon. Minister please explain- and perhaps his colleague will also confirm-why they have increased the allocation to the Defence Industrial Productivity Fund by over one-third this year? Will he give assurances- and perhaps the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion will provide the answer-that any grant which is applied for under that program will be carefully screened to ensure that no product, research, or prototype will in any way be involved in the American star wars program?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, for at least the second day in a row, has been asking a question as to whether the Government of Canada has been invited and has accepted an invitation to take part in space research under the Strategic Defence Initiative. The answer to that question is there has been no invitation and, consequently, there has not been a response.


Lloyd Axworthy: Will you?


Charles Joseph Clark: We are now getting another question from the Member's seat. It is a question from the source of his thoughts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The answer to the question is that the Government of Canada in the future, as the Government of Canada did in the past, will be engaged in space research. It was, when the Hon. Member was a Minister of the Crown, and it will be in the future. Our involvement in space research will always be consistent with the principles of the ABM Treaty.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion concerning the Domtar workers and the future of that Quebec community where Domtar investments are located. Yesterday, in answer to a question concerning the Domtar issue, the Prime Minister indicated that he hoped to be able to find a way to solve this problem. Is the Government now prepared to help the Domtar project, which will affect the future of 5,000 jobs in that area? And when will the Government announce its decision?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, we have nothing further to announce today with respect to the Domtar situation.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Will the Minister ever have anything to announce concerning that important project in the Province of Quebec which concerns 5,000 jobs? Or will tomorrow's answer be the same as today's, and that of the day after tomorrow the same as today's? This means that you will be saying no forever.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in due course the Hon. Member will have everything revealed to him.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Minister will know that very recently the courts have struck down a Section of the Customs Tariff Act which has been used for 117 years to control the importation of pornography to Canada. Can the Minister tell us now what action, either in the short term or in the long term, the Justice Department proposes to take to prevent the flooding of pornography into our country?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is now considering whether an appeal should be launched in connection with that court decision.


Mr. Penner:: Get on with it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't rush me now; I am a bit slow.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 20, 1985


John Carnell Crosbie: You are the rudest group I have ever seen in opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are considering a further alternative, in the form of an amendment, which would be proposed to the House. In any event, a decision as to which course we will follow, or whether we will follow both courses, will be made in the next day or so. We will likely be inviting the co-operation of Members opposite in our battle against pornography. We know we have the assistance of the NDP, but we do not know about the Liberals.


TERRORISM
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday he, and the Deputy Prime Minister in the past, claimed that protection was increased in early March at the Turkish Embassy. They have been contradicted by Inspector Paradis, who is the RCMP officer in charge of VIP security in Ottawa, by Pinkerton's, and by the Turkish Government, who all say that nothing changed. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us that we have to accept his word against theirs and that no details can be given because of national security. I ask him how would national security be affected by giving details of security arrangements in the recent past, when those security arrangements have been changed and when the present arrangements are very different and much upgraded?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is in anyone's interests to discuss hypothetical questions on the floor of the House of Commons, or to respond to an invitation-


Ms. Copps:: Was it a hypothetical death?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East asked if it was a hypothetical death. I hope that she has a sufficient sense of standard to get up in her place at the end of this Question Period and apologize for that uncalled for remark.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we deeply regret that death. We are trying to prevent other incidents of that kind. I hope we can have the co-operation of the House of Commons.


SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Minister wants our co-operation in providing adequate
Oral Questions
security, he will have it. But I do not see how he can call my previous question hypothetical. I think the family of the Canadian victim and the Turkish Government are entitled to know what security arrangements were changed and what the changes were. That is not hypothetical, and answering that question would enhance the national security of Canada, not detract from it.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is why Trudeau calls you politically naive.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Turkish officials know. I do not think it is helpful to have everyone else in the country know what provisions might be put in place to protect the Turkish or other embassies in this country.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Potential tax revenue lost to the federal Treasury resulting from recent court decisions which permit investment tax credits to be taken on third party cash rebates is in the tens of millions of dollars. Will the Minister, in his upcoming Budget, take steps to close this very serious loophole?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the court case and its implications. It is something that I am looking into right now. I cannot say at this point whether that will be addressed in the forthcoming Budget, but we are looking very closely at the implications to make sure that loophole is closed.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, who, along with the Minister of Finance, has imposed some $23 million in cuts on the agricultural inspection service. They intend to impose an additional $35 million in direct charges to farmers and processors instead. Since his own departmental briefing papers show that farm output will be reduced as a result of this action, why did he pursue the cost recovery program for horticulture and pedigreed seed growers, in the clear knowledge that both agricultural production and jobs would suffer?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is perhaps premature in reaching this conclusion. We indicated that indeed there was a proposal and

March 20, 1985
Oral Questions
that we are in the process of consulting with people in the industry. We are negotiating with them, and in fact I am meeting the national groups, particularly those more sensitive than others and those which are in a lesser position to make a contribution toward the cost recovery proposal. I have indicated from day one that we are going to meet and work out a satisfactory conclusion. When we have done that I am sure the Hon. Member will be quite surprised.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister then explain why those same briefing notes suggest that the amount of money involved should not be given out, that there should only be discussions so that the steam from the affected groups will be dissipated?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I do not make my final decisions based on the information contained in my briefing notes. They are for my information. I have always taken the approach of sitting down at the table with the various groups, discussing with them on a one-to-one basis, and arriving at a mutually agreeable decision, rather than being instructed by my briefing notes.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, I hope, will not interpret my statements as being antiAmerican. They are, on the contrary, pro-Canadian, unlike the Minister of Communications.
Last night on The Journal the Minister of Communications said: "Arts and culture are part of a renewal in this country and we must work with other countries towards that renewal." Bearing in mind that we are already competing with a tidal wave of American culture, and Canadian artists are in difficult financial straits at the moment, will the Minister live up to his pre-election commitments and provide federal funding, in fact increased federal funding, for the cultural agencies in Canada?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had fully answered that question. It stands to reason that the cultural groups have expressed their views and their concerns. I can assure the Hon. Member that this Government is very sensitive to those aspects, and as our programs and policies develop we will take those concerns into account, after consultation, and bring forth adequate solutions.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my question of the Minister of Finance, but since the Minister responsible for the Gong Show has responded I want to say to him that during good times the arts and cultural communities are left out. During bad times they are the first ones to be cut. Does the Minister think it fair that 250,000 Canadian men and women, who are depending upon federal wage and other subsidies, have their funding cut so devastatingly, when spending in the Prime Minister's Office is increased by 54 per cent and spending in the offices of Cabinet Ministers is increased substantially? Is that fair to the arts and cultural community?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, let me first answer the first part of the Hon. Member's question. Had he been more heedful of such questions when he was in government, perhaps the Liberal Party policies might have been more to the point.
Concerning the second part of the question, 50 per cent of which at least is based on rumors or falsehoods, let me tell him just the same that in these difficult times mostly caused by his government when in power, the Progressive Conservative Government will do its utmost to make sure that the cultural groups will contribute in a more positive way to Canada's economic revival.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who will recall the rather pathetic attempt by the Prime Minister yesterday to justify the pork-barrel appointments-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We thought Stephen Lewis was a good appointment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -of 12 new directors of Air Canada. No wonder our Crown corporations lose money when they are run by a bunch of political hacks as opposed to people with experience and dedication.
The Minister will know full well that on or about April 1, April Fool's Day, the Government will be making new appointments to the board of Canadian National Railways. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure this House and the people of Canada that this new set of appointments will be made on the basis of competence, experience and expertise, as opposed to simply carrying a Conservative Party card?
March 20, 1985


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in all cases all things are taken into consideration, and certainly competence is at the very top of the scale.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: That automatically excludes the Tories.


PHONE CALL INQUIRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that there are few Conservatives left in the country who have not received a patronage appointment, will the Deputy Prime Minister be prepared to accept phone calls from those individuals who have not yet obtained a political appointment?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton on a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is Members' time. If they want to ask questions, they can ask questions, but first they have to be quiet.
The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton on a question.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Mr. Minister, could you tell us-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


William Tupper: -what action the Canada Post Corporation is taking to reopen the Postal Museum, and could you advise us, as the Minister responsible, whether you would be willing to arrange a meeting between postal officials and interested Members of this House?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, both the Hon. Member who posed the question and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton have very strenuously argued in support of maintaining the Canadian Postal Museum. The Corporation is very strongly committed to maintaining the Museum if at all possible. As the Hon. Member is aware, the need for new parliamentary accommodation has put strains on the present facilities. Rene Marin, President of Canada Post Corporation, has indicated to me that he would be pleased to meet with the Hon. Member and other colleagues who have concerns in this respect, and also to convey their concerns to the Board.
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)


Mr. Speaker:: One question, from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


THE SENATE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is with regard to the appointment yesterday of one Richard Doyle to the Senate. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that Mr. Doyle is the only living person in the country to have been found in contempt of Parliament by a unanimous resolution of the House of Commons passed on December 22, 1976? If so, could he tell the House how the candidacy of such an individual will enhance the upper House of our Parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That's a tough one.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: It is not tough at all. It is surprising that it should be raised by the Hon. Member at all because it is certainly not in keeping with the practices, customs, or procedures of this place to cast any reflection on Members of the other.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, March 19, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) indicated he wished to raise a point of order at this time.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order. It pertains to certain words used during Question Period by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). These words were used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in reply to questions put to him by Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien). In replying to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, he said that the Member was abusing his position in the House.
I want to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Citation 320 of Beauchesne. It reads as follows:

March 20, 1985
Statements by Ministers
It has been ruled unparliamentary to refer to a Member as-
(b) abusing his position in the House.
I call upon you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to apply this ruling of long standing and ask the Minister to withdraw these words because, rather than abusing his position in the House, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice was carrying out his duty of calling to account the Minister and the Government for their failures and contradictions. He thereby was upholding the highest standards of the House, and therefore deserves commendation rather than being the victim of unparliamentary language from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Foster:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West raises a reference to Beauchesne which is quoted and cited accurately. I must, therefore, ask the Right Hon. Secretary of State to withdraw the offending words.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I hereby do.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention an anniversary which is especially important for all French-speaking Canadians. Indeed, l'Agence de Cooperation culturelle et technique is celebrating today the 15th anniversary of its foundation in Niamey, Niger. Canada is one of the charter members of this francophone Agency which includes 37 countries, Quebec also being considered as a participating government since 1970 and New Brunswick since 1977. Truly the Agency is a privileged means of federal-provincial cooperation on an international level.
I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize Canada's attachment to the great francophone family of which it has the chance to be a part, just as it is a part of the Commonwealth. We sincerely wish that the Agence de Cooperation culturelle et technique, as well as the many non-governmental and professional organizations of the French-speaking world will continue to promote a dialogue between various cultures and greater cooperation among French-speaking countries, which will lead to a better mutual understanding.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I am happy to underline the 15th anniversary of the foundation of 1'Agence culturelle et technique in Niger. A Liberal Government was in office when the Agency was created and we are very proud of this. It would now be a good thing if this cooperation could be extended throughout the country.
In her comments, I noted that the Minister underlined the participation of Quebec and New Brunswick. I have a question to ask her in this regard. Could she tell the House whether she is now negotiating the participation of other provinces, such as Ontario and Manitoba, which have a large French-speaking population?


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, it gives me pleasure today to note the 15th anniversary of the foundation of FAgence de cooperation culturelle et technique. We hope that this major Agency will continue its important work in the future.
Let us also hope that this cooperation will help us to find answers to the problems common to all French-speaking countries, such as poverty, unemployment and the threat of nuclear world war. Let us hope that, working together through l'Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique, we shall be able to solve these problems as quickly as possible.
Once more, on behalf of all my colleagues of the New Democratic Party, congratulations to the Agency and good luck for the future!


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I take it that the statement from the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens)- [Translation]
-was a question and at this point I can treat it as a question if the Minister will answer questions, because a brief question period is now allowed.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that Quebec and New Brunswick are participating countries, and I am following developments very closely in that area because this comes under my responsibility. And I will be open to any potential participation from provinces representing other parts of the Francophonie.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) for a supplementary.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister ready to initiate the necessary negotiations with the Provinces of Ontario and Manitoba?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I would really have to look into the matter as it now stands and if negotiations are in order, I will be pleased to initiate them.


Mr. Speaker:: Other questions? No.
March 20, 1985


PETITIONS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, i have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of concerned Prince Edward Island citizens who ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the House to take steps to remedy the discrimination and social injustice that will be suffered by single, separated, or divorced Canadians who are not eligible for spouse's allowance. They ask that an amendment be made to Bill C-26 to extend eligibility to all Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64 who have needs identical to those already eligible for spouse's allowance.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the constituency of Laval-des-Rapides who are asking that Bill C-26 be extended, and the Spouse Allowance Benefit granted to all single persons in need, whether separated or divorced.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition submitted by a number of residents of the Ottawa area who are concerned with the closing of the National Postal Museum on Wellington Street. They call on the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) to intervene and ensure that the postal museum is retained, to find a new location near Parliament, if it is to move from 180 Wellington, and to ensure that its staff continues to serve the public in their present capacity.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by students of my constituency who would like to see somewhat larger grants awarded, especially in this Youth Year, to students majoring in high technology and research.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the St. Charles Gamier Catholic Women's League in Kelowna who are concerned about the easy availability of pornographic magazines, books, videos and movies, as these materials are degrading not only to women but to all human beings.
The Catholic Women's League of St. Charles Gamier in Kelowna wish to protest against the exploitation of children by
Petitions
this industry and ask the Government to work for a more clearly defined wording of the Criminal Code concerning pornography.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners who say that the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program provided Canadians with financial incentives needed in order to promote energy conservation. They feel that these programs have had considerable success in reducing Canada's dependence on oil and natural gas. They say that energy conservation is the cheapest form of energy supply, the most environmentally sound and the most labour intensive.
They pray and call upon Parliament to delay second reading of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, for six months in order that those Canadians who wish to take advantage of the oil substitution program have fair and ample time in which to do so.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present a petition of some 680 residents of the Ear Falls area who, in availing themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to allow laid off employees to keep their severance pay and receive unemployment insurance benefits without deductions made for severance pay.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Burnaby who are most concerned about the elimination of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
The petitioners call upon the Government to at least delay the axing of this important program for six months in order that they might have an opportunity to take advantage of this very important energy conservation measure.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several Ontario residents calling on the Government to extend for six months imposition of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act. Such an extension for six months would allow those residents of Ontario to take advantage of what has been a very beneficial conservation program.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from several residents of the Province of Ontario who are petitioning Parliament to postpone the passage of Bill

March 20, 1985
Order Paper Questions
C-24 for six months so that more citizens can take advantage of this important Oil Substitution and Conservation Program. Therefore, to the House of Commons and Parliament assembled, the petitioners of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present such a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.



MISSING CHILDREN SEARCH ACT


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-230, an Act to require assistance in the search for missing children.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, in moving the introduction of this Bill requiring assistance in the search for missing children, let me briefly explain that the real purpose and intent of the Bill is to focus parliamentary attention on the plight of Canadian parents and families who search, often in vain, for missing children.
The Bill would ensure the assistance of police officers and searchers and encourage the participation of other agencies and the public. The Bill is not a solution but demonstrates that legislative action is possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 79, 209 and 246.


Mr. Young: Did the Canada Pension Appeals Board decide that the splitting of Canada Pension Plan credits on divorce was not enforceable before the courts and, if so, is it the intention of the Department of Health and Welfare to recommend legislation to provide that the splitting of such credits be made mandatory?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Pension Appeals Board has ruled that, where there is a separation agreement or consent judgment between the parties in which they waive further claims against each other, these
waivers may constitute a relinquishment of Canada Pension Plan pension credits, and that the Minister may be precluded from dividing pension credits on the application of one of the parties in such cases.
The implications of this Pension Appeals Board decision and the various options for possible changes to the Canada Pension Plan will be considered by the Government in the context of pension reform. The option suggested by the question is one being given serious consideration.


Mr. Guilbault (Drummond): 1.	Does the Government intend to protect the social security of Canadians and enshrine the principle of helping the neediest?
2.	Is it government policy that Canadians' savings will not be used to cut the deficit, that they will continue to receive their pension cheques and that universality as defined will be maintained?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 and 2. As outlined in the Child and Elderly Benefits Consultation Paper, tabled in the House of Commons on January 28, 1985, the Government will be guided by the following principles in its review of social benefits:
(i)	The concept of universality is a keystone of our social safety net. Its integrity must not and will not be called into question.
(ii)	The concept of a means test to determine eligibility for selective benefit programs is not appropriate. Eligibility for these programs, such as the Child Tax Credit and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, will continue to be determined on the basis of income.
(iii)	Any savings which may result from program changes will not be applied to a reduction of the deficit.


Miss Nicholson: 1.	As of January I, 1985, what was the aggregate amount of outstanding borrowings from the Canada Pension Plan by the Province of Ontario?
2.	Since 1965 to date, by year, what amount was borrowed?
3.	Has any capital been repaid and, if so, how much and on what date?
4.	Since 1965, by year, what was the total amount of interest paid?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: I am advised by the Department of Finance as follows:
1.	$14,633,710,000.
2.	See below.
Fiscal Year	Amount Borrowed 000
1965-66	$ 20.110
1966-67	332.587
1967-68	375.902
1968-69	411,993
1969-70	445.777
1970-71	476,038
1971-72	498,328
1972-73	536,357
March 20, 1985

1973-74	606.592
1974-75	701.797
1975-76	784.084
1976-77	812,840
1977-78	851,058
1978-79	915,916
1979-80	987,943
1980-81	1,037.872
1981-82	1,268,736
1982-83	1,235,751
1983-84	1,200,847
1984-85*	1,133,182
3. Nil.	$14,633,710
4. See below.	
4. Fiscal Year	Amount of Interest Paid
1965-66	$
1966-67	5.758.290.15
1967-68	25,005.545.70
1968-69	48,492,116.45
1969-70	78,162.642.55
1970-71	115,534,751.82
1971-72	153.485,596.35
1972-73	190,124,382.00
1973-74	231,389,703.03
1974-75	281.052.440.03
1975-76	343,322,900.96
1976-77	415.532,986.77
1977-78	492,386,651.73
1978-79	568.750.235.65
1979-80	661,539,228.80
1980-81	776,363,468.35
1981-82	921.260.952.40
1982-83	1,127.996,655.20
1983-84	1.289,928.273.60
1984-85*	1.214,853,876.65
* Period April 1, 1984 to January 31,1985


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Business of the House
between representatives of the Parties with respect to the passage at second reading and reference to committee of Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act.
It is my understanding that an agreement has been reached to send the Bill to committee without a recorded division this afternoon. In order to accomplish this, it is understood that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) will be given 15 minutes in which to conclude his remarks on second reading of the Bill. The Hon. Member will seek and be given consent of the House to withdraw the amendment to the motion for second reading of the Bill.
As well, it is my understanding that consent of the House will be given to permit the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) three or four minutes in order to sum up his Party's position with respect to second reading of the Bill.
Finally, consent will also be given to permit the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Gass) to regain the floor and speak for approximately two to three minutes in conclusion of second reading debate.
If the House agrees to this proposition, it is my intention to call Bill C-32 as the first order of business at this point in time. At the conclusion of debate on this Bill, we will revert to the sequence we had before us previously.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. House Leader has quite accurately and extremely lucidly indicated the agreement that we did in fact work out in order to accommodate the Government's desire to have the Bill go to committee early. If you were to ask for unanimous consent, I think there is no doubt that my colleagues would give it.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all the Notices of Motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to you that there have been negotiations


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my one proviso is that if the Member for Egmont needs more than three or four minutes to make his point, I take it that the House would be patient. The same would apply to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. We are ready to allow him more than four or Five minutes because we know the importance of this Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: In fact, the Chair wondered what it should do when it heard times like two, three or four minutes. However, I take it there is unanimous consent for the matter being proposed as a House order?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 20, 1985
Fisheries Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
M. Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement arrived at moments ago, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the important and interesting Bill we are debating today would confer on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) the absolute and unfettered right to allocate fish without guidelines or restrictions. The Minister thought he always had that right until the court cases last year indicated that the law was deficient and he could not in fact allocate fish. The court went even further and indicated that the Constitution may determine that a law to amend the Fisheries Act to give him the right to allocate fish may be deemed ultra vires.
At present, allocation and the determination of who gets access to the resource is at the heart of the management of the fisheries. During debate on this Bill the Minister has argued in the House and in committee that since he always had that right, the House should automatically give him that right again. I suggest that no legislature should give any Minister this kind of almost absolute or unfettered power to allocate between groups without some guidelines.
I think the key thing is that even the Party in power in the past has put up many complaints against unregulated or unfettered opportunities of Ministers and the Government to determine the lives of people so drastically. We should clarify that this kind of power to determine who has the access to the money that that resource develops, who will be pushed out of that industry, or whose shares will be diminished or capability impaired, should not be given to the Minister or to the Government without some guidelines. What we would like to establish in this House and what user groups would like to establish is that the Minister should put on the record in writing what those guidelines would be.
There is a second interesting aspect to this Bill. The reason this Bill is being given second reading today is that when we hit an impasse in four days of debate, the Government and the Opposition realized it was not in the continuing interests of the people of Canada to hold up the business of the House of Commons. There were some serious questions and contentious issues to be dealt with. The Minister offered to adjourn debate and move this issue into committee for a period of time so we could examine the contentious issues. They were examined in detail.
The Minister has in his possession a summary of the important issues that would form the guidelines. It is my understanding that he has made a commitment to put something in writing on the guidelines that would form part of the records to determine the process of allocation. That is extremely important. It should not be construed by anyone that this Bill is proceeding for any other reason than that of the Government having acted with reasonably good faith and in a constructive and positive way.
The Government adjourned the debate. It did not use closure. It moved the Bill to committee to discuss the contentious issues. It resolved some of the issues but left the most important ones yet to come. This arrangement would not form a commitment to deal expeditiously with this Bill in committee, or a commitment to deal expeditiously at report stage or at third reading, without having something substantial from the Minister. This should be a very clear message from the Opposition, one that will be reinforced by the other Opposition Party here, namely that second reading is given on the basis that we recognize a constructive move was made.
There are four points that must be resolved, and the user groups essentially agree. First, a guideline must state that user groups currently into the industry must have a place in that industry. This allocation gives no indication of that. They must have an opportunity to earn a living from that resource. This Minister must place on the record that his unfettered right to allocate will not impair their position or remove those user groups from the resource.
Second, there must be a board, an agency, made up of user groups. That board should be representative of user groups accountable to the user groups and would be involved in an advisory and co-management process with the Minister. This move formed part of the election campaign promises of the Conservative Party. It makes absolute sense in the fishing industry. The Minister must make some statement in his guidelines on this particular agency and how he will move toward it.
The third consideration in the guidelines must include the communities, especially on the west coast of Canada in British Columbia, that depend on the fisheries. I keep coming back to the example of Alert Bay but certainly I include Bella Bella, Klemtu, Bella Coola, Port Hardy, and Campbell River. These places are all seriously dependent upon the fishing industry.
There must be a representative agency by which those communities have input into such things as the fishing plan, the over-all policies of the Department and have some effect and influence on the Government as the federal Government impinges on the economies of the communities. That must happen, and I think it is clearly understood by the Minister. We will be waiting for a response to recognize that and put such an agency in play.
Fourth, native participation must be defined. Native participation at traditional levels in the commercial industry, the question of aboriginal rights and the question of land claims must be looked at. We are not asking for a definitive answer. What we are looking for is what the Minister's game plan is in
March 20, 1985

terms of the participation of the native people in a resource extremely important to them and to the economies of their communities.
I think the goodwill with which we approached second reading is something that can be worked on again. Some in this House were reluctant to see that precedent, but we worked in committee through some of the most contentious issues while this House went on conducting the business of the people of Canada. I think this is much healthier than what happened in the last Parliament when adjournments, petitions and ringing of bells tied up this House for months. This move was very constructive. I think it will be worth continuing.
We are extremely apprehensive about working on this level with the Government. In this regard I point out to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) the rank patronage appointments that have taken place. They are being watched. The people of Canada are being given that information. We will continue to pound on it. It is extremely negative for the Government and it is extremely negative for the Opposition to become involved. We are not interested in such boards made up of patronage.
Let me mention also the Canada-U.S. treaty in which documents were provided to the House after the treaty was signed and it was full, as far as we are concerned, of serious errors and short-comings. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) admitted that prior to going to Quebec City.
There is one other thing I want to mention. This Bill was slapped on us just before the herring season began. There was almost an attempt to blackmail this House into passing it quickly, otherwise the fishery would collapse. It did not. The under groups were able to bring the fishery together and have executed it very well without giving the Minister the kind of absolute or unfettered authority that he is asking for in this Bill.
There is no commitment to move quickly through committee. There is no commitment to move rapidly on third reading nor on report stage. There is a recognition by the Opposition that the Government has made a very positive move and as a result the Government has this Bill in committee and further progress will be made on the basis of good will from the Minister responding to the four questions here, and certainly questions the other Opposition Party will raise. I think on that basis, should the Minister agree to put some of those things on the record, that will give people some confidence as to where they are going. Then we can look forward to some solid progress on the remaining stages of this Bill.


Mr. Gass:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. My understanding was that the previous speaker was going to lift the six-month hoist amendment that was moved earlier.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I understand that was part of the unanimous consent given to the entire package of matters which dealt with the six-month hoist and the fact that we would be allowing this Bill to go to committee.
Fisheries Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is also the understanding of the Chair, pursuant to what had been said at the beginning, that the amendment had been withdrawn with unanimous consent. We shall now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson).


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) mentioned, this is sort of an historic situation inasmuch as we did have a motion that would hoist the Bill for six months, then a commitment by the Minister that he would attend the committee, meet with the committee, adjourn the debate on Bill C-32 in order to go to committee, and then come back to the House to complete second reading. In this way we were not taking up the time of the House for other business.
There certainly has been co-operation on the part of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in this particular case. They have done a very good job of negotiating in the dilemma with which we were faced for a short period of time. Of course, that encourages good will on the part of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. This is why we are here today with this particular Bill.
The previous speaker mentioned the four areas about which we have some concern. One of them is the global allocation of fish stock, certainly on the West Coast, in the Pacific fishery. Other areas of concern are a mechanism for consultation, some recognition of the input from fishing communities on both coasts, and native participation.
We recognize that it is very difficult for the Minister to be specific about some of those questions. We in the Official Opposition are not asking for specific allocations. We are asking for the Minister's view of how the allocation of resources will be managed. Also there are a couple of legal questions; there may be many more when we get to committee.
I hope the Minister will appear when the Bill is in committee, together with his legal advisers.
There have been different interpretations of the Bill. While it will clearly give the Minister the necessary authority to allocate and regulate the fisheries in tidal waters, it may not allow him to allocate stocks, for instance, in the inland waters of British Columbia, namely the water between Vancouver Island and mainland B.C. In the Johnstone Strait, the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait, there is a tremendous amount of fishing and often very conflicting quota requests among different user groups.
In May of last year, the case of The Attorney General of Canada v The Attorney General of British Columbia was before the Supreme Court of Canada. That court ruled that that body of water was owned by the province, because when British Columbia entered Confederation, the western boundary of the province was the eastern edge of Vancouver Island. If this is correct, the Minister can only regulate the fishery in that water on conservation and protection grounds. Only the

March 20, 1985
Fisheries Act
province can allocate the resources. Certainly there should be clarification in that regard. Perhaps there will have to be another amendment to cover the situation.
I have talked with a number of user groups in British Columbia and have heard that Bill C-32 is worded in such a way that, once passed, the Minister would have unlimited power with no defined restrictions whatsoever. Perhaps the Bill should include the provision of some principal body-and this is what my colleague talked about-to oversee regulations passed by the Minister and with the power to veto any regulation deemed unfit or not in the best interests of the fishing industry. One of my main concerns in speaking on legislation, especially Bills with the powers of this one, has been about how regulations flow from legislation passed in the House. It is only fair to give it good scrutiny in committee if the legislation is to meet the objectives of the Minister and provide him with the powers within the meaning of the Act. We may have to take a look at it in that regard.
I am pleased, as are members of the New Democratic Party, to see this Bill move into committee. I hope the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will continue to show the co-operation and good will we have seen over the last few days in committee. It is only with co-operation and good will that the Bill will progress and we will achieve the objective we are trying to achieve-to have legislation which first of all provides benefits to those most adversely affected; that is, user groups, fishermen, processors and workers.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated by the two previous speakers, a sort of unorthodox situation has occurred both inside and outside the House within the last few days. A great deal of good will has been demonstrated in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry as we have dealt with this particular Bill. We on this side of the House are very pleased that the Bill has received approval in principle from all Parties. The fact that all Parties accept the main principle underlying the Bill indicates that the Government needed to clarify the powers to undertake the social and economic management of the fishery. This is a reflection of the excellent session of the committee when the Minister appeared last Thursday. In point of fact, the Minister appeared before the committee for three and a half hours. He did an excellent job of trying to answer in a very straightforward manner the questions posed by committee members.
What has emerged over the course of the full debate is a recognition by all Parties that confirmation of the management powers outlined in the Bill, including the power to allocate among user groups and gear types, is absolutely essential to the successful management of a complex, modern fishery.
It is urgent that any uncertainty concerning the statutory basis for the Government's allocation decisions be removed, especially in light of the imminent opening of the West Coast salmon fishery. The Minister and the committee will work very
hard to give the Bill the necessary review and return it to the House with the least possible delay.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I concur in the remarks of the chairman of the standing committee and of the Parliamentary Secretary. Members of the committee have done an excellent job in trying to find ways to co-operate and get things done. In principle we agree with what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary; however, I should like to add two points.
There was some serious question about Section 2.1(d) which governs the problem of inland waters. It is my understanding the Minister indicated that he would be prepared to drop that particular subsection. Also there were some questions about the corresponding French and English wording in the Bill. It is my understanding that some response will come about and if an amendment was required it would happen.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions between myself and the Hon. Member yesterday on those two items, Section 2.1(d) and the discrepancies which may exist between the French and English printing of the Bill, as well as the interpretation of the English and French versions of it. Departmental officials are looking at those two items and the Minister is considering the implications of subsection (d).


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the indication of urgency, as was mentioned, during the herring season obviously did not come to pass. In terms of the urgency in the salmon season, I would suggest that we probably have a couple of months before this starts to become a problem for the Minister. Could the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledge that we are not pressed, that user groups and the Department are working on fishing plans, and that undoubtedly it will unfold in much the same way as the herring season? Would he acknowledge that it is likely the Minister will have it in time?


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I hear what the Hon. Member is saying. I agree that the concern for the herring fishery did not materialize, but I do not agree specifically with the idea that we have a lot of time and that there is no urgency in dealing with the Bill. I believe, as does the Minister, that there is some real urgency in getting the Bill through and having this settled.
There is a potential for serious problems in the fishing ground with the salmon fishery. A group plans to fish as early as the middle of April. Therefore, we believe there is urgency attached to this Bill. We will try to find every reasonable way of accommodating the concerns of the Opposition in trying to get this Bill through as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is as follows: Mr. Fraser, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on
March 20, 1985

Fisheries and Forestry. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-234, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works; and the amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p. 3072).
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you will recall, I am sure, that the other day when I started to speak in the House I had about a minute of my 10 minutes, so I will assume that I have eight or nine minutes left.
In looking at the impact of what the Government is proposing to do, there are three reasons, in my judgment, why the measures that are being taken are inappropriate. The first reason is that the program has indeed been of some considerable benefit. The program has given home owners an opportunity to upgrade their residences. It has benefited the general desire on the part of everyone for conservation.
There is no evidence that I can see that the program has been abused. The moneys made available, at least under certain parts of the Bill-my colleague from Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) looks at me. If there were abuses, they were on the part of those who provided the service, not on the part of those who received it. I believe the home owners themselves took advantage of the program to the extent that it was available.
The moneys that were made available were taxable. Therefore, not even the full cost must be borne by the treasury of the country. For that reason, initially, I would say that the program makes sense. There are large numbers of people in the country who would take advantage of the program were it to be extended. We as a whole would benefit in the long run from the conservation of depletable energy resources that would naturally flow from their taking advantage of the program.
The second point is that it did create employment. It created employment in a number of small businesses that otherwise would have found themselves in serious difficulty. There is no question in my mind that in some aspects of the program there certainly were abuses by those who provided the service. In the insulation area the work frequently was not up to standards that we would have expected. In some instances not only was
Oil Substitution Act
the Government short-changed, but the individual citizens were short-changed as a result of plain, ordinary, bad workmanship, not a reluctance to live up to the obligations.
Nevertheless, the program did provide employment for a large number of people. It provided employment at a time when employment was desperately needed. I do not think we have got past that stage today. There is still the need for employment opportunities for large numbers of people who could continue to be involved in the provision of services that are compensated for under this program. Keep in mind that we still have close to 1.5 million unemployed.
Taking into account that the normal employers in the country are not employing as many people as they did in the past, it would make more sense, in my judgment, to continue to fund this program from the employment point of view rather than to have those people on unemployment insurance, which could well be the case. If you take into account that many of the people who will not be employed as a result of terminating the program may well end up unable to find alternative employment, and if that is true, they will end up on unemployment insurance temporarily and perhaps ultimately on some other form of social program. There is very little benefit derived by society as a whole from forcing that kind of end result.
My judgment would be that from the point of view of maintaining opportunities for employment, this program ought to be at least extended, if not kept in place permanently. I would be prepared to concede that it might not be necessary to keep it in place permanently. There would come a time in the not too distant future where the number of citizens or families who would like to take advantage of it would be small. As more people use it, the need would become less and less. Ultimately the program would come to an end in itself. It comes to an end simply by virtue of the way in which it is structured. I would say to the Minister that from that point of view, in addition to the first, it would make some sense to extend it.
We have asked for a six-month hoist. We ask for it for what I think are legitimate reasons. The main reason, I suppose, is that, come the end of this month, one part of the program will terminate. Quite clearly, it will be awfully difficult in the normal course of events for the work to be undertaken in the winter.
If I were going to terminate a program such as this, I would suggest that the termination should be set off until the fall. That would allow for all of the summer period, which is a period of relatively high unemployment. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I have just about used up my time. I will be very brief on closing.
If we were to allow it to extend over the summer, much of the work could be done in that period of the year when heating plants are not in use. It is possible then to open up buildings for the purpose of insulation and renovations. From that point of view, in addition to the other two, the program should be extended. I would urge the Government not to terminate it this week or next week, but rather set a date such as October 1-
3216

March 20, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
I'm picking a date off the top of my head. That would allow the spring and summer months for the work to be done and then to effectively terminate it as at a time when people will have had an adequate lead time and the opportunity will have been there for the work to have been done.
[ Translation]


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the House today would postpone consideration of this Bill for six months. I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on this amendment, and I believe my constituents in Bourassa will understand the consequences of this motion. Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that CHIP, the Canadian Home Insulation Program and COSP, the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, were introduced between 1973 and 1977. Perhaps we should recall what the situation was in 1973 to fully understand the gravity of the economic problems that heating costs were creating for Canadians at that time.
The price of oil was increasing quite rapidly, and at the time, most Canadian homes had oil heating, so that heating bills were becoming a problem.
Mr. Speaker, being a truly responsible Government, we thought it would be a good thing to persuade Canadians to upgrade the insulation in their homes and to substitute for oil other forms of energy such as gas, electric power and wood, which have become very popular for home heating. CHIP, the program referred to in Bill C-24, was used to give grants to home owners who were taking steps to conserve energy. [English]
The decision of the Government to abolish this program is not very easy to take. It may be right to say that Canadians must now take up their responsibilities and should insulate or change from oil to other sources of energy themselves if they so wish. I feel that a part of our obligation as parliamentarians is to tell Canadians how we see problems and issues and how better to deal with them.
There are two good programs in place which benefit ordinary Canadians, particularly those of low and middle income. Of the nearly five million residences that were targeted to use the insulation program, only about 2.5 million have done so. Other home owners have indicated an interest in proceeding with these programs after having heard from neighbours how well they work. These programs are primarily aimed at saving oil and thereby heating costs.

Mr. Speaker, this Government has now decided to do away with these two programs. It has the right to do so, since it is in power, but that does not mean I agree with its decision, and I think many Canadians do not agree either, because eliminating these two programs will cause problems for a number of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to elaborate too much on this point, but it would be a good thing if the Government could extend these programs at least until September 30, 1985, so that many contractors and consumers who have already applied for a grant under the program to convert their heating systems can take advantage of the program, and this would also help Canadians to save money. We have had a long, hard winter. Many Canadians have not had a chance to carry out this conversion. We suggest that the Government give these people a chance to take care of this during the spring and summer months.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I simply wish to say that we in the Official Opposition strongly urge the Government to reflect on the advantages of extending these two programs, which I think would be worthwhile for many Canadians.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has moved a six-month hoist on Bill C-24 because Bill C-24 is very unfair. I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of what I mean by its being very unfair.
When these programs were instituted, they were to continue until 1990. I would like to read into the record a letter indicating that arresting the COSP program now is very unfair. I received a letter from one of the communities in my riding. Its contents are indicative of what is happening right across the country. In fact, there are many areas of the country in which small communities have not yet been serviced by gas lines. The letter to which I refer came from the Clerk-Treasurer of the Township of Hagar and is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). The letter reads as follows:
Dear Madam:
The following resolution was passed by the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Hagar at their regular February 19, 1985 meeting.
"Moved by Councillor T. Beamish, seconded by Councillor R. Chartrand that since Northern and Central Gas hs proposed to serve the Villages of Markstay and Hagar with natural gas in the fall of 1985, and the COSP is scheduled to terminate on March 31st, 1985. Therefore the Township of Hagar request the Honourable Patricia Carney to extend the COSP to enable our residents to avail themselves of the grant and that copies of this resolution be sent to our local MPs."
We trust that you share our concern and urge you to give this matter your kind consideration.
That is only one example of the unfairness that will be perpetrated on the public by the premature arresting of the COSP program. There are communities right across the country that have not yet been serviced by gas lines but will be-


Mr. McDermid:: But never will.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member says they never will. I just put one such case on the record. An unfairness to one is an unfairness to all. Perhaps the Hon. Member does not understand that principle. Perhaps his community received the grants and his people took advantage of the grants. However, there are many people in small communities who, because of
March 20, 1985

the programming of the gas companies, do not enjoy that service.
When the Bill was first presented in the House, it went through second reading and committee stage and was approved within a couple of hours. I would like to put on the record the words of the then Conservative energy critic, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), spoken at the time this program was instituted. I am reading from page 11099 of Hansard for June 30, 1981. At that time, the Hon. Member said:
I do not think there is any question that the House in general understands and supports the purpose of the oil substitution program-
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 concluded his remarks by saying:
I want to conclude by congratulating the minister again for bringing this legislation forward and allowing us to ask him some questions. 1 hope he will consider the suggestion that I have made to improve the legislation and make it available to all Canadians.
The Government is now moving to take that program away from a great many Canadians. He went on:
If so, we could achieve this conversion from oil to other energies more rapidly than this bill by itself.
Those were the words of the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who, to my knowledge, is always concerned about conservatioan and always looking for alternative energy sources.
COSP has served Canadians very well and it could continue to serve them very well. In my riding office I receive a great many phone calls from people who wish to convert and have placed orders for gas furnaces. Because of the acceleration of orders due to the premature announcement which was made by the Government to cut the program, manufacturers cannot supply the demand. Therefore, the people are not able to instal because the $800 grant is paid after the installation and inspection.
If we look at the history of the program, it has proven to be very efficient in the conservation of oil, which is a finite resource. It was not so long ago, in the early and mid-1970s, that we were wringing our hands and saying that we had to conserve energy because oil was running out. Canadians became very conscious of that. This program was a response to that concern. It attempted to get Canadians to use natural gas. We are told that there is a large surplus of natural gas. It is interesting to note that the provinces which took advantage of COSP were Ontario, Quebec and the provinces in Atlantic Canada. Those areas primarily depend on imported oil, which is priced higher than domestic oil. Canadians in those areas have taken advantage of COSP and converted to natural gas, which has helped to conserve the finite petroleum resources of Canada.
The evaluations of COSP and CHIP have shown that the programs have been helpful, not only in the conservation of
Oil Substitution Act
energy but also in the whole area of job creation. The Government ran its election campaign on jobs. These programs have created thousands and thousands of person-years of employment, yet the Government is cutting the programs. One must ask, why? Why is the Government at this time cutting programs which have shown their usefulness in the evaluations which have been done by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources? I have the suspicion that the Government is cutting COSP so that Canadians will once again consume oil. In fact, it may be in the interests of some to convince the Government that Canadians must once again consume oil. It may be that the louder voices, and the influencing factors on the Conservative Government, are its friends in the oil patch.


John Horton McDermid: Not true.


John R. Rodriguez: The Member opposite says that is not true. He protests too much. Why would the Government eliminate a program which, obviously, has been beneficial to Canadians? Surely, if it looked at the net benefit of keeping people working, paying taxes and buying goods and services-and the Government will get its money back because the COSP grants are taxable-it would not cut the program. I have the suspicion that it is a Machiavellian move by the Conservative Government once again to have Canadians consume oil. It is wasting a finite resource. I think the Government should be ashamed of itself. It should consider the reasonableness of the motion to hoist the Bill for six months.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on a motion presented by our friends next door, to postpone consideration of this Bill for six months.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 will have a disastrous impact on many regions in this country. You know as well as I do that in the Eastern Townships, for instance, where natural gas became available only a few months ago... Everybody knows people are by nature reluctant to change-except perhaps at election time-and when the natural gas pipeline was extended, the dependence of a region, and especially a province like Quebec, on a single source of energy was significantly reduced. However, I think that people were all counting on the oil substitution program to convert to natural gas, and since they were sure the program would be in place until December 31, 1990, no one bothered to have this done in the middle of winter.
If we consider the Government's decision, Mr. Speaker, it was motivated far more by fiscal year-end considerations than by any consideration for the interests of taxpayers and especially Canadian home owners. Deciding in November to axe a program in March, when the program involves home renovation, does not make sense. Everybody knows that not many Canadians are going to do any major changes in their homes in the middle of winter, especially if those changes involve converting the heating system. I am sure that in my hon. friend's riding, people do not change their heating systems in the

March 20, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
middle of a February snow storm. That is why the March 31 date, selected only to do for the benefit of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), makes no sense at all.
This program was quite successful and could have done a lot more good, but unfortunately we now find out that it will be terminated. We noticed today that not one of our colleagues on Government benches was honest enough to tell the Government or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) that the date she chose does not make any sense at all. I am pleased to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) who is a construction expert and who will certainly agree with me that it is impossible to change heating systems in the middle of winter. By arbitrarily picking March 31 as the deadline, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has shown that the requirements of the Minister of Finance mean more to her than the interests of Canadian consumers. We are therefore confronted with an impossible situation-consumers cannot get all the materials they need even if they are anxious to take full advantage of the program before the deadline.
As my colleague said earlier, I did get some letters. Many companies, municipalities and individuals are quite upset about this arbitrary deadline. They are really upset about this unilateral Government measure. We have heard the concerns expressed by Ontario or Ottawa electrical contractors' associations, not to mention those of many consumers, but what is even more upsetting, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, supposedly most concerned over energy conservation, said in a speech delivered in Vancouver last March 8 that those energy conservation programs are no longer a priority for the eighties.
Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that energy conservation ... We are witnessing laxity in Canada and within the Government, and there is nothing certain about the future in the energy sector. We are deluding ourselves if we think that because things are going relatively well right now, and I underscore the word relatively, we cannot take decreasing oil prices for granted, nor can we see anything meaningful in the fact electricity costs will continue to rise, like 2.5 per cent in Quebec this year. I think that Canadians would be well advised indeed to conserve as much energy as possible. It is in that sense that the arbitrary decision of the Government seriously undermines the oil substitution program and gives short shrift to the notion of Canadian self-sufficiency with respect to a sole source of energy.
The program was set up in the first place to ensure that Canadian consumers would no longer be dependent on only one resource. Canadians have become used to the idea that they ought to diversify their energy requirements, but all of a sudden somebody pulls the plug. That is why I support the amendment introduced to put off for six months the measure advocated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If
the amendment is adopted, the deadline will be pushed back to October 1, so that the work can be done this spring and summer. When the date was announced in November, it was easy to say that people had lots of time.


An Hon. Member:: How much would it cost?


Jean-C. Lapierre: How much would it cost? The whole country would save as well. My colleague opposite asks how much it would cost, but I would like to know whether he is trying to tell me that we ought to drop the CHIP program as well. He can suggest that because most houses in his riding have been insulated.


An Hon. Member:: That is not what I said, I asked how much it would cost.


Jean-C. Lapierre: In my opinion. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to energy conservation, when it comes to helping Canadian consumers-


An Hon. Member:: A $200 billion deficit!


Jean-C. Lapierre: My colleague from Bellechasse, I believe, or somewhere around there, is saying that we do not know what saving is all about. Before blaming Opposition Members, he should look at his own colleagues and tell them that they can set an example and start saving in their own offices. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is here and I am sure he would be able to tell you to what extent he thinks that his Cabinet colleagues are asking for too much with their inflated budgets.
Mr. Speaker, it looks as if our friends on the other side have a selective memory. Restraint is the last of their concerns when the armed forces are concerned, restraint is the last of their concerns when they want to boost our NATO contingent, restraint is the last thing on their minds when the PMO is involved, restraint is a foreign word, particularly when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) is let loose, but when ordinary Canadians are concerned, well that is where savings will come from. Restraint is the least of their concern when they consider granting tax breaks to such corporations as CP and Algoma Steel. As recently as two weeks ago, they granted a $200 million subsidy, and now some of our hon. friends opposite have the gall to claim that they cannot afford to help a Quebec firm. We have had just about enough of this kind of selective memory, Mr. Speaker. Either they are serious about the economy-


John Horton McDermid: What about Domtar or Dominion Tire.


Jean-C. Lapierre: My hon. friend wishes to attack Domtar. I know that some members of the Conservative caucus are against Domtar. I know also that these members do not understand anything about the Quebec situation or the East-



March 20, 1985

ern Townships economy, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that you will do your utmost to instruct and enlighten them.


An Hon. Member:: It is going to be difficult.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a problem, since the Hon. Member has been in the House for many years.
Mr. Speaker, to get back to the subject of today's debate, I would urge our friends opposite who know about saving energy and who are acquainted with the construction industry, to vote in favour of this amendment, which is strictly an appeal to common sense. I think we can rise above partisanship on an issue like this. Why eliminate this home insulation program half way through? The objective was five million homes, and 2.5 million have been insulated. Now they want to cut the program! Mr. Speaker, we are only half way there. If the program were allowed to continue as planned by the previous Government, we would be able to congratulate each other as soon as the program's goal was achieved, and, I repeat, without partisanship, because the people who truly stand to benefit would be our fellow Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been amply demonstrated here in the House that this Bill was improvised, that the Government did not consider the constraints of the construction industry and did not consider the needs of Canadians, and I know that our friends opposite will want to reconsider, in the light of the information we have given them today in the course of this debate.
I know, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member's time already expired a minute ago.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, because I think that although these two particular measures have not received a great deal of attention, they tell us a lot about the direction in which the Government wants to take us in terms of our energy future.
As you may know, Bill C-24 seeks to implement two measures planned in the November 8, 1984 economic statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson): the early elimination of these two energy conservation programs. We are opposed to this Bill and that is why we have been putting up speakers and have moved the six-month hoist. It is also why we are giving the Government trouble when it comes to trying to get this Bill through the House in a hurry. We think more attention should be paid to just what the Government is up to when it comes to our energy future and where its priorities lie.
I note, for instance, that we see the cancellation of conservation programs and the cancellation of research into alternative energy sources, yet we see no indication whatsoever of any willingness on the part of the Government to be critical of another energy option imposed upon us by successive Liberal
Oil Substitution Act
Governments. That is, Mr. Speaker, the whole nuclear energy option.
I recall that when the Conservatives were elected in May of 1979, one of the first things they were going to do was begin a parliamentary inquiry into the whole nuclear fuel cycle, the economics of nuclear energy and its environmental aspects- the whole works. I recall at that time being very positive about the willingness of the Progressive Conservative Party to initiate this inquiry into what, in my view, and I think their view also at the time, was a Liberal boondoggle involving hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the nuclear option in this country with little or no public accountability and even less public debate.
In 1979 we had an indication that there was going to be an inquiry into the nuclear industry, but what have we got from the Progressive Conservatives after their election in 1984? We have no indication that that critical attitude towards the nuclear fuel cycle has survived the years between 1979 and 1984 at all. The one time I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) whether or not she would be taking up the commitment made by the Progressive Conservative Party in 1979 and initiating such an inquiry, and this was before Christmas, she said she would have to talk to AECL first. Mr. Speaker, it is not out of the question to talk to AECL about it, but it is certainly somewhat suspect that the Minister made no commitment to talk to anyone else about the advisability of having an inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle.


John Horton McDermid: Are you for or against it?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why did she not indicate that she would talk to the Canadian coalition on nuclear responsibility or the host of other groups concerned about the industry? The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) asks me whether I am for or against it. I do not think it is any secret that I am opposed to the nuclear future which was imposed on us without public debate by the Liberal Government. I thought the Conservatives were too and that is why they wanted to initiate a parliamentary inquiry. That is why I am referring to comments and commitments they made in 1979.
I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether she was going to pick up where the Conservative Government of 1979 left off. She indicated to me that she would talk to AECL about it. She has had nothing to say since then about what AECL had to say. I am almost positive that AECL did not tell her to go ahead with a full-scale inquiry into the nuclear industry. She said that the problem may only be one of marketing. This again reveals an unwillingness on the part of the Progressive Conservative Government, like that of Liberal Governments before, to ask a more fundamental question about whether we should be investing the hundreds of millions of dollars that we are investing into this while neglecting other energy alternatives. The Government has made a specialty of that by almost wiping out research into other

March 20, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
energy alternatives, particularly the research which was taking place under the umbrella of the National Research Council.
I am concerned about the direction that this Bill, taken with other statements of the Government, indicates the Government is moving in. I refer to statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to radioactive waste disposal and the connection between that and choosing a nuclear future over the conservation and alternative energy future which we could have chosen. Instead, they are introducing Bills such as this which terminate conservation programs.
In a letter to the town council of Gimli, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to the possible commercial benefits of Canada becoming a repository for the radioactive garbage of countries all around the world. This was in response to a concern expressed by the municipality of Gimli and other municipalities across Manitoba about the possibility of the site at Lac du Bonnet, where the underground research laboratory is presently situated, eventually becoming a radioactive garbage dump.
Instead of posing critical questions about the future of nuclear energy, the problems which it poses and the fact that we do not have to be pursuing this particular option, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can only talk about the commercial benefits of radioactive waste disposal. She says that the problem may only be marketing, without asking the more fundamental question of whether we should be marketing this stuff in the first place.
I just wanted to register my concern and that of a great many Canadians that this Bill indicates that the Government is clearly moving in the wrong direction with regard to our energy future. It is clearly not taking into account all of the things we have learned over the last 10 or 15 years. We have learned that we can have an energy future that is responsible in terms of the environment and in terms of consumption, therefore conserving resources for future generations. The Government should act responsibly toward the public by having a genuine debate about what kind of energy future Canadians want. This is not the kind of policy that the Government is now exercising. One can only regret this. That is why we continue to oppose this Bill.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I too want to join in this debate and to ask the Government to change its decision to terminate what I believe are many valuable conservation measures that the previous administration introduced. I noted with considerable interest the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid). I think it is worthwhile to review very briefly some of those comments. I am sure that if I am not absolutely correct in reading what I believe to be a quote from the Hon. Member, he would certainly rise to the occasion and correct any inconsistencies. I certainly would not want intentionally to mislead the House about what the Parliamentary Secretary has said on previous occasions.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program have given Canadians the opportunity to conserve energy. In many parts of the country this is of paramount importance, particularly in Atlantic Canada, parts of western Canada and in parts of Quebec.
In my own Province of Nova Scotia for a considerable period of time we imported a great deal of oil to use for the generation of electricity. This was done primarily because of geography and the cheap price of oil at one point in time. Unfortunately, the OPEC crisis in 1974 and a host of other events made it virtually impossible for Nova Scotians to rely as heavily as they had on imported oil. Consequently, the provincial and federal Governments of the day consummated various agreements with regard to energy conservation. I am happy to say that a number of those projects worked very well for Nova Scotians with regard to reducing their energy costs.
I believe that these two programs, which were initiated by the former Government, have aided very well the residents of Nova Scotia as well as all residents of Atlantic Canada. They were given the opportunity to take advantage of the government assistance which was necessary in order to convert from the highly-priced imported oil to coal, which is found in abundance in eastern Nova Scotia, or to wood or gas.
I was a bit concerned when the Parliamentary Secretary said that they in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources have received a number of representations proposing that three or four or five extra months be allowed to complete conversions in respect of commitments signed by applicants before March 31 of this year. It ought to be noted that through correspondence, which no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary has reviewed with great interest, the Electrical Contractors Association of Ottawa made a submission in March of this year to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources asking that the COSP program be extended to September 30, 1985. I believe their rationale to be legitimate, Mr. Speaker. I have no information or desire to question the integrity or intentions of this particular association. They indicated that the parts which they needed to complete those conversions were not readily available. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary would not want to tell those applicants, who have gone through the formalities to convert, that the national Government is not going to be sympathetic or sensitive to their needs to have the conversions completed.


John Horton McDermid: Why didn't you extend the first time home owners grant? It's the same principle.


David Charles Dingwall: The Parliamentary Secretary is an eager man. He is eager to gravitate to the front benches, and I would think that some day he perhaps might. Perhaps he would be kind and courteous enough to listen to a Member of Parliament who has a different ideology and philosophy than he has.
The fact of the matter is that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have absolutely no regard, no compassion, and no sensitivity whatsoever
March 20, 1985

for those individuals who believe it necessary to convert from oil to other sources of energy.
It is very clear that the Government is not concerned about the ordinary people who wish to make that conversion in order to reduce their energy costs. That is not a concern of the Conservative Party and that is particularly not a concern of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is not a concern of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). They do not care at all about Canadians who need a break in terms of their energy costs.
It is the Conservatives who preach compassion for the less fortunate. If the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) were the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I suggest that we would see a different approach to this issue. However, the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has no concern for those Canadians. She is telling Canadians in Atlantic Canada who are faced with the highest energy costs in Canada that there is no way the great national Tory Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will assist them in this regard. That is the effect of the actions of the Minister of Energy when it comes to the Canadian Oil Substitution Program.
Atlantic Canadians are not being heard by the Government. Government Members are not speaking out on behalf of their constituents. They are not speaking out on behalf of our region. Members on that side of the House are derelict in their duties. When it comes to the Canadian Home Insulation Program, it has provided jobs in my region of the country as well as in Ontario and Quebec. But what does the Conservative Government and the Minister do? They cut, cut, cut. So much for jobs, jobs, jobs.
The Government's actions, as enunciated in the November 8 statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), have clearly shown to the residents of Atlantic Canada that the Government is not concerned about their economic plight. Of course, the Government's actions today as they are being supported by the Parliamentary Secretary, certainly show no concern about the cost that we must incur with regard to energy. The Home Insulation Program, which was administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing, was a very good program that provided new home owners and others with a subsidy toward energy conservation.
I am proud of my region. It is an area where energy costs are soaring rather than being reduced in any substantive way. Subsidies under the Home Insulation Program, therefore, are extremely important to that region. It provides those Canadians in Atlantic Canada with an opportunity for obtaining financial assistance so that they can be warm during the winter months.
Although clearly there is a sufficient number of applicants to take advantage of this program, rather than letting it continue for another two years, the Government unilaterally selected a date-March of this year-to terminate this pro-
0/7 Substitution Act
gram. In so doing, it is terminating thousands of jobs upon which small business people across the country depended.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who echoes the sentiments of his Leader and the Minister of Finance, would not want to suggest to the House that he and his Party are not supportive of small business, but by their actions they are terminating a program which has been beneficial not only to the consumer but to numerous small business persons across the country.
I find it somewhat contradictory that the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) should travel throughout the country to consult with small business individuals and say that he is concerned about enhancing and promoting their businesses while the Conservative Government does not take such action. It is doing the exact opposite.
I say to government Members that what they are doing is wrong. The Government should reinstitute the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program because they benefit Canadians who are in absolute need of that financial assistance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will use his persuasive abilities to change the attitude of Cabinet Members.
I know that the Minister of Transport would agree to that, if the Cabinet were asked to change that decision.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today illustrates an interesting characteristic of the present Government. The Government, with its overwhelming majority, is one that believes in restraint.
While I believe everyone agrees with restraint, there are different ways to implement restraint. There is sensible restraint, which has several interesting aspects. A Government that would implement sensible restraint would decide on the relevance and efficiency of a program. If it did not meet those requirements, it would be phased out and the resources allocated to that program could be saved and possibly allocated to other programs. That is an example of sensible restraint that has been practised by NDP Government in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
Another aspect to carrying out sensible restraint would be to make a small investment in order to rearrange an expensive program. This would ultimately save much more money. For example, investing a relatively small amount in trying to prevent a disease rather than spending much more in finding its cure would ultimately save money. In the past, Governments have invested in a program in order to reap larger benefits later on. The Canadian Oil Substitution Program is one such example. Due to the fact that oil was becomimg too expensive and was having negative effects on the economy, the Government made a small investment so that Canadians would ultimately benefit from a restraint program, but it required that initial investment by the Government.
The same situation applies to the Canadian Home Insulation Program. That small investment by the Government reduces the need for energy consumption, which means that this reasonable and relatively small investment ultimately gives a large return.

March 20, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Restraint also mean the necessity to balance programs and resources with the needs of people. For example, investment in the creation of small business activity would increase employment and therefore reduce unemployment insurance spending and generally improve the vitality of the Canadian economy. That fits into restraint and it is very worth-while and sensible restraint.
Let us take a look at the converse. The converse is what I call Tory-Socred restraint, which says that there is something evil and negative about the Public Service. It says our goal in life, as the Conservatives say, is to chop the public sector.


Mr. Malone:: Who said that?


Raymond John Skelly: Let us take a look at this Government's colleagues in British Columbia. The Tory-Socred restraint pattern, the Mulroney-Bennett axis, has created a situation in British Columbia where we now have a decimation of the public sector. Those fools removed a sexual abuse team that protected children and attempted to prevent children from being exploited in an extremely savage manner. Some of my colleagues next door giggle at that. That is stupid restraint and I know those individuals would never approve of that type of restraint as the protection of children is probably the primary responsibility of any society. That is stupid restraint, Mr. Speaker. That has been done across the board with health care, education, and in the delivery of many social services and probably it has reduced in British Columbia the quality of education to the lowest level of anywhere in Canada, I would say. There are situations with health care now which are absolutely unbelievable. Emergency health care cannot be effectively delivered in many areas of the province, you cannot obtain surgery. It is interesting that some minor spending in the areas of prevention and home care would bring relief in that day-to-day use of high priced acute care beds would not be required to such a large degree. That is the kind of restraint, the Tory-Socred model. Let us move a little closer to Ottawa to see how it is being applied by the present Government.


Arnold John Malone: Are you going to make this up too?


Raymond John Skelly: What we have is a situation in Canada where we could encourage the population to reduce the consumption of petroleum and high priced energy products. I am speaking of the simple insulation of a home, retrofitting a home, making sure there is adequate insulation which reduces the consumption of fuel. It does not seem to make sense that a small single act of retrofitting a house can save an enormous amount of money. The home owner saves. In some areas of Canada, in remote areas, and in rural areas, which many of the Members here right now represent, the Government is saying, "No, we are not going to help you, although we realize that your prices for obtaining insulation and for obtaining proper heating fuel in the country is much more expensive than in central Canada". They are drawing a line and, saying that those people who live south of a certain line in major metropolitan areas in
Canada will have the benefit of lower prices and reduced costs of transportation, no problem. What you get on the other side of the line is that you have to pay full inflated high prices for your heating. You are told, "Do not retrofit your home, and continue to depend on oil".
If this Tory-Socred restraint were repealed, it would be an act of fairness to those who live in rural and remote areas of Canada. Many Members represent those areas.
This Tory-Socred restraint program is really an attack on employment. It is a labour intensive activity. It is a small amount of money that encourages small entrepreneurs to organize businesses to retrofit homes. It is a fairly substantial business in many areas. I know members of the Conservative Party and of the Government have small contractors in their ridings. By terminating this program they will kill that employment provided by the small businesses and they will decrease the level of economic activity. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing to which we are pointing. This is a Tory-SoCred type restraint. In many respects it is blind and destructive.


John B. Stewart: There are no Socreds in Ontario.


Raymond John Skelly: We had a comment from across the floor, naive and uninformed, about the political nature of this country.


John Horton McDermid: Quit fighting your brothers' battles.


Raymond John Skelly: Unfortunately a Socreds is a Conservative. The restraint mentality is exactly the same.
We have to move forward. We must ask Members in this House this: if they remove the grant will they not in fact cause small businesses in their areas to be harmed? Will they in fact not create unemployment? Will they in fact not create and increase the dependence on high priced petroleum? Will the Government not be required to pay more money for the sake of simply saving a lousy few dollars by cutting an extremely important program, a program that stimulates the economy and saves on scarce and valuable resources? In the long term it puts money in the pockets of Canadians, in the pockets of working people, in the pockets of small businesses, and in the pockets of Government. This Tory-Socred exchange is stupid. It would be my hope that the Government of Canada would reconsider and repeal it.
I know this side of the House will fight seriously on this issue. If some of the more naive Members on the other side have had a problem understanding the situation, I would be more than pleased to answer any questions they might have.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to oppose the adoption of this Bill or at the very least to speak in support of the motion before the House to give the Bill a six-month hoist. I believe this Bill shows the lack of commitment of the current Conservative Government to oil conservation. In fact, it is a blow against the cause of oil conservation and energy conservation generally. This Bill shows also a lack of support by the current Conservative Government for small business. It also shows a very unfortu-
March 20, 1985

nate lack of support by this Government to the cause of job creation. In addition, it is an example, just one of many I could give, showing simply bad management by this Conservative Government of the country's affairs.
The Conservatives in this debate have readily admitted the value of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program when it comes to energy conservation. I understand that earlier in the debate on this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary said that since 1980 "almost one million units in Canada have been converted under the program, representing oil displacement of some 32,000 barrels a day, which is a very significant amount". The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that "CHIP has provided assistance toward conservation measures in more than 2,500,000 homes. Significant energy savings averaging some 17 per cent have been achieved in the homes that use CHIP". Finally, he said that "between CHIP and COSP we are talking about some
60,000	barrels of oil". It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that "the over-all impact of COSP", and I might add of CHIP as well, "has been beneficial and has obviously helped to bring Canada closer to oil self-sufficiency".
It is typical Tory logic to want to end prematurely a program that has already achieved so much good when it comes to conservation of oil in Canada and which can achieve even more benefit for Canadians if allowed to continue at least for some further period beyond that proposed in this Bill.
I said that the measure before the House shows a lack of support by the current Government for small business despite continued lip-service by the Government being given to the interests and cause of small business, because when we are talking about the kinds of companies that carry out the work of insulation of homes and of converting heating systems from oil to gas or electricity, we are talking about thousands of small businesses across the country. These are the kinds of companies which do this work. These are the kinds of companies which have been benefiting from this legislation. These are the kinds of companies which will be harmed by the termination of the program in the way proposed by the Government in Bill C-24.
The Government has talked over and over again about how it wants to support the private sector, private sector initiative and small business. When it had a definite opportunity to do so, by allowing COSP and CHIP to continue, instead of using that opportunity it did just the opposite and brought in this Bill to choke off prematurely support for the thousands of small businesses involved in the home insulation and energy conservation. Simply put, this is quite wrong but it is also typical of the way the Government says one thing and does something quite different.
I also said that Bill C-24 shows a lack of willingness on the part of the Government to support the cause of job creation. The Conservatives stand condemned out of the mouths of their own Members on this particular important point.
Oil Substitution Act
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) said that when it comes to COSP "we find that for every $1 million spent on COSP, we have 30.5 person-years of employment created". Also he indicated that "between 1981 and 1985, some 16,570 person-years of employment were created and that if you add the home owner contribution, the total employment creation reaches 50,250 person-years". Yet the Conservative Government wants to end that type of useful, constructive and needed job creation.
We are talking about the creation of jobs in a sector where unemployment is and continues to be, unfortunately, all too high. I am talking about the whole area of construction, particularly home renovation and the like. In ending these programs by means of this legislation, the Government will not, in my view, save the money it hopes to save. Instead, it will simply spend the same, and likely larger amounts of money, through the unemployment insurance system. Would it not be better to have people continue doing useful work in home insulation and in changing home heating systems from oil to gas or electricity or even to wood in some parts of the country? Would it not be better to have them spend the money for that purpose than to have people sit in what will likely turn out to be idleness, despite their efforts to find work, and put them into the unemployment insurance system? That will be the result of the adoption of this Bill. It proves what I have been saying about how this measure flies in the face of what the current Government claims is its commitment to the creation of jobs. This Bill will have just the opposite effect. It will have a harmful effect on not only the creation of jobs but on the preservation of jobs in the construction sector, an area which does not need to be slowed down, an area which needs further support and assistance because of the already too high levels of unemployment in it.
I also said that this Bill is unfortunately another example of bad management of the country's affairs by the current Government. 1 am told that Consumers' Gas, for fiscal year October 1, 1983 to February 28, 1984, received 4,814 applications for conversion to natural gas. From October 1, 1984 to February 26, 1985, the same company received 17,912 applications of which 8,889 were in January and February. Faced with this kind of demand, the industry will not be able to install systems by the March 31 deadline. All this means is that on March 31, there will be many very disappointed people who expected better from the Conservative Government. When it comes to support for home insulation and energy conservation, this Bill shows that they will be getting a great, big zero.
Because of weather conditions in much of Ontario, it has been impossible for digging to be done to open the ground and install gas lines. Also, because of the lack of advance notice of the Government's intention, it has been impossible for companies making furnaces and related equipment, including insulation supplies, to keep up with the demand. Companies like Consumers' Gas and organizations like the Canadian Gas Association say that it will simply be impossible to get the work done by the March 31 deadline or even to cope with the

March 20, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
applications they have on hand. Yet the Bill says that if the work is not completed by the March 31 deadline, it will not be eligible for support under the Canadian Oil Substitution Program.
This is proof of what I said when I made the statement that the way this Government proceeded with this Bill was simply another example of the bad management by the Government of the country's affairs. If the Government is serious about listening to the private sector and about co-operating with business, surely it will listen to the representations of organizations such as the Canadian Gas Association and companies such as Consumers' Gas and, at the very least, grant a further six-month extension before there is an expiry of COSP.
I am sure the same situation prevails in my part of the country, in western Ontario, which is served by Union Gas. If we check with that company, I am sure we will find that it has far more applications than it could possibly handle by March 31.
I am speaking on behalf of tens of thousands of individual Canadians and their families, on behalf of thousands of small businesses, and on behalf of thousands of workers in the sectors involved, when I call upon the House either to reject the Bill or, at the very least, to put it off for six months, so that hopefully some reason will prevail on the part of the Government and it will approach the whole area of oil substitution and home insulation in a more rational and sensible manner and better serve the interests of Canadians than it is doing with this ill-thought out Bill that does not deserve the support of the House or of the Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate-


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Don't mess with your Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I have seen the Hon. Member rise. We are now in a period of ten-minute speeches, so I will ask the House if it wishes to resume debate. If the Hon. Member has a question of order, of course that is another matter. Resuming debate-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: What's going on here?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) have a point of order?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) wanted to speak but has been pulled down by his colleagues.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That is shameful.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think it is contrary to the theory of freedom of speech in the House for
members of the Conservative Party to shout down their own Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to ask the Hon. Member what happens in his riding if there is a gas leak or a water leak in the middle of winter? Do they repair the line or do they not?


Ian Deans: That was a short intervention.


An Hon. Member:: That was a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member rose to speak on debate and asked a question. Everyone knows very well that questions are not permitted.


Carlo Rossi: And he knows it, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Having asked the question, there will not be an answer on behalf of the Hon. Member, and we will now resume debate.


Raymond John Skelly: I have a short point, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Does the Hon. Member have a point of order?


Raymond John Skelly: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Then please say so. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: There is an element of serious concern, Mr. Speaker, and I think the Chair should be in a position to make some recommendations. A Member got up and wanted to speak, but his colleagues pulled him down. Then he wanted to ask a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. We will now resume debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) got up to ask a question. We are prepared to give him unanimous consent to ask his question, even though it is not part of the rules in this particular section of the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There is not unanimous consent.


John R. Rodriguez: The Tories said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Members of the House know the rules sufficiently well not to
March 20, 1985

get into this kind of situation. We will now resume debate on the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question? The question is as follows: Miss Carney, seconded by Mrs. Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot), moved 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.
Mr. Cassidy, seconded by Mr. Manly, moved in amendment thereto:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and
the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be not now read a second time
but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.57 p.m. the House adjourned.



Thursday, March 21, 1985