1985-02-28

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bissonnette that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. It is also a pleasure for me to speak for the first time in this House on any Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Melvin Warner: It's very nice to get the applause before the speech. I would also like to thank my electorate who sent me here last September to be part of this new and dynamic Government.
The riding of Stormont-Dundas comprises the entire counties of Stormont and Dundas and almost the entire township of Charlottenburgh in the County of Glengarry. It stretches along the St. Lawrence River some 80 kilometres from Lancaster in the east to Iroquois in the west. It extends north of the St. Lawrence River approximately 40 kilometres to include Winchester, Chesterville, Morewood, Crysler and Moose Creek.
The City of Cornwall is the only city and the largest community in my riding, with a population of approximately 46,000 people. The rural area has some 1,900 farms, of which 42 per cent are dairy operations. Cornwall and other communities in the constituency are among the oldest settlements in Ontario and Canada, having been established over 200 years. Last year Cornwall, along with other communities in my riding, celebrated its bicentennial.
The mother tongue of the residents of the constituency is approximately 72 per cent English and 25 per cent French. Unemployment in our area is quite high. Of course, we are most concerned with positive and progressive developments in our area. We are expecting a few new companies to locate in
Cornwall in the immediate future. We are doing all we can to encourage other manufacturers and businesses to locate in Stormont, Dundas and Charlottenburgh as well.
We are quite fortunate to have access to excellent transportation facilities with highways, railways and the St. Lawrence Seaway all running through our area. We are also very fortunate to have the least expensive hydro-electric power rates in Canada, some 28 per cent less than the surrounding areas. I invite all Members to visit the people of my area. We are located within a one-hour or one-and-a-half-hour drive from Ottawa. Hon. Members would be very warmly welcomed by all of the people there.
The majority of the discussions on Bill C-23 have been very positive and supportive. The Bill is recognized as basically housekeeping and modernizing the Act which has been so popular in the past. In the last five years the activity in this area has more than tripled. In 1978 the amount of loans written was approximately $176 million, while in 1983 the amount increased to $691 million. At the same time the number of loans increased from 7,300 to over 25,000.
This activity certainly indicates the popularity of the Act and the very useful purpose that it has for small business across Canada. There were only two areas that seemed to have created very much controversy and those were the areas of the administration fee and the concept of participation in losses. The 1 per cent administration fee on loans made after April 1 will be imposed on the banks and will certainly help to defray some of the costs of the program. It is also a provision of the Act that this charge will not be passed on to the borrowers.
[DOT] (DIO)
Also effective April 1 the federal Government will absorb 90 per cent of the losses as compared to the full 100 per cent of the losses which had been absorbed in the past. In 1984 losses or claims on this program amounted to some $43 million and it seems to be only good business practice that the underwriters of these loans participate to a certain extent in the absorption of losses and also pay a reasonable fee for the insurance protection that they are receiving.
I feel quite strongly that our financial institutions in Canada are the most appropriate vehicles for the Government to be using to distribute its programs. They are the most simple of vehicles and have the greatest lack of bureaucracy. Those small-business people who have dealt with such companies or concerns as the Federal Business Development Bank know what bureaucracy can be, particularly when they are trying to get a loan through quickly to solve an immediate problem. I would hope that in the future, if the Federal Business Development Bank is not going to be active in this area, we will see fit

February 28, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act
to further expand this Act so that the amounts of loans will be greater. As well, we would certainly hope to encourage more participants.
It was quite encouraging to see that in 1983 the number of lenders had increased to 1,860 in addition to the chartered banks. Of course, with the great number of financial institutions that are eligible as lenders, I believe they only need be encouraged in order to see the great benefit that this Act has for the small businesses in their communities. I would hope that in the future some of the caisses populaires and credit unions that have not been active in the past will see fit to provide this very essential service for small businesses.
This Act will certainly provide some of the assistance that is required for small businesses. I am certainly not going to say that this is the be all and end all for small business, but it will certainly be an integral part of the Government's program to assist small business in the great future that we see for it in the next few years.
MS)
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a relatively brief contribution to the debate on Bill C-23, which concerns small business loans. A number of Members in my Party have spoken to this subject, and I would now like to offer a summary of the Liberal Party of Canada's position before the Bill is referred to committee, which we expect will be done today.
First of all, we think the Small Businesses Loans Act is an excellent piece of legislation. The loans program is a very good one and has been extremely popular. Applications under the program have continued to increase over the years, which proves that Canadian small business is very appreciative of this legislation, especially since most jobs in Canada are created by small- and medium-sized businesses, in other words, by those businesses that are eligible for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
As a general rule, the Liberal Party of Canada supports Bill C-23, especially since the legislation which Bill C-23 is intended to amend was passed by the previous Liberal Government and received with great enthusiasm.
I would like to start by reviewing two of the measures proposed in Bill C-23 which I think are excellent, and which are in fact why we intend to give our consent that Bill C-23 be read a second time and referred to a standing committee of the House.
First, the ceiling or aggregate amount of funds that may be lent to small businesses under the program has been raised from $1.5 million to $1.8 billion. We think this is a very wise step because demand has already outstripped the funding available under this program.
Bill C-23 will also amend the definition of a small business by raising the maximum gross revenue for small businesses to
be eligible for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act from $1.5 to $2 million annually. This will open the program to a larger number of small businesses, and we believe this is a very sensible decision.
However, while Bill C-23 seems to be making the loans program available to a larger number of businesses as a result of the two measures I mentioned earlier, namely, the increase in the aggregate amount of loans that may be offered and the change in how small businesses are defined, we wonder why the Bill also proposes restrictions that will make it much harder for small businesses to obtain loans. First of all, why did the Government decide to reduce the guarantee provided to financial institutions under the program so they will not have to shoulder the entire risk burden, from 100 per cent to 90 per cent? Bill C-23 as it is now stands provides that the program will not guarantee more than 90 per cent of the loan, and financial institutions will be asked, in fact obliged, to take 10 per cent of the risk. This will certainly reduce the amount of money being lent by financial institutions, especially since the institutions are also asked to pay, as of April 1, 1985, a fee of 1 per cent of the amount of the loan.
So the Government is now telling the financial institutions that they are going to take on a greater share of the risk than before, and on top of that, they will have to pay a 1 per cent fee, thus reducing the profits an institution can make on a loan, because although interest rates may fluctuate, according to the legislation they are set at prime plus one.
If we ask financial institutions to pay a 1 per cent fee every time they agree to make a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act, we are reducing their cash flow.
Those are the two aspects of the legislation we are most concerned about. We believe the Government would be ill-advised, while ostensibly broadening the availability of such loans, to introduce other measures that would actually reduce that availability.
That is why, when the Bill is referred to a standing committee of the House of Commons, we expect our Members on the committee to make a contribution towards improving the proposed legislation, especially by removing the two measures I have just mentioned, that is the 1 per cent fee and the obligation on the financial institutions to share part of the loan liability.
Furthermore, we must not forget that under the provisions of this Bill, the Minister has the power to change the rules of the game in various ways. For instance, the maximum rate which is now set by legislation could be changed by the Governor in Council, in other words, by the Minister with the approval of Cabinet.
[DOT] (M20)
As I mentioned earlier, it has now been proposed that the guarantees be shared by the Government and the lending
February 28, 1985

institution-90 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. Here again, the sharing formula can be changed by order in council, so that the Minister will not have to come before Parliament to ask for amendments.
Similarly, the ceiling on the over-all amount of the loan under the program can be changed.
In my opinion, that is enough to create uncertainty among people who might benefit from this program. How can anyone seeking a loan repayable over a term which might run to ten years not be concerned over the possibility that the loan conditions may be changed while it is still outstanding?
I suggest that the Government, by creating such uncertainty, is going against its own policy, which is to favour the private sector.
Yet it would seem that the Government has given up about job creation, relying instead on the private sector to pick up the ball. It is rather strange that the Government has chosen to limit the benefits available to small business-the major source of new jobs in Canada-under the small businesses loans program.
To sum up my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I can say that we agree to have Bill C-23 referred to the committee because we feel that it does have a few good points. However, we will try to improve this measure and delete those provisions which we think will not serve the interests of small business in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make on behalf of my Party.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Hnaty-shyn, moves that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development. 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 Regional Development.

Hon. John Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Oil Substitution Act


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 provides for the termination of the Canada Oil Substitution Program or, in the jargon of this place, "COSP", on March 31, 1985, and for the phasing out of the Canadian Home Insulation Program, or "CHIP", by March 31, 1986.
It is essential, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament should weigh the issues involved when such programs are created and it is also essential that Parliament should weigh the issues involved when the time comes for such programs to be withdrawn. I do not believe that anyone has worked harder to establish this principle than the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre). You may not remember, Mr. Speaker, though many in this House will, that four years ago the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, now Minister of Supply and Services, challenged an attempt by the Liberal Government to escape Parliament's scrutiny of these very programs. At that time he obtained a landmark ruling from Madam Speaker that these two Acts, and eight other spending items, had been brought improperly to the House as part of non-debatable appropriations. As a result of the ruling, the Government of the day was forced to introduce separate Bills to create COSP and to extend the life of CHIP. I am pleased to be acting in the spirit of that decision by introducing legislation so that the amendment of these Acts can be properly debated in this House of Commons.
The Government's intention to make these changes was announced by my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), last November 8. Since then we have all had the chance to assess the reaction to these plans. I think it is quite clear that the people of Canada, as well as those involved in providing materials, equipment and services for residential oil substitution and energy conservation, acknowledge that outright consumer grants for these purposes are something this Government of Canada can no longer afford. A large potential exists for further oil substitution and energy conservation in the residential sector, and the pursuit of that potential remains an important priority for Canada. But at a time of restraint the Government must find less costly ways to support these objectives. I will return to this subject later in my remarks.
Under the off-oil program introduced in 1980, taxable contributions of up to $800 were provided towards the cost of converting oil heating systems to natural gas, electricity and propane, as well as to wood and other renewable energy resources. The existing legislation provided for a termination date of December 31, 1990 for the program. The amending Bill changes this date to March 31, 1985. The Minister has provided a limited exception which will allow applicants a further three months, until June 30, 1985, to complete their conversions if they had signed contracts prior to the November 8 announcement and if they faced difficulties in getting the work done by March 31. She has also waived the need for inspections to be completed by March 31, in recognition that backlogs of inspection requests may incur in some areas.

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
We 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 has been argued that it is impossible to convert to natural gas between November and April, or in any event more costly to do so than during warm-weather months. Both gas and electrical utilities have expressed concern that the pressure to get the work done by March 31 may adversely affect work quality. In some cases, because of limited inventories of equipment, less than optimal systems may be installed.
We were sympathetic to these concerns and gave serious consideration to an extension of the period for eligible conversions into the summer. The Minister concluded, however, that a general extension could not be permitted in view of the additional program costs involved. For example, a minimum useful extension of three months only, to June 30, would increase cost outlays in the 1985-86 year by up to $35 million. I think that is a relatively conservative estimate. This would reduce by more than one-third the program savings that the Minister has pledged in respect of COSP toward the deficit reductions announced by the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board.
I would now like to comment on the CHIP program. That program provided taxable contributions of up to $500 towards insulating and draft-proofing measures in existing homes. It was announced in 1977 and the Act provided for its termination date at the end of 1987. The amending Bill provides for a two-stage phase-out under which the Government's share of eligible costs is reduced to 33!6 per cent from 60 per cent effective January 1, 1985, and the program comes to an end on March 31, 1986. I emphasize that in these final 15 months of CHIP, the maximum contribution is unchanged at $500. The Minister has provided an extra year for CHIP beyond the termination date for COSP, in recognition of the fact that suppliers and installers of residential conservation materials across Canada need the time to prepare for the withdrawal of CHIP.
The end of the program has been anticipated for some time by industry and government. For example, the reduction of the contribution rate to 33!6 per cent is a natural and important step which follows an earlier reduction of the rate for materials to 60 per cent from 100 per cent.
Moreover, homes have been admitted to the program sequentially on the basis of their date of construction. The process is now in its final stage. The last group to become eligible, the 1.3 million homes built between 1971 and 1977, will have had two years to use the program by the time it concludes next year. That further period will also be helpful to the many small contractors across Canada who are working in trade that is still relatively young. They have rarely had notice of changes in CHIP and this phase-out period gives them some time to expand scope of the conservation work they can do and
improve their ability to explain the advantages of conservation to householders.
In this respect we are indebted to the National Insulation and Energy Conservation Contractors Association, which represents insulation installers across Canada, for its advice and support. The Association recognized early last fall that CHIP might have to be discontinued and volunteered options for an orderly conclusion of the program. Its suggestions were very helpful to the Minister in preparing recommendations to her Cabinet colleagues. The Association was later able to identify the likelihood that backlogs of orders for work and material would arise in advance of the change in the contribution rate on December 31. The Minister was pleased to accept the modification which permits applicants to sign for the work by December 31 but have it performed in the first three months of 1985 at the 60 per cent rate. More than 80,000 applicants have taken advantage of this provision.
Let us look at the budgetary savings because this is important. We estimate that CHIP and COSP expenditures in the current fiscal year will total almost $350 million. The termination of COSP and phasing out of CHIP will provide continued savings from the appropriation levels for the two programs of $180 million in 1985-86 and $315 million in 1986-87. These are major and necessary contributions towards reduction of the federal deficit. Our decisions have been made not just because we must address the deficit. Our decisions recognize that the market-place has changed and that the Government's role with respect to oil substitution and energy conservation must change with it.
COSP was introduced in October, 1980. We all remember that at that time OPEC dominated the world's view of the future for oil. It was expected to control world supply and push world prices much higher. Almost 40 per cent of Canadian homes were heated with oil. Most of those home owners had little knowledge of oil substitution. Residential oil substitution was identified as a priority and a large consumer grant was introduced as the instrument to make it happen.
It is difficult to establish how much of the activity which has taken place since 1980 can be credited to COSP. Almost one million units have been converted under the program representing oil displacement of some 32,000 barrels a day, which is a very significant amount. Over this period the financial benefits of oil substitution have become more familiar to home owners. A trend has been established toward installation of medium and high-efficiency natural gas furnaces which are being made available at steadily declining and more competitive prices. Dual energy systems such as plenum heaters and heat pumps are offering savings and comfort to home owners and advantages in load management to the utilities.
A broad range of controlled combustion wood-burning systems are now available. Hundreds of thousands of homes across rural Canada use wood as their only source of space heating and obtain their supplies at a very low cost. To preserve a share of the residential market, oil dealers and manufacturers of oil heating equipment are marketing new high-efficiency oil furnaces and retrofit packages for existing
February 28, 1985

oil furnaces. Everyone is getting in on the conservation game and we applaud that. In this mature and competitive environment I anticipate a continuing rapid decline in the residential use of oil after COSP is withdrawn.
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. An evaluation of the program has established that CHIP played an important part in achieving those savings. It is estimated that the equivalent of 28,500 barrels of oil a day are being saved as a result of work done under CHIP. Between CHIP and COSP we are talking about some 60,000 barrels of oil. As with oil substitution, the benefit of energy conservation and reduced heating bills and increased home comfort are much more fully understood by Canadians now than seven or eight years ago. Installation specialists now certify their work to accepted national standards.
However, there remains a significant gap between understanding and action on the part of both consumers and industry. Consumers still lack confidence in the quality of work and the advice that they are offered. They see conservation and heating system technologies as being complex and doubt their own ability to sort it all out. Major technical issues remain to be solved and the work standards now in place need to be refined, expanded in scope, and backed up by the installer training program. These are very real problems, but they are not resolved by a Government grant, as I think everyone understands.
Reducing the use of oil and energy in Canada remains a very important national objective of the Government. Very large potentials for savings exist, not only in the housing stock but in other sectors as well, including commercial and industrial buildings and processes, buildings operated by various institutions, and the federal Government's own buildings and operations. We know that in many cases it can be less costly to invest in conserving energy than to bring on the same amount of new supply. In the existing housing stock the average potential for savings from cost-effective conservation measures has been estimated at 30 per cent. For millions of Canadian households it will be a very attractive investment, with a rapid return of dollars spent, to insulate, to draught-proof, and improve or convert their heating systems.
We cannot and should not continue to expect the public treasury to use borrowed dollars for the payment of consumer grants to try to ensure that this energy investment takes place. A more limited and balanced role for Government is clearly preferable, sensitive to the information needs of energy users and suppliers, to the technical problems still unresolved, and to opportunities for further development of energy use today.
The legislation before the House today is therefore a necessary step, but only a first step in reorienting government programs in these sectors. The Minister has also directed that all other programs of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the areas of conservation and renewable energy are to be thoroughly and critically reviewed. She has directed her officials to conduct a parallel review of these program
Oil Substitution Act
areas with provincial Governments in order to identify instances of waste and duplication of effort. Meetings have already been held with all provinces and territories.
Officials, the Minister and I have also been actively soliciting industry views on energy use in all sectors and on the respective roles that should be played by government in the private sector. We look forward to further discussions with provincial Ministers. The Minister will be bringing recommendations to her Cabinet colleagues for future program directions. We intend to review federal-provincial teamwork in energy programs and activities. We will work in co-operation with the private sector and achieve a more selective, disciplined and effective deployment of resources to effect energy use in Canada.
I want to go into some detail about the very substantial public expenditures involved in these programs to date. Over the past five years, CHIP has paid out over $530 million in grants to consumers. The gross cost of CHIP to the federal Government over the past seven and one-half years has been over $855 million. The total budget expenditure to the end of the calendar year 1984 is some $1.4 billion, of which perhaps $300 million has flowed back to the federal and provincial Governments in the form of tax on those grants. At present, rates of program activity grants under the two programs represent a gross annual cost to the federal treasury of some $300 million.
COSP has mainly been an oil substitution program contributing half of the eligible material and labour cost of converting space heating and water heating systems from oil to non-oil energy sources. The maximum grants for single family units and non-residential buildings is $800. The sliding scale of grants results in smaller amounts per unit for conversions of apartment blocks and other multi-family dwellings.
In Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, COSP grants can be used for off-oil measures as well as insulation, draught-proofing, and furnace improvement measures in recognition of the fact that there are few reasonably priced alternatives to oil.
COSP has paid grants toward conversion or conversion measures in about 900,000 units, including 880,000 housing units. The oil savings which have resulted from that activity are estimated at approximately 30,000 barrels per day, which is equivalent to the output of a Syncrude plant. When it is put into those terms, it is quite significant.
Electricity accounts for 41 per cent of the units which have received COSP grants and gas accounts for 35 per cent. Some may have thought it would have been the opposite. Surprisingly, wood accounts for 20 per cent and the remaining 4 per cent represents propane, a very small number of conversions to other sources and conservation measures.
Provinces have been invited to limit the alternatives to oil eligible under COSP so as to conform with provincial energy-use policies. In most cases provinces have been prepared to let the program operate on a neutral basis.

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
In Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, the provincial Governments have tilted the application of the program toward natural gas, which appears to conform with public preferences. In these provinces conversions to gas have represented 62 per cent of all conversions. It should be noted that past policies of federal and provincial Governments, together with the low price of natural gas and its public acceptance, led to significant conversion to gas in the west even before the introduction of COSP. In Alberta, urban and even rural gasification was almost complete by the end of the 1970s, as my colleague sitting to my right knows.
Manitoba may have made the greatest progress in the course of the 1980s to adopt gas and electricity for home heating. It is estimated that 24,000 of the 54,000 Manitoba homes on oil in 1980 have converted since then.
But COSP was aimed mostly at Ontario and Quebec, which in 1980 accounted for 73 per cent of residential oil use and for 73 per cent of the estimated realistic potential for conversion from oil. In fact, 75 per cent of the units converted under COSP have been in these two provinces. While these provinces represent by far the greatest potential for oil substitution in this decade, there are marked differences in the energy preferences of these populations. Gas has been preferred to electricity in Ontario by a margin of three to one. In Quebec, electricity is preferred four to one over gas. Moreover, total conversion activity has been significantly higher in Quebec where both electric and gas utilities have offered non-taxable cash grants for conversions in addition to COSP grants.
Only 11 per cent of COSP grants over the past four years has gone to the Atlantic Provinces, although they represent 15 per cent of the eligible housing stock. The region lacks access to natural gas, and for home owners in most areas electricity is at least as expensive for home heating as oil. The conservation assistance offered by COSP in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island has had rather limited take-up, and while conversions to wood have been popular, demand now is approaching saturation.
With respect to the experience under CHIP, the program has provided grants up to S500 per unit toward insulation and draught-proofing measures in about 2.5 million units. That represents about one-third of the eligible housing stock built before 1977. The program has been dominated by attic insulation activity and an installer force has grown up specializing in blowing insulation into attics by mechanical means. As demand for this measure has approached saturation, the industry has begun to diversify its service by including a comprehensive caulking and weather stripping, insulation of basements and to some extent insulation of walls. Energy savings attributable to work done under CHIP are estimated at the equivalent of 28,500 barrels of oil a day.
The take-up of CHIP by region reflects the length of time homes in various provinces have been eligible and the pattern of energy costs. On both counts, this has resulted in the most extensive use of CHIP in Atlantic Canada. The homes covered by CHIP represents 61 per cent of the eligible housing stock in Newfoundland, 89 per cent in P.E.I. and 91 per cent in Nova
Scotia. The figure drops to 35 per cent in Ontario, 29 per cent in Quebec and 31 per cent on average for the western provinces.
Activity under COSP and CHIP has been significant. The critical issue is how much of the activity can be attributed to the existence of the incentives and how much would have taken place anyway. These are important considerations but extremely difficult measurements to take. A formal evaluation has been taken of CHIP, establishing that the incrementality of the program, the extra activity for which it can take credit, was 29 per cent of total activity.
This is an impressive figure and puts the Government's investment in a favourable light compared with costs of tax concessions or grants devoted to the development of new oil or gas sources. However, the measurement was made when the grant consisted of 100 per cent of the costs of materials to a maximum of $350 and one-third of labour costs to a maximum of $150. This grant structure was fraught with a variety of problems and was changed in 1982 to 60 per cent of both material and labour costs. The incrementality of CHIP has probably declined since that time.
These programs were introduced at times when the progress to reduce energy and oil use was unacceptably low and the savings to home owners poorly understood. In Canada and other industrial countries, conservation is now a much more popular concept and the public is much better informed. Substantial progress has been made in the technology and installers have begun to expand their services to cover a more comprehensive range of conservation measures.
Similarly, public understanding and acceptance of the advantages of oil substitution are now much higher than they were in the 1970s. Competition for conversions between gas utilities and suppliers of electrical systems has been spirited. We need only look at the advertisements by electrical and gas utilities today to see that free entreprise is working well.
Canada must continue to make progress in both conservation and oil substitution: let me make that very clear to the House and the people of Canada. In the residential sector, this past decade has seen the average consumption of energy per household decline by 16 per cent. It is estimated that there is another 30 per cent to go-a 30 per cent reduction in energy use for the average home from such readily available measures as comprehensive draught-proofing, basement insulation and efficiency improvements in heating systems. These future savings would provide good pay-backs for the householder in reduced heating costs and, for the country, total energy savings equivalent to a further 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
[DOT] (M50)
A further substantial amount of residential oil substitution will also make sense for the country and individual households. It will help preserve domestic supplies of oil; that is very important. The major alternative sources-natural gas and electricity-are in abundant domestic supply. Their increased use is supported not only by the federal Government but by the Governments of the provinces where the resources have been
February 28, 1985

developed and whose industries and taxpayers benefit from their consumption. Wood has become another important alternative which will endure as a primary source of space heating in rural areas where supplies can still be obtained at low cost. Exciting new advances have been made in the efficiency of heating equipment, and this new technology is largely Canadian.
Conversion from oil will be practical and attractive for perhaps a further million homes in Canada. Even without a government grant it will offer savings in operating costs which justify the costs of converting. I think that is an important factor.
The over-all impact of COSP has been beneficial and it has obviously helped bring Canada closer to oil self-sufficiency. However, any massive intervention of this kind brings with it problems and distortions. We have heard that from all sectors. From the start there were areas of Canada where alternatives to oil did not provide cheaper home heating. It was no favour to home owners in these areas to encourage them to go off oil. By offering assistance only toward conversion, COSP discouraged the option of oil furnace retrofit in circumstances where it might make more sense than conversion. COSP has set up oil substitution in a kind of competition with conservation for attention and for the home owners' investment dollar, when home owners should be considering both actions as part of a planned approach to home energy management.
Much more can be done to foster such a total perspective to the household energy bill. It is up to suppliers and governments to provide better information on the full scope of conservation and off-oil measures, the sequence and timing for undertaking them, and the cost and savings involved. Conservation and conversion can be among the best household investments available, yielding savings in heating costs which can pay the investment back rapidly and go on providing savings year after year. They can be significant investments, amounting to several thousands of dollars for some home owners. In present circumstances there is no prospect that governments can afford grants or other incentives large enough to cover investments of this size or to pay for a share large enough to guarantee action by home owners.
Grants are not the answer in future, nor should they be necessary. Better alternatives are at hand. We can help ensure that householders, wherever they live in Canada, enjoy access to objective and comprehensive information on what to do about saving energy and how to do it. The more specific information can be made to individual household needs the better. We can continue to pursue solutions to technical problems, refine and expand work standards, and assist industry to improve insulation techniques and marketing. All these things can be done at far less expense than CHIP and COSP, and all of them can be done in co-operation with industry and provincial governments. This is being done now.
Surely this is the direction we should be taking-away from massive interventions and government hand-outs which can so easily prompt arbitrary decisions and invite abuse, toward better quality of work and better decisions by householders to
Oil Substitution Act
reduce the use of energy. This is to what we are committed. I ask the House for its support of Bill C-24.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for his applause. I hope he will listen intently to what I have to say and hang on to every word, so to speak.
I do not think there have been many programs offered by the federal Government which have been of more general help to low-income, unemployed and fixed-income Canadians than CHIP and COSP. They have been of tremendous benefit. These are two of what the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources refers to as direct action programs, and they are in four categories. The first is energy conservation, that is, CHIP. The second is development of renewable resources. The third is the development of alternative fuels; and the fourth is the off-oil substitution program or COSP.
I will say a little more later about the second and third ones, the development of renewable resources and the development of alternative fuels. However, I want to deal first with the two direct action programs and how they are affected by Bill C-24. These programs are aimed directly at the final consumer. In that regard it makes them very special programs. They are aimed at Canadian families and Canadian home owners. When we talk about cancelling programs such as these, we are talking about taking away direct money from the federal Government to the ordinary Canadian family in the ordinary Canadian home.
We have to look at the ramifications of that. What would be the ramifications? First I will refer to CHIP, grants to home owners who invest in residential energy conservation. It provides up to $500 for home owners who wish to invest in home energy conservation. That is extremely important. As of the summer of 1984 it assisted 1.5 million Canadian householders in making their homes more energy-efficient. In 1983 alone it resulted in a reduction in home heating costs of close to $500 million. It has been a tremendously successful program.
The other program, COSP, has been encouraging home owners to convert off oil. It is very important as well. Oil was once an extremely expensive fuel. It is still expensive but not as it once was. It has the potential to be every bit as expensive as it was during the dark days of the energy scare or to be much more expensive than it was then. More than 425,000 Canadian families have benefited from grants up to $800 since the program was introduced in 1980. It has resulted in a redirection of oil consumption of 10 million barrels per year. The number of households heated by oil declined from 42 per cent to 31 per cent in the three years before the summer of 1984.
These two programs along with the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, which was cut by 25 per cent on November 8 in the economic and fiscal statement, have formed the backbone of assistance to Canadian families through funding to households. I think the Government is missing the tremendous importance of these programs. This is

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
extremely unfortunate both for Canadians and for the Government.
Let us look at the S500 which went to each family under COSP. We realize they were tremendous. Each home owner received those amounts under those two programs. It cannot be left there. The benefits of these two programs went well beyond the grants, mainly because the federal Government sponsored the programs. In this case, the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program do not deal with members of boards of directors of the multinational oil companies. You are not dealing with people who work in the energy industry day in and day out; you are dealing with average Canadians who are concerned with what energy will cost them for their homes and automobiles in particular. This is tremendously important to keep in mind. They want to know how they can reduce their energy costs.
With a growing number of unemployed and a growing percentage of our people over the age of 65 on fixed incomes and the wage settlements in this country falling behind, it is becoming more important how people can redirect these energy costs to other tremendously important costs, such as rent, food and clothing for themselves and their children. That is tremendously important.
Look at this program other than just from the funding aspect. How was this program delivered? It was delivered by the federal Government with a tremendous amount of information. It provided information not only on the expense of oil, but on the cost of competing fuel sources. Most important, it supplied confidence to the Canadian consumer because the federal Government was involved in it. The federal Government provided brochures. It provided information and other sources. Very important, it provided a toll-free telephone inquiry service so that the average Canadian could call the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and get information.
1 do not think there are too many Members of this House who have not come in contact with Canadians who have taken advantage of this program. As Members of Parliament and before they became Members, there were a lot of problems that came into play. Most important were people trying to take advantage of this program. The Government required, for example, that furnaces be CSA approved. An awful lot of people came to me who said: "I bought this furnace from so-and-so because he assured me that it was a great furnace, and now I find that I cannot collect the $800". That is a tragic situation. The person literally could not afford to pay that $800.
That person went into the program on the strength of what he or she had read and the fact that the Government provided information. Their attention was drawn to it because they were going to get $800. What kind of attention is the ordinary Canadian going to give to literature that does not have that very important carrot of the $800? This is a devastating opportunity for the average Canadian to be taken advantage of
with regard to oil and energy conservation now that the Government has backed out of these two very important programs.
What will happen? The Government says everything will be all right, that people will still be able to convert without these programs. Anybody can convert, if that is all there is to it. They are free to convert, but what will be their financial position? What will be their knowledge of the possibilities about which we have been giving information over the past seven and a half years with regard to the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program? What will be the situation?
The Government says that the people of Canada are sophisticated and they know the options with regard to conservation. A lot of people do. The reason they know is because they took advantage of both these programs. Those who have not taken advantage of the programs do not have the same information. The people who have taken advantage of the programs have the information, but not those who have yet to take advantage of them. That is a tremendously important factor of which we must be cognizant.
The Minister said that both CHIP and COSP, the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, have served their purpose and are no longer needed to encourage people to become energy conscious. I do not agree with that. The facts do not indicate that. If any Ontario Members are interested, they can call Consumers Gas in Ontario and get the facts.
Between October 1, 1983 and February 28, 1984, 4,814 people took advantage of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. Between October 1, 1984, and February 26, 1985, 17,912 applications have been received by Consumers Gas in Ontario. They have to try to put in these gas systems before March 31, 1985. Within one month they have to put in these systems. Of those 17,912 applications, 8,889 came in January alone. That is the highest number of applications that has ever come to Consumers Gas in Ontario in any one month period.
The Government says that people knew the program would end and that is why there is this rush. That is true to a certain extent. Word got around and that increased the number of applications. But these people are left hanging because of the way the Government is doing things. The Government has not taken into consideration very important factors. It has reduced the amount of the Canadian Home Insulation Program from 60 per cent to one-third as of January 1. That alone is damaging enough to low-income Canadians who cannot afford that difference. Now it is going to take away the whole program if a person did not make his application before November 8, 1984; or, if he made the application after November 8, if the system is in place before the end of March, 1985.
What have we done? Consumers Gas now has 50 to 55 crews working seven days a week trying to service these requests. They are trying to put gas lines in frozen ground covered by snow. If a deadline is going to be set, it should be
February 28, 1985

set in the summer or fall when gas lines can be installed in unfrozen ground that is not covered by snow.
Not only that, during these months the suppliers of furnaces are not making furnaces. They are making air conditioners for the summer season. How are you going to get the gas furnaces that you need to service these applications? You cannot. A lot of the suppliers of furnaces have tried to retool and manufacture furnaces, but there is complete and utter confusion. They still have to make the air conditioners for the summer season. By putting this deadline at the end of March, it completely frustrates the gas suppliers and Canadian home owners who want to take advantage of these programs. Those who could get systems in the summer cannot get them now because of the difficulty in installing these systems at this time.
I would very seriously and strongly request that the Government extend the deadline for the Canadian Oil Substitution Program by six months. This will give people who now want it a chance to have the system put in. It will give the installers and suppliers of gas and equipment the chance to instal this equipment properly at a time of year when it can best be done. If the Government does not do this, it is just twigging the noses of Canadians. Obviously this matter has not been thought over by the Government. I think this is a tremendously tragic situation. There is going to be a very cruel April Fool's Day joke played on Canadians when they find out that they are not able to benefit from this program.
Letters are already being drafted by Consumers Gas. Com-sumers Gas has to be able to notify some of these people beforehand that it cannot possibly service these applications. What will the cry be from Canadians who wish to take advantage of this program when they receive a letter telling them they cannot possibly get this system because it cannot be installed by the end of March of this year? That will be a most unfortunate situation. I think the Government will be hearing a lot more about that from Canadian home owners.
The Government does not seem to be giving any consideration to the average Canadian or to the direction in which the country is going regarding energy policy. The Government has completely laid waste the alternate energy program and the concept of renewable fuels. The Government has laid off 540 people at Atomic Energy of Canada in Mississauga and Montreal and this will effectively mean the end of the Candu reactor program other than sales of reactors to possible clients of which the AECL already has knowledge. There will be no meaningful drive to recruit new markets for these Candu reactors because AECL has only 50 per cent of its staff. It lost 600 people in 1982 and now it is losing another 540.


John Horton McDermid: Your Government laid people off too.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Sure, we know who laid them off. I have a calendar. However, we must think of the industry.
This is an example of where the attention of the Government is directed. Before the layoffs in 1982 there were 177 managers for 2,500 employees at AECL. In 1985 there are
Oil Substitution Act
223 managers for 1,800 people. The workforce has declined by 600 people and the number of managers has risen by about 50. The consideration of the Government is not for the ordinary working Canadian at all but for the big brass in the Crown corporations.
I do not think that any aspect of energy funding suffered more than alternative energy. The entire Energy Division of the National Research Council is to be phased out as rapidly as contracts within industry will allow. Within the National Research Council's Energy Division, 61 person-years, of which two-thirds are professional and one-third are support staff, are involved. In about two years' time there will probably be only five people working in that division. Many of these people being laid off are professional people who have been with the National Research Council for 20 or 25 years.
Much of the alternate energy program is in jeopardy because the Government is saying that the private sector can take it on. The private sector cannot take it on because the private sector is comprised of about 500 small to medium-sized companies which do not have the capital to take on this program. What will happen to the program? It will disappear.
Where is the thinking for the future? I am not saying that we are experiencing an energy scare right now but for heaven's sake, we should take advantage of this time to look at the possibilities for the future. We should take the time to study and make sure that Canadians are well served by this Government. We should take the time to look at the other possibilities.
I can mention a few statistics. I think these are important not for the figures themselves but for the trend that they show. With regard to crude oil, Canada supplies about 1.2 per cent of the world's crude oil but it produces 2.6 per cent of the world's crude oil. The ratio of production to supply in terms of years is about 14 years. I admit that that does not take into consideration frontier oil which does not have a supply and delivery system, nor does it take into consideration the oil sands and heavy oils. As well, it does not take into consideration that other oil supplies will be found. At the same time, this should not give the Government the confidence that it can do away with the possibility of finding competing fuels for the future. We need about 50 years to implement an alternate fuel structure. We need about 50 years to do the work, the studying, the research and the testing. That is a long period of time. That is a tremendously important factor which the Government has disregarded.
The 1985-86 cuts at the National Research Council will mean a reduction of $20 million in contracts to the industry. Not only will this affect industry cash flow but it is estimated that it could result in a direct loss of about 1,000 jobs in the country. Small firms only have so much available capital. If they are faced with the need to do R and D at this time when interest rates are rising and if they are faced with choosing between doing R and D and dealing with the long-term financial feasibility of their businesses, what option will they take? They must look after the financial strength of their

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
businesses. They cannot afford to take on an additional financial burden.
In addition, what about the possibilities of alternate energy systems for underdeveloped nations? Some countries in the world have to start thinking about the problems of underdeveloped nations. With the hunger that is being experienced in these countries, how can they continue to pay the price of oil indefinitely? We should be thinking about them. There are certain alternate energy systems that are adaptable to these countries and those that are not now adaptable will be adaptable within a few years if attention is paid to this program. However, we are completely ignoring this option.
As well, we in this country are going to lose very valuable technology. Without R and D, the experimentation will not be done in Canada but in other countries. We will fall drastically behind in our knowledge of these alternate fuels and the renewable resource aspect of energy.
The economic returns in the solar sector exist in the flat plate solar collection systems. This is an industry in which, prior to 1980, the majority of the small Canadian solar thermal market was served by imported equipment. As a result of the determined effort of the former Liberal Government, not only has a solar industry been created in Canada which supplies close to 100 per cent of its own growing domestic market, but this industry had export sales in 1984 of $6.8 million. That will be completely thrown away.


John Horton McDermid: Why?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Because the Government just does not care. It says it is trying to create jobs. It will lose more jobs through these cuts and it does not have any kind of programs designed to save jobs in the country. This industry has about 500 small and medium-sized companies, employs 9,000 people, and had sales in 1984 of $530 million; $30 million of which was in the export field.
I would like to return to the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program. I think it will be tremendously difficult for Canadians to accept the scrapping of these programs. I do not think the Government has given proper consideration to the needs of Canadians. I do not think the Government understand that Canadians had a great deal of confidence in these programs and that that confidence went well beyond the grants which were issued. Once again, it is the low-income, the unemployed and the fixed-income Canadian who will suffer.
What is the reason? It is to reduce the deficit. There is no doubt that the deficit is a serious question, but why are these cuts taking place at the expense of the people? Action was taken almost immediately. It was the easiest thing the Government could do. It is a tremendously unfortunate situation because these are two programs which are delivered directly to the homes and the consumers of Canada.
Again, I would ask the Government to extend the Canadian Oil Substitution Program for a period of six months to allow the people of Canada who want to take advantage of the program to be able to do so. The program should be extended so that Canadians will not be hindered by the difficulties of tyring to instal equipment in the winter when the ground is frozen, and to allow them to buy furnaces at a time when furnaces are being produced in the summer and fall, not at a time when air conditioners are being produced by the suppliers. I think the extension of this program is extremely important.
The Government says that Canadians will be able to conserve without these programs. I believe the Government will create a lot of problems as a result of the scrapping of these programs. In taking away these programs, and in reducing RRAP, the Government will find that there will be a very severe backlash. It is tragic because it did not have to happen. The Government should have given attention to cuts which would not affect the Canadians who are in most need of assistance.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being the first speaker on this Bill for the New Democratic Party. At the outset I would like to make our position clear. I regard Bill C-24 as being a short-sighted, ill-advised and unfair piece of legislation. In exploring the Bill and its implications, in considering what these programs have meant to Canadians in the past and what the continuation of these programs could mean for the future, I want to demonstrate why I think it is a mistake for us to consider the passage of Bill C-24.
In a couple of short pages the Bill proposes the early termination of two energy conservation programs. The Canadian Home Insulation Program was established in 1977 and it was expected to run until the end of 1987. However, it will now be ended a year and nine months early, on March 31, 1986.
The Canadian Oil Substitution Program was established in 1980, although the legislation did not pass until 1981, and it was expected to run until the end of the decade. That program will now terminate on March 31, 1985, which will be five years and nine months early. Indeed, for COSP that is a very early termination. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated earlier that that program was of very real importance to Canadians. In my later comments I want to question whether the hopes which have been placed on the continuation of industries that have been encouraged by these programs will be justified.
I would like to examine these programs. First, I would like to talk about CHIP, which was established in 1977. CHIP was to pay 60 per cent of the eligible costs of labour and materials involved in insulating or draught-proofing homes, up to a maximum grant of $500. Of course, the eligible homes were those which were constructed prior to September 1, 1977. Under government policy, the grants which are now available have already been reduced. In the past the reimbursement was up to 60 per cent, but because of a change in regulation which was made by this Government and not debated in the House,
February 28, 1985

the grant was reduced to a reimbursement of only 33M per cent, although the maximum grant of $500 will remain. Applicants who registered for the program before December 31, and who complete the work by the end of March, will receive 60 per cent, and the lower rate will go into effect for the short period which remains after that date.
The Parliamentary Secretary commented on the positive evaluation which CHIP received from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like to comment on that positive evaluation. Originally, the program had very ambitious goals set for it. There was the hope of reducing by a full 30 per cent the consumption of energy used for space heating of existing dwellings in Canada, as well as the goal of upgrading the housing stock of the country by 70 per cent. In fact, the target which was set for CHIP was to improve the insulation of 4.9 million residences in Canada. The evaluation, which the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources carried out indicated that the first goal had been unrealistic. Hoping to reduce heat consumption by 30 per cent could not be achieved, although it is significant that energy consumption for these purposes has been reduced by 17 per cent in the homes which were insulated with the help of CHIP. Of course, the result has been a significant saving to those Canadians who participated in the program.
The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that it is a good investment. The key point is whether people will continue to make this investment without encouragement from the Government. I am by no means as certain as the Parliamentary Secretary is on that point. There is a substantial reduction, although the reduction did not meet the targeted reduction for energy consumption.
What about the other target, the goal of reaching 4.9 million residences by 1987? It is significant to note that by the end of 1984-which is over halfway through the tenure of the program-approximately 2.5 million homes had taken advantage of CHIP. Given that the program is being axed at an early date, that particular goal of having 4.9 million Canadian homes better insulated will not be achieved. But the program was moving along not too far below the target which was set.
It is very significant to appreciate, as against the argument which some Hon. Members have made, that it is middle and upper-income Canadians who were the prime beneficiaries of this program. They were persons who could in fact come up with the money to carry it through and to reap the savings in fuel consumption. The evaluation by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources contradicted that particular assessment of the situation because in fact 24.3 per cent of the CHIP dollars went to 21.1 per cent of eligible home owners who were earning less than $15,000 annually. One could say, therefore, that there was quite appropriately a somewhat more than proportionate use of the program by home owners who had quite limited incomes and were hard pressed in their household budgets from week to week. They were able to take advantage of the program and make good use of it.
Oil Substitution Act


John Horton McDermid: That was five years ago.


Abram Ernest Epp: Over the length of the program, not just five years ago.


John Horton McDermid: If it was the survey you were talking about, it was done five years ago.


Abram Ernest Epp: A further question which faces us on this issue, Mr. Speaker, is whether in fact the private sector will continue with this program once the encouragement of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has been removed. The evaluation which was carried out at the time suggested that that was not going to be the case. Over the period from 1977 to 1982, 43 per cent of all the retrofitting of homes which was being done was carried out under the CHIP program. It was stated by those persons surveyed that almost two-thirds of the insulating activities which CHIP encouraged would not in fact have occurred had the program not been in place, which means that only 35 per cent of those Canadians who took advantage of insulating programs for their homes would in fact have done so if there had been no CHIP program.
That particular fact leaves one intensely suspicious and anxious about the assertions made by the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) about the way in which Canadian home owners and the private sector will carry on without this program. No fewer than 37 per cent of those who took advantage of the CHIP program said that they would not in fact have insulated their homes if the program had not existed. Of course, that meant that 75 per cent of all dollars spent by CHIP users would not have been spent without the program. All of this, of course, relates to an encouragement to industry and to the creation of employment in this country which is of significance to us.
Before I get to those particular consequences of the program, I would like to say something about the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, which is being ended very early in the program, this spring, according to the Government. I should say precisely that it will finish before the end of this winter. The program has been in operation only five years. It had an expected life of a decade but here we have an obviously shortsighted termination of the program.
The program was designed, as has been recognized by others, to provide financial assistance for the conversion of heating systems in residences and commercial and industrial buildings. It was designed to encourage conversion from oil to various types of heating, whether natural gas, electricity, propane, wood, wind, or solar power. Among those possibilities, of course, one can readily select natural gas. On a relatively short time frame it is a sensible choice for many people and certainly in my constituency the conversion to natural gas has been a popular decision. Conversion to electricity is perhaps a good choice in some circumstances, although as we reach the end of our hydro resource possibilities and as we become, particularly in the Province of Ontario,

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
so dependent on nuclear power, I am much more equivocal about that particular option.
The possibility of moving to solar energy, as far as wood is concerned, there as well one hesitates. If this is scrub wood and not merchandiseable wood we are talking about, I suppose one might not hesitate, although our concern about forests suggests that we should be somewhat hesitant about conversion to wood. The possibility of wind and solar energy is a very important possibility. The lack of encouragement in these areas, combined with the decision of the Government to reduce research at a time when solar power, at least in the United States, is becoming competitive with all the other possibilities, is particularly to be lamented and fits in all too well with the early termination of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program in Bill C-24.
In considering the nature of this program, we have to recognize that its original goal was to reduce the use of oil by residential, commercial and industrial users to 10 per cent of the energy consumption in Canada. In order to do that, when the program was established it was projected that more than two million conversions of heating systems would have to occur. At the time, in fact, the home heating sector was dependent by 37 per cent on oil in Canada.
The COSP program has had a good deal of success in meeting this goal even in the first five years of its operation. According to departmental figures, the target of 1,981,300 residential units for the decade has been covered by about one-half. To date, 925,600 units have been converted and the plan to convert over one million units before the plan ends seems quite possible, particularly given the rush which has happened over the last month. About half of the decade target has been achieved at the midpoint. That is quite in line with the original projections of the plan and significantly reduces the consumption of crude oil for heating purposes in Canada.
Since Canada is a consumer of 1.45 million barrels of oil a day, a reduction of 42,000 barrels-15.3 million barrels per year, thanks to the COSP program-is an energy saving of 2.8 per cent which can be directly attributed to the program. Of course, if the program were to be continued, there would be some substantial reduction in the use of crude oil in residences, and for commercial and industrial heating. That is a significant saving from a program which has enormous significance at a time when not just Canadians but all of us around the globe have the best of reasons to be concerned about energy resources.
It might be noted, of course, that the COSP program was very efficiently administered and certainly does not raise any concerns on that score. Since the program began, $549 million has been distributed in grants. A portion of that, no mean portion, came back in taxes. As a result, the program, over very close to half of its life, has cost the Canadian taxpayer about $420 million. Administrative costs have been about $5 million annually. This means most of the expenditure has gone to home owners and then to industry.
That, of course, is closely related to the question of employment which I think is not to be ignored in considering the significance of these programs. It is particularly because of that that this is shortsighted action. The Parliamentary Secretary's observations about the importance of energy conversion and the value of these programs, together with the pious hopes he expresses that the private sector will pick this up and continue it after the Government has axed these programs, suggests to me that while the Government was desperately looking around for ways to meet its ideological commitment to deficit reduction last October and November and looked to this program as one means of doing so, it was expressing the ideological conviction that the deficit had to be reduced. It quite lost sight of the fact that if we are doing constructive things in the country, if we are making investments which save energy, and the Canadian Government is involved in reducing the cost of imported crude oil, it is perfectly legitimate to do that with borrowed money. But a Government which has this ideological commitment to reducing expenditure by any means will undertake just the kind of shortsighted action we see here.
I want to explore briefly the question of job creation because that is of enormous importance to us. The present Government and its leader campaigned on jobs, jobs, jobs, and then became involved with deficit reduction to create confidence in the pious hope that would lead to employment somewhere down the road. Here we have programs which were effective in creating employment. Between 1977 and 1980 the CHIP program created 44,150 person-years of employment. Every million dollars spent under CHIP produced 53 person-years of employment. However, the expenditure of $1 million in funds under CHIP actually created 108 person-years of employment because of the private expenditures it encouraged. That works out to $9,260 a year of Government expenditures for each year of employment. That is quite comparable with employment costs in other areas and suggests that in the CHIP program we have a perfectly good means of creating employment in the country. Always recognizing, of course, that the point of the program was not first of all employment of Canadians but, rather, energy conservation and cost reduction for consumers and taxpayers.
Under COSP we see very similar things. We find that for every million dollars spent on the Canadian Oil Substitution Program we have 30.5 person-years of employment created. Between 1981 and 1985 some 16,750 person-years of employment were created. If you add the home owner contribution, the total employment creation reaches 50,250 person-years. Again, no mean figure. It is interesting to note that the CHIP program has been stronger for Canadian employment because it was largely based on domestic production of insulation, whereas the COSP program tended to produce a fair measure of imports. As a result, there was no substantial effect on employment in Canada resulting from those public expenditures. If one draws that kind of a distinction, then the CHIP program was clearly preferable.
February 28, 1985

