1985-03-14

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn (for Mrs. McDougall) that 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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening, we had had a chance to inform Canadians about the problems facing developing countries and the measures that should be taken by this Government to help those countries. The International Monetary Fund does have a role to play but we must realize there are other agencies as well that have a specific role to play in this area and must do so if we are to have a stronger and more effective world economy.

When debate was terminated yesterday, I had had an opportunity to outline some of the areas in which past Liberal Governments in Canada had had an opportunity to play a major role on the international scene, particularly with respect to the North-South dialogue, the Cancun conference and the role of the former Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I think it is incumbent upon all of us that we not rest on the laurels of past administrations. I think it is extremely necessary that the Government take the lead in the area of international monetary equality. To that end, the International Monetary Fund has a very important role to play, but there are other mechanisms which in fact must be better utilized if we are to have a world economy that can flourish. I refer specifically to the role of UNCTAD in the negotiations to allow Third World and less developed countries to enter the more highly developed North American markets.
Because of the economic superiority of the consuming countries or the developed countries with respect to commodities,
the developed countries have tended to monopolize the areas of transportation, marketing distribution and processing of commodities. As a result, the underdeveloped countries receive only a small share of the final selling price. As a matter of fact, UNCTAD has estimated that if local semi-processing was used for 10 commodities in order to get them out of the raw material mentality, which unfortunately seems to characterize the current exporting approaches of this Government as well, they could provide to less developed nations 1.5 times their present earnings. That has not occurred primarily because barriers to such activities have been erected through tariff structures imposed by developed countries. I think the new Government will have to show to the Canadian people that it is taking some initiative and it should put this issue on the bargaining table at the "blarney summit" that is coming up this weekend for the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States.
I think it is clear that our roles and responsibilities extend beyond our own frontiers and beyond our own continent. They must reach out to those countries that are now trying to divest themselves of an incredible internal debt load and, through organisms and mechanisms like the International Monetary Fund, the Cancun conference and UNCTAD, are trying to have an opportunity to share in the massive world markets for commodities such as those I have just mentioned. Unfortunately, the activities of the first few months of this Government have indicated that the Government does not seem to have the same kind of vision of the world economy as past Liberal Governments. For example, I am thinking of the relevant Conservative commitments that were made during the election campaign to which I referred yesterday.
The Government has promised to review foreign policy, seeking input from the Canadian public, but at the same time the Government has put its good housekeeping seal of approval on a foreign policy which runs lock-step with that of the United States of America. Instead of going to the Canadian people and asking them if they want to have an independent cultural policy, an independent economic policy and an independent defence policy, the Government has made commitments which clearly indicate that its intentions are merely to mirror the kind of socio-economic policies and defence policies of our neighbour to the south.
[DOT] (UIO)

When this Government was making its many promises during the election campaign, it also said there were going to be consultations with all Canadians on the economy and on our international relations with the International Monetary

March 14, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act Fund, for instance; and there were going to be consultations with all Canadians to Find out what they think about the Government's foreign policy with respect to defence.
What happened? Today, after six months in power, the Government has become so closely allied with the conservative administration in the United States that we do not even have a chance to develop an independent foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact, that especially among the Conservative Members from Quebec, who promised a new era and new opportunities for Canada-1 do not think Quebecers are anxious to become so closely allied with our American neighbours that we will no longer have a chance to preserve our own culture. For years, Quebecers have been fighting to preserve their own culture and their independence in the economical and cultural sphere. And look at what happened. As soon as the Conservative Government was elected after its many promises to protect that independence, we see the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada getting together to adopt any agreement they please, without really getting a Canadian consensus.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Canadian. I think all Canadians have the ability to develop this country's economy, bearing in mind our neighbours in developing countries. Unfortunately, this Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, prefers to ignore this, which was made abundantly clear in an article published in Fortune. I think that we in the Opposition have a duty to convince the Government that Canadians can build a much stronger economy with their own resources, based on their own needs and those, not only of the United States, our neighbour to the South but of all developing and semi-developed countries, according to the policy established by the previous Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez), for questions or comments.


Mr. Lopez:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say I was flabbergasted to hear the comments to the Hon. Member who just spoke, continuing a speech she started yesterday evening. Her comments today were rash and irresponsible, and I was astonished at the lack of respect she showed and indeed insisted on showing towards the Government, the Right Hon. Prime Minister and all Canadians. I think that in her comments, the Hon. Member has not only shown a lack of respect for our Prime Minister but also for the House and all Canadians who have placed their trust in us. And when I speak of trust, in the Government and in our Prime Minister, 1 need hardly add that Canadians gave us that trust of their own free will, and they are doing so more and more.
I understand the feelings of frustration on that side of the House among Members who fortunately are no longer as numerous as they were. I hope the trend will continue. In fact, they do not need us to reduce their numbers, since it would seem they are doing a pretty good job themselves.
Yesterday, when they were discussing the poorer countries and declaring their solidarity with the developing countries, I know why they were doing that, because considering the attitude of the Liberal Government, if it had continued in the same vein, Canada would soon be one of those countries. With the legacy they gave us, they have already brought this country one step closer to poverty and to a situation where Canada would no longer be providing assistance but would itself be obliged to live on charity. That would soon be the case if we had continued in the same vein and embraced the same policies as the Liberal Government. Everyone knows that they brought this country to utter chaos. There was a time, fifteen years ago, when Canada ranked second in the world, and now we rank seventeenth. It is downright embarrassing to see a country like Canada deteriorate at the rate it has, despite its abundance of resources of which all Canadians are proud.
We are all proud of our Prime Minister and of a Government that, I believe, and I think all Canadians will agree, is the best government Canada has ever had. I think we should all support and stand behind and be proud of our Right Hon. Prime Minister who is an honour to us all. I realize this does not sit well with the Liberal Party, and it will sit even less well if that Party continues to denigrate the representatives of the people of this country. I think there is no doubt in anyone's mind that this is the best Prime Minister Canada has ever had!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate ... I do not think the Quebecers who are involved in the Domtar case think our Prime Minister is the best one we ever had. There are many Quebecers in this House, even among the Conservatives, who will say that is not true.
Furthermore, we have here a new Member who, with respect, does not really understand the workings of Parliament, because if he did, he would never tell the House that I have no respect for Parliament. He would have known, in the words of a Former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Sir Winston Churchill, that "it is the right and responsibility of the Opposition to oppose". And if the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez) is unable to understand why I am doing so as a Liberal, I am afraid I cannot help him. The Hon. Member truly reflected the spirit and attitude of the Conservatives when he said today in the House that he did not want to continue in the same vein as the Liberals with respect to Canada's foreign policy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one thing clear for all Canadians. We have seen how in the case of Ethiopia, Canadians have shown they have a heart when they see the problems of other countries. And we cannot compare Canada's economic situation with that of Ethiopia. However, it is clear what the position is of a Member of this House who says that if they had continued in the same vein as the Liberal Party, Canadians would no longer have a country. It was the Liberal Party
March 14, 1985

that in 1982, 1983 and 1984, when we had problems in this country, decided to continue giving foreign aid. We continued our aid to Ethiopia, against the advice of many Conservative Members who were clearly only thinking of themselves and who cannot consider the countries of the Third World.