On the other hand, if you look at the extent to which CE1IP and COSP expenditures produced spending by Canadians, for every dollar the Government contributed under CHIP, an additional 80 cents of expenditure by home owners was created, whereas under COSP, $1 of Government expenditure produced $2 of private expenditure. So on that particular score there was an advantage on the side of the COSP program.
What we have seen, then, in CHIP and COSP, is significant activity in energy conservation for Canadians and significant generation of employment all across the country, particularly in areas of slower economic activity. The CHIP program is obviously of very great interest to people in the Atlantic Provinces where heating costs run so very high. In this public encouragement of investment we see dramatically the way in which government can create employment. It is that kind of real investment which needs to be underscored. To axe these programs as the Government has done so early in its mandate, before it has had adequate time to consider the whole matter, suggests quite a false understanding of the program. In fact, I think there is a division in the Conservative Party on these things which one can illustrate quite nicely in terms of an older wisdom and perhaps newer ideology creeping in.
The COSP Bill came before the House in 1981. Speaking for the Conservatives was the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He has a venerable place in the formulation of national development programs for the Conservative Party in years past and for the Government particularly between 1957 and 1963. What did this Member have to say about COSP? Speaking on June 30, 1981, as reported at page 11099 of Hansard, he 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.
At the end of his comments he added:
I want to conclude by congratulating the minister again for bringing this legislation forward ... 1 hope he will consider the suggestion that I have made to improve the iegislation and make it available to all Canadians. If so, we could achieve this conversion from oil to other energies more rapidly than this bill can by itself.
That is an example of good sense prevailing, free of the kind of ideological convictions and pious hopes which characterize the economic policies of the present Government.
What do we have in contrast to that? When the House was barely in session back in November and the fiscal and economic statement had not even been presented, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said the following:
Mr. Speaker, under the National Energy Program there are in existence two expensive and, in my view, totally redundant programs which represent a serious drain on the treasury and in reality are a transfer from government to the relatively affluent.
I might say that the information on the CHIP program contradicts that kind of judgment. It was not only the relatively affluent but all Canadians who took advantage of the CHIP
Oil Substitution Act
program. He said that he was speaking about COSP and CHIP. In his concluding observations on November 7 he said:
All forms of energy in Canada, Mr. Speaker, are now in surplus. World oil prices are falling, and producers are being directed not to produce. Indeed, they are being pro-rated. Why then spill out literally millions of taxpayers' dollars to those well enough off to own their own homes in order to encourage them to do what they ought to have done in the first place, to insulate: or to bribe them to buy new furnaces, heat pumps, and such devices. Surely there can be no justification for these programs.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are good justifications for those programs. The most incredibly shortsighted thing for anyone to assert is that out of this short-term surplus of natural gas and crude oil around the world there is any basis for drawing optimistic conclusions. At the moment, due to a serious world recession from which very few parts of the world have dramatically recovered, consumption is down and OPEC finds itself under pressure to control output in order to keep its prices up. Surely there is no basis there for any kind of optimism about the 1990s and the twenty-first century. It is incredibly shortsighted for anyone to forget the fact that oil and natural gas will disappear one of these days.
As one particular gadfly in the industry suggested before a committee not many days ago, we may in fact face oil and gas rationing within the next decade, particularly with crude oil. The declines in production which are likely to come, even in the Middle East, make it incredibly stupid to end the Canadian Oil Substitution Program in the middle of the 1980s and to not take advantage of every opportunity to reduce our consumption of oil in the country which serves so many purposes other than home heating. We should ensure that we have as much crude oil as possible as a petrochemical feed stock for the driving of vehicles.
I would like to speak about a particular aspect of the early termination of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program which applies to my constituents in Thunder Bay-Nipigon as well as to many people in northern Canada. Winter conditions in Canada present a problem in trying to act on this program by March 31. Gas service cannot be installed in the north during the winter months, primarily because the ground is frozen. Many contracts entered into after the November 8 announcement of the program's termination cannot be completed by the deadline of March 31. This restriction effectively precludes many northerners from taking advantage of the program during the last five months of its effect.
I have written the Minister about that expressing concern and asking for a possible extension. I listened with care to the Parliamentary Secretary when he was responding to my and other communications on this issue. I gathered that the answer was negative. That is simply not satisfactory to my constituents, particularly if the concern is only to avoid an outflow and to somewhat reduce the deficit on the budget. I do not accept that answer. I will continue to exert pressure on this matter.
My main concern, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government's cancellation of COSP is done with openness and forthrightness. I would not like to think that the March cut-off date was

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
set with knowledge of the restriction it represents for northerners. If such knowledge was present, I would suggest that the Government has been dishonest with Canadians in the north who are especially disadvantaged by high and increasing energy costs. The Minister must respond sensitively and favourably to the needs of people in northern Ontario who cannot act by doing what applicants in southern Ontario and the lower mainland in British Columbia are doing. They have been flooding Consumers Gas and B.C. Hydro with applications on which work can go ahead. There is not any possibility of installation of natural gas lines in northern Ontario until next June. The Parliamentary Secretary may have some information for me which I trust will be favourable. However, in the meantime my constituents have been approaching me with the problem they face. That is part of the unfairness of the early deadline in Bill C-24.
We had two programs which were of very great value in advancing energy conservation in the country. They produced potential reduction in costs for individual Canadians. That may still encourage some Canadians to go ahead with these endeavours aside from the program. The fact that CHIP in particular was taken advantage of by lower income home owners makes very questionable the possibility that these endeavours will continue once the program is ended.
The Minister was desperate to realize savings in her area, as practically all Ministers were expected to do. She settled on programs that were of value for energy conservation, efficiency, strengthening our country, and safeguarding the lives of people around the globe in the twenty-first century.


John Horton McDermid: Check the new Estimates.


Abram Ernest Epp: The programs were of enormous value for those purposes. This early termination was a mistake. The Parliamentary Secretary tells me to check the Estimates. That suggests to me some second thoughts about this whole program. I do not want second thoughts of that sort. We want this Bill withdrawn or defeated so that the programs can continue and we can press on with the work of energy conservation to ensure that Canada can be world class in this area as well.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
lEnglish)

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the whole afternoon was taken up with an important issue that affects fishermen and the lives of our native people in the Fraser River Valley. We debated the unanimous motion which was passed by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry recommending to the House of Commons that there be a one-year postponement of the CN twin-tracking project while the social and environmental impact on the 36 Indian bands most affected by this project are assessed, and that the economic justification for the CN twin-tracking be made available to the Alliance of Tribal Councils and others.
During the debate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) expressed sympathy for, if not agreement with, the committee's motion. It was also noted that the final decision rests with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) who has the authority to sign the necessary Order in Council.
Tomorrow, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is expected to be in British Columbia to meet with the affected Indian communities in light of these developments. As a member of the standing committee, I urge the Minister of Transport to accept the unanimous request by the members of the Fisheries and Forestry Committee that the project be suspended for one year to allow the native people, the fishermen, and all other parties, to have their concern made known and taken into account before the final decision is made.

[ Translation]


ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, for days and even weeks, the Liberal Opposition has been baiting Government Members from Quebec about their so-called silence in this House.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec Conservative Members certainly do not have to be told how to behave by the Liberal Members from Quebec in this House. Today I want to ask the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) where they were in 1982, when their Government unilaterally patriated the Constitution without seeking Quebec's agreement, when only the Right Hon. Joe Clark and the Hon. Roch La Salle were truly defending the interests of Quebecers. Where were they when Petromont's request for $15 million was turned down? Where were they
February 28, 1985

when their Government wanted to pass Bill S-31, the purpose of which was to abolish the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec? They were, as usual, either hiding under the rug or following their shepherd like 74 sheep.
Mr. Speaker, we really do not need the Liberals to tell us how to behave, and I think the performance of our Members in this House is remarkable, compared with that of our predecessors.


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign Progressive Conservatives convinced many voters in British Columbia and across Canada that forestry was high on their agenda for federal funds. An amount of $200 million per year was promised for B.C. and, to date, no Conservative has denied that pledge. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised a full Cabinet position and a Ministry of Forests. We have only a Minister of State hidden away in Agriculture Canada, with a budget that is 15 per cent smaller than that given by Pierre Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau even offered $60 million to British Columbia for reforestation last year.
Now we find the Conservatives in collusion with Bill Bennett, offering at most $30 million in federal dollars per year for British Columbia. That soon may be slashed to $15 million. At least $300 million per year must be spent to replant the 600,000 hectares of good and medium backlog in British Columbia. These sites are close to our mills and communities and will return over 10 per cent value of investment per year, according to Canadian Forest Service estimates.
British Columbians are not amused that the promises of last September have been watered down from $200 million to $30 million per year, and perhaps now to $15 million per year. Our forests are our future and the jobs of our children. The public has been sadly misled by many Progressive Conservatives on their promised support for forestry in Canada.

[ Translation]


ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the last survivors, the last 40 Members of an organization that is about to become extinct, have been crying out about the performance of Progressive Conservative Members in this House. This is the ultimate hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. On September 4, the Canadian people made it very clear what they thought of the performance of the Liberal Members.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to this House that our 211 Progressive Conservative Members have become very active participants in the business of Parliament, by their speeches and various debates on legislation, through their participation in the various standing committees of the House, and their activities in the national and regional caucuses and the subject caucus where they help evaluate Government programs.
Finally, and this is very important, Mr. Speaker, while 74 wishy-washy Members from Quebec had practically made people forget Canada as a nation by their intellectual absence from Ottawa and their physical absence from their ridings, Progressive Conservative Members are present in their ridings and through them, Canada is again becoming visible to and appreciated by all Canadians. Through that presence, Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative Members are going to remove any doubts as to the existence of a Canada A mari usque ad mare.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to answer back-


An Hon. Member:: Where were you 20 years ago?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members think this is the mutual admiration period.
Mr. Speaker, this House is the forum for expressing our views and defending people.
Speaking on a much more serious note, several months ago, I took it upon myself to inform and convince various groups from all across the country of the need to stop this Conservative Government's continuing discrimination against single persons aged 60 to 64.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. Members to please listen-
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention here some of the groups who supported the suggestion 1 made to the Prime Minister that he extend the provision to all single persons in need, without discriminating against those who are single, separated or divorced. They are: the Association quebecoise pour la defense des droits des retraites et des pre-retraites; FADOQ, the Federation des clubs de l'Age d'or du Quebec; the Federation des families monoparentales du Quebec; the Fredericton Voice of Women, in New Brunswick; the YMCA of Halifax, Nova Scotia; the Saskatchewan Woman Institute; the Widow Talk Association of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; the Business and Professional Women's Club, Summerside, Ontario; the Mature Women's Support Network, Vancouver, British Columbia-

February 28, 1985
5.0. 21


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, encouragement and strong support is needed with respect to the proposed $1.2 billion investment by Domtar in the Eastern Townships, because it is essential to the long-term survival of the mill, essential if it is to be competitive on international markets, and essential to better the company's productivity and competitiveness. It is essential as well to the survival of the town of Windsor, essential to my riding's wood producers who supply the company and to the economy of the Eastern Townships and Quebec as a whole.
Along with my Liberal colleagues in the House today, I am glad to see that the company management, the provincial authorities and our Government are getting together to see what must be done to make sure that this investment becomes reality.
The outcome of the last election shows that this is the way Canadians want their country to be administered. They look askance at irresponsible promises which might spell national bankruptcy and they are unfavourably impressed by the approach taken in recent days by some Liberal Members who bleat openly like lost sheep without a leader. It is through consultation with the various parties and serious consideration of all possible avenues-


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


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, given the large number of immigrants who have come to Canada in recent years, it is not surprising that there has been an increasing number of applications for permission to bring family members to Canada. Most Canadians favour the principle of family reunification. However, recently the Department of Employment and Immigration increased the income required by landed immigrants to bring relatives to Canada. In some cases the annual income required now ranges between $26,000 and $30,000, an income which many landed immigrants, and indeed most Canadians, have not achieved.
Spokesmen for immigrant groups have expressed their dismay and dissatisfaction with the new income levels established by the Department, and have made it clear that these will have very serious adverse effects on family reunification.
In Winnipeg, in the last three months, 87 of 558 requests to bring family members to Canada were refused because the sponsors did not earn enough money. Similar situations exist in most other cities in Canada, including Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to review personally the income increase imposed by her Department which is causing so much grief to new Canadians.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the least that can be said for them is that the Hon. Members opposite have not lost their voices.
In my opinion, when a tame member of the Quebec Liberal caucus has the audacity to become indignant about the decision of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), he shows once again how badly he understands Canadian politics.
When the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) speaks about weaknesses, inertia and indifference in the Progressive Conservative Party and recalls the initiatives of his own Party, he is maliciously misleading the people of Canada and of Quebec about the sad facts which this Government must face.
If this Progressive Conservative Government cannot meet the request of the Domtar company, it is precisely because of the indifference and the wasteful spending of the previous Liberal Government; we are therefore to deal with a record deficit which leaves us without any freedom of movement.
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec caucus will always support the Prime Minister in promoting a reasonable approach and a dialogue with the main participants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! 1 regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, people from across Canada have been calling my office accusing the Government of being a Government of destruction. This Government has no respect whatsoever for the
February 28, 1985

Canadian people. Someone from the Tory ranks should advise the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that he has not been elected President of the United States and that our system is not the American one. It is time for the Prime Minister to stop acting as if he were the President.
This man, who accused the previous Government of every sin under the sun, then turned around and increased the operation budget of his office by 57 percent and increased his staff by 31 per cent. He preaches restraint to the Canadian people, and hands over a ridiculous increase to senior citizens. This is the man who says he is proud of Canadians, and then turns around in Fortune magazine and dumps all over the people and businessmen of the country. This is sickening. The Prime Minister should apologize to the workers of Canada, Canadian businesses, and Canadian people for his disgraceful performance.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is important for obvious reasons that we do everything possible to maintain a healthy primary agriculture industry. Having said that, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone stays in farming, or would take up farming for a living. As a former country veterinarian for many years, I know of what I speak. Farming is not only a seven days a week job, but there is very little return or profit to be made.
Last year net farm income was $3.8 billion. The number of farmers in Canada is estimated at 350,000, which averages out to less than $11,000 per farmer, well below the poverty line. Since 1981 the return on assets has been negative due to the cost price squeeze and a decline in the value of farm assets.
While interest rates have dropped they are still too high, and will likely remain high because of our massive debt. Right now farmers collectively have a $20 billion debt burden which is soaking up 17 per cent of farm operating expenses. Many farmers have declared bankruptcy, and thousands more are in dire financial straits.
We can no longer cound on band-aid solutions to the problems of agriculture. Future action has to be carefully planned and executed to have lasting long-term effects. It is my hope that actions taken by the Government so far, as well as future actions, will restore a renewed hope, greater confidence, and viability to agriculture and its producers. It is imperative that we get behind our farmers 100 per cent. If we do not, all of us will be in deep trouble. We can do without a lot of things in this world-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
First I wish to congratulate him on enhancing Canada's image in the Caribbean, and more recently, in Jamaica. But let us get back to what is happening in Canada.
Recent events, especially in the Domtar affair, have shown that the Government's current policy does not altogether favour regional economic development.
The main estimates tabled by his colleague have shown a substantial reduction of $112 million in aid to less advantaged regions.
My question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister is as follows: Is the Prime Minister telling our less advantaged regions that they can ask for Ottawa's help to set up beaneries but if they have any big projects like Domtar that would create thousands of jobs, they should not count on Ottawa?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my Right Hon. friend was wrong in his reference to beaneries, because like other governments, we have made investments each worth several million dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars, which have had a very positive impact on regions in Quebec and elsewhere.
As far as Domtar is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition and his fellow Members are asking us, and rightly so, to act with caution in order to bring down the federal deficit. My Hon. friend knows perfectly well how the previous Government's legacy has affected Canada. He has spoken on the subject at length, and he is right.
That being said, it is extremely difficult for the Government to consider requests that would have a federal Treasury that is well nigh bare inject $100 million into a project for a Quebec company that is in very good shape financially and which has a very sound and impressive record.
That is more or less why we have taken the position that in the circumstances, we cannot go ahead and write a cheque for $100 million.
That being said, I may add that we are having talks with Domtar, and I hope to discuss the matter further with the Premier of Quebec next week, and we shall probably be getting some interesting proposals either from the Government or the company about ways in which we could help the Eastern Townships and Quebec realize this important project.
2594

February 28, 1985
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my problem here is to try to ascertain what is the position of the Government. I have listened to the Prime Minister. He has said that he is reopening a dossier in response to his caucus from Quebec yesterday, but a day earlier his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said, and I quote him, "the Government has decided not to provide financial assistance for new plant establishment or expansion of capacity in the forest products industry". That is his release. If that is not bad enough, the Minister of State for Forestry said yesterday that he didn't know what was going on. I use his words: "I'm surprised. I don't understand that". I think the Prime Minister could understand in the circumstances that we would appreciate a statement from him on what the policy of the Government really is.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my right hon. friend asks a legitimate question. What can the policy of a Government be when it has inherited a $35 billion deficit from its predecessors? What can the policy be?
For example, on Monday-and I say this with no malice- we receive requests from the BCNI, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and from the finance critic of the Opposition, with good reason, saying: "Please cut your deficit", and on Tuesday somebody walks in and says: "Write a blank cheque for $100 million". I think my right hon. friend would agree that that would be difficult to accommodate no matter how legitimate the objective.
We have said that we will not grant a $ 100-million blank cheque out of borrowed money. The Government of Canada would have to borrow that money. We are already borrowing to pay the interest on the debt we were left. The Government of Canada would have to borrow the $100 million to give it to a private company. While the financial posture of the Government is, unfortunately, not such as to enable us to do that, we will be meeting with the company to see if we cannot be helpful in a job-creation project which is of value to the Eastern Townships and the people of Quebec and Canada.


FORESTRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question again relates to forestry. I am not getting very far in trying to get any precision from the Prime Minister as it relates to Quebec. I would like to turn to the forestry situation in British Columbia.
There are reports out of Victoria indicating that the federal Government intends to propose to the Government of British
Columbia a ten-year rather than a five-year agreement for the $300 million. In my view, this does not meet the approval of the people of British Columbia nor of the Government of British Columbia. Indeed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while in Vancouver yesterday, expressed dissatisfaction with this arrangement. In light of the contradictory expressions made by members of the Government, will the Prime Minister tell us what his position is with respect to the forestry agreement with the Province of British Columbia?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what we will try to do in British Columbia is what we attempted to do in Newfoundland, and that is to conclude an agreement, something that apparently escaped the capabilities of the previous Government. We are going to be as fair to the people of British Columbia in regard to the forestry commitment as we were to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to offshore oil. I know my friend would agree with that.


MAIN ESTIMATES
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has spoken of the financial posture of the Government and of the issue of fiscal restraint. Everyone in Canada, and certainly most Members of the House, including Tory back-benchers, must be asking themselves why the Prime Minister is writing himself a blank cheque for an additional $2 million to cover expenses in his own office. I know it is a tiny amount in the view of the Prime Minister, but it works out to approximately $8,000 to $10,000 for every working day, or $1,000 per hour as we sit here during Question Period. We have not had an explanation of what these additional 30 people are going to be doing. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you will recall-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Donald James Johnston: The question is this, Mr. Speaker. We know by looking at the Estimates that this expenditure is not because of the disappearance of the central agencies. What in God's name are these 30 political aides going to be doing? Will the Prime Minister at least guarantee that no more aides will be taken on by way of contract and that the limit will be 120?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I acknowledged in regard to this matter that it was our intention to reduce that number, and in point of fact it has already been reduced from that which it was on the day of the printing of the Estimates. Having said that, I acknowledge that there are 120 people in the Prime Minister's Office. By way of comparison, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort
February 28, 1985

Garry, when he was Minister of Transport, had 85 people on his payroll, and he was only pretending to be Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ESTIMATES FOR 1986-87
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we are really interested in what other people have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Yesterday it was Mr. Pearson and Mr. Trudeau. It will be R. B. Bennett and Mackenzie King tomorrow. The people of Canada are interested in seeing what kind of an example this Prime Minister will set. He told us that this increase would be temporary. He has already indicated today that there has been some slight reduction. If it is to be temporary, could we please see the spending plans of the Prime Minister's Office for next year? Interestingly enough, those spending plans were not published with these Estimates as they were in our Estimates. Could we have those plans for the year 1986-87 tabled in the House, so that we can all satisfy ourselves that this increase is indeed temporary?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the finance critic, the Hon. Member for Westmount-


Donald James Johnston: Saint-Henri-Westmount.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount-have you decided which area you live in yet?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It has to be Westmount because the people of Saint-Henri did not vote for you. We won every poll in Saint-Henri, but we lost the top of the mountain.


An Hon. Member:: In the big houses.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is right. I was right there next to the family of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the remarks of the frontbenchers are getting longer and longer today. I wonder if we could all agree to shorten it up.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be happy to provide the information to my hon. friend as best I can. We will provide the information just as quickly as it becomes available.


BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I have just learned that the
Oral Questions
Bank of Canada announced another major increase in the bank rate of more than one-half of a percentage point. This is the fifth week in a row in which interest rates have risen. It has been estimated that, for each full percentage point increase in the interest rate, we lose 25,000 jobs. That means that in the last five weeks 50,000 jobs have been negatively affected because the Government continues to pursue the same old Liberal high interest rate policy. Why is the Government pursuing this high interest rate policy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are not following the same policies as the previous Government. Many commentators have indicated that we are not doing so and that they support the approach that we have taken.


John Edward Broadbent: Which commentators? Leave Bouey out of this.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Let me remind the Hon. Member again that we are in a very, very unusual situation here with the extremely strong performance of the United States dollar. If I could, I would like to read two sentences from a press release that was issued by the Bank of Canada about 20 minutes ago. They read as follows:
To attempt to avoid any decline in the exchange rate in this period would have required very much higher interest rates. To attempt to suppress any rise in interest rates would have led to an intolerable fall in the Canadian dollar.
What we and the Bank of Canada are trying to do is to follow a balanced policy in order to try to inject a degree of stability and confidence into the market so that we can, in due course, get interest rates down from these levels to the point at which I think both of us agree they should be.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister sat on this side of the House, he used to hear Marc Lalonde say the same thing as the Minister said this afternoon. We now have Liberals in blue suits on the other side of the House. That is the only difference.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Minister's boss, the Prime Minister, said during the summer that if he had to choose-


Mr. Dingwall:: Is that a Coppertone tan, Ed?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is entitled to put his question. Order, please. All Members putting questions are entitled to be heard.


John Edward Broadbent: Obviously the Liberals are a little sensitive about these things, Mr. Speaker.
During the summer, in the context of an election, the Prime Minister said that if he had to choose between a dropping dollar and increasing interest rates, he would accept the drop-

February 28, 1985
Oral Questions
ping dollar. I would ask the Minister of Finance, if it made sense to have that policy during the summer, and we believe it did, what is the difference between now and then? Is the only difference the fact that members of the Conservative Party are now on that side of the House? Why does the Government not pursue a consistent policy and keep interest rates down?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member has the appropriate amount of understanding of what is going on in the exchange markets today, or else he would not have asked the question. We have not seen in history the type of exchange markets that we have had in the last three weeks. That is a significantly different point which I think the Hon. Member must take into account. We are trying very hard to develop a balance wherein some of the pressure will be on the exchange rates and some of the pressure will be on interest rates. I think the commentators who are watching this are saying that the balance which we have struck is very appropriate.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, they are the same commentators and the same experts who said the same thing about Marc Lalonde when he was Minister of Finance. He, too, was pursuing their policy.
Since the high interest rate policy is affecting farmers, who are in one of the worst debt crisis situations they have been in for years, and since it negatively affects exporters in forestry products-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What is that again? The low dollar affects-


John Edward Broadbent: No, we are talking about interest rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Member please put his question, and could others let the Member put his
question?


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister of Finance will understand clearly that since the low dollar positively affects farmers with the export of grain, forestry workers with the export of forest products, automotive workers and steel workers, and since it would positively affect almost everyone who is looking for a job in Canada, why does the Minister not let the dollar seek its own level and keep interest rates down so that we will prosper?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one point. Marc Lalonde never had to deal with the type of interest rate and exchange rate situation which we are faced with today, as is every other industrialized country.
I have said it in the House before, and I will say it again. We are not happy that interest rates have gone up. I would also say to the Hon. Member that I cannot sit in my office on Parliament Hill, pull big levers, set interest rates, and say that
they will be a certain level. Interest rate and exchange rate decisions are made by thousands of investors in Canada and in other countries. We try to moderate the impact of those decisions, but we cannot establish them. The Hon. Member knows that, because he is too smart not to know it.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag when he revealed another reason why his Government was refusing to subsidize the Domtar project. He said that the fact the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec and the SGF held 45 per cent of the shares had been a factor in turning down the request for a subsidy of $100 million for the project.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, first of all, how the presence of Quebecers through their institutions could have affected his Government's analysis of the merits of the Domtar case and second, whether the Government's anwer would have been any different if the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec and the SGF had not been involved?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that has no connection with the case. We in the Progressive Conservative Party are the ones who defended the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec against an attempt by the Liberal Government to kill this opportunity for Quebecers to participate in the province's economic growth.
The fact is quite simply this: the Government of Quebec is the principal holder of Domtar shares, so it is entirely normal that I should discuss expansion programs with the Government of Quebec. That is all there is to it.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS CONCERNING REFUSAL OF SUBSIDIES
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself referred to the holdings of the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec and the SGF yesterday to justify his Government's refusing to pay a subsidy of $100 million, saying it would be a direct transfer to the Province of Quebec. And if he wants to bring up Bill S-31, our caucus took a stand against that Bill, not like a group of yesmen over there who are afraid to get up and defend Domtar.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he now intends to set new standards for companies whose sharesholders include the SGF, the SDI ou the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec?
February 28, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my hon. friend is trying to deny any responsibility for Bill S-31. You people instigated Bill S-31, which would have killed this attempt by Quebec Francophones to become actively involved in the economic expansion of Quebec and this country. That is what you would have done with Bill S-31, and that is why we fought the Bill, and fortunately for Quebecers we did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Considering the fact that the Government of Quebec controls the largest block of shares, it is very important that I discuss this matter with the one who owns those shares, in other words, the one who can make the final decisions. That is the only connection with this case.


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
-	INTEREST RATE INCREASES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. He will be well aware that last month's unemployment figures realized the largest increase over the last five years. He has explained carefully the continuing softening of the Canadian dollar. Today we find that interest rates have increased again by over half of a percentage point and, of course, further uncertainty has been built in. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to give a signal to the people of Canada that there is a limit to which he will accept the increases, and that we do not have to be afraid of the Liberal 18 per cent and 19 per cent interest rates? Is there a limit?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no sign at all that we are going to get back to the extraordinarily high interest rates which we saw under the Liberal Government in 1981-82. The underlying strength of the Canadian economy, the record high surplus in trade, the level of inflation, and productivity improvements all indicate a clear degree of strength and stability in the Canadian economy. We are faced with an extraordinary situation in international money markets, over which we have no control. That is affecting Canadian interest rates, as I am sure the Hon. Member will understand. We are trying to mitigate the impact of the exchange rate movements on interest rates, but we cannot control them. Once we have a degree of stability in the markets in Canada, I am quite confident that interest rates will come down.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know full well that because of his passive position there is a growing sense of uncertainty in the country. No one is prepared to make long-term or even
Oral Questions
short-term investments with these conditions. Week after week, for five weeks, interest rates have gone up and the Minister has told us to be patient and not to jump to conclusions. For five weeks interest rates have gone up, and there is every indication that they will continue to do so. Will he now say, as Minister of Finance, that he will not be the bankers' batboy? Will he show that he is a strong leader and not a passive Finance Minister? He should stand up and say that there is a limit, and that the limit is what the rates are today.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of the Hon. Member is not going to fool anyone. I want to draw to his attention that the socialist Government of France, in 1981, tried to follow the same policies which he would have us follow today. What happened? Capital flowed out of the country in record amounts, the French franc went down twice in substantial devaluations, interest rates went up, unemployment went up, and France had a disaster on its hands. We do not want that to happen here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
Keeping in mind that he decided yesterday to take his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to task-or so it seemed-and to re-open the Domtar file, and considering that he then took pride in the fact that he had helped other Quebec companies, would he ask his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to hand over his files on the Quebec black list, namely those of Wabasso, Melchers, Pecheries Cartier, Tup-perware, Phillips, Carbures, VIA Rail and Dominion Engineering, companies that have closed down over the past three months?
Having told us that he does not want to help Domtar because the company is in a sound financial situation, would he take the time to consider cases where thousands of jobs have been lost in Quebec in recent months?


Martin Brian Mulroney: If Canadians outside Quebec want to know why the Liberal Party was so soundly trounced by the electors of Quebec, here is the classical example-the arrogance and conceit of the Liberal Party. Quebecers have had their fill of that and they know full well that the outgoing Government left us with a significant number of plant closure files.

February 28, 1985
Oral Questions
That being so, I must say that we have begun the serious task of setting the local and regional economy on an even keel, and to cooperate with the companies and the Quebec Government with a view to restoring a climate of prosperity.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask an aggressive question to the Prime Minister. I asked a question.
We have here a very important list of cases where thousands of jobs were lost in ridings whose residents thought... Iam asking a question.


An Hon. Member:: Ah, stop it!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I asked a question . . .


John Napier Turner: Calm down!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to understand.


John Napier Turner: Calm down!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Thousands of Quebecers have lost their jobs in Trois-Rivieres, Berthier, Shawinigan, Cowansville, the Gaspe area and elsewhere. They have made representations to the Department of-


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


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether he will go to the trouble of examining those files and try to re-create the jobs lost in the Province of Quebec since November. And the list I gave him is incomplete to boot.


Mr.   La Salle@: That was your doing, Jean!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we examine every possibility of creating jobs in Quebec or elsewhere. We will examine such cases in a Canadian context as well, for we firmly believe that the prosperity of any province is linked with national prosperity. That is why we want to be fair with all regions of Canada, not only with one province or one region of a province, as was the case in the Saint-Maurice region under previous Governments, where even some ridings in the centre of Quebec claimed that preferential treatment had been extended. 1 never shared that opinion, never! But I can tell you that we are going to show honesty in our efforts to promote all regions-


An Hon. Member:: Schefferville!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He mentions Schefferville, and he is right. The electors of Schefferville gave me a strong majority in the riding of Manicouagan, precisely because they were fed up with you people.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I believe the Prime Minister surprised the Hon. Member for Outremont by replying that he would today be announcing the name of the President of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I wonder if the Prime Minister is now in a position to advise the House of the bilingual, energetic, and knowledgeable woman who will head this Council?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will be pleased to learn that today the Government has appointed Sylvia Gold to be the President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, effective April 1. May I say in commenting, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deans:: No, you may not. You have given the answer.


Walter Franklin McLean: -in terms of concerns expressed in the House, and in terms of her capacity and knowledge of women's issues, her language, and her acceptability on women's issues-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Minister, the Minister has the option to make a statement under motions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question concerning the Domtar Corporation which I direct to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has just told us that the control of the Government of Quebec and the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, over Domtar has nothing to do with the refusal to extend a grant to Domtar.
How does the Prime Minister explain the announcement made in November 1984, by his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, to the effect that corporations controlled by provincial governments no longer would qualify for federal grants?
Which is the Government's policy, the Minister's expressed ideology or the Prime Minister's statement?
February 28, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would of course have to examine the circumstances of the statement you just quoted. It should be placed into its context.
But I can say, as I told my friend for Granby, that the fact that the Caisse or the Societe generate de financement owns shares is important as a matter of fact, strictly because the connection leads us to the Quebec Government. It is important in such a transaction that we should be able to speak with those who take the decisions. That is all.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister know whether the ideological biases of Bay Street, as voiced by his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, are to set government policy and whether the Government will be concerned about the true economic needs of Quebecers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the only Quebecer who is biased in favour of Bay Street interests is the Hon. Member for Shawinigan, who represents them.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On July 11, 1984, the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, sent a telex to the Mayor of Corner Brook indicating that if elected to government he and his Party would not cancel the decision already made to relocate the federal forestry centre from St. John's to Corner Brook. On November 8 his Minister of Finance cancelled that move and announced a savings of $3.5 million for the fiscal year 1985. In light of the fact that I hold in my hand-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -a copy of his letter to the Mayor of Corner Brook, will the Prime Minister tell this House, and through this House all the people of Canada, after committing himself to the forestry centre, if his word is worth the paper it is written on?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hold in both hands a pair of glasses through which I would be happy to look at the document to which my hon. friend refers. But the Hon. Member knows full well that, along with other important matters, this one, unfortunately, had to be rolled over and deferred-


John Napier Turner: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -pursuant to November 8.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Roll over, Mulroney.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend knows full well that, while we are unable to accommodate this particular one at this time, we have concluded the Atlantic Accord, which is the most historic and beneficial program for the development of Newfoundland and Labrador since Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTENT OF COMMUNICATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his melodious nonsense, but the people of my riding want a straight answer. I weigh my words carefully, Mr. Speaker, and he shall see this document, as shall everyone else in this House. Is his word worth the paper it is written on? Or will the Prime Minister tell me and the people of Corner Brook, is he a liar?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member wish to rephrase his question?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to ask the question again. The people of my riding want a straight answer from the Prime Minister. He wrote this document, he signed it, we are simply asking if this document was an honest statement of intention. Did he mean it when he wrote it, or is he a liar?


An Hon. Member:: It is a question.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: The Leader of the Opposition laughs. Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Let me make it simple for the Hon. Member. Language which is unparliamentary cannot be simply introduced by way of a question. Is that clear? Therefore, does the Hon. Member wish to rephrase his question, for the last time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Withdraw.


Charles Joseph Clark: Withdraw.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am trying to rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. The rules of the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member wish to rephrase his question? Otherwise, I will simply rule the question out of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am trying to.


Mr. Speaker:: I rule the question out of order. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 28, 1985
Oral Questions


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. For the past few years western Canadian grain producers have received their sales information in tonnes only. Can the Minister assure producers that in future Canadian Wheat Board final payment statements will provide information in bushels? Can he also encourage the elevator companies to provide similar information on the grain delivery cash tickets?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I know this is of concern to a lot of farmers in the country. I have had discussions with the Wheat Board regarding final and interim payments and they have assured me they will be looking for ways to put bushels on final payment stubs.
It is my understanding that grain companies are free to communicate with their customers in whatever measure they choose, imperial or metric. So it is up to the grain companies. Bearing in mind that the grain companies, in western Canada at least, are largely owned by the producers themselves through co-operatives, there should be no problem if the producers wish to see that they have information available to them in bushels as well as tonnes.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He indicated, in response to my Leader, that speculators were the root cause of some of the problems regarding the level of the dollar and high interest rates. Is he aware that many of those speculators are the chief financial officers of Canadian corporations who are driving down our dollar and benefiting from high interest rates at the same time? Is he prepared to allow those speculators to benefit from their actions here in Canada and in the U.S., over and against protecting the public of Canada who have to foot the bill?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I never used that expression in the answer to his Leader, and he knows that. What he should recognize is that the activity in the exchange market is a result of thousands and thousands of decisions, sure, by people in corporations, but also by individuals, as well as people outside the country. The Minister of Finance cannot control those, and I am not going to try. What we can do is try to moderate the influence of those decisions, to try to lean against the movement in both interest rates and exchange rates, and try to introduce a degree of stability back into the market and get interest rates down.


REQUEST FOR ACTION AGAINST SPECULATORS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance not aware that the average Canadian does not care and is not in any way immediately affected by a lower Canadian dollar, but he is most definitely affected by higher interest rates? Why will the Minister not move now to say to the speculators: "You cannot benefit both ways here in Canada", and then take steps to protect the average Canadian from high interest rates?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are taking steps to protect Canadians from the impact of high interest rates. As the press release of the Governor of the Bank of Canada said earlier today, if things had not been done the way they had been done in the exchange and interest rate markets, interest rates would have been higher today. We cannot control rates, and I am not going to try to control rates like a big lever, which the Hon. Member would like to have us do. This is a free market we live in, and we should appreciate the reason we live in a free market is so we can enjoy the freedoms which have made this country, and other countries like it, great.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. He will recall that during last summer's election campaign the Progressive Conservative Party produced a pamphlet regarding national defence entitled, ironically enough, Honour The Commitment. It promised greatly increased defence spending. Last Tuesday the President of the Treasury Board stated that cuts in the growth of defence spending could be made "while meeting our international commitments". I ask the Minister of National Defence: Where is the honour? Where is your commitment?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Careful what you say now, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: I always am.
The Hon. Member's very important question deserves an answer in some detail, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure he would be the first to recognize that it is only reasonable to expect me to meet with some of the officials in the Department, and obtain briefings from them, before attempting to answer that sort of question in any detail. I will get back to him just as soon as I can next week, in response.
February 28, 1985


PREPARATION OF ESTIMATES
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister will have to meet with his Department, but having been a member of the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet for several months now, how can the Minister sit idly by while his Party's commitment to 6 per cent real growth in defence spending is ignored? He was on that committee when these estimates were talked about. You have simply made defence another sacred trust, and I ask you where is that trust? You were there.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is totally unlike the Hon. Member, who is usually calm and a gentleman in the House, to be so uptight. All I am suggesting to him is that as soon as I have had the opportunity to look into his very important question I will get back to him and give him the answer that this question deserves.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Municipal Council of Downie Township in Perth County, which is my riding, and many others in the farming areas of Ontario, have voiced concern with respect to the massive population of ring-billed gulls and the damage and bother they cause. Would the Minister tell this House how her Ministry will deal with the farmers' problems?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problems the ringbilled gulls cause farmers and, with the officials of my Department, I have taken action so that by telephoning our offices, the farmers will immediately learn what to do to chase away these birds which damage their crops.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He may know that yesterday Conservatives in the House thwarted the unanimous will of two Standing Committees of this House with respect to a recommendation that the twin-tracking being done by CN in the Ashcroft subdivision be stopped. Given the Prime Minister's interest in parliamentary reform, and his desire to increase respect for Parliament and the judgment of committees and Members of Parliament, will he undertake to have the Minister of Transport respect that unanimous deci-
Oral Questions
sion by two committees of this House, and have the CN stop twin-tracking in that particular area of British Columbia?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that very important question. I was unable to be in the House yesterday for the debate because I was attending a conference of provincial Transport Ministers, but I have read most of the speeches in the House yesterday. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that the Minister of Fisheries and myself will be meeting with the Allied Tribal Council of British Columbia Indians in Vancouver tomorrow to deal with this issue-I hear some yapping from the Liberal benches-and to straighten out a mess which the former Government created. I hope I have the support and confidence of at least the members of the NDP, to try to resolve this matter in a satisfactory way which will look after the concerns and wishes of the Indian people which were trampled by the Government of that Party.


REQUEST THAT PROJECT BE SUSPENDED
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Minister of Transport that this mess was given to us by the former Liberal regime.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That does not prevent him from being able to act, and I hope that he will act. Will the Minister assure the House and the committees that made that decision that he will not allow CN to proceed until such time as he has arrived at an agreement which is satisfactory to all the people concerned with this, the fishermen and the native people in particular?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member had listened to my answer. The reason I am going out there is to meet with the Indian people. We will be meeting with Fisheries, the Department of Indian Affairs, and all interested parties to try to resolve the issue. I note that the New Democratic Party indicated its support for the increase in rail capacity, something that the former Minister of the Environment now faces with some ambivalence. I do not know how he could have stood up in his place yesterday and played such a role of a hypocrite after presiding over this issue before.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. For some reason it is impossible to get the House to pay attention to anybody today. I must ask the Hon. Minister of Transport to withdraw the word "hypocrite". He knows it is unparliamentary.

February 28, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Deans


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word, but I still want to say that I really have difficulty accepting the double standard of the former Minister of the Environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know what everybody did this morning.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, February 27, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, would you consider reading the response by the Minister with regard to your direction to withdraw the word he used? My understanding of the rules is that you must withdraw unequivocally words that are offensive without explanation. It is becoming a habit now that people are replacing the words that they used which were inappropriate with explanations to satisfy their own end.


Charles Joseph Clark: What do you mean, it is becoming a habit?


Ian Deans: It is becoming a habit.


Charles Joseph Clark: Give us some evidence.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will understand that I am in a moderate quandary because he is right, but to allow comment on the matter would be equally improper. Perhaps Members will read the rules on the matter.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to give us the program of business for the next several days.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House Leader for the Official Opposition. If the House Leader for the New Democratic Party would only give the same sane advice to his own Leader with respect to parliamentary language, this place would be a lot better off.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the proceedings to ask the President of the Privy Council to stay within the bounds of the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will continue consideration at second reading of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act.
Tomorrow the first item of business will be the Bill which is to be introduced later today by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, an Act to amend the Indian Act. There have been discussions between the Party representatives and I believe there is an inclination to complete second reading and send the Bill to committee for study tomorrow. Depending upon when debate is concluded on that bill, Mr. Speaker, the second order of business will be Bill C-24.
On Monday, if Bill C-24 has not previously been passed, I will once again be calling it for debate. The back-up Bill will be an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act which will be introduced by the Minister of State for Finance later today.
I would like to designate next Tuesday at the fifth allotted day in the current period of supply. On Wednesday next the business will be the same as I have just announced for Monday.
Pursuant to the order of the House passed earlier this week, the House will not sit next Thursday in order that the Secretary General of the United Nations may address a joint session of the House and Senate at three in the afternoon. As always, Mr. Speaker, we will monitor the progress made and announce changes to the business of the House as may be required.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
February 28, 1985

report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. The report concerns a change in the name of the committee and I intend to move concurrence in this report later today. I think you will find at that time that there is unanimous consent for that action.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Speaker:: I must rise to advise the House of a reservation I have with regard to this report, having heard the content.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Not until I am finished. The report proposes a change of name for the committee, a recommendation procedurally itself innocuous, but one which nevertheless proposes a change in the Standing Orders. For this reason the recommendation may, in my view, be beyond the terms of reference of the committee. I doubt, therefore, that it would be in order to proceed on a motion for concurrence in the report of a committee which has gone beyond its terms of reference. I draw this matter to the attention of the House so that further consideration may be given to it.
I gather that the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) would like to rise on a point of order to make comment prior to my making a ruling as to whether a motion for concurrence would be in order. Since he has indicated to me that he wishes to speak on a point of order to the possibility of such a ruling, I therefore reserve the ruling for the moment and hear the Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the action taken and the decision to report this matter to the House was taken unanimously in committee. We have searched the precedents, Mr. Speaker. In the preceding Parliament on November 27, 1979 there was a change in the name of one of our committees to its current name of Communications and Culture. The mechanism chosen at that time was Standing Order 43. There was unanimous consent for that action, so the two principles were there.
We now operate under provisional rules. I would first point out that the mechanism of Standing Order 43 is no longer available to us, but that one of the reasons we have provisional orders, and that they are provisional, is that we can begin to explore the possibilities and difficulties which a change in the rules might present. The elimination of Standing Order 43, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, presents a slight difficulty to the committee.
I will now proceed to the second precedent I would like to bring to your attention. On July 3, 1980 the special committee of this House presented its first report, asked for unanimous consent and moved concurrence in the decision to change its name to the Committee for Employment Opportunities for the 1980s. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the precedent of a committee report asking for a change of name existed on July 3, 1980, and was granted by the previous Speaker.
Committee Reports
May I further point out, Mr. Speaker, that another aspect of that decision at that time was the fact that the House granted unanimous consent for the action. The granting of unanimous consent is central to this issue because the House is indeed master of its own destiny. I would suggest to you that on this issue, which has been considered by the committee in the previous Parliament and again in this Parliament, we have found it difficult to find an efficient mechanism that would be clearly in accordance with all past precedents and all procedures that lie within our Standing Orders.
I suggest that this is the most acceptable and quickest way to resolve this issue. You may want to set a precedent today by allowing this kind of report and this type of action. However, if not, you could fall back on the principle of unanimous consent for the House to do what it deems advisable. May I suggest that such a ruling would not set a precedent that you would find difficult to live with. We should be allowed to move by unanimous consent, if that is the will of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is making an interesting argument. First, he argues that if we had Standing Order 43 the Member would have proceeded by way of Standing Order 43. Without Standing Order 43, he argues therefore that this procedure would be in order. That is illogical.
His other argument is that the House can do whatever it wishes by unanimous consent. That may well be true; nevertheless, that does not make a motion to concur in a report which cannot be presented to the House in order. Unanimous consent may allow the House to change something it wishes to change, but it cannot make the report itself in order.
My dilemma is that the Member is proposing a motion to concur in a report which cannot, of itself, be in order. Therefore, I cannot simply admit an inadmissible motion by unanimous consent. That is how I understand the procedure.
Therefore, having heard the argument, I must rule that a motion to concur in the report would itself be inadmissible.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have more than a passing interest in this matter because, as chairman of that standing committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising on a separate point of order?


Howard Edward Crosby: Yes. I wanted to take the opportunity to explain that I have more than a passing interest in this because, as chairman of that standing committee in 1979, we made an attempt to change the name and it was believed it would be under Standing Order 43.
Is it permissible for a Member simply to ask for the consent of the House, in the absence of Standing Order 43, to make a motion and with that unanimous consent-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of order?


Mr. Blenkarn:: He is putting a motion.

February 28, 1985
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Speaker:: We are not on motions. I have ruled on the point of order that was brought before me. If the Hon. Member is asking me to give a hypothetical ruling on a matter that has not arisen, I cannot do that.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I have unanimous consent of the House to move a motion?


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Hon. Member, one cannot seek the floor on a point of order and move a motion. It cannot be done procedurally.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He is asking for consent of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: It cannot be done on a point of order.
I am quite certain that someone will seek the floor when I call for motions.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of many of my constituents in the Peace country, particularly the area of La Crete, relating to their right to obtain religious television broadcasting.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present another petition to the House on behalf of the residents of my constituency who wish to express their deep dissatisfaction with the budgetary cut-backs in Wildlife Service.



NATIONAL HYMN ACT


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-224, an Act respecting the National Hymn of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise and present this Bill which will provide for a bilingual national hymn for Canada. I look forward to the debate, at which time Members can find the unique authorship by Dr. Ken Hicken of the University of Lethbridge. I will provide cassette copies
to each of the House Leaders so Members can listen to the cassette. This Bill clearly fills a void in our national life.


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


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to repeal the International Development Association Act and amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

['Agreed.']
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That Standing Order 69(1) be amended by deleting paragraph (j) and substituting the following therefor:
"(J) Labour, Employment and Immigration;".
If you were to put the question, Mr. Speaker, I think there would be unanimous consent to pass the motion quickly.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 28, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. Member what the French version of the name would be? Does it remain as it is presently-Travail, Main-d'oeuvre et Immigration? Or is it changed to Travail, Emploi et Immigration?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there has been a change. I think that it is "Travail, emploi et immigration". This will be the new French name of the Committee.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, does the tabled document also include the French version?
Is it included in the document and has the Hon. Member introduced a Bill to change the name of the Committee? I would like to know whether this is what is contained in the document tabled in the House. If not, I think that it would be better to postpone it.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand what the Hon. Member is trying to get at. The report has been received by the House. It contains the recommended motion. The Hon. Member is now seeking unanimous consent to introduce the motion under his own name and the document contains the change in both languages.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is the motion both in French and in English? Is the motion introduced in the House both in French and in English? The motion! I am not referring to the report, but to the motion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is presenting a motion referring to the document which is in both languages. His motion does not have to be in both languages. I am missing the Hon. Member's point. The Hon. Member is arguing that the motion is out of order because it is not presented in both languages, is that right?


Sheila Maureen Copps: No.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member arguing, then? I am missing the point.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to know whether the motion asking for the unanimous consent of the House to change the name, is in both languages. Are the translation and the report, with the
Order Paper Questions
names in French and English, included in the report as tabled in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. The Hon. Member has sought unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion and has received it. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is adopted, I take it unanimously. Motion agreed to.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 133, 157, 191, 214, 216, 222 and 223.


Mr. Malepart: 1.	Did the Prime Minister host a reception and a farewell dinner for Her Majesty the Queen on October 6, 1984, at the Winnipeg Congress Centre and. if so, what were the guests' names and addresses?
2.	Did the Prime Minister host a reception and a dinner for the Prime Minister of France, His Excellency Laurent Fabius on November 7, 1984, at the Westin Hotel in Ottawa and, if so, what were the guests' names and addresses?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Yes. The individuals who were invited included Members of Parliament and of Legislatures, Privy Councillors, and persons of various functions, drawn from the Order of Precedence of Canada. The objective was to include citizens whose role in the communities of Canada would reflect the interests of Her Majesty in meeting her people.
2. Yes. The individuals who were invited included Members of Parliament, Privy Councillors, persons of various functions drawn from the Order of Precedence of Canada, members of the French Delegation, and representatives of the community. The objective was to allow the French Prime Minister's delegation to meet people with involvement in that country.


Mr. Orlikow: Has the Department of Agriculture cut any projects in its science and technology programs in order to absorb the reduction in its expenditures

February 28, 1985
Order Paper Questions
required by the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House on November 8, 1984 and, if so, what are they and what are the projected
costs?


John Wise: No. However, reductions will be applied to research conducted for the Department by industry and universities, which has been funded by research contracts and extra mural grants. The savings will be implemented by not accepting any new proposals rather than by cutting currently approved activities.


Mr. Stackhouse: Is Canada giving aid to (a) Nicaragua (b) Chile and, if so, in each case (i) since what date (ii) in what amounts (iii) for what purposes?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: In
so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows:
(a)	Canadian aid to Nicaragua: Bilateral aid. In 1975, following the earthquake which destroyed much of Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, Canada loaned the country $1.9 million to purchase heavy equipment to remove the rubble from the centre of the city. The loan has been used and $1,887,600 has been paid out.
In 1982, CIDA financed a technical assistance project worth $655,000, in the form of a grant-in-aid, for the development of a food strategy. The project has been completed.
In January, 1984, Canada extended a line of credit of $13.4 million for the provision of fertilizer, farm equipment and Holstein heifers ($13 million loan and $400,000 grant-in-aid). To date, about 50 per cent of this line of credit has been used.
In September, 1984, Canada extended a line of credit of $7.5 million ($7 million loan and $500,000 grant-in-aid) for the provision of equipment for the drinking water sector. This credit has not been used to date.
Other forms of aid: Canada also provided aid through CIDA's other co-operation mechanisms. During the last four years (1980-81 to 1983-84) Canada has contributed over $24 million to support projects in Nicaragua through the mission administered funds, non-governmental organizations, institutional co-operation and development services, and industrial co-operation programs. In addition, emergency food aid in 1981-82 and 1983-84 was provided for humanitarian reasons.
(b)	Canadian aid to Chile: Chile has not received any bilateral aid from Canada since 1973. However, Canada provided aid through several of CIDA's other co-operation mechanisms. During the last four fiscal years (1980-81 to 1983-84), Canada contributed $3.7 million to support projects in Chile through the mission administered funds, non-governmental organizations, institutional co-operation and development services, and industrial co-operation programs.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year 1983-84, based on the accounting practices currently used by the Government on each of a public accounts and a national accounts basis, what was the government's (a) spending (b) revenue (c) interest cost and what was its gross debt and net debt?


Barbara Jean McDougall: For the fiscal year 1983-84, the spending, revenue, interest cost, gross debt and net debt of the federal Government were as follows, on a public accounts basis and a national accounts basis:
	Public Accounts Basis	National Accounts Basis
	(1983-84 Public Accounts	(Statistics Canada,
	of Canada)	Catalogue 13-001, 13-002)
	($ Millions)	
(u) Expenditures	88,915	97,254(b) Revenue	56,326	72,162(c) Interest and other public debt charges	18,146	18,072Gross debt as at March 31,1984	196,861	160,836Net debt as at March 31,1984	157,011	108,419


Mr. Howie: As of the last date for which information is available, what proportion of the employees of the Department of Transport were women?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 20.6 per cent.


Mr. Howie: As of January 1, 1985, how many persons were employed on the National Farm Products Marketing Council and what was the salary range allocated to each position?


John Wise: As of January 1, 1985, National Farm Products Marketing Council employed 25 persons.
Position Title	Salary Range
Chair	$81,890-96,300
Executive Member	54,710-64,390
Director, Economic Advisory Services	48,948-53,885
Business Development Analyst	37,073-42.323
Economic & Statistics Analyst	42,109-48,179
Commodity Officer	43,536-55,768
Commodity Officer	43,536-55,768
Commodity Officer	43,536-55,768
Market Development Officer	35,522-50,323
Chief Administration & Executive Secretary	37.083-41,356
Head, Administrative Services	27,622-30,920
Manager, Marketing/Production Statistics	30,930-33,687
Statistics Officer	28,332-30,903
Information Officer	36,626-41,225
Records Manager	23,019-25,175
February 28, 1985

Financial Manager	23.019-25,175
Office Manager	20,281-22,177
Agency Review Clerk	20,281-22,177
Records Clerk	18,271-19,966
Receptionist	15,312-16,617
Secretary to the Chair	24,271-26,563
Secretary to the Director. Agency Review	24,271-26,563
Secretary	18,891-20,655
Secretary	18,891-20,655
Word Processing Operator	19,347-21,153


Mr. Howie: (1) How many persons in Canada were employed in (a) August, 1984 (b) December, 1984?
2.	In each of the months above, how many persons were employed in temporary or term positions?
3.	In each of the months above, how many persons did Canada Employment Centres place in (a) permanent full-time jobs (b) temporary or term full-time jobs (c) part-time jobs?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. Total employment (Canada, seasonally adjusted) revised January 28/85:
August, 1984	11,044,000
December, 1984	11,141,000
change	+97,000
2. Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey does not provide data on temporary employment nor on term positions. The closest proxy measure is part-time employment.
Part-time employment (Canada, seasonally adjusted) revised January 28/85:
August. 1984	1.708,000
December, 1984	1,692,000
change	-16,000
Comment: Between August and December, 1984, while total employment in Canada grew by 97,000; full-time employment grew by 129,000. (Figures do not add up because each is seasonally adjusted separately.)
3.	Placements by Canada Employment Centres
August, 1984	December, 1984
Regular placements	62,397	37,119Casual placements	10,201	8,173
A regular placement results when the job is expected to last longer than five working days.
A casual placement is expected to be five working days or less.
Note: Part-time work is not separately identified and placements in part-time jobs would be included in the above totals.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining few questions be allowed to stand.
Oil Substitution Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased this afternoon to rise on behalf of the residents of Nepean-Carleton to speak to Bill C-24. The Bill before the House provides for the termination of the Canada Oil Substitution Program, or COSP, on March 31, 1985, and for the phasing out of the Canadian Home Insulation Program or CHIP by March 31, 1986.
The Government's intention to make the changes as noted this morning by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) was announced last November by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). Since then we have all had a chance to appraise the termination of these plans. Furthermore, all Canadians have had considerable advance warning and if they were interested in taking advantage of those programs have had ample opportunity to do so.
Speaking specifically at the moment to COSP, the off-oil program introduced in 1980, it has provided taxable contributions of up to $800 toward the cost of converting oil-heating systems to other fuel systems, that is, to natural gas, electricity, propane, solar power and other sources of renewable energy. The existing legislation provided a termination date of December 31, 1990 for the program. The amending Bill changes this date to March 31, 1985. Furthermore, as the Parliamentary Secretary noted this morning, the legislation provides for a limited exception which will allow participants a further three months, that is until June, 1985, to complete their conversions if they have signed contracts prior to the November 8 announcement and if they have faced difficulties in getting the work done by March 31.
COSP, the off-oil program, was introduced in October, 1980. At that time OPEC dominated the world's petroleum supply and pricing mechanism. Through a cartel-like arrange-

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
ment it was expected that OPEC would push world prices dramatically higher. Equally at that time almost 40 per cent of all Canadian homes were heated by oil and Canada was consuming more petroleum products than it was producing. In other words, we were highly dependent or becoming more highly dependent on imports for our supply of petroleum products. Residential oil substitution was then identified as a priority, and a grant system was introduced as a vehicle to lower our petroleum consumption.
The basic grant was one-half the eligible cost of materials and labour for conversions of oil-fired space heating and water heating systems, to a maximum $800 per individual unit. Over the past four years COSP has paid out more than $530 million in grants for the conversion of some 900,000 housing units across Canada. It is estimated that some $125 million has probably been returned to the federal and provincial Governments in the form of taxes.
Members of the House should be aware that the program did not have good regional balance. Three-quarters of all activity was in Quebec and Ontario. COSP was not needed much in the Prairie Provinces because they were already largely off oil. They had already moved in large part to home heating by natural gas. It was not much help to the Atlantic Provinces because they did not have alternative supplies or alternative opportunities for cheaper fuel consumption other than the availability of wood.
In 1981-82 gas conversions represented 48 per cent of that year's COSP activity, electricity was 36 per cent, while wood represented 14 per cent. In 1983-84 gas conversions had decreased to 25 per cent of all activity and electricity had risen to 55 per cent. This decline in gas conversions is partly accounted for by a decline in conversions in the Province of Ontario. In 1981-82 conversions in Ontario accounted for 43 per cent of all conversions in that year. By 1983-84 Ontario's share declined to 20 per cent. Furthermore, within the province gas conversions accounted for 63 per cent of activity in 1981-82, but it dropped to 43 per cent in 1983-84. From the beginning of the program until the end of December, 1984, Quebec led COSP activity with a total of 400,000 units converted off oil. By comparison, Ontario had 277,000 units converted off oil. COSP has paid $235 million for grants in Quebec, representing 44 per cent of the funds disbursed under the program across the nation. Quebec Hydro, at the same time the national grant system was in place, provided a parallel program of non-taxable grants in the amount of $650 for conversions to dual energy systems using both electricity and oil. The complementary nature of the two programs proved very attractive to consumers in the Province of Quebec.
Electric conversions in Quebec accounted for 73 per cent of all electric conversions in Canada. Collectively, electricity accounted for 41 per cent of all conversions, natural gas for 35 per cent and wood for 20 per cent. The remaining 4 per cent represents propane and a very small number of conversions to other renewable energy sources, such as solar energy and other conservation measures.
COSP grant applications have been slowing down rapidly in the last nine months, except for the period starting in December following the Minister's announcement. Apart from conversions to electricity in Quebec, which have accounted for 50 per cent of all COSP activity in the last nine months, the level of conversions nationally has dropped by 45 per cent from its height in 1982, except for the last three months.
It is extremely difficult to assess the real impact of COSP on energy conservation and petroleum consumption in Canada. Some 900,000 units have been converted from oil. This represents a possible displacement of some 32,000 barrels a day, by itself a significant amount of consumption and a great deal of conservation.
In my own riding of Nepean-Carleton, my impressions are that most of the constituents who took advantage of the program were those in the middle- and upper-income brackets. Very, very few of the lower-income people in my riding were in a position to take advantage of it. In addition to the inequitable distribution across Canada, possibly there has been inequitable distribution of the use of this program across the income groups. However, a trend has been established toward installation of medium- and high-efficiency natural gas furnaces. Some of these furnaces burners now achieve an efficiency as high as 90 or 95 percent, all of which are being made available at declining or at least much more competitive prices. Dual energy systems, such as plenum heaters and heat pumps, are offering savings, comfort to home owners and advantages of load management to utilities. A broad range of combustion wood-burning systems are now available. They are much safer, much more efficient and it has been a boon to many, many hundreds of thousands of rural residents across Canada who have access to reasonable and abundant supplies of wood. Equally, such safer wood-burning space heaters, furnaces and combination furnaces are now available on the markets across the nation.
To preserve a share of the residential market, oil dealers and manufacturers of oil-heating equipment are now marketing much more highly efficient oil burners for retrofit purposes. These efficiencies have moved from the order of 55 to 60 or 65 per cent where some of the burners are now capable of delivering as much as 80 per cent efficiency. In this mature and competitive environment, one would anticipate retrofit for more efficient oil burners to continue and, with that, an ongoing rapid decline of the household consumption of petroleum, regardless of what may happen to COSP.
COSP helped utilities' become permanent customers for gas and electricity. They may be interested in providing conversion grants of their own in this particular market arrangement. Oil substitution is a competitive business in the key central Canada markets. Massive campaigns are being mounted for both utilities and manufacturers to promote conversion. This will probably continue and should be encouraged.
Turning my remarks to the CHIP program, CHIP was provided as taxable contributions of up to $500 of insulation and draught-proofing measures in existing homes. It was
February 28, 1985

introduced in 1977. The CHIP Act provided for its termination at the end of 1987. The amending Bill provides for a two stage phase-out under which the Government's share of eligible costs is reduced to 33 per cent from 60 per cent, effective January 1, 1985. The program comes to an end on March 31, 1986. One would also like to stress, as the Parliamentary Secretary did this morning, that in the final 15 months of the CHIP program, the maximum contribution shall remain unchanged in the amount of $500.
The end of the program, therefore, has been anticipated by all sectors of Canadian society, by industry and by Government for quite some time. Homes have been admitted to the program on a sequential basis related to the date of their construction. That process has been for some time in its Final stage. The last group to become eligible, the 1.3 million homes built between 1971 and 1977, will have had two years to have taken advantage of the program by the time the program is phased out or concludes next year.
Over the past seven and a half years, the period in which CHIP has been in place, more than $855 million in grants for insulation measures in approximately 2.5 million homes or housing units, representing about one-third of the eligible housing stock built before 1977, have had the insulation or draught-proofing capabilities improved. Approximately $200 million has flowed back to the federal and provincial Governments in the form of taxes. The energy savings attributed to work carried out under the program are estimated to be the equivalent of 28,500 barrels of oil per day.
Significant energy savings averaging 17 per cent had been achieved in homes that used CHIP. An evaluation of the program has established that CHIP played an important part in achieving those savings. It is good for this House to understand that CHIP has been used in a very even way all across Canada, equally in Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and British Columbia. At the same time, the other great advantage of CHIP was that it was widely used by all income groups, in particular by the lower-income groups.
As with oil substitution, the benefits of energy conservation and reduced heating bills, and increased home comfort, are now much more fully understood by Canadians than they were seven or eight years ago. Insulation specialists must now as well certify their work. During its period of operation, the program has twice been significantly restructured by changes to the contribution formula. The original formula, which called for grant payments toward the cost of materials only, was amended in April, 1979 to include contributions toward labour. In November, 1982, the contribution towards material costs was reduced to 60 per cent. As part of that decision to phase out CHIP by March 1986, the contribution was further reduced to 33.33 per cent of total eligible costs.
Policy changes to the program reflect the strong concern of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources about the quality of retrofit in Canada. Prescribed standards of workmanship and materials ensure that the energy savings achieved will last throughout the life of the household unit in which the insulation moves had been taken. Programs of research, stand-
Oil Substitution Act
ards of development, technology transfer, industry support and education, quality control area all directed by the conservation group within Energy, Mines and Resources toward the total home energy program that exists.
Most CHIP applications, however, only used the grant for installing insulation in attics. While helpful and while probably the easiest and the First step in home insulation, this single conservation measure is not enough to realize the full potential of energy conservation in the typical or average Canadian home. Current home programs in the area of home owner awareness and education are directed towards the encouragement of total home refit and total home energy conservation.
Reducing the use of oil and energy in Canada remains a priority for this Government. Very large potentials for savings exist not only in the present housing stock, but in other sectors as well. In the existing housing stock, the potential for savings for cost-effective conservation measures have been estimated at 30 per cent, still quite a remarkable figure. For millions of Canadian householders, it will be a very attractive investment with a rapid return on dollars spent to insulate, draught-proof and improve or convert their heating units. A balanced role for government is most desirable as is one sensitive to the information needs of home owners and the needs for improving the efFiciency of oil burners, gas burners and various other types of utilities.
Since the mid-1970s when we slowly started to realize that we had limited petroleum resources in Canada, there we were consuming more oil than we were producing and that we were probably faced with ever-increasing petroleum costs to OPEC, those realizations, together with the decisions of the Government of Canada and almost every provincial Government, to add additional taxes to the consumer of petroleum products forced all Canadians to enter slowly what I like to call the conserver society. In that period of time, we became aware of the importance of our non-renewable energy resources. At the same time, we became aware of other environmental effects that were related thereto.
In responding to our entry into the conserver society, we built much lighter and more efficient automobiles. We created much more efFicient gas-conversion units and efficient oil-conversion burners. As well, we made our homes more energy efFicient. Collectively, all of these things have added up.
In the period since the mid-1970s, on a relative basis, we have cut our consumption of petroleum products by about 25 per cent. This is an ongoing activity. It is also an ongoing activity throughout much of the world and most noticeably in western Europe and the United States. As a result of these collective developments, OPEC lost control of the marketing of petroleum products throughout the world to a considerable degree and petroleum prices started to fall.
There is no question that COSP and CHIP contributed to our entry into the conserver society. We became more informed and took advantage of the programs. I am convinced

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
that Canadians all across Canada will continue to be conserves of energy and will continue to retrofit their homes in order to improve efficiency. Utilities as well will be competing with one another to help us down this path. We no longer need grants to maintain our momentum in the conserver society. The legislation before the House today is, therefore, a necessary step.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Hon. Member's very interesting speech. I would like to read to him from the remarks of one of the Conservative caucus members, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who said that he did not think there was any question that the House in general understood and supported the purpose of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. He congratulated the Minister for bringing this legislation forward and went on to say that he hoped the Minister would consider the suggestion that he had made to improve the legislation and make it available to all Canadians, and that if so, we would achieve the conversion from oil to other energy more rapidly than this Bill could do by itself.
I appreciate that the Hon. Member indicated that it was a good program, but he indicated that it was no longer needed. In other words, he indicated that Canadians would continue to make this change on their own. What evidence would he have to support that position? As encouraging and positive a position as it may seem, does he have evidence to suggest that at a time when our economic recovery is at an all-time low, unemployment levels are at an all-time high and interest rates are skyrocketing again, people would be able to accomplish this without some encouragement from the Government?


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not provide me with the date of the comments he read.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If the date would help, it was 1981.


William Tupper: That is four years ago, but that is immaterial.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Has the world changed in four years?


John Horton McDermid: Yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, it is worse today than it was four years ago. There are 1.5 million unemployed.


William Tupper: I thought I had clearly acknowledged that I believed the off-oil program was a good one and that most Canadians welcomed it at the time. Furthermore, if I was listening carefully enough, I thought the Hon. Member mentioned that the off-oil program was not available to all Canadians. It was my understanding that it was, although perhaps all Canadian home owners were not able to take advantage of it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: With help they could.


William Tupper: It is my feeling, and I am repeating myself, that Canadians have entered into the conserver society philosophy. We do not have grants to encourage us not to buy gas-guzzling automobiles. In our purchases, we are naturally flowing toward lighter and more efficient automobiles. Much of our research is directed to that area. I feel that with the current prices of hydrocarbon products and the understanding that petroleum products are not a renewable source of energy, this momentum will carry on without any need for government grants.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about the current figures that were used by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton. I would have thought that being from Ontario, he might be a little more knowledgeable about the petrochemical situation. I understood him to say, and perhaps he can correct me if I am wrong-


Mr. McKenzie:: He is from Nepean-Carleton.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Nepean-Carleton? That explains it. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) would be more knowledgeable about the petrochemical situation.
The Hon. Member stated in the House that one of the reasons why the program should be terminated is that the take-up was primarily from the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec while in fact statistics show that in 1983-84, the take-up from the Province of Ontario was 20 per cent. Does the Hon. Member feel that a 20 per cent take-up means that there was too much of a take-up from the Province of Ontario? If not, why did he state that as one of the reasons for supporting the decision to terminate the provisions of the Act?


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Hon. Member was listening to me carefully enough. The point I was making was that since the inception of the program, it was not used equitably all across Canada and that the great bulk of its use was in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
The point is that in western Canada, and I am repeating myself, much of the conversion to off-oil or off-fluid petroleum products had already taken place. They were already in large part using natural gas in the prairie provinces. In eastern Canada, there were no other less expensive fuel sources available other than fluid hydrocarbons and possibly fuel wood. Natural gas was not available to them. In Atlantic Canada, electrical energy is extremely expensive. The point I was trying to make as part of my argument is that the program was not used equally all across Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in fact, according to the documents from the Department dealing with the program, the take-up has been highest in the Provinces of Manitoba and Quebec. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he feels that Manitoba is not part of western Canada.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I clearly regard Manitoba as being a part of western Canada. Her source of information must be much different from mine. I have been chatting with officials from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the last 10 days on that very topic, and I am thoroughly confident that my data is correct.
February 28, 1985


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that the people he felt were taking advantage of the program were not the poor in his community but the relatively affluent, that is, the people who own their homes and can afford to insulate those homes and perhaps spend SI,200 or $1,500 and receive a $500 rebate. For the people who wanted to convert their furnaces and heating systems, which would cost $2,000 or $3,000, the $800 grant was only an extra. He has said that to some extent the assistance program was for the affluent. In other words, it would help perhaps not the greedy, but certainly not the needy. Could he elaborate on that further? The impression which I received was that the program tended to be used by those who could well afford to do it with their own money.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I prefaced my remarks by saying that to my knowledge there have been no in-depth studies done by either the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They were the two organizations which were, in large part, responsible for the administration of the program. There was no analysis done by those organizations as to who was using the program and who was benefiting from it.
I think my hon. colleague heard me correctly when I said that my impression in the greater Ottawa community, and particularly in my own riding, was that for the most part those who could afford to make the conversions on their own- energy conscious people who are fairly knowledgeable about the markets-took advantage of the program. Clearly, it was not the low-income people. The supplementary point I would like to make is that I firmly believe those people would have converted from oil anyway, regardless of the grant.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the Member suggesting that low-income people are somehow less energy conscious than high-income people?


William Tupper: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point I am making.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, again my question deals with the issue of the facts which have been laid before us. In the document of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which analyses the three-year program, it states that cost targets in Saskatchewan and Alberta were reflecting oil use in hard to reach rural and remote areas. Could the Member reiterate what he said to the House that hard to reach rural and remote areas which took advantage of the program are, in fact, the high-income users about which he speaks?


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I am not speaking at cross purposes with my colleague. We must recognize, when looking at the statistical data on the program, that targets were set across Canada for the use of the program. Of course, the targets were differnt in different parts of the nation. The targets reflected local needs and concerns. Those targets were achieved in varying degrees. Some of them over-
Oil Substitution Act
achieved their targets in certain years and others underachieved. In balance, across Canada, I think most of the targets were achieved. But I would repeat that in my own riding, I have been able to observe what was going on Firsthand, and without the knowledge of the thoughtful research work which has been done across the nation, my impression is clearly that it was upper-income groups which, for the most part, took advantage of the off-oil program. That is not taking away from CHIP, in which people from all income groups participated and from which they benefited.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period allowed for questions and comments has now expired. On debate, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be in the position of resuming debate, because if government Members are tabling information upon which they are basing their decisions to terminate these programs, it is unfortunate that they do not have the facts before them.
In fact, the major take-up on the Canadian Oil Substitution Program over the three-year period was not in the Province of Ontario, but in the Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) made the statement that somehow the take-up was high in Ontario in Quebec. First, I do not agree that that is a reason for eliminating the program. I think the Member should Fight for the residents in his riding and not say that because the take-up is high the Government is going to cancel it. Second, the Hon. Member should be aware of all the facts before he supports the termination of a program which he indicated was working.
The Hon. Member will know that the targets were being achieved. He will also know that COSP was expected to run until 1990. As a result of the termination of the program Five years early, thousands upon thousands of home owners across the country will not be able to take advantage of the program. For example, we could examine the potential take-up. Had the program not been terminated, in Newfoundland, in 1985, some 4,705 home owners would have taken advantage of the program had it been available. Yet this Tory Government is going to terminate it.


John Horton McDermid: It is available.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is available, but the Bill which is before the House is a Bill designed to terminate its availability. Government Members should be aware of what they are voting on. Every government Member who has spoken today has said what a tremendous program this has been and what a boon it has been in reducing our dependence upon non-renewable resources. At the same time, those Members are agreeing to sound the death-knell for this program.
The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton said that the people across the country who would take advantage of the program were primarily from Ontario and Quebec. How many families in Nova Scotia-which is not exactly the richest area of this country-would have taken advantage of the program? There

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
would have been 4,665 families who would have taken advantage of it, most of whom will no longer have that opportunity.
I visited Halifax recently and I can tell the House that the people in the City of Halifax are in a desperate housing situation. Any assistance that the Government could provide, through COSP and other programs, in upgrading and making available energy efficient housing across the country should be supported rather than negated as is currently the case. [Translation]
In New Brunswick, we see that over 6,000 homeowners would have taken advantage of the program if it had been continued. Mr. Speaker, all Progressive Conservatives agree on this program. They agree like the yesmen from Quebec who all agreed that Domtar should be given subsidies, and agreed as well when the Government cancelled the subsidies. The same applies to the Bill before the House at this moment.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) said earlier it was a fantastic program that had reduced our dependence on non-renewable energy sources. If it was such a good program, if a third of Canadian homeowners who need this program today because they are still using non-renewable energy sources to heat their homes ... But why do we not continue this program since the Government is introducing in the House an over-all program to deal with the energy issue in industry, homes and other areas?
I find it amazing, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of the Government are lauding the benefits of this program and the effect it has had in encouraging Canadians to get off oil- which was in fact the original intention of the program-and pointing to figures which show that Canadians are becoming more energy efficient, at the same time as they cut the jugular of the very programs which have been at the forefront of this energy consciousness raising which we have seen happening over the last three years. I cannot understand why the first program which is to be cut by this Government is a program to help home owners.
Home owners perform a yeoman's service in this country. They develop the economy and create jobs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are the backbone of our economy. But, unfortunately, this Conservative Government, the Government of the small business person and the home owner, in its very first few months in office, has done more than its share to destroy the hope of young Canadians of ever owning their own homes. Government has cut off COSP, cut off CHIP, and has currently doubled the cost of mortgage insurance under CMHC. With one fell swoop of the pen the average home owner in Canada is going to have to pay another $3,000 over the life of his or her mortgage. This has been done by a Government which purports to support home owners.


John Horton McDermid: That is pretty cheap insurance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We have seen the CMHC mortgage insurance increase, the decision to terminate the COSP program, the decision to let CHIP run out-


John Horton McDermid: You let the insurance program operate in the hole.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Deputy House Leader for the Conservatives seems to be prone to blather on from time to time.


John Horton McDermid: I just got a promotion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You got a promotion and I am happy. I just wish, though, for one moment, that the Hon. Member would get up and make a statement or comment about this particular Bill.


John Horton McDermid: If you sit down, I will.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If the Hon. Member did, he would echo the statements of his own colleagues. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, it is like the Domtar question. Government Members love to stand up in the House on Standing Orders 21, beating their breasts and saying to the Canadian people-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. [Translation]


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, this is just to give the Hon. Member a chance to collect herself and get back to the Bill before the House and contribute some fresh ideas instead of talking at random.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member did not understand the analogy I drew between Domtar and the COSP. It is just like what happened when the Prime Minister made his promise in Newfoundland . . . Now we see it did not mean a thing and that the Prime Minister was not as good as his word.
Mr. Speaker, we know the same applies to the Domtar case. We now know that the same Members who rise in the House and tell Canadians that it was a good program and that it worked well and encouraged all Canadians to save energy- those very same Members are deciding to terminate the program.
Mr. Speaker, they have the same attitude towards Domtar. Hon. Members say it is a good plan, Quebec Members are saying they need a subsidy for Domtar and at the very same time the Government decides to cut or rather refuses to give the subsidy. Mr. Speaker, that is why the Domtar case raises the same questions as the oil substitution program, and so, all Canadians should now ask themselves whether they can trust the credibility of this Government. Do they really stand behind everything they say in the House or are they merely using the House to deceive Canadians about their real motives? Mr. Speaker, if all Members who showed tremendous support for these programs still support them, why are they dropping the

February 28, 1985

program? Why are they dropping a program that in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker-

In British Columbia in 1985, if this program had not been terminated, 1 1,375 home owners would have been able to take advantage of it. Yet we see those same Hon. Members who said it worked denying to a potential 144,000 home owners across this country in one single fiscal year the chance to develop an energy efficient alternative through the Canadian Oil Substitution Program.
I am sorry if it hurts Government Members when I say that they are not fighting for home owners. I am sorry it hurts the feelings of those Hon. Members on the government side of the House who express frustration when I point out in this House that that single act of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of doubling the cost of mortgage insurance will cost the average new home owner in Canada over $3,000 over the life of his or her mortgage. I am sorry if that hurts the feelings of hon. members of the Government. I am also sorry that this Government in its first few months in office, with an overwhelmingly solid mandate from the Canadian people, has not seen fit to fight for and promote the very issues which it talked about in the election campaign.
I look to the famous government promises book. The Government made 39 promises about energy. It dealt, for example, with setting up a special program to encourage the use of alcohol as a lead substitute for octane boosting. Consider the possibility of providing funds to help with the construction of a tidal power plant or providing funds for provincial utilities to investigate the feasibility of the construction of wind farms. How many of these alternatives, these renewable resources, have in fact seen the light of day since the Government, with its massive majority, took office? What we have seen is no move toward more conservation.
I think the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) was right when he made the freudian slip by saying he enjoyed this move towards "conservatism". I believe what we have seen in this House is not a move toward conservation or the encouragement of conservation but a move toward the true Conservative philosophies which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tried to hide from the Canadian people during the time of the election. The Prime Minister pretended to the Canadian people that he was going to respect universality. The Prime Minister pretended that he was going to encourage programs like the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. The Prime Minister pretended to Canadians that he was not going to hit out at the elderly by cutting back on their old age pensions, or the older workers. The Prime Minister and the Government throughout the election campaign told the Canadian people that they could rest assured-the Conservatives were like wolves in sheep's clothing-that programs which have been developed and built by Liberals are going to be safeguarded. The Conservatives said those programs were going to be kept because they believe in medicare, universality and off-oil energy substitution. In fact, the moment they were elected, they showed their true colours. Their true colours were
Oil Substitution Act
to cut the Canadian energy conservation program. The only place-


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member obviously can enter into debate in whatever way she wishes. However, she cannot use this House to make statements which are not fact. When she said there have been cuts in social policies and that we are going to continue, that simply is not the fact.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this Government has introduced a document which considers doing just that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is what happened today in Question Period. You cannot change the wording and leave the same impression. The Member is doing the very same thing again. I say to her that we have not cut, there has been no intention to cut, and in fact there has been an increase in the spouses' allowance. They were the ones who objected to it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the facts belie the statement made by the Minister. The facts will show that the Governent is currently considering abolition of the tax deductions available to people with families. If you do not consider that to be an anti-child and anti-family move, then I do not think you have the pulse of the Canadian people. If you think the Canadian people will stand by and allow this Government to do away with tax exemptions for people who have families, I think you are wrong. I think the Minister will recognize that a single person earning $40,000 a year should pay more in taxes than a family person supporting four or five children. I think that is a basic Canadian right and I think the Minister and his Government must in fact be tricking the Canadian people. On the one hand they issue a document which suggests a reduction or abolition of the child tax credit and at the same time they stand there with straight faces and tell people there is no change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. May I suggest to the Hon. Member that the issues being discussed for the past few minutes may not specifically concern the Bill we are debating this afternoon.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is responding to the comments made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would suggest to the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) that I have no intention of inflaming the debate. The reason I stepped in is precisely to avoid discussions from both sides on a matter that

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
is not relevant to the legislation as such, and I am doing this quite objectively, as much for this side of the House as for the other. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would simply point out to the House that I was referring to the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, when the Minister rose on a fallacious point of order to interrupt me. Therefore, if you are here to interrupt me on different matters, that is your right, but you are simply chopping up my speech.

1 can understand why government Members are a little jittery. At the same time, the Government is moving to cut the COSP and CHIP programs, we look to the Prime Minister's Office to see what kind of an example he is giving to the Canadian people. He is saying, "You cannot benefit from COSP because we are going to terminate it. But I can turn around and increase my own office budget by 57 per cent". He then has the nerve to say that it is a small percentage of the over-all Budget.


John Horton McDermid: Don Johnston said that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry that the Hon. Member was not in the House when his Leader said it was a small percentage of the Budget. I realize he says so many things in so many places that it is very hard for him to remember what he said to whom, but I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people feel that the activities of the Prime Minister and his Government are stretching credibility to the utmost. They tell the Canadian people to tighten their belts. They say, "We are chopping, we are cutting back on COSP and the child tax credit". They tell 55-year old Canadian workers, "We are cutting out your opportunity for unemployment insurance".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for always intervening, but the Hon. Member just used the words "child tax credit". I do not know if she knows what that credit is, but she will know from the consultation paper that there is an increase, and I wish she would stay with the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret that a couple of minutes ago I listened perhaps at too great a length to certain points of order. This is obviously a question of debate, and there will be a question and comment period after the speech made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). The Hon. Minister may participate in the debate at that time.


Mr. Taylor:: How about talking about the Bill?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have been talking about the Bill for the last 20 minutes. What I have been saying is that this is another indication of the bad will of this Government. This Government was elected with a massive majority on the basis of promises that it was going to ensure the kind of Liberal programs which, by the admission of government Members here today, have worked. The Canadian Oil Substitution Program has worked. I urge government Members to rethink
their decision to terminate this program. In doing so they are stretching the credibility of this Government at the very time when their Prime Minister is raising his own budget by 57 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that our Treasury bills today sold for 11.7 per cent for a three-month period. Does she also know that the savings to the Government on termination of COSP is $424 million between now and 1988? On the CHIP program, it is $376 million between now and 1988. Is it her view that we should increase the budget deficit and the burden on the children of Canada and their children as well as the home owners of Canada by darn near $1 billion in order to supply insulation and new furnaces for the relatively well off in this country? Is that the Liberal policy?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am really confused. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -exhibits an incredible ignorance of the intent of the COSP program if he is suggesting that the upfront cost of off-oil conversion is going to contribute to the deficit in the long term. On the contrary, the words of his colleague from Nepean-Carleton, and others who have spoken on this issue in the House, clearly demonstrate that this particular measure is going to save the Canadian taxpayer money in the long run. I am sorry if the Hon. Member can only see as far as the end of his fiscal nose for 1985. In the Liberal Party we are concerned with the long-term future of this country and our determination to live within our own means with our own resources with the kind of help that was given to us through the COSP program. If he cannot understand that, then he does not understand what conservation really is.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government spent $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money on these programs to the end of 1984. The return from income tax was about $300 million. The net increase in the deficit and the burden on the taxpayer was over $1 billion. Would she have us continue to borrow and borrow and borrow to assist the relatively affluent to reinsulate their homes and substitute new furnaces for old?


Sheila Maureen Copps: First of all, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the people who took advantage of this program were the affluent. In fact, the Energy, Mines and Resources documents show just the opposite. The Hon. Member's Government has just tabled the highest Estimates in the history of this country. His Prime Minister can find funds to increase his own office budget by 57 per cent. How can the Hon. Member sit there with a straight face and talk about the track record of previous Liberal Governments when his own Prime Minister is a disgrace to the Canadian people?
February 28, 1985


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the Hon. Member because the more she talks, the more her credibility disappears. I know the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House deliberately. I know she would not want to do that. I just want to point out some facts to her from what she said today to show that she was really flirting with the truth when saying that the Government is not interested in conservation, renewable energy, or housing.
Let us just take one item from the new Estimates, for example. There will be $4 million in support of super energy efficient housing demonstrations, the R-2000 Program. As shown in the 1984-85 Estimates, the former Government did not even participate in that program. It did not have anything to do with it. With regard to transportation energy conservation, there will be $50,000 for a task force this year. There will be $16 million in support of the development and demonstration of new technologies related to renewable and non-conventional resources of energy conservation and oil substitution by conventional fuels. That was not even in the Liberal Budget. They did not even pay any attention to that. There will be $3.7 million in support of industrial energy research and development programs. That was not even in the Liberal Budget last year.
I can go on. There is $17.4 million in support of Atlantic provinces to assist industrial and commercial establishments and institutions to finance a portion of the capital investment in energy conservation. Do you want more? There is $20 million, double what is was last year, in support of organization to stimulate the use of biomass residue as a fuel in place of conventional fuels and to cogenerate electricity and heat.
So the facts and figures that the Hon. Member has been laying before the House this afternoon are completely inaccurate. The assumptions that she is making that the Government is not interested in conservation and is not doing anything about it are totally wrong. The facts are presented in the Budget Papers, Part III, Expenditure Plans of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would suggest that the Hon. Member should take time from her very busy schedule to read this, absorb it, and understand what is going on in energy conservation in the country today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the Member does not agree with the statistics that are presented by this own Department. Everything that I have read here today-and I would be very happy to table the document in the House-has come from the Government on the basis of its own statistical provisions.
I cannot believe that the Parliamentary Secretary would stand up in the House and brag about $50,000 that he and his Government are spending on a task force. I realize that government Members must have something to do. I understand why a number of them who do not have parliamentary secretaryships are very very frustrated. For the Parliamentary Secretary to stand up in the House and brag about the fact that he is going to blow $50,000 of the taxpayers' money on a
Oil Substitution Act
task force to look at energy conservation across Canada, when we know the problems and solutions, is absolutely ludicrous.
I can see one way where the Government can make some savings. It has promised certain research into wind conservation energy. I think that by merely shutting up the Parliamentary Secretary, we could probably make a great saving in the area of wind energy conservation.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I have is that the credibility of the Hon. Member is rapidly going downhill. She might have been able to play those games in Ontario when she sat on the back-bench there in opposition. I think she has been in opposition far too long. She is getting an extremely warped outlook on life. Her whole 20 minutes speech was a negative diatribe of cliches that she has been using for I don't know how many years since she has been an elected official. If she had any positive suggestions on renewable energy, she would not be spreading around the falsehoods that she was today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Well, Mr. Speaker, I make the point that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not believe it is parliamentary for him to suggest I am spreading falsehoods, and I would merely ask him to retract that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is exactly what you were doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Would the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) consider maybe rephrasing the word used?


John Horton McDermid: Far be it from me to offend the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), Mr. Speaker. I will certainly withdraw that remark about spreading falsehoods. She accused the Government of not being interested in housing and conservation. The facts were laid out by myself this afternoon showing that the Government is very interested in that. For her to go around saying that it is not interested is not true. That is the point I am trying to make. The facts were presented this afternoon in the House of Commons very clearly.
I think the Hon. Member will admit that programs which are brought in by governments cannot last forever. There must be a sunset clause in programs. One of the problems within governments in Canada over the last number of years is that programs have been brought in and then forgotten about. They have not been assessed to see if they are doing what they were created to do. The programs that we are debating today in Bill C-24 have accomplished what they set out to do. There is no question about that. They have helped Canada to become more aware. The role of the Government today is to educate the people on how they can save money by converting on their own. Taxpayers of the country do not expect to be bribed with their own money to convert when they know they will make savings.

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I asked the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the words about the untruth of my statements, the Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) made a comment to the effect that the reason I was allowed to make the statements is that I am a woman. I would like the House to know, First and foremost, that I am a Member of the House. It is a question of privilege when a Member suggests that another Member is allowed to say or do certain things because of their gender. I ask that that particular Member withdraw his comment.


John Horton McDermid: They warned me what she would be like. I cannot say it's a total surprise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If the Member for Duvernay said that, I in the Chair did not hear it. If he did say it, it is unparliamentary. I will therefore reserve my decision on this matter. We will now, if you please, resume debate.


Carlo Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, knowing the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) as I do, if you were to ask him whether he did say that, I think he would withdraw the words like a gentleman.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That's not the procedure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: No, no, no. Order please. We will not debate the decision of the Chair. We will now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards).


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill C-24. It has been remarked that Members on this side of the House may be jittery. Perhaps that is understandable after the last few minutes. We have been exposed, and I use my words carefully, Mr. Speaker, to a dubious cornucopia of half-truths, irrelevan-cies, and misrepresentations. I would call that speech a kitchen sink speech. I was intrigued with the Hon. Member's use of figures. It is astonishing that she was able to pause long enough to listen to people about their intentions about COSP. I will say nothing to criticize the Hon. Member's voting record which I admire greatly.
I do wish to say something about her use of words, and I think it is unfortunate that she is not here to absorb this. It is rather unfortunate that on the day on which the name of the new President of the Council on the Status of Women was announced the Hon. Member used the phrase "yeomen" when she described the householders of Canada. I think "yeowomen" would have been a much more appropriate use of the language.
I would like to offer to the House, Mr. Speaker, some actual figures on units converted under COSP so that the record may be set straight.
The provincial totals for units converted are as follows: Newfoundland, 26,500; Nova Scotia, 27,500; New Brunswick, 33,600; Prince Edward Island, 11,000; Quebec, 398,100; Ontario, 277,100; Manitoba, which the Hon. Member suggested was in the lead, was 24,400; Saskatchewan, 12,800; Alberta, 5,200 and British Columbia, 77,400. In the Territories there were 3,100 units converted.
It was suggested that the hard to reach areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta were and remain unserved by this program. I suggest that these areas have long since converted from liquid petroleum to either propane or natural gas, which is available in abundance even in the hard to reach areas of those two provinces.
Those of us who are long in the tooth, and remember the days of stoking a coal furnace are just delighted that natural gas is available in such abundance in this country as an alternative fuel. The original intention of the gas company of Alberta, Northwestern Utilities, which was the First to pipe natural gas to one of Canada's major cities, was that natural gas would be used only as a home heating fuel. There was no intention that it would be used industrially at that time, since it was long before the natural gas derivatives or the processes known to create the many byproducts from natural gas were developed.
I agree with my hon. friend, the Member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Tupper), when he remarked that energy conservation has become a matter that is now in vogue. At one time energy conservation was a technicality or a guilt trip as far as the Canadian consciousness is concerned. It has moved to the forefront of awareness, and I suggest that the major benefit of the two programs that are being terminated was to implant conservation in the consciousness of the Canadian public. Now it is time for Canadians to assume their responsibilities and realize their own economies and contribute to their own energy savings. Surely there is a great will among Canadians to do so.
I will return to the question of whether there is such a will and sufFicient follow-through among our commercial and industrial users. Bill C-24 represents a substantial part of the Government's effort to reduce the monstrous deficit. Bill C-24 is an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Home Act. The thrust of the Bill is twofold: it provides for the termination of COSP on March 31 of this year and for the termination of CHIP on March 31 of next year by amending the two existing Acts.
In 1981-82, gas conversions represented 48 per cent of that year's COSP activity, electricity represented 36 per cent, while wood represented 14 per cent. In 1983 to 1984, gas conversions had decreased to 25 per cent of all activities and electricity had risen to 55 per cent.
February 28, 1985

Let me spend a few minutes evaluating the CHIP program. A major evaluation of the CHIP program, completed in August, 1983, showed that the program increased over-all conservation activity by approximately 30 per cent. Other findings were that about 37 per cent of CHIP users would have done nothing without the grant, and that the activity in each house had been cost effective, with an average of 17 per cent decrease in fuel consumption.
Unlike the COSP program, CHIP was used mostly by those who needed it most, that is, the poor, elderly and those heating with oil. The majority of those people have been reached by this program.
This evaluation also identified several operational problems in the computer system, monitoring and the application process for consumers. Those were subsequently corrected.
The volume of CHIP take-up varied sharply over its six and a half years of life. Many of the factors accounting for those changes included sharp fluctuations in international energy prices and public perceptions of both supply and price trends, the Government's deliberate changes in eligibility dates, program funding, the contribution formula and program criteria, as well as related moves by insulation contractors to promote CHIP, extending in some cases to excessively aggressive sales.
CHIP was approved by Cabinet in April of 1977 as an expansion of the earlier Home Insulation Program. The HIP program had been initiated in January of that year in the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia to encourage home owners to reduce oil consumption for space heating as one means of offsetting the impact of higher electricity prices in those two areas. In October of 1980, the CHIP termination date was extended from 1984 to the end of 1987. Of course, on November 8 of last year, as part of the Government's deficit reduction exercise, CHIP'S termination date was changed to March 31 of next year. CHIP and HIP were both delivered by CMHC since their inception. On April 1, 1981, full responsibility for finance, policy, promotion and monitoring was transferred to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. CMHC continued to process the applications, issue the cheques, provide inspection services for both quality and compliance control, and provide Energy, Mines and Resources with management information.
The delivery system includes a network of nine regional offices and a central management and application processing centre in Montreal. Energy Mines and Resources has been concerned with ensuring high quality work under CHIP and energy savings that will continue over the life of the dwellings in which conservation measures had been undertaken.
Programs of research, technology transfer, industry support, education and quality assurance were directed by the CHIP program within Energy Mines and Resources.
In 1983 and 1984, CHIP developed and implemented a new quality and program compliance assurance system. That included a new sampling plan in which inspections could be directed toward problem contractors, specific types of work and regions of the country along with new reports that allowed
Oil Substitution Act
managers to review program performance. All inspectors doing CHIP work have been trained and tested to a recognized standard, and various inter agency management committees were created to oversee the performance of the quality assurance system.
I have mentioned that there were some requirements and needs in the commercial and industrial areas. One of the important vehicles of testing energy efficiency has been the energy bus program which has been performing in many of our provinces. In my Province of Alberta, for example, some 460 companies were surveyed and found to have some kind of insulation and conservation problems. However, the unfortunate gap is that they were not told how to correct these problems. There is a communication problem in this respect because these industries are very aware that their energy costs keep rising. However, they would like to have better information from government agencies precisely with respect to how those savings can be realized.
There is a program called the Consultant Advice Assistance Program. If that program were doing its job fully it would probably give some proper advice on how conservation could be carried out.
The momentum of which I spoke earlier is now behind the private sector to get busy and provide conservation measures in the commercial, industrial and residential areas. Private energy conservation consultant firms with extensive expertise in design, application and marketing of complete retrofit packages could have the proper input to formulate and guide the implementation of such programs after completing a study of the many and varied incentive programs currently producing positive results in other jurisdictions.
There are probably not a great many energy conservation consultants in the country. One argument often heard against the use of such consultants is: "We already know a lot more ways of saving energy at this plant than we have people or money to do something about". That argument is very real to many people-why heap up more money-saving ideas until something gets done about the ones we already know of?
The fact is that this argument really points out a pressing need for assistance. Priorities must be established and a defensible coherent program with clearly defined benefits needs to be sold to management of various private firms. Many plants and facilities need help, lots of help, in formulating energy conservation programs and expediting their implementation. The energy conservation consultant adds his special talents and qualifications to the abilities and skills of the people who have been working with the energy systems, processes and equipment for an extended time on a day to day basis. The energy conservation consultant is a professional and a specialist in the field of practical energy technology. He has participated in many plant energy studies and has developed unique and demanding skills. A good energy conservation consultant is also a good teacher. He will have no trade secrets. He will do his best to impart as much of his skills and

February 28, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
knowledge as he possibly can to the clients with whom he works.
As well, there is the element of objectivity. Being from outside an organization, the energy conservation consultant is free to find and express the best solutions to the energy problem without deference to long established opinions, company politics or ingrained management philosophies. To consultant, to be effective, must be diplomatic and must consider the feelings of other people.
The next element is credibility. If an expert is paid a few to come in, look at a problem and give a solution, his solution will be believed far more readily than an identical solution expressed by a long-time employee.
The next criterion is the question of concentration of effort. With the possible exception of a plant energy manager, no plant employees are free to devote their full, undivided attention and efforts exclusively to energy conservation for an extended period of time. Both the individual consultants and the firm with which they are associated should be dedicated to the concept of true professionalism. Professionals are dedicated to providing a necessary specialized service and will place the proper and effective conduct of their work ahead of all other considerations. Also, there are the elements of reputation and record, understanding of clients' problems, soundness and credibility of proposals.
Some organizations have offered free or very low-cost energy studies. After they gain access to the plant, it is found that they are really sales people promoting the application of an energy related product or service. This type of survey or plant study can be legitimate and be of benefit to the plant or facilities if the firm offering the service clearly states the purpose and limitations of the work to be performed.
It is entirely possible that the momentum provided by CHIP and COSP, but CHIP in particular, will now give a consciousness to the people of Canada, plant managers and owners, as well as householders, to turn to private energy conservation consultants who efficiently, thoroughly and honourably can now tackle the conservation challenge before us. It is a substantial challenge. I submit that this is an area in which a tremendous number of jobs can be generated. I have had a study done as to what a SI million investment could do over a period of six years. The returns over a six-year period, starting in 1985 and carrying through to 1990, on a $1 million investment would be in excess of $3 million. The value of exporting our products, the value of expenditure avoidance and the tremendous value of all the energy saved or consumption avoidance, translate to more energy and resources for the future. Such a program could remove 48 people from UIC or the welfare rolls, and to train them would cost approximately $1,680,000, plus the cost of finding employment. I submit that this would be a wise investment.
I should like to return for a moment to the question of COSP and whether it in fact achieved its objectives. Results among the provinces vary greatly. Some provinces show an extraordinary success rate due to such factors as aggressive marketing by the utilities. For example, Manitoba achieved
147 per cent of its three-year target. On the other hand, Nova Scotia reached only 59 per cent of its three-year target because the natural gas pipeline expected in the Maritimes had not been built. The Provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, as well as Yukon and the Northwest Territories, were allowed special provisions because of the lack of alternatives to oil heating. In those areas, conservation measures such as insulation, draught proofing and the improvement of existing oil systems were eligible for grants under COSP. As a result, Newfoundland achieved 115 per cent of its three-year target, P.E.I. achieved 90 per cent, and the Territories achieved 100 per cent. All together, conservation measures account for approximately 5 per cent of national COSP activity.
The rate of conversion to the various alternative energy sources has changed throughout the program. In 1981-82, gas conversions represented 48 per cent of that year's COSP activity, electricity was 36 per cent, while wood represented 14 per cent. In 1983-84, gas conversions had decreased to 25 per cent of all activity, and electricity had risen to 55 per cent. This decline in gas conversion is partly accounted for by a decline in conversions in the Province of Ontario. In 1981-82, conversions in Ontario accounted for 43 per cent of all conversions done in that year. By 1983-84, Ontario's share had declined to 20 per cent. Furthermore, within the province, gas conversions accounted for 63 per cent of activity in 1981-82, but it dropped to 43 per cent in 1983-84. Interestingly enough, nationally wood has accounted for 22 per cent of all COSP activity. A great majority of those conversions were made in rural areas by householders with access to cheap wood fuel and with a lifestyle that accepted the extra tasks involved in heating with wood.
As has been said earlier in the debate, the key thrust of the amendments in this Bill is to wind up programs which seem to have achieved their initial objectives and which have given momentum to other initiatives that could be done by the private sector in years to come. Beyond that and overriding that consideration, the vital contribution of this Bill is to assist in reducing the greatest burden upon, as my hon. friend said, our children and our children's children, in other words, relieving the deficit which besets our nation.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on his speech and I want to ask him a specific question about Alberta, since he took interest in another subject matter before the House concerning Newfoundland and expressed his support for the proposal which the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) and myself were proposing as far as the CBC cuts were concerned.
Being from Alberta, the Hon. Member is obviously very concerned about the future of that province and the number of jobs in that province as they relate to the oil industry. When we look at the total output of refineries in the Province of Alberta, we see a steady decline over the last several years. That decline has led to conversions within those oil refineries
February 28, 1985

to different types of products. Generally speaking, they are getting away from production of home heating fuels. Due to the policy of the provincial Government, we have also seen a drastic increase in the petrochemical industry in that province. Would the Hon. Member say that the energy conversion program had a considerable amount or a small amount to do with the requirement for heating oil and its incredible decline in Canada over the last several years? Does he think that they are both interrelated?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments and his question. As I understand the question, it is whether the conversions of the end products of the Alberta refineries and the emphasis on petrochemical priorities have to do with the reduction in supply of home heating oil and whether that somehow relates to this over-all question.
I believe that the reduction in the production of home heating oil out of Alberta refineries relates more to the decline in demand in the markets readily available to those refineries. If the Hon. Member and I were to check, I believe we would discover that the production of home heating fuel declined rather more rapidly in Alberta than it did in other refineries, for example refineries in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I believe there may indeed be some relationship of decline in demand in accessible markets.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The figures really do not lie as far as the output of oil refineries in Canada is concerned and the total consumption in each province of Canada and the products from the oil refineries. Does the Hon. Member see a steady decline in the production of refined oil in the Province of Alberta, as has been the case over the past several years, or does he agree with the recent report of the National Energy Board which stated that demand would reverse itself into a 1 per cent increase over the next several years? Does he think there is any end to the slide of demand for oil-related products out of the Province of Alberta and its refineries?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thrust of that question. I understand from discussions that I have had the privilege of engaging in with representatives of the industry, the federal Department and personnel of the Alberta Government that there is general agreement with the predictions of the National Energy Board that there will be a reversal and that their projections of a gradual increase will, in fact, be borne out.


Mr. Parry:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member to give us his assessment of the effect on the country's oil import bill and also his assessment of the effect on equiliza-tion payments to those provinces using imported oil that will be caused by the withdrawal of the COSP and CHIP programs.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that information is probably available. I do not have it readily at hand. My belief, as I said in my remarks, is that there will be an increased momentum in off-oil conversion and there will be an increase in home
Adjournment Motion
insulation and commercial and industrial insulation because of the real and genuine economies that people are now well aware they can achieve by engaging in those conversions and in those retrofits.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Let me assure the Hon. Member that I did not expect him to provide numerical answers to the question about the oil import bill or the equalization payments bill. There is only one thing worse than those who merely spout statistics in this Chamber, that is, to alternate those who alternate between statistics and invective. Can the Hon. Member give me some examples of the effect which he predicts will take place, namely that by the withdrawal of a subsidy or economic stimulus activity will be enhanced? I would like to hear an example of a similar case in which that sort of thing happened.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I promise there will be no invective from this chair in the House. There may be some editorial comment, but no invective.
I rather expect that there will be some effect temporarily upon oil imports. There will be some effect temporarily on the question of equalization payments. However, I would not expect, and I concede this is guesswork, that there would be a lasting effect. Nor do I believe it would be very deep or severe.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would just like to clarify to the Hon. Member that I certainly did not have him in mind when I made the reference to those whose speeches are composed of equal parts of statistics and invective, but rather the Member who just caught the plane out of here or will be doing so in a couple of minutes. I have a final supplementary for the Hon. Member. What effect does he think the withdrawal of these subsidies will have on employment in this country?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I'm sorry, but the period for questions and comments is now over.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Canadian Security Intelligence Service (a) Size of budget (b) Service's accountability; the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker)-Energy (a) Federal Newfoundland agreement (b) Government position.

February 28, 1985
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nAdjournment Debate"]
Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in this session I introduced a Bill, now on the Order Paper as No. 59. I now seek the indulgence of the House to switch that with a motion of which I gave notice two weeks ago. The motion is No. 173. I would greatly appreciate the indulgence of the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent that the House proceed to Item No. 37?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of honoring the memory of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker by commissioning a statue of him to be placed on Parliament Hill.
She said: Mr. Speaker, each day in the House of Commons, Members of Parliament address issues which affect the administration of the Government of Canada. The future course of Canada is the business of this Chamber as elected representatives from all three Parties work together to build a better nation. However, it may be necessary from time to time to pause in our deliberations in order to look back and take action on an issue which may not be at the top of our agenda today but which nevertheless has great significance for Canada.
I rise this day to speak on such an issue and in so doing to attempt to correct a certain historial oversight which to some degree does not do justice to the memory of a man who was a giant in his time, a western Canadian with a truly national vision and the thirteenth Prime Minister of Canada, the late Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, it has been the custom of the Parliament of Canada to commission statues of great Canadian leader and to place the monuments on the grounds of Parliament Hill. As my colleagues here may be aware, no less than 11 monuments are located on Parliament Hill at present. These monuments are dedicated to the memory of great Canadians as well as one dedictated to our reigning monarch at the time of Confederation, Queen Victoria.
Other persons so honoured include Sir Louis Lafontaine and Robert Baldwin who as joint Premiers of United Canada formed the great Ministry of 1848 to 1851 which successfully established into practice the principle of responsible government in Canada. George Brown, publisher and founder of a national newspaper in Canada who was Reform leader in Upper Canada during the 1850s is also so honoured. He went on to play a leading role at the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences on Confederation.
Also honoured is Sir Georges Cartier who played a conspicuous role in the movement toward Confederation. He was joint premier in the Macdonald-Cartier administration of 18581862 and conducted the key negotiations by which French Canada accepted the federation proposals. As well, we have Sir John A. Macdonald the first Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada who worked to complete political unification and economic integration with the remaining territories of British North America during his many years in office.
There are others so honoured including Thomas D'Arcy McGee, a noted poet, journalist, politician and father of Confederation who unfortunately was assassinated at his home on Sparks Street in 1868. As well, Alexander Mackenzie is included. He was Prime Minister from 1873 to 1878 and formed the first Liberal administration of the Dominion of Canada. Also honoured is Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our distinguished Prime Minister from 1896 to 1911, who gave the new Dominion a respected and independent voice in the British Empire. He worked to transcend differences in race and religion as Canada welcomed waves of immigrants to its shores.
Included as well is Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister from 1911 to 1920. He was a devoted and courageous wartime leader who led Canadians to accept their new-found international responsibilities. Through his efforts, Canadian nationalism flourished as our nation sat as an independent power at peace talks and secured its rightful place in the League of Nations. Finally, Mackenzie King is also honoured. He was Canada's longest serving Prime Minister and led our nation through six long years of the Second World War. In so doing, he lay the foundation for Canada's post-war prosperity.
These distinguished founders and leaders of our nation are justly honoured with a permanent place on the grounds of Parliament Hill, the bronze image of each standing as eloquent testimony to a lifetime of achievement and dedication to Canada. No Canadian would deny these fine Canadians such an honour. Recognition of their achievement transcends partisan considerations. They are quite simply among the best leaders our nation has produced. I submit that to this history should be added the name of a certain contemporary leader of Canada, a man with vision equal to that of those 10 aforemen-
February 28, 1985

tioned individuals, a man whose life was Parliament and whose Government significantly advanced the cause of freedom and prosperity for all Canadians.
1 ask that Members of Parliament join with me on this motion requesting that a statue on Parliament Hill be commissioned forthwith in rightful honour of Canada's thirteenth Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister at a time when Canada was on the threshold of emerging greatness. His initiatives were the force which propelled Canada to that greatness. His inspiration was a vision of Canada unique to the times: an understanding that Canada's strength lay in her richness of land and resources.
Among some Diefenbaker initiatives were the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam, the development of hydroelectric power in the maritime provinces, massive sales of wheat to China, and the introduction of the Roads to Resources Program designed to open new regions for the development of mineral and energy resources.
Prime Minister Diefenbaker reached the pinnacle of his career with the introduction and passage of the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. For the first time, a written statute set out the fundamental freedoms and rights of individual Canadians which must be respected under federal law. It was a crowning piece of legislation, the quality of which was an indication of the magnitude of the pride and dedication to duty of this late great man.
A mere listing of accomplishments, however distinguished they may be, is not an adequate indication of the significant force John Diefenbaker exerted over the collective character of all Canadians. It was the man's oratory, the power of his words, which captivated the imagination of the people of Canada and earned the respect of parliamentarians in this great Chamber. His words and speeches revealed great pride and strength of spirit.
Mr. Diefenbaker once said that there were three speeches of which he was particularly proud. The first was his denunciation in Parliament of the internment of Canadians of Japanese descent during the Second World War, in which he thundered:
There are no hyphenated Canadians!
The second of these was his speech made at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, in 1957, in which he outlined the greater issues of Anglo-Canadian-American relations. The third was his address to the United Nations General Assembly in 1960 in which he demanded freedom for Russian satellite countries in eastern Europe which were subjugated by the Soviets.
It is a telling measure of Mr. Diefenbaker that he claimed these three speeches to be his most memorable. He was a man for whom principle stood ahead of all else. He was a national
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker
leader for whom key international issues were the yeardstick of Canada's emergent stature in the world.
Dozens of notable quotations exist which give further evidence of the extraordinary character of this unique Canadian leader. "We have an appointment with destiny", he often declared in speeches during the 1957 election campaign. With this simple phrase, John Diefenbaker expressed his optimistic vision for Canada, as well as his own personal vision, to become Prime Minister and lead Canada to that destiny.
"There are more votes on Main Street than Bay Street!", was his rallying cry during the 1958 general election. It was John Diefenbaker's reminder that the interests of everyday Canadians should be a politician's first consideration.
He said:
Bilingualism and biculturalism are facts of Canadian life that cannot-and should not-be hidden or avoided.
John Diefenbaker wrote that in 1964 with the sincerity and wisdom of a man who had served as Prime Minister of all Canadians, of all regions and of all provinces.
"I don't campaign, I just visit with the people", John Diefenbaker declared in 1965, reflecting the ease of manner by which he met and spoke with Canadians during his travels.
There are many more quotations, among which the following portray John Diefenbaker at his most basic and revealing self:
"The secret of freedom is a brave heart." It was true when Pericles uttered those words and it is true today.
Parliament is a place honoured by tradition and hallowed by the greatness of its history.
My basic social philosophy is that governments should not forget the average man and woman.
I stand today as I have always stood, for principle: Freedom and equality for all Canadians, however humble their lot in life, and whatever their racial origin. One Canada, One Nation.
Finally, from a speech in reference to the Bill of Rights, delivered in the House of Commons on July 1, 1960, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker intoned:
I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to workship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and mankind.
It is Fitting that these particular words should echo once more off the stone walls and high ceilings of this House of Commons. John Diefenbaker lived for this House, and he lived for the principles I have just quoted.
If his benevolent spirit should still occuppy this Chamber, let it bear witness that this Thirty-Third Parliament of Canada did act to immortalize in bronze the living image of our thirteenth Prime Minister, the Late Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has proposed a very interesting motion. In fact, there are statues of a number of our Prime Ministers on or near

February 28, 1985
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker
Parliament Hill. Sir John A. Macdonald, Alexander Mackenzie, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden and Mackenzie King all have statues near the Parliament Buildings. However, Louis St. Laurent, in keeping with his reputation as a great barrister and a great Minister of Justice, keeps watch outside the Supreme Court Building.
The rather compelling statue of Sir John A. Macdonald stands outside the Senate. It is unique in that he is depicted as holding his spectacles. I am told that the Department of Public Works is called upon from time to time to replace those spectacles, the disappearance of which is usually ascribed to over-enthusiasm by young scholars.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier looks down on Confederation Square. With the assistance of a hidden heating pipe tunnel, it is at his feet that Ottawa sees the first crocuses of spring.
The rather impressionistic statue of Mackenzie King is suitably placed near the Cabinet Room, in the Privy Council Chamber of the East Block, over which he presided and ruled as Prime Minister for many, many years.
Other statues on the Hill include George Brown, who was the first Liberal Leader. He would probably be distressed if he could read the present editorial line of the newspaper he founded. He is joined by Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who, like George Brown, was a Father of Confederation. Both of those gentlemen were tragically murdered because of the controversy over the roles they played in the public life of this country.
A number of years ago, a statue of the Conservative Prime Minister R. B. Bennett was commissioned, but it has never seen the light of day. I am told that this is because John Diefenbaker was once given the opportunity to view the work and his reaction was said to have been most unparliamentary. Perhaps one result of the Hon. Member's motion is that we will have a chance to look at the statue of Mr. Bennett and to apply our own judgment and see whether it is consistent with that of Mr. Diefenbaker.
There are a number of Prime Ministers who do not have statues on or near Parliament Hill; Mr. Diefenbaker is not the only one. Sir John Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell were the only two Prime Ministers who served in that capacity as members of the Senate. Strangely enough, in view of the present controversy, both of those gentlemen were Conservatives.
There was also Sir John Thompson from Nova Scotia, who, before he entered Parliament, was the very distinguished Chief Justice of Nova Scotia. His sudden death in 1894 occurred dramatically at Windsor Castle, just after he had been knighted by the Queen.
As I previously said, none of these Prime Ministers are represented by statues on Parliament Hill. Also, there is not a statue of Mr. Diefenbaker's great hero, Arthur Meighen, nor of Mr. Diefenbaker's nemesis, Lester B. Pearson.
John Diefenbaker was unique as Prime Minister in that he remained in Parliament long after he ceased to lead his Party. He was never content merely to play the role of elder statesman. To the end, he was a very active protagonist. Indeed, he was always a great subject for political cartoonists. The last great cartoon when he was living concerned his impatience at the small role which was assigned to him in the 1979 general election.
I do not think he would be upset to hear it said that his career was essentially that of a parliamentarian, and only incidentally, but no less importantly, was it that of Prime Minister. Mr. Diefenbaker survived to live his own legend. Everyone who knew him well and listened to his yarns could almost predict which one would be next. Sometimes one knew that his stories were not always precisely accurate. But no one could ever dispute that they grew better in his telling. For example, when Prime Minister Trudeau asked Mr. Diefenbaker to share his private cabin on a plane to the Queen's Jubilee in 1977, the older man accepted readily, and after the trip when he was queried about how he could travel with a Liberal, he shot back, "Politics make strange bedfellows".
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Diefenbaker was a very distinguished Canadian. He deserves a statue on Parliament Hill. I would also call upon the Government to consider the advisability of erecting statues of all our Prime Ministers. Also, if we are to erect statues of Prime Ministers other than in the order in which they served, I think we should consider a statue of Mr. Diefenbaker's contemporary, Mr. Lester B. Pearson.
We do not do enough to perpetuate the memory of our great men and women, especially those who have served in public life. Statues are a tribute to those they depict. They also serve as a reminder to generations of Canadians of their past leaders and their contributions to the building of our country.
I support this motion, Mr. Speaker. 1 also hope that it will serve as a surrogate, as a reminder to the Government of the value of recognizing with statues on or near Parliament Hill the lives and contributions of all our Prime Ministers.
In supporting this motion, I am certainly pleased to join in its essential appeal, that of a request to recognize a great Prime Minister and a great Canadian, someone whom I had the privilege of coming to know in my earlier years in this House. This is a worthy motion. It deserves support not only for what it says about the need to recognize John Diefenbaker but the way in which it helps us to remember the importance of recognizing all our Prime Ministers, and in fact all the great men and women who have done so much to build our country for ourselves and for future generations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on this motion. This is the first opportunity I have had to address this House at length and I want to say that it is a great honour and a thrill for me to be in this House, as well as to speak on a subject which has always been of interest to me.
February 28, 1985

1 would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of the riding of Niagara Falls. The riding of Niagara Falls consists of the City of Niagara Falls and the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. As many Hon. Members of this Chamber are aware, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake was the first capital of Upper Canada. Those of us who originate from that part of the country are proud that this is where many of our freedoms began. The late John Diefenbaker told me of my predecessors that Niagara-on-the-Lake was also the northern terminal for the underground railroad, so to black slaves who were escaping from the south, Niagara-on-the-Lake represented the place where their freedom could begin. In addition, Mr. Speaker, 1 am also very proud to say that 1 was born in the City of Niagara Falls, the world's most famous address and the number one tourist attraction in this hemisphere.
The Niagara Falls riding, Mr. Speaker, has a broad industrial base and is also the place where most of this country's tender fruit production originates. The late John Diefenbaker recognized the multicultural dimensions of this country. The riding of Niagara Falls is no exception to that dimension. Those who came and settled in the Niagara Peninsula continue to be very proud of their heritage, just as I, too, am proud to say that I am descended from Scottish immigrants who originally settled in Cape Breton Island.
In speaking to this motion, I am reminded of the fact that during most of Mr. Diefenbaker's tenure as Prime Minister and his term as Opposition Leader, Niagara Falls was represented by a distinguished Member of this Chamber, the Hon. Judy LaMarsh. Though she and Mr. Diefenbaker came from different political Parties and differed on many issues, I am sure that their commitments to human rights and equality ensured that they had at least a private admiration for each other.
I am also proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that I succeed two members of my own Party who also represented the constituency of Niagara Falls. I am referring to Mr. Joe Hueglin and Mr. Jake Froese, who served in the Twenty-ninth and Thirty-first Parliaments respectively. Both men have impressed me over the years with their dedication to Canada and I know they continue to be missed by their colleagues who served with them in this House.
My association with and admiration for the late John Diefenbaker goes back to the early 1960s when I was a small boy. My parents, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nicholson Senior, and my teacher, Mrs. Dorothy Gordon, encouraged me to learn and be aware of the issues that were facing Canada. At that time I was struck by the sincerity of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and his commitment to the farmers, the Fishermen and the minorities of Canada. I was moved to the point that in 1963 at the age of 11, I wrote to Mr. Diefenbaker wishing him well and letting him know that I had started a fan club in his name. He replied with a letter of thanks and a picture, which presently hangs in my office. 1 am sure he might have been able to guess that at that moment a life-long Tory was born. From those initial impressions I had of Canada's thirteenth Prime Minister, I continued to take interest in his actions, his
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker
words, and his career. That man's lifelong commitment to human rights has compelled me to speak out on his behalf this afternoon.
It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that our present Government is concerned with the past internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II. It will always be to Mr. Diefenbaker's credit that he stood up to be counted among those who opposed that internment. Mr. Diefenbaker was an individual who from the earliest times of his career as a prairie lawyer opposed discrimination, among other things, on the basis of race or colour. It is little wonder, therefore, that in 1960, as Prime Minister, he concluded that this country could not support the reapplication to the Commonwealth of the Republic of South Africa. Writers at the time and since have credited his action for preserving the Commonwealth and continuing it as the great institution it is in Canadian life. I was very pleased, therefore, to observe in recent days our new Prime Minister's commitment to the Commonwealth through continued aid to our Caribbean partners. I am sure "the Chief' would have approved.
Mr. Diefenbaker's Government should be noted for the new ground it broke in a number of different areas. The appointment of Mrs. Ellen Fairclough in 1957 as Minister of Immigration was the first time a woman had been appointed to the federal Cabinet. Mr. Diefenbaker also appointed the first woman ambassador in this country's history in the person of Margaret Meagher. The appointment of Mr. James Gladstone made him the first native Canadian to be appointed to the Senate. I am also proud that it was John Diefenbaker who initiated the first appointment of a Canadian of French descent as Governor General. The fact that this Chamber became one which included simultaneous translation of French and English under Mr. Diefenbaker's Government is something from which we can all take pride.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Nicholson: In addition, his Government took great strides forward in the area of voting rights. It is hard for me to believe that at one time in Canada natives residing on reservations were denied the right to vote. I would like to quote from Mr. Diefenbaker's comments in the Throne Speech of January 18, 1960:
The other measure, the provision to give Indians the vote, is one of those steps which will have an effect everywhere in the world-for the reason that wherever I went last year on the occasion of my trip to Commonwealth countries, it was brought to my attention that in Canada the original people within our country, excepting for a qualified class, were denied the right to vote. I say that so far as this long overdue measure is concerned, it will remove everywhere in the world any suggestion that colour or race places any citizen in our country in a lower category than the other citizens of our country.
The measure that finally gave the right to vote to all Canadians without exception was proclaimed into law by amendments to the Indian Act and the Elections Act on Dominion Day, July 1, 1960.

February 28, 1985
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker
It should be noted as well that Mr. Diefenbaker's commitment to freedom and human rights extended beyond the borders of Canada and the Commonwealth of nations. He had a deep faith in the United Nations and saw its potential for enhancing human rights throughout the world. In his 1960 address to that body, he told the world that freedom and democracy were not and should not be the exclusive property of countries as fortunate as Canada. Freedom, he said, belonged to the people of Eastern Europe as well. In campaigning for this office last summer I found it significant that so many people of Eastern European origin reminded me of Mr. Diefenbaker's commitment to their homelands.
Finally, I would like to discuss the document that I know Mr. Diefenbaker considered his greatest achievement, namely, the Canadian Bill of rights. This document was the expression of his lifelong commitment to freedom from the time of his election as leader of the Saskatchewan Conservative Party in 1936, until its realization in 1960. On introducing that legislation he said:
The cynics will say it does not go far enough; it is a first step. As the Chinese say, every journey by mankind, even a journey over a thousand years, begins with just one step taken by some individual who sees the possibilities for the future and tries to make it possible to equalize the opportunities for those of his own generation. The Bill will not do everything, but I do think fairminded Canadians will agree that is a major step forward.
Fittingly, he moved second reading of the Bill on Dominion Day, and it became the law of the land on August 10, 1960.
I am reminded of an incident that occurred during my recent election campaign, Mr. Speaker. During an all candidates' debate, I had just completed my remarks when I was told by someone in the audience, in an accusatory fashion, "That's all well and good, but you have to remember, Mr. Nicholson, that you are a part of the same Party as John Diefenbaker". I told the truth then, Mr. Speaker, as I tell this Chamber the truth today: There are very few things in my life of which I am more proud than to say I am a member of the Party of the late John George Diefenbaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Nicholson: I believe it has always been appropriate that we in Canada have honoured those Prime Ministers who have served their country well. I know Canadians were pleased when Toronto International Airport was renamed in honour of the late Lester B. Pearson. I known many Canadians can take pride in the fact that a statue to Louis St. Laurent resides at the Supreme Court of Canada. I also know this: there is no stamp that could be issued, no park that could be dedicated, no building that could be renamed, no honour that could be bestowed that would give the late John Diefenbaker more satisfaction than to have his statue erected here on Parliament Hill, outside the institution that he so loved and to which he dedicated his life.
I would ask that this House give unanimous approval to this motion, that we give to Mr. Diefenbaker the recognition and the expression of thanks for all that he has said and done in favour of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, take great pleasure in rising on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to support the motion in front of us today. I think all Members of this House, regardless of political Party, will recognize the tremendous contribution that the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker made to the history and life of this country and this House of Commons.
It is particularly important for me to rise in my seat since it appears that I am the only representative from the Province of Saskatchewan to speak this afternoon on this resolution. John Diefenbaker remains a hero in Saskatchewan. He is of a period of time which saw several political greats coming out of my home Province of Saskatchewan. The Liberal Party had Mr. Jimmy Gardiner, the Conservative Party had John Diefenbaker, and the New Democratic Party, or the CCF at that time, of course, had Tommy Douglas. Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Douglas particularly, were great orators and tremendous politicians. I would say that Jimmy Gardiner was also a great politician. It was a type of politics that was unique in its time and place. All three of these outstanding politicians had within them that prairie populism, tremendous oratory and tremendous parliamentary debating skills. They all had a good sense of humour. It was a type of politics which I do not think we see today, and I doubt if ever again we will see people of the calibre of the great men we saw back then.
When I rise in my seat in support of this resolution, I speak not only on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP, but I think 1 speak on behalf of all the people of the Province of Saskatchewan in urging the House to adopt this motion. We in Saskatchewan consider John Diefenbaker one of our own. His family moved to Saskatchewan in 1903. He must have been around eight or nine years old at that time and he lived in Saskatchewan all his life thereafter, mainly residing in Saskatoon. He attended the University of Saskatchewan, achieving his BA in 1915, his Masters in 1916 and his law degree in 1919. He saw service overseas and in fact became the first Prime Minister to have been on active duty with the Canadian forces overseas. He became an outstanding lawyer in the Province of Saskatchewan. Even today you hear stories from men and women in Saskatchewan who remember him dealing with court cases in our province.
Through that time he must have developed a tremendous sense of the importance of the rule of law and of fair treatment. He generally defended the underdog, and he was quite successful as a lawyer. He defended some 20 murder cases and saved quite a few men from the gallows. It is perhaps as a result of his experience that he became such a strong opponent of capital punishment. As a lawyer in Saskatchewan, he defended schools which were teaching French. At that time there was strong anti-French feeling in and about parts of Saskatchewan and he was a strong defender of those individual rights.
His political experience was at first not all that successful. He tried getting elected for some 15 years, running in federal and provincial elections, and was even defeated by a few votes,
February 28, 1985

1 understand, when running for the office of mayor of Prince Albert. He was first elected in 1940 in the old constituency of Lake Centre. Just to add a personal note, Mr. Speaker, in the election of 1949 he ran in that seat defeating my uncle, Donald Arthur MacRae. My uncle's wife. Marguerite MacRae, was a cousin to my father, and it was that family which sponsored us to come to Canada. Arthur MacRae ran third for the Liberals and Mr. Diefenbaker won the election.
Of course 1 am sure all Members of this House know that in 1957 he formed the first Conservative Government in 22 years, and then in 1958 led the Conservative Party to a resounding and historic victory.
John Diefenbaker was a prairie populist. Someone even called him a prairie radical. He experienced the depressions and hardships that the prairie people experienced during the Great Depression. He was a great advocate for the little people, the common people. He saw how the vested interests of the country, particularly those on Bay Street, robbed the farmers and workers of their property and dignity. He was a great champion of those ordinary people. He had a deep sense of dignity and human justice and freedom. As such, we see the types of legislation that the Diefenbaker Government introduced. The Charter of Rights and some of the best social legislation in the country came from the Diefenbaker Government.
The Province of Saskatchewan has honoured John Diefenbaker in a variety of ways. The original sod homestead was moved and is now situated on the legislative grounds in Regina. There is a bust of the Hon. John George Diefenbaker in the rotunda of the legislative building. This was done by Saskatchewan NDP and Liberal Governments because we consider John Diefenbaker to be one of our own.
I think it would be fitting to have a statue of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker on the Parliament Hill grounds. I concur with the former speaker from the Liberal Party that we should also have statues of the other Prime Ministers, particularly that of Mike Pearson because he also made a tremendous contribution to Canada. I think a statue of John Diefenbaker on the grounds of Parliament Hill would be a reminder to present and future Members of Parliament and future Governments, whether Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic, that he was a man who stood four-square for certain basic principles of human dignity, human freedom and human justice. His concern for the unfortunate, the weak, and minorities should be a reminder in future years to Members of Parliaments and Governments yet to come.
I support this motion, Mr. Speaker. 1 think it is fitting for us to have such a statue. One often talks about the ghost of John Diefenbaker and how this man has affected so many people's lives, particularly in the Province of Saskatchewan. You cannot go anywhere in Saskatchewan without hearing a story related to John Diefenbaker. 1 too have my little stories and experiences of John Diefenbaker. I mentioned one. The person who sponsored my family to Canada was the unsuccessful
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker Liberal candidate running against John Diefenbaker in the riding of Lake Centre in 1949.
I remember as a youngster listening to John Diefenbaker in 1956 and in the 1957 election campaign in the Regina stadium. I listened to his full oratory. Even though 1 was a committed CCFer at that tender age, 1 still went to listen to this great orator deliver his thunderous speech and his damnation of those damn Liberals and damn interests on Bay Street. 1 was impressed then and am still impressed, Mr. Speaker. I hope members of the Conservative Party are still impressed with those damn interests on Bay Street.
The other little item came later in life. I met the good woman whom I had the great sense to marry, Lynda Pallen, through the press officer in charge of the train that carried the body of Mr. Diefenbaker back home to Saskatchewan.
Even though I only shook the man's hand once after that rally in Regina during the 1957 election, his ghost has touched me. I was just an immigrant boy in the Province of Saskatchewan, having moved there in 1951. Yet his influence and personality touched me in different ways, even though indirectly.
It is an honour for me to rise on behalf of my Party and of the people of Saskatchewan to urge that this Parliament accept this motion and urge the Government to act on this motion so that in the very near future we will have a fitting statue in memory of a great Canadian Prime Minister, John George Diefenbaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride and pleasure to speak for the first time in support of the motion before the House. I want to tell the House how proud and honoured I am to represent all the people in Saskatoon East. 1 chose to speak on this particular motion in support of my hon. colleague from Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) because it is a subject of deep significance to me, both as a Saskatchewan native and as a Canadian.
In light of the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker's great contribution to Canada and Canadians, a statue in his honour is long overdue on Parliament Hill. I hope this will not be the last tribute we pay to this man because the country owes him a great deal. As the Member of Parliament for Saskatoon East, I have a strong affinity with Mr. Diefenbaker, as do the majority of my constituents. He was the only Prime Minister from my province, having been raised and educated there. As you know, he came from eastern Canada and settled in Saskatchewan in his early youth. He obtained his education at the University of Saskatchewan, as did I, which is the focal point of my constituency of Saskatoon East. He dedicated his whole life to representing the people of the Prairies in his legal and political career because he was, as is so often pointed out, one of us.
The people of Saskatoon East typify the multicultural makeup of the Prairies. These are people of many cultural
2626

February 28, 1985
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker heritages with a close affinity to the land and its diverse riches and with great pride in their ability to earn their living as they choose. They make their living in the agricultural sector, the potash mining sector, the small business sector and in major academic and research institutions which are located in Saskatoon. Also important in my riding are the aged who contributed so much to our history and the youth who represent the hope for our future.
Saskatchewan residents are not alone in their admiration and love for Mr. Diefenbaker. The things that he stood for and, even more significantly, that he accomplished on behalf of Canadians transcend regional loyalties to a native son. That was pointed out by the speaker who spoke prior to me. This great man holds a special place in the hearts of all Canadians. John Diefenbaker was passionately committed to human liberty. His great achievements in that realm have become fundamental to our Canadian way of life.
Mr. Diefenbaker instituted the Canadian Bill of Rights, as was mentioned earlier, so that every Canadian's right to fair and equal treatment and to individual freedom would be forever entrenched in the Constitution. Among other significant achievements, he brought Indian people the too long denied right to vote. He introduced the baby bonus. He took the first step on the road to universally available medicare with his federal hospital insurance program, and he increased the old age security pension. He also appointed the first Indian to the Senate, the first woman to Cabinet, and the first Ukranian Canadian as Minister of Labour.
One may ask why John Diefenbaker fought so hard for human rights in this country. I believe it was because he could not tolerate discrimination and he was determined to guarantee that Canadians, particularly new Canadians, would live free and equal in their country.
Today, we recognize that our cultural identity as Canadians is enriched, because we all have diverse backgrounds. We have Mr. Diefenbaker to thank for our recognition of and pride in that multicultural identity. He was the first Prime Minister of what he himself referred to as "mixed racial origin", being neither of pure British or pure French descent. That made him, in his own words, "a Canadian First and foremost". In recognition of this, he changed the Canadian census regulations so that we could say proudly "Canadian" in response to the question on racial origin.
In his maiden speech to the House on June 30, 1940, John Diefenbaker challenged his colleagues to "build up in this country an unhyphenated Canadianism that is dominant, proud and strong". These words were both prophetic and descriptive. As Prime Minister of Canada and through all of his nearly 50 years as a Member of Parliament, John Diefenbaker was dedicated to achieving his goal of Canadianism.
When we honour "DieF' by erecting a statue on the Hill, we must create a statue that epitomizes a dominant, proud and strong Canadian whose legacy to future Canadians demands permanent recognition. A statue to such a man is an absolute
necessity and, as I said earlier, it is long overdue. I am in complete support of my hon. colleague's motion to pay tribute to the accomplishments of John Diefenbaker by placing his statue on Parliament Hill along with those statues that have already been erected.
A statue commemorates a man for his accomplishments. But what kind of monument can one build to commemorate a man's spirit? I like to think that Mr. Diefenbaker's spirit, embodied by his lifelong commitment to and profound belief in a multicultural Canadian society, lives on today. I am proud to say that the seeds for a monument in that spirit have already been planted in my constituency of Saskatoon East.
I must provide some history in order to explain. When the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker became Chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan in 1969, he announced his intention to bequeath to his alma mater his papers, memorabilia and personal library and his Sir John A. Macdonald collection of original manuscripts, books, artifacts and historic furniture. This intention was formalized in Mr. Diefenbaker's last will and testament.
The University felt that such a generous and important gift should be housed in an appropriate setting that would allow public access to the materials and would preserve them for the future. Thus the idea of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker Centre was born. It contains a working archives where the countless original documents and other papers accumulated by Mr. Diefenbaker during a lifetime in politics are available for research to students and professors from across this great country.
It is also a public museum displaying Mr. Diefenbaker's personal memorabilia as well as the many gifts presented to him when he was Prime Minister. These gifts are now the possession of all Canadians, through the Diefenbaker Centre.
In addition, the museum contains exact replicas of Mr. Diefenbaker's office in the East Block and of the Privy Council Chamber as it looked when he was Prime Minister in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The presence of these two rooms in the Diefenbaker Centre in Saskatchewan makes our federal system of government more relevant to western Canadians, because there are many Canadians who live thousands of miles away from Ottawa who never come here to visit and see the Chamber in which I am speaking today.
John Diefenbaker turned the sod at the site of the Diefenbaker Centre on the banks of the South Saskatchewan River on September 20, 1975. Construction of the Centre began in the spring of 1978, with money for the $3 million building coming from across Canada. Six provinces, one Territory and the federal Government made substantial contributions to the Centre's capital costs. Generous donations were also made by many individual Canadians as well as by organizations and clubs. The Diefenbaker Centre is a legacy to and from Canadians of every part of the country.
The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker Centre opened to the public on June 12, 1980. Since then, Canadians from every

province and territory as well as visitors from countries around the world have come to the Centre.
The Diefenbaker Centre at the University of Saskatchewan is an important monument to Mr. Diefenbaker's memory. Elowever, it does not, at present, have a formal mandate to promote actively and to protect the ideas that Mr. Diefenbaker represented.
1 have a vision of the Diefenbaker Centre as an institute dedicated to all Canadians. It should be a centre for Canadians to learn about their past and develop goals for the future. It should be a place for foreign visitors to learn about Canada and to enrich our lives and theirs through interraction. It should also teach the social as well as the economic importance of our multicultural heritage-a key to the future social and economic well-being in a changing and highly competitive world.
I urge Hon. Members in the House to support the motion placed before them this afternoon by my hon. colleague. A statue of John Diefenbaker on Parliament Hill will serve as a constant reminder to those of us who work here as well as to visitors of a great man who taught us the meaning of being Canadians. That is a fine beginning and I hope that this Government will recognize it as such, a beginning that can lead to other tributes so that we Canadians can actively share with our fellow citizens and world neighbours the legacy and spirit of this great man.
In view of the positive comments I have heard here this afternoon from members of all Parties, I would ask that we put the question to the House now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mrs. Browes, seconded by Mr. McDermid, moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of honouring the memory of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker by commissioning a statue of him to be placed on Parliament Hill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Shall we call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to pursue a question I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday concerning the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It concerned the fact that the proposed budget of this new Civilian Security Service was $116 million, despite the fact that the estimates of the RCMP were reduced by only $45 million. I asked the Prime Minister what it was that constituted a major new threat to the security of Canada sufficient to justify this apparently massive increase in the expenditures on a new Civilian Security Service. There was no response from the Prime Minister to that question.
In my supplementary question, I pointed out that the Prime Minister and his Party, when in opposition, were very strongly opposed to a number of the provisions of this proposed security legislation. They joined with the NDP and many other groups and individuals, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, La Legue des Droits et Liberte from the Province of Quebec, in condemning this legislation, including the dangerously wide powers, vague mandate and the lack of parliamentary accountability of the Security Service.
In view of the bitter opposition by his Party when they were the Official Opposition last year, and in view of the fact that they proposed a number of amendments which would have improved the legislation, I asked the Prime Minister what action he was prepared to take to amend this Bill, to ensure particularly that there was full parliamentary oversight of the operations of the new Security Service. I would note that the concept of parliamentary oversight is one which was supported by the Conservative Party when in opposition.
[ Translation]
And I might add, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was Leader of the Opposition, he wrote a letter to Mr. Gaetan Nadeau of the Ligue des droits et libertes concerning Bill C-9 whose purpose was to create the new security service. He then stated that the Progressive Conservative Party was bitterly opposed to the adoption of that measure by the House of Commons. He went on to commend the arguments of the Ligue and the support of well-known Canadians, and he said that the list of the numerous groups would be added to the file and be of great help in the fight against this Bill which was considered dangerous.

February 28, 1985
Adjournment Debate

When the Conservative Party was in opposition, according to the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, this was a dangerous piece of legislation and the Conservative Party was opposed to it. Now that the Conservative Party is in government, what action is it taking to oppose this very dangerous legislation?
I questioned the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) in the justice committee on this and he said, "Well, we are going to give it a chance to work". In fact he said that the Conservative Party was not prepared to make any changes whatsoever to this legislation which constitutes such a threat to the civil liberties of Canadians.
I do not have the time to enumerate the many defects in the legislation, the extent to which it does in fact constitute a threat to civil liberties, but I would note, for example, that in speaking on the Bill a Conservative Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), said at third reading:
Let me repeat the point made by others. My Party wants an overview committee consisting of Members of Parliament.
His Party is now the Government of Canada. It has a massive majority. It has the opportunity to implement effective parliamentary oversight. It has the opportunity to bring forward amendments which would significantly narrow the scope and the mandate of the new security service to ensure that Canadians, who break no law whatsoever but merely support liberation movements in Central America or South Africa, do not have their mail opened, their medical files read, their homes broken into or their telephones tapped. That was the position of the Conservative Party when it was in opposition, yet it has completely reversed itself now that it is in Government, and it is doing nothing whatsoever to implement changes to this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should also point out that so far, I believe, the Prime Minister has refused to meet with the Ligue des droits et libertes. It has been seeking an appointment with the Prime Minister, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the assurance this afternoon that the Prime Minister will meet with the Ligue des droits et libertes.
The Ligue has stated that it considers this service as abusive and undemocratic, and that it shows no respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Well, Mr. Speaker, now we know that the new security service spends the unbelievable amount of $116 million a year without any accountability to Parliament. That was unacceptable to us in the New Democratic Party when we were in Opposition in the last Parliament but, more important still, it is unacceptable to the Conservatives. They now have the opportunity and even the obligation to amend this legislation, but they refuse.

They are taking a position which is identical to the position taken by the Liberal Party when it was in government. That position was a threat to the civil liberties of all Canadians. [Translation]
-a threat to the civil liberties of Canadians and Quebecers.
That position remains a threat to civil liberties today. I call upon the Government to bring forward amendments to this legislation and, in particular, to allow for full and effective parliamentary oversight.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of replying to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) this evening who questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as to whether to size of the CSIS expenditure signalled "major new threats to the security of Canada".
In responding to the Hon. Member, let me advise him that no inference should be drawn on the basis of a comparison between the RCMP budget and that of CSIS. Rather, the net additional amount of money required for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service relates to the standard capital and operating expenses most people in this House would reasonably expect would have to be incurred as start-up costs by any new agency of Government with a national mandate. There are additional expenses other than the actual surveillance and whatever else goes on in CSIS. As I said before, I cannot and will not discuss in public any specific expenditures relating to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
The other subject which the Hon. Member questioned the Prime Minister about was the accountability of the service. Given the Prime Minister's response, which related to the appointment of Members to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, I would like to provide the following supplementary information.
In addition to appointing an overview committee composed of five distinguished members, including a very distinguished member of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Sol Cherniak, the Act provides for the appointment of an Inspector General, responsible to the Deputy Solicitor General, whose function it is to ensure that CSIS operations conform to approved policy. I am pleased to report to this House that Mr. Richard Gosse, a highly respected lawyer, who until recently was the Deputy Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan, has accepted an appointment to this position. Additionally, the Act requires that all warrants to intercept communications of whatever kind, be authorized by a Judge of the Federal Court of Canada.
Finally, pursuant to Section 69 of the CSIS Act, a Committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament will be required five years hence to conduct a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and to submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a
February 28, 1985

statement of any changes the committee recommends. The Member will thus appreciate that in addition to a very comprehensive system of oversight, there exists an opportunity to review the Act and to remedy any shortcomings it may have.


ENERGY-FEDERAL NEWFOUNDLAND AGREEMENT. (B) GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see a spokesman from the Government here this evening who, I am sure, will give an answer on behalf of the Government regarding its position as it relates to the very important question which 1 directed yesterday to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
1 asked the Prime Minister about Section 54 of the Atlantic Accord signed between the federal Government and the Government of Newfoundland. That section of the Accord says that they will supply oil as existing feedstock to industrial enterprises in Newfoundland. The point is there is no industry in existence in the Province of Newfoundland today that takes oil as feedstock. We do have two closed-down oil refineries.
The second part of the section is the one that I dispute. It states that no new industry can be opened in Newfoundland to take that oil from the offshore unless it is in excess of the feedstock requirements of existing industrial capacity in eastern Canada. In other words, a legal interpretation of eastern Canada as far as the oil industry is concerned is, First and foremost, the Province of Quebec, then the Province of New Brunswick and then the Province of Nova Scotia, when looking at total capacity.
The Prime Minister responded by saying that he would perhaps look at that Section to see if there is anything wrong with it. To the second part of my question, he then gave me a rather political answer. He responded by saying that even the Liberals in Newfoundland were turning over to the Conservative side and that the Government of Newfoundland was overjoyed with the agreement. The point is that I am not overjoyed with that Section of the agreement. In fact, all in all, I believe it is a very poor agreement.
I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary is here to give the Government's answer to this question. The point is that when we examine the existing industrial needs of eastern Canada as far as offshore oil is concerned, we discover that they are one-third of the total capacity of all of Canada. When we look at what is used, with the offshore operating at about 50 per cent capacity, and we consider the needs of all of Canada, on the basis of a billion barrels of oil in the offshore of Newfoundland it would take two and a half years to use up the oil that has presently been identified in the offshore. If we look only at the needs of eastern Canada, it would take some six years to use up the oil if it was all taken out of the ground at the same time. Knowing that the Government of Newfoundland will have a 20-year plan, we come to the stark realization that there will be no excess capacity in eastern Canada.
Adjournment Debate
When I mentioned that one-third of the total Canadian capacity, production and usage was in eastern Canada, I was not referring to the mothballed refineries in Montreal and the Province of Nova Scotia. As well, I was not taking into account the 16 petrochemical industries in the Province of Quebec.
The way the Section is worded means that for all time, any resources taken from the Continental Shelf off Newfoundland must go to existing industrial needs in eastern Canada. In other words, we would receive monetary benefits in the short term from the offshore with a gradual reduction in equalization payments. However, once we are into year 9 or 10 of production, if it ever comes on-stream, there would be no benefits at all as far as equalization goes. It would balance out over a 20-year period and we would be back relying on equalization, although not as heavily as we do at the present time given the fact that the present figures as announced yesterday are $605 million per year to Newfoundland.
The other point I wanted to mention is that there is a way out for the Government of Newfoundland, and there is a way out for the Government of Canada. They could save a little bit of face and at least do something to give a smidgen of industrial benefit from oil to Newfoundland. This could happen if they were, for example, to reopen the Come-By-Chance oil refinery or to work with Ultra Mar on reopening the partially dismantled Holyrood refinery.
It is alarming to me to realize that Petro-Canada, the company that owns the refinery at Come-By-Chance, has been carrying out extensive renovations, expansions and improvements to its refinery in Montreal. It is also alarming for me to realize that Ultra Mar, the company that closed down the Holyrood refinery in June, 1983, was carrying out the same type of extension and expansion in a place called St. Romuald, Quebec, a plant which has a capacity of up to 19,000 cubic metres or about 140,000 barrels per day. Those same two companies that closed down oil refineries in Newfoundland were spending millions and millions of dollars to upgrade their refineries in the Province of Quebec.
The point is that this Section of the agreement has to go, because 15 years down the road when we have no monetary benefits from the offshore, a businessman will not be allowed to establish an industry in Newfoundland that will take advantage of offshore oil. That is important to future generations. I would not want in 15 years' time to have a song in Newfoundland which says, as far as the oil is concerned, "Poor old Newfoundland. They got the oil and we got the shaft." I am anxious to hear the official response of the Government, by the very able Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources Mr. McDermid to this very very important question.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate. He has got a way with words. I will set his mind at ease as well as

February 28, 1985
Adjournment Debate
those in the Province of Newfoundland who may be concerned about Clause 54.
First, I should say that everyone in the House is very proud of the manner in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Government of Canada handled the formalization of the Atlantic Accord. It is a fine example of consultative federalism. We believe that the Accord establishes Newfoundlanders as economic equals within confederation, while at the same time it works toward other national goals. The agreement will generate tens of thousands of person-years of employment in the Province and it will transfer Newfoundland's status from a have-not province to a have province. That is very important.
I must say-not denigrating any other parts of this great country-that I always look forward with great expectation when I go to "The Rock", because of the hospitality, warmth, generosity and the genuine feeling of friendship I receive from the people who live there.
The Accord is intended to achieve a number of objectives. It will ensure that development optimizes the social and economic benefits to Canada, particularly Newfoundland. It provides for revenue-sharing between Governments on the same basis as if the resources were on provincial land. I think the Hon. Member would agree with that. It will constitute a stable and fair regime for industry to get on with the job, and it establishes a sound and enduring management regime which recognizes the equality of both Governments as managers and stewards of the resource. That is something the former administration was not prepared to do.
The federal Government has no desire to enforce any measure that would minimize economic benefits flowing from the
Accord. The Hon. Member has voiced his concern over Clause 54, which he perceives as being discriminatory. He claims that the Clause would prevent an industrial refiner in Newfoundland from receiving Hibernia oil because the Province's feedstock requirements for new facilities must be "excess to feedstock required to meet the demand of presently existing industrial capacity in eastern Canada". He regards this to be a limitation and, therefore, a sell-out. I respectfully say to the Hon. Member that this is a misrepresentation of Clause 54.
As with the entire Atlantic Accord, this provision places Newfoundland on at least an equal footing with other provinces of this nation which are blessed with a rich supply of natural resources. Newfoundland will have full access to Hibernia output on commercial terms under any circumstances. In fact, the language of Clause 54 goes further to ensure Newfoundland this access, thereby providing a right of first refusal to the Province for the off-shore supplies. Surely, Members opposite would not advocate that the central Government should allocate crude supplies among regions. This agreement makes it clear that buyers, regardless of location, will bid on commercial terms for existing supplies.
Let me reiterate that Clause 54 does not place a limit on Newfoundland's present or future access to off-shore production. The Newfoundland Minister of Energy supports his view and recently stated that Clause 54 does not rule out the development-


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 1, 1985