Mr. Plamondon:: Like my colleague, Mr. Speaker, 1 am surprised by the remarks made yesterday and today by the Hon. Member. You mentioned an over-all plan, yet you know full well that two countries, the United States and the U.S.S.R., can hardly agree to sit down together to talk about disarmament. Highfaluting remarks on that issue come easy, but you know that all the travelling done by the former Prime Minister did not accomplish anything, except perhaps increase our deficit.
Yesterday you said something about giving the example to other countries. First we ought to show them that we can properly manage our own affairs and cut down our deficit. Then we might be in a better position to help them even more, and the only way to do that is to follow the policy which has already been advocated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
You referred to independence with respect to the United States, and yesterday you even said that Canada was like a small dog on a leash. Those words come as a surprise to me. Was it not your Prime Minister who took it upon himself to put Quebec in its place when that province wanted to seek independence? You talk about Canadian independence, but what did the Prime Minister you bragged about yesterday do when Quebec was talking about independence? He said no way and put the province in its place. He lied from every podium during the referendum campaign and then stated that we would have a new agreement, but this agreement has not yet-


Sheila Maureen Copps: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I did hear the Hon. Member say that our Prime Minister had lied. I suggest that is a breach of the Standing Orders and I would like him to withdraw his words immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) to withdraw his words.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully withdraw the words to the effect that the Prime Minister had lied; let us just say that those misleading words-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a point of order.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to withdraw without reservations, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his words without using the word "misleading" in the remarks he made after withdrawing the offending words.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I shall respectfully withdraw the comments that you are asking me to withdraw and continue by saying that the Hon. Member also spoke about certain promises, for instance. We are told that we are breaking our promises even though, after six months in power, we have already kept more promises than the former Government did in three years. I am thinking, for instance, about the extraordinary speech made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about the status of women. And what about agriculture? What about the incentives for small businesses? Dear colleague, you should remember the promises made by your own Government in 1980 after you had defeated a democratically elected Government, when elections were held in February at a cost of $105 million because of four promises made by your party. The first promise was not to increase the price of gas because the previous Government had had the honesty-


Miss Nicholson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this Member apparently does not know the rules of the House, perhaps you would be kind enough to remind him that he should address the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).


Louis Plamondon: May I continue, Mr. Speaker? I was saying that the Hon. Member has said that we did not keep our promises and I was reminding her of the four promises made in 1980, including a promise to reduce the deficit, which then amounted to $13 billion and which has now reached nearly $35 billion.
We were also promised by the party opposite that Government expenditures would be controlled. These expenditures then amounted to $62 billion and they now amount to $105 billion. We were also promised that unemployment would be brought down. This is why a duly elected government was defeated, but the only result was to double the unemployment figures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. I would like to give a few moments to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for a reply, but I also want to remind the Hon. Member that his comments and remarks during this period set aside for questions should

March 14, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act relate to the speech made by the previous speaker. I therefore recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief. I find it rather surprising that the Hon. Member should want to discuss Liberal promises dealing with the economy and the deficit. We remember quite well the current Prime Minister saying before the election that he would create thousands of jobs and would tighten his own belt. We now see what has happened. The unemployment rate is even higher than before. Our deficit will be the highest in the history of Canada. The dollar has reached its lowest level ever and the Prime Minister now has the cheek to increase the budget of his own office by-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, if I could not say that the former Prime Minister had lied, I do not think that the Hon. Member should be able to say that the current Prime Minister is being cheeky.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like the Hon. Member to sit down. I do not think that there is any need to hear him. I do not believe that the comments made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East are unparliamentary. She can therefore continue her comments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is rather sad to hear the Progressive Conservatives tell us that we have to tighten our belts at a time when the Prime Minister has the cheek to increase his own budget by 54 per cent. It will destroy the credibility of this Government which is already bankrupt after six months in power.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to return to discussion of the Bill specifically. I think it is appropriate that we use this opportunity at second reading to discuss the principle of the Bill. We will have an opportunity in committee and later to study the clauses of the Bill individually, step by step. I would like to take a few minutes today to put a few of my thoughts on the record. I do not want to rehash what other Members have spoken about, but I do want to set some of my concerns in context. I would like to take a few moments to discuss why we feel it is necessary 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.
As most Hon. Members know, the name "Bretton Woods" goes back to 1944. Just as World War II was winding down a group of people met in a small town in New Hampshire called Bretton Woods. It had become very clear to the international community that there was a need for discussion in the postwar period regarding the international financial and economic environment. Countries were acting independently on monetary policy. They were acting independently on a number of global economic and financial issues. There was a need to bring the players together to discover whether there was a common policy that they could agree upon which would bring some stability to the international financial and economic world.
Out of that meeting called by the United Nations in New Hampshire in 1944 two institutions arose. The first was the creation of the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, to bring some monetary stability to the world. At that time, in an effort to enhance their export abilities, a number of countries were devaluing their currency. This was causing all kinds of inequalities in the financial market-place. The intent was to bring some monetary stability to the world so that currencies would not be changing value overnight to give a particular country some advantage. In a sense the IMF became an international bank. Over the years as many as 140 countries participated in providing money to the banks to be used to stabilize currencies. The contributions enabled every country to have allocated to it an SDR, a special drawing right. At a time when there was a balance of payments deficit as a result of countries importing more than they were exporting, they could draw on the IMF in an effort to correct this imbalance.
The second institution which was set up is called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Over the years it has come to be known as the World Bank. It was set up at that time to assist primarily western Europe and Japan to rebuild their war-torn economies. It was to assist them in the financial development of the needed infrastructure. Since then, as we all know, it has come to be something quite different. The World Bank now focuses almost all of its energies on assisting the developing countries, the Third World-or Fourth World countries, as some people refer to the harder pressed nations-in developing the appropriate infrastructures that will allow them to get on with expanding a developing economy.
In 1956 it became clear that there was a need for a bank to be set up to help the private sector. There was a need for something other than simply building roads and putting in port facilities for an economic development infrastructure. There became a recognized need to assist the private sector that was operating in the Third World. Therefore, the International Finance Corporation was established. It would lend money to the private sector primarily in these developing countries. This was a first opportunity for a major bank to take an equity position so that the bank and a private entrepreneur could
March 14, 1985

form a joint venture to develop a facility in the Third World. The IFC enabled this financing to take place.
In 1960 the International Development Association was established. Its primary purpose was to provide a soft loan window with the World Bank, particularly for those countries facing special problems with respect to the development of their economies and the necessary economic infrastructure. Loans with virtually no interest are provided to those countries along with very encouraging payback programs.
Bill C-30 does three things. First, it authorizes the participation of Canada in the IFC. We have not had the enabling legislation to participate until now and have only been contributing as a reflection of Canada's good will. This Bill will provide us with the legislative framework and authority to participate formally in the IFC.
Bill C-30 also consolidates all of the various authorities under this single Act. This is very important because it allows Parliament to discuss the whole matter of Canada's role in assisting other countries, particularly developing countries.
We are concerned that as a result of the legislation, the authorization for our contribution to organizations like the IMF will change, to simply be reflected in the estimates along with all other departmental estimates. Each year the estimates will reflect whether the Government either increases or decreases its contribution to these international agencies.
We in the NDP are not always impressed by the way Canada has participated in organizations like the IMF. In fact, we are not necessarily impressed by some of the actions taken by the IMF and other international institutions or agencies with respect to their treatment of the developing nations. Therefore, we are concerned that including this financial authorization as an extension of the estimates process will remove some of our opportunities to express our concern and hopefully assist the Government in implementing more progressive policies for organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF.
Bill C-30 is basically an administrative Bill. It is not particularly revolutionary in its objectives and does not particularly change the course that the Government has taken in the past. However, we have some reservations about the Bill and that is why we are anxious to finish second reading now in order to send it to committee where we will have an opportunity to raise these concerns in more detail.
Some of my colleagues who have spoken before me have flagged a number of the concerns regarding the role that Canada plays in organizations such as the IMF. We are concerned about the behaviour of some of these organizations. For example, let us examine how the IMF has treated different countries. Chile and South Africa are countries that have human rights policies that we abhor and that no progressive country can accept. When the IMF makes a multimillion dollar loan, or loans in some cases amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, to certain countries that maintain an oppressive human rights atmosphere, we must recognize that
Bretton Woods Agreements Act as a result of our financial contribution to the IMF we are participating in that oppressive atmosphere. When the IMF assists these countries or when other organizations assist the private sector in those countries, Canadians through their Government's involvement are participating in these acts. Canadians should be reminded of that fact.
For every dollar that is lent to countries like South Africa, Canadians will pay three cents, or 3 per cent of that particular loan. In many ways we are perpetuating the oppressive regimes and human rights policies in those countries by maintaining the status quo or ensuring that those who have created these policies remain in power and in positions of influence. I think it is important that we recognize that we are in fact a part of the apartheid process by contributing to its continuation.
The IMF has special drawing rights, known as SDRs. Those who make the major contribution to the IMF obviously have the most power. In other words, those who pay the piper call the tune. In this case, the United States is overwhelmingly the major contributor to the IMF. We have seen the United States, with some of its First World allies, put pressure on the IMF to ensure that certain countries are supported while others are not.
We need only go as far as Central America, a troubled part of the world, to see an example of how the IMF has treated the regimes in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The IMF has been very supportive of the regime in El Salvador and has given hundreds of millions of dollars in support of that country's efforts at economic development. While we could debate at length the value of some of that economic development in El Salvador, the point is that the IMF has been a major supporter of that country, which I suggest causes great concern when it comes to its human rights, free elections and so on.
Nicaragua is virtually next door to El Salvador. The IMF has said that that country does not need assistance in developing its education or its rural roads, its water supplies or its sanitation systems. This is a country that needs help in all of these areas. It is a country in which a Government has been duly elected by its people and is doing whatever it can to assist the development of its economic infrastructure. It is attempting to educate its people. The IMF is saying that it will cut off aid.
The World Bank has circulated an internal report in which it decided that three of its six sections in lending to Nicaragua will be cut off. One of those is the very important sector of education. All Members are aware that without education in the developing countries it is impossible to have real economic development. Much of the economic development is simply a transfer of First World development to the Third World. We anticipate that the Third World will then be able to develop and thrive on its own. However, that is not the case. They cannot develop without the education and training that goes hand in hand with economic development.
The IMF has told Nicaragua that it does not need assistance for developing its education, its roads or a transportation infrastructure in its country. It has said that Nicaragua does not need assistance in developing a better water supply. Most

March 14, 1985
Bretton Woods Agreements Act people in countries like Nicaragua do not have running water or easy access to clean water. They do not have access to water other than walking long distances to get it.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Thanks to the Somozas.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my colleague from, Brant (Mr. Blackburn) says, thanks to the Somozas. That is the type of regime that was not interested in assisting the people of Nicaragua. We can say the same thing about other Central American and Latin American countries as well. These international agencies that we support financially are making decisions that in a sense reflect, if I can use the term, the rather extreme rightwing view of the Reagan administration. What we are saying is that Canadian taxpayers-I am just talking about the ordinary Canadian citizen who pays taxes and provides us with most of the tax revenue-are funding the IMF, the World Bank and other institutions which are supporting, by definition now, the right-wing regimes of the world at the expense of the non-right-wing regimes. Some countries are receiving assistance. The private sector in some countries is receiving assistance but in other countries that support and assistance is being removed and cut off.
It is important for Canada to recognize that we are part of a process that is making the poorer nations poorer and the richer nations relatively richer. We are part of the process that is widening the gap between those who have and those who have not. We have seen that happen in countries like the United States and Canada. A report the other day pointed out that the gap between the rich and the poor, using those general terms in our society, is increasing despite many, many programs that we have introduced over the last number of decades, and we have not brought together those extremes in our society. In fact, they have grown further apart than ever. What has happened within Canada and within the United States is now happening on a global scale. The poor countries are relatively poorer than they were when organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank were introduced in the 1940s.
Those are some of my concerns. I realize today is the day that we speak about this Bill only in principle. That is why I have flagged only the principle of the Bill and some of the concerns of that principle we have as New Democrats. In committee we will be much more specific as to how we feel this Bill should be changed to ensure that Canada plays a much more active and progressive role, in the development of the policies of these particular agencies.
Canada, in my estimation, has been relatively mute when it comes to the IMF and the World Bank supporting what is going on in Chile today and not supporting those organizations in the early 1970s when there was a different political regime in that country. For example, when the Allende Government was elected by the people of Chile-and I want to emphasize that it was a government that was elected in an open election by the people of Chile-the institutions which we have been addressing today cut off support to that country simply
because the government in power did not sit well with the American administration of the day. The people of Chile chose that government. I wonder whether Canada should have stood passively by when these critical funding institutions said: "We are cutting off support now that you have had a change in political orientation". This is just the same as El Salvador and Nicaragua. One obtains support from the IMF and the other does not obtain support from the IMF.
I think it is important that while this is a reasonably straightforward administrative Bill that simply consolidates existing legislation and makes a change in how the sums of money that Canada contributes is evaluated each year-in other words, using the estimates as opposed to Parliament's authority-we do have some concerns about Canada's ongoing participation in these organizations. We support these organizations in principle. We support the role of Canada participating as a major player, but we want to see Canada take a much more progressive and active role in developing policies within these organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank that will assist them in ensuring their lending practices, their financial support practices, are equitable and that they assist the people of the developing countries as opposed to maintaining certain political regimes at the expense of other political regimes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? [Translation]
The Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez) rises for a question or a comment?


Ricardo Lopez: I am glad to rise again today to deal with this issue, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate the previous speaker for his remarks which were much more proper and in order than those expressed by the Hon. Member who rose before him last night and continued her remarks this morning. I commend him, and he can certainly take credit first of all-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might remind the Hon. Member that he should direct his comments or questions to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), without any reference to those made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). The Hon. Member has again the floor.


Ricardo Lopez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is because there was a connection between their respective remarks and I meant to continue in the same direction. I am somewhat concerned about the fact that the Hon. Member seems to worry a lot about the need to help the poor and the developing or underdeveloped countries of the world-mind your, I have nothing against that-but I feel that all Canadians and all members of Parliament should be concerned first and foremost with their own economic situation. Because charity begins at home, we should not be interested first in what is going in the outside world. His remarks, however, were quite consistent with the political thrust of his party which is to help socialist or
March 14, 1985

communist countries or, rather, countries with socialistic or communistic leanings, which is understandable. But it is not in Canada's interest to help most everybody, including the socialists and the communists, at the expense of our own economy and that of the Americans who are truly our closest allies. I suggest that Canada and all Canadians should take a direction which favours us and our allies first, as well as enhance our economy which has close links with the U.S. economy. To adopt another direction would be to go against all Canadians and all North Americans' best interests, which is contrary to our principles.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What a statement! Where did he come from, the Nineteenth Century?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the view held by the Hon. Member. I do want to thank him for his original set of statements. One's first reaction is to respond very harshly but I think the question is too important to respond in that vein.
Canada's economy is based by and large on Canada's participation in the global economic community. The day when Canada could think of itself as an economic and financial island, one unto itself that could develop quite independently of what is going on throughout the rest of the world, has long since past. As a matter of fact, it never did exist. When one goes back to the very beginning of the kind of western economy that we have come to know in this part of the world called the fur trade, the way of life of Canada and the health of our communities was dependent upon our ability to use that resource and export furs to Europe and China.
That same economic approach has not changed up to today. The ability of Canada to sell its goods to other countries and to import goods from other countries, both finished products as well as raw products, is integral to our economy here. We are one of the major trading countries of the world. As a major trading country obviously we depend upon the ability to interact with other nations. We do. Our track record has been relatively positive over the years. The way our economy will improve in the years ahead is to continue in that same vein.
That is why we are concerned about all of the protectionist policies that the Reagan administration is implementing in the United States. Almost every sector is either having protectionist policies introduced today or is having them contemplated, whether the sugar, the copper, the forest products or the fish sector. You name it, Mr. Speaker. In that great free enterprise, that free trade country is acting quite contrary to what it says.
I do not think Canada necessarily wants to get into that same mentality. When we hear people say that charity begins at home, of course it does. The point is our healthy Canadian economy depends upon our participation in a healthy global economy. It means that by assisting others in certain kinds of ways, not only does it assist them, but in the long term and in some cases even in the short term it assists us.
Oil Substitution Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows: Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Merrithew, moves that 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, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. 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 Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 4, 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.
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-24 today, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act. Since the CHIP program commenced in 1977 and continued to the end of 1984, 179,660 grants were made in my home province of Alberta to the value of nearly $65 million. COSP grants in my province to the end of January, 1985 amounted to some $3.8 million. The CHIP program has undoubtedly contributed to the conservation of energy, but so have the people of Canada made such a contribution, some conscientiously by lowering their thermostats and some by lowering their thermostats for economic reasons. I may say that the latter had to do so through the failure of the previous Government and its disastrous National Energy Program to move more rapidly toward energy self-sufficiency.
It is my hope that our citizens will support this Government's effort to cope with the deficit and continued activities to reduce the consumption of energy. My Government believes that oil security cannot be achieved without the commitment and involvement of every Canadian. The federal Government reduced its energy consumption 5 per cent from 1981-82 to 1982-83 and realized a total reduction of more than 21 per

March 14, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
cent since launching its internal conservation program seven years ago. This represents a total saving in consumption of some $515 million since the base year 1975-76 and $150 million during the reporting period.
Persuading people to have their homes checked out for heat loss was an idea that fitted well in the energy conscious 1970s. It was helped by the two programs that are now coming to an end and by the home energy audit which will check the insulation and heating system of a house as well as pinpoint any places where heat is escaping. Many electrical companies offer this service and recommendations based on the audit are given verbally or are based on a computer printout.
CHIP inspired the creation of private air leakage control companies which also offer audits and follow-up sealing and insulation work. I am confident that with these initiatives, there is enough public information available to support Canadians continuing energy conservation and their demands for audits and sealing work in the future.
There has been little quantification available in the public domain of the economics of energy conservation, its potential market, its impact on energy demand and on the economy, its costs and its benefits. This may not have been undertaken because conservation has not received much recognition as a supply option in the sense that energy conservation delivers the same standard of living as using more energy. Perhaps it has been because energy conservation is generally not perceived as a business sector in the way that traditional energy supply industries are. Consumer enthusiasm about energy conservation must be fostered. Consumer expectations of stable energy prices and abundant energy supplies increase the vulnerability to possible price shocks and shortages in the latter part of this decade in much the same manner as occurred prior to the second world oil shock.
In calling upon Canadians to practise energy conservation, I am not excluding the ongoing research and introduction of forms of energy other than the traditional ones. I would emphasize that energy savings are permanent. The net savings in expenditures on energy consumption mean that more funds are available to the consumer for investing in business and spending within their own areas and communities. Although the employment aspects of energy conservation are a very important consideration, especially during the present period of high unemployment, energy security and efficiency of capital use are other essential issues that warrant serious consideration of an aggressive energy conservation industry.
So far as conservation in the industrial sector is concerned, fiscal measures are not required to help finance these investments, unlike the huge mega energy programs which need substantial government royalty and tax relief in order to ensure their economic viability due to their size and mammoth cost. Lower energy bills and lower borrowing costs mean increased consumer expenditures and hence increase economic activities. More capital can be available to the business sector for investment which leads to more vigorous economic growth and more jobs that can be generated.
We in Canada have massive quantities of indigenous coal and shale. We have technically trained and educated people who can do the job; but to make these resources work for us, we need a triple play approach to energy policy conservation, deregulation and technology development. Deregulation will give petroleum companies better incentives to seek new domestic discoveries and to use enhanced recovery techniques. Beyond that, it will permit major efficiencies in what has become a tortuously controlled distribution system.
The savings to the Government on the termination of COSP is $424 million between now and 1988. On the CHIP program, it is $376 million during the same period. The Liberal Government spent $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money on these programs to the end of 1984 on which the return from income tax was only $300 million. The net increase in the deficit and the burden on the taxpayers was over $1 billion.
I agree that the issue of energy conservation was brought to the fore by the programs, but it is now up to all Canadians to take over the responsibility in continuing the effort to reduce the current exorbitant deficit. Canadians might think of economic challenges in terms of a team effort. Canada needs to be as competitive in the international economic arena as our Olympics representatives proved themselves to be in the world sports arena. Shared goals are the only basis for teamwork. This Government is moving toward stable economic growth, sustained for the next quarter but ideally for the next quarter century, the type of growth that would place Canada among the world's top three industrial nations in terms of income per capita, rather than being in sixth place as it now is.
In this Government's commitment to co-operation and consultation rather than confrontation, it strives to develop a shared view of our economic strategy and to adopt policies that will allow the private sector to sustain growth. The previous Government became bemused with debating trade-offs between wealth creation and wealth distribution, but we can no longer take wealth creation for granted. I believe Canadians are beginning to look realistically at our problems and this is the first step toward their resolution.
Canadians today are pre-occupied with two subjects: interest rates and jobs. No specific job-creation scheme, vital as it can be, is as important as creating a general environment hospitable to economic growth. The private sector must be stimulated because it is the private sector that can do it.
There is evidence that entrepreneurs in independent business have created 70 per cent of the new private sector jobs in recent years. The private sector is creating jobs. As the Government proceeds to reduce the deficit, it can create many, many more jobs. Control of the deficit, thus allowing economic growth, is the source of meaningful, permanent and productive jobs for Canadians which allow Canadians to support themselves without leaning on their fellow unemployment insurance contributors.
It is an acknowledged fact that both deficits and unemployment will decline substantially if the Canadian economy grows
March 14, 1985

at a reasonable pace. The persistent growth in deficits, uninterrupted since the mid-1970s, has become a serious impediment to reduced unemployment. Job creation and training initiatives as introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) were needed for specific groups and most notably for our youth. But government spending on such national priorities must be financed by cuts in other budgetary envelopes. Individuals and corporations will both have to look less to the federal Government for assistance, subsidies and guarantees.
Bill C-24 is just one step in returning self-reliance to Canadians. The change in our attitude toward the role of government will have to be significant. That does not mean that we should return to the days before Governments provided a safety net of assistance to the unemployed, the poor, the sick and the others in need of help to achieve at least a minimal level of social well-being. There must, however, be greater self-reliance on the part of everyone else. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has stated, either we make certain sacrifices now or we have larger deprivations imposed upon us in the future. Spending cuts do not have to be inhumane but it is inhumane to leave our economic affairs in such a state that we saddle our children and their children with a crushing burden of debt.
Canadians have placed great emphasis on economic independence in the past, both nationally and provincially, and there must now be awareness of economic interdependence among countries, provinces, businesses, labour and government. One-third of our national income and one-quarter of our jobs depend on exports. This means that we must meet international competitive standards and maintain good relations with our trading partners, principally the United States. We must recognize the close links between the provinces. There must now be a Canada policy rather than policies of individual provinces. Improved co-operation is indispensable.
We must address the appropriate role of government. We must get our fiscal house in order. We must attack the huge deficit right now. We must all make sacrifices if Canada is to be put back on a sound financial basis.
The COSP and CHIP programs have been successful. They provided grants to allow Canadians to convert to a cheaper form of heating fuel and also to insulate their homes. But let us face reality: these programs have served their usefulness. Canadians must now run their own affairs and make their own decisions. The foundations of a new fiscal policy are being laid and some hard facts must be accepted. Canadians working as a team can help our country reach its growth potential and they can build the future for this great country.
My support for Bill C-24 is unqualified. The Government trusts in this way and in others that it can prepare Canadians to do their share in renewing the strength and the vigour of our economy, something which is so essential to the future welfare of us all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oil Substitution Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you called Bill C-24, Mr. Speaker, I was not in my seat. However, I had started my speech the last time this Bill was before the House. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to be recognized now so that I might finish my remarks this afternoon.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We agree that the Hon. Member should be put in the position of speaking in the regular way. By all means, we give our consent to his proposal to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) wish to rise on the same point of order?


Mr. Gauthier:: We agree that the Hon. Member should have the floor for his remaining 16 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I give my special thanks to the Hon. Government House Leader, the Liberal Whip and all Hon. Members for extending this courtesy to me.
We are dealing with Bill C-24, the Act that would terminate the home insulation program and the Canadian off-oil program. When I spoke previously, I quoted from the submission of the City of Whitehorse of June, 1984 to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The submission claimed, based on figures from Statistics Canada and the national energy program update, that some $17.2 billion had been committed and spent by the end of 1983 on the National Energy Program and this has resulted in production of only some 28,000 barrels of new oil per day. At that time I asked Hon. Members to compare this with the some $1.3 billion that has been spent on the home insulation and off-oil programs. I stated that those programs had saved some 65,000 barrels of oil per day. More recent figures supplied by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources put that figure at closer to 75,000 barrels of oil per day.
The total energy savings attributed to the Canadian off-oil program, COSP, are estimated at roughly 70,000 barrels of oil per day. If a 65 per cent incremental value is assumed for COSP, the incremental value calculated for CHIP but not necessarily appropriate for COSP, then the oil savings attributed to this program becomes roughly 45,000 barrels per day. For CHIP, the total energy savings attributed to work under this program are estimated at the equivalent of 45,000 barrels of oil per day. In the absence of CHIP, the Department

March 14, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
of Energy, Mines and Resources estimates that 65 per cent of these savings would not have been achieved. Thus CHIP is calculated to have resulted in incremental energy savings of the equivalent of roughly 30,000 barrels of oil per day. That 30,000 barrels of oil per day from CHIP and the 45,000 barrels of oil per day from COSP add up to 75,000 barrels of oil per day saved by these two programs.
The cost figure of $1.3 billion for these programs is not entirely accurate either. One-third of these grants have flowed back to the provincial and federal Governments in the form of taxes. In fact, the program in part is a transfer program to the provinces as the provincial Governments tax these programs as well. Let us put the real cost to the Government at some $900 million. This expenditure of $900 million has produced a saving of some 75,000 barrels of oil per day. Put in another way, that amounts to a reduction in equivalent oil demand of between 25 million and 30 million barrels of oil per year.
In terms of cost per barrel, Dr. Hollbach, appearing before the Senate committee on behalf of Energy, Mines and Resources, noted that for the older, poorly insulated and weather-stripped homes, the energy savings could be had at a cost of $5 per barrel equivalent. Under some circumstances, the cost could be as low as $2 to $3 per barrel of oil equivalent. Many energy savings were possible at a cost which was less than $20 per barrel. Let us now compare that with the cost of bringing in new energy supplies.
The cost of bringing new energy supplies into the Canadian energy system is debatable, but the following figures are held to be approximately representative: Venture gas, $35 per barrel of oil equivalent; Hibernia, $30 per barrel, and Lepreau II, $70 per barrel of oil equivalent. Dr. Hollbach of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources noted in his testimony before the Senate committee that there were a number of conservation measures which could be taken that would cost considerably less than $20 per barrel of oil equivalent in terms of energy saved. In terms of costs, on the conservation side we have oil which is equivalent to $5 per barrel. On the supply side it costs $35, $40, or $70 per barrel of oil equivalent. There is no comparison.
We could look at the jobs which are created per $1 million spent on energy conservation versus increasing the energy supply. These figures come from a Canertech Incorporated study entitled "Market Potential and Economic Impacts of Energy Conservation in the Canadian Residential Commercial Industrial Sectors", which was published in 1983. The number of jobs created per year of direct employment by energy conservation was 20.2, and the number of jobs created by the energy supply sector was 5.8. If we look at the indirect employment, the total indirect employment and the induced employment crated on the energy conservation side, we see that for every million dollars spent, some 35.8 jobs were created, whereas in the energy supply sector only 18.9 jobs were created. Again, there is no comparison.
Therefore, reducing demand by conservation as opposed to increasing supply is far less expensive to Governments. It creates twice the number of jobs, the energy savings are permanent and the benefits go directly to the Canadian people rather than to oil companies and banks. There is no comparison. Yet the Government is insisting, with Bill C-24, that the energy conservation side must be destroyed, and it is not lifting a finger on the energy supply side. There is no justification for Bill C-24.
We have heard Government spokesmen claim that Bill C-24 is necessary in order to reduce the deficit. The Government Member who spoke previously used that argument. She said that the deficit had to be reduced in order to get Canada back on its feet financially. Yet the figures which I have presented this morning illustrate that conservation saves the Government money. The National Energy Program is costing the Government billions of dollars, but the Government has refused to touch that program.
I have attempted to obtain figures which would indicate how much the Government has saved in the Oil Substitution Program. That program has cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars. The energy savings of the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the off-oil program have saved the Government millions of dollars in oil subsidization payments. Unfortunately, accurate figures are not available to indicate how many millions of dollars the Government has saved. I have placed a question on the Order Paper, and hopefully some time in the future the Government and EMR will be able to provide accurate figures. But to claim as the Government has claimed that Bill C-24 will save the Government money, is false economy. It just does not work that way.
We note as well, in comparing the cost of supply versus the conservation side, that the economics are in favour of conservation. We could look at nuclear energy. Over the years the Government has spent billions of dollars on the nuclear program. Yet that program has produced very litle energy. The energy which it has produced has not been cost-effective. In Ontario it is estimated that by 1990 the accumulated deficit in its nuclear program will be close to $60 billion. The Darlington nuclear reactor has cost $11.8 billion, and $4.8 billion of that is in interest charges. Who benefits? Of course, the banks. The number of jobs that Darlington will create is a far cry from what $11.8 billion would create if that money was put into the conservation area. The total energy which one nuclear reactor produces does not compare with the energy which we would save if we put that same amount of money into conservation. Conservation will save more energy than a nuclear reactor will ever produce. The question is: Why do governments insist on going into megaprojects, off-shore oil projects and tremendously costly nuclear projects which produce energy at the equivalent of as much as $70 per barrel or per barrel equivalent, and yet ignore the conservation side?
We must ask the question: Who benefits? The home owner benefits from conservation. Home owners save on their utility bills. But if we go the nuclear route, who will benefit? Certainly not the home owners. They will eventually have to pay the
March 14, 1985

$11.8 billion to build the nuclear reactor at Darlington and they will have to pay $4.8 billion in interest charges. Who benefits? Of course, the banks, because they will collect the $4.8 billion in interest charges. It just does not make sense.
I am concerned that the Conservative Government is following the path of exploiting home owners and helping oil companies and banks rather than ordinary Candians at home. One would tend to think that Conservatives are concerned about conservation. They are not concerned about conservation. Certainly Bill C-24 points out that fact. It does not make sense. It will not reduce the deficit. In fact, it will increase the deficit because the amount of money which the Government will have to spend to bring in new supplies of oil and energy will be much more costly than it would be to follow the conservation route.
The other matter which dismays me is the Government's destruction of alternative energy programs. Canada has begun to develop a leadership role in developing new technologies. Government spokesmen have said that the private sector will now have to take over, that the Government can no longer support alternate energy programs in wind, biomass and so forth. When the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, he stated that ten years was a long enough period and that since the new technologies had not proven themselves in that ten-year period, it was therefore the Government's decision to cut further research in alternate energy programs.
The Minister, who is an engineer, should know better. First, it is incorrect to say that those programs have not proven themselves. A fair number of those programs are on the brink of becoming commercially viable. Several are past the point and have become economically viable. If a ten-year span is what the Minister demands, I wish he would use the same measurement for nuclear energy. It took 30 years of experimentation, Mr. Speaker, before the first reactor was ever put onstream. We are willing to spend billions of dollars in researching nuclear energy, yet we are not willing to spend 10 years doing the research on alternate energies, on small-scale energy projects which allow the self-sufficiency of individual consumers and smaller communities. The commitment is to the megaproject which is costing hundreds of billions of dollars, not to the small-scale projects which produce more jobs, which are more efficient and more environmentally sound. These projects get scrapped while the high cost projects get supported by this Government and, I should say, by the former Liberal Government as well.
The Liberals were the ones who poured the billions of dollars into the National Energy Program. I will give them credit, Mr. Speaker, for supporting the alternate energy and conservation programs, but in terms of the total scheme of things, these were considered as minor projects compared to the megaprojects.
Oil Substitution Act
It dismays us in the New Democratic Party that the Government has chosen this route. It flies against the philosopy, surely, of many of the Hon. Members opposite who are Conservatives in the small "c" sense and who believe we have to move into a society where we can begin to conserve and husband our resources. The Government is destroying that philosophy with Bill C-24.
There is considered to be an oil glut in the world today. The demand for that product today is not as high, compared to its supply. There is no scarcity at present. People are not lining up at the pumps. But common sense tells us that this is only a temporary situation. Oil is a finite resource which eventually will run dry. We must put in place alternate energy sources. Or are we going to lay back and wait until the crisis is upon us again before we begin to act? Surely a forward-looking Government must realize that the day will come again when oil energy will be in great demand. We have the time right now to prepare for that day.
What this Government has done in Bill C-24, and in the cut-backs to research and development in alternate energy, is to prevent us from being prepared for that inevitable day when again oil will be a scarce commodity and will carry a high price tag. I urge Hon. Members of the Conservative Party who really believe in small "c" conservatism to make their views known and vote against this Bill, and in so doing express to the Minister and to their own Government their dissatisfaction with this Bill.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested when certain Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party rise to speak in this House. They are always zeroing in on nuclear energy which is one of the most successful stories in Canadian high technology today. The Hon. Member talks about energy. If he would talk to the leading scientists in the nuclear field, they would tell him that not only do we need nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but we also need the alternate sources of energy, as well as conservation.
There is no argument with that. But does the Hon. Member not realize that the nuclear reactors at Pickering produce far more energy than Niagara Falls ever did? Does he not realize that industrial development would not have occurred in central Canada without that massive source of energy? Would the Hon. Member not agree that there are probably some Americans on the eastern seaboard who went into darkness a few years ago who would have been very grateful if they had had the same safe system?
Something that always bothers me about this issue, Mr. Speaker, is that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is quite often equated with nuclear armaments for destructive purposes. There should be no relationship between the two because Canada has gone the peaceful route. Does the Hon. Member not realize that the years which have been spent on nuclear energy research in Canada have not just been spent on experimenting with nuclear reactors? The cobalt therapy unit which was developed at Chalk River, Ontario, is one of the leading cures for cancer today. All kinds of companies go to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to sign contracts for
3010

March 14, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Atomic Energy of Canada to do the research these commercial companies are not able to afford. I would like to put on the record today, Mr. Speaker, that a far too narrow approach has been taken toward nuclear energy in Canada by my hon. friend. If he is sincerely interested in the high-tech industry in this country, he should really get some briefings on its broader scope.
The National Research Council started what is today Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I agree with the Hon. Member that the NRC has been badly chopped by the present Government. However, in no way should we downplay one of the greatest success stories in nuclear energy in this country, and it does have a lot to do with the environment as well. Candu reactors are safe. That has been proven by the so-called incident at Pickering. They are capable of improvement and any errors can be corrected. We have the expertise and the technique to do it and it was indeed done at Pickering.
Let us not be negative about our successes in high technology in this country, and the safety factors which are built in, and at the same time complain about the expenditures and lack of energy generally in this country, because this country would not be what it is today in industrial development if we did not have that back-up source of nuclear energy in Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I made the nuclear comparison in terms of refuting what the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) said in front of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. He said, and 1 quote:
In many cases, after some 10 years of funding, it has become evident that, particularly in the areas of solar and wind energy, the return on that investment was not evident.
I was pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that the Government was willing to forgo any further research and development into solar and wind energy because, according to the Minister, there was no return on investment in a ten-year period. Yet Governments, both past and present, are not willing to use the same measurement on nuclear energy. Research and development on nuclear energy has been going on for much longer than ten years. In fact, 30 years is more accurate.
The second point 1 would like to make to the Hon. Member is in terms of cost effectiveness. Nuclear energy has certainly proven to be a very expensive technology. It is not cost-effective at all. We have white elephants both in Canada and in the United States which are costing hundreds of millions of dollars. We have a nuclear power plant in the Maritimes and I am sure the people who initiated that program wish they had never gotten involved. We have a plant producing heavy water that nobody wants and nobody needs, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Hon. Member says that nuclear technology is a safe technology. Why, then, did the previous Government and this Government refuse to allow an open inquiry into the industry?
Time and again, Mr. Speaker, we hear stories of breakdowns in nuclear reactors. Finally last week we read some of
the minutes of the Atomic Energy Control Board obtained by the Ottawa Citizen through the freedom of information legislation. The minutes reveal some of the horror stories which have occurred behind closed doors.
No, nuclear power is not safe. We do not have all the technology in place. We have not discovered a way to deal with its wastes. It is not economic, especially when compared to conservation programs. It just has not made sense, it has not added up, yet the Government continues to pour money down that hole while at the same time cutting off the nickels and dimes that were spent on conservation. I do not understand the economics and I do not think the people of Canada understand.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that pretty well lays the NDP policy on the line. It will be interesting to see what the union leaders in the nuclear industry think of that statement.
As far as cost effectiveness is concerned, would the Hon. Member not admit that any useful in-depth research into energy is indeed expensive in the beginning? The NDP is always talking about commitments. Well, if you are going to start a long-term research development program like atomic energy, you have to make a long-term commitment. I will tell the Hon. Member that the long-term benefits of nuclear energy in this country in the future will far outweigh the costs which have initially gone into research and development.
I am amazed at the NDP. Some of them are more conservative than the Conservatives because they fail to move ahead and are always bringing these tactics of fear out in front of the public. They are trying to win their case through irrational and emotional arguments rather than by logic. Anyone in this House who does not think we need nuclear energy in the future is being very short-sighted about the future development of this nation of ours.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I note that both Conservative and Liberal Members applaud that statement. It is that type of thinking that scares me and I think the majority of the Canadian people. Utility company after utility company in the United States is on the brink of bankruptcy because of their investment in nuclear energy. Stating that this is the most cost-effective way to go is an invitation to Canada to follow down that road and over the precipice. It is as though we cannot learn from the American companies which are going bankrupt because of the tremendous cost overruns and the inadequacy of the technology. They want us to follow them like lemmings. It appears that only the NDP is saying that we are not that stupid.


Mr. Lewis:: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to bring to the attention of the House that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who usually has his foot in his mouth, has it on his desk.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I have both feet on the floor as usual, while I listen to one of the best speeches I have heard in
March 14, 1985

the House of Commons. The Hon. Member would be wise to pay close attention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Resuming debate. [Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker,
I will try to keep my feet solidly on the floor.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today on such an important matter as the conservation of energy, of "our energy". For years Canadians have been preparing for conservation, and thanks to programs introduced by the previous Canadian Government we have managed and are still managing to redirect and save a significant part of our energy resources.
Clearly, with this Bill intended merely to eliminate certain programs, we can no longer make any projection for the future, we can no longer assume that we will still be able to realize any further energy savings after this.
Indeed, the Tory Government is coming in with a hasty and ill-advised proposal to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act.
Bill C-24 is a hasty, ill-advised proposal for the simple reason that the Tory Government has failed to analyze the impact of the cuts introduced in those two programs. Such a failure is unforgivable, Mr. Speaker, because it has wrought surprise and panic among consumers, and discouragement in private business.
Let us first look at the Canadian Home Insulation Program, the CHIP program.
It is worth mentioning that this program was established under a Liberal Government. It was brought in to save energy and provide greater comfort, and this has nothing to do with luxury. It is a matter of need, of necessity.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, that with the damp, cold winds sweeping over the Maritimes, people must have very well-insulated homes. Under that kind of geographic and weather conditions, obviously efficient home insulation is essential and even vital in some areas. Although this may come as a surprise, there are still thousands of Canadian homes that do not meet minimum insulation standards. The insulation program, for instance, was intended for owners whose homes were built before September 1977. Statistics provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to your Department of Energy, Mines and Resources show there were more than 7 million homes with inadequate insulation and therefore eligible for the Canadian Government Insulation Program. Of those 7 million, 190,000 were in New Brunswick and when a province with a population of 706,000 has 190,000 badly-insulated houses, clearly an assistance program is needed.
The Government of the day understood the situation and introduced its insulation program, and 35 per cent of eligible
Oil Substitution Act
Canadian homes were accepted under the program. In New Brunswick, 35 per cent of the work has now been done and this means that there are still 65 per cent of homes that do not meet the minimal insulation standards. Therefore this is no time, Mr. Speaker, to axe the program.
Well over five years were needed to do the job of insulating 2.5 million homes across the land or 35 per cent. How does the Government opposite hope to complete the other 65 per cent of the work by next year? This is all the more unthinkable considering that under the Liberal Government, the federal contribution had been set at 60 per cent for each claim to a maximum of $500. Now, under this new Government, the Minister has announced, without further ado, that the federal grant would be slashed down to 27 per cent as of April 1st, 1985. That policy is unacceptable. The Government is bent on cutting everywhere. This is asking too much from the people within such a short period of time.
Clearly, since those cuts were announced last November, there is a general panic among homeowners whose residences need to be insulated and who cannot afford the total cost of an insulation job. And with the federal grant cut down to 30 per cent, consumers will have to pay more money, which means that there are Canadians who will not be able to pay the extra costs that were not included before November, 1984. In other words, less Canadians will benefit from the insulation program from April 1st, 1985, onwards. This is bad, Mr. Speaker, but the Government opposite does not seem to care.
Unfortunately, that is not all. The cut in the insulation program has other implications that are just as negative. Has anyone in the new Government ever thought that by announcing all of a sudden a 30 per cent cut in the federal contribution to the insulation program, and the complete withdrawal of the program for 1986, Canadian consumers will all try to apply for the program before March 31, 1985? Therefore, such a volume of unexpected applications will lead to a glut of orders far exceeding the current capacity of private companies doing insulation work. According to figures supplied by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, there have been 84,000 applications for grants under the insulation program between November 8, 1984, the date of the announcement by the Hon. Minister Wilson, and December 31, 1984. If we are to rely on statistics, officials of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told us that between January and November 1984, there had been 218,253 applications under the program in those 10 months. If you divide the number of applications by the number of months, you get an average of 21,825 applications each month. During the two months following the announcement by the Minister of Finance, there were 84,000 applications, which is twice as much.
Striking figures like that are due to the fact that as soon as April 1985, the government will pay only 30 per cent of the

March 14, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
expenditures. However, Canadian people cannot be blamed for this rush. We should rather blame the government for failing individuals in need. The Conservative government not only refuses to help people but in addition it leaves the problem in the hands of contractors who will simply not be able to meet the demand, which is suddenly beyond their control.
For example, in December 1984, the office responsible for the Home Insulation program in Fredericton received 1500 calls. This was a 25 per cent increase compared with the average number of calls of 1100. Homeowners fear that they will be unable to take advantage of the program and will have to pay more. As for contractors, since November they have been working seven days a week and are afraid that they will be unable to complete the work by March 31, 1985. This is inhuman and it is difficult to believe that a government which claims to be so close to the people turns a deaf ear to alarmed pleas. In short, I strongly object to the Government's intention to reduce its contribution to 30 per cent as of April 1, 1985, and I stand even more firmly against any attempt to terminate the Canadian Home Insulation Program on March 31, 1986. To this day, it has been the federal Government's most important energy conservation program whose main purpose was to help Canadians taxpayers. The program was not an expenditure.
A responsible Government should absolutely not aim for anything less. The previous Government managed to save energy and keep the people warm. 1 challenge this Government to do the same thing. In any case, it is quite obvious that the Government is headed in the wrong direction.
Did you realize, Mr. Speaker, that programs such as CHIP and COSP have created employment? Both programs had been designed to spur private sector development and expansion. The two million-odd homes which have been insulated enabled small- and medium-size businesses to prosper. These programs gave young people and other Canadians an opportunity to work and do their share on Canada's labour market. In areas such as New Brunswick, those programs have certainly made a significant contribution to the economy. By pulling businesses out of the doldrums, they created jobs and put commercial undertakings and the whole province on the road to recovery. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian labour force is underemployed as it is now, it is the responsibility of the Government to take every means to create jobs. Job creation is not a cinch, of course, and it seems that our Government, devoid of experience in that field, will learn at our expense.
We have to be aware of our own economic forces, and CHIP and COSP were two of those forces. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the more I try to understand why they want to do away with those programs, the less I succeed. I hope that my arguments will convince people who want to help make this country more prosperous that we must motivate Canadians if we want them to support our efforts.
That being said, I must admit that so far I have not given as much consideration to the other program which they threaten to abolish in 1985, the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. Naturally, all the objections I just raised apply to this program as well.
Since November 8, when the Government unexpectedly announced that COSP would be terminated on March 31, 1985, it has been like a stampede-interested homeowners want a Government grant, no matter what. The more applicants, the more grants, naturally. Once again the private sector will have to work overtime to beat the deadline and avoid the wrath of customers. Indeed, the program will end March 31 and so will the grants. In addition, contractors will no longer have any contracts after the deadline, or at least they will not have as many. The many contractors who hired more staff will have to lay them off, so employment will take a nosedive.
If the Government knew that this program was too costly, why did it not compromise and put off the deadline an extra six months? It seems that the Government has taken a oneway approach. He does not seem to be affected by the fact that consumers and contractors are greatly disturbed. Yet, would the excessive demand being faced by the private sector not justify an extension of this program? This is a question of logic, but unfortunately, there is a tendency to act illogically.
For instance, in their lack of logic, the Members opposite have forgotten that the oil substitution program is the most important of the three existing Federal programs in this sector. They have also forgotten that they are increasing the prices by 1.9c. a litre at the same time as they are eliminating the oil substitution program. Mr. Speaker, not only will Canadians no longer conserve energy, but this energy will be even more costly than before. This is nonsense.
In the last ten months, 7,609 houses have been converted from oil heating to electric, wood or propane gas heating or to another system in New Brunswick alone. The national total is assessed at 178,800 homes with a converted system. This is a lot and it represents a great energy saving.
We have to accept the figures. No one can deny that the insulation and oil substitution programs have been and would still be contributing a lot to our economic growth, the conservation of our energy and the welfare of Canadians. These were the objectives of the previous Government and they have been reached. Today, all that we are asking of the new Government is that it support these objectives and make the decision that we have suggested.
I am convinced that this Government will have enough vision to realize that what we are saying makes sense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).
March 14, 1985


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised to hear the argument raised by my New Brunswick colleague. He speaks about extending the program. He mentions the need for this program. However, he is forgetting something important in my opinion, namely the fact that this program was basically temporary, because when it was developed, its purpose was to help those people who cannot afford to convert their heating system or to insulate their homes.
On the other hand, a responsible Government like the one which has just been elected must consider the fact that we have a deficit of $38 billion, and that certain programs have already helped hundreds of thousands of people, as you said yourself in your speech. You quoted a figure of 21,000 people a month, which means 21,000 homes every month, and you said that the announcement that this program would disappear a few months before it happened has allowed some 42,000 people to present an application. It would seem that all those who really wanted to apply under this program have done so and that our responsible Government must now deal with other issues. In this optic, my dear colleague, I wonder whether the priority should not be to create jobs, as our Government is doing through the reforms it is promoting in the small business sector, for instance, so that people will be able to afford to insulate their homes or to change their heating system, instead of the Government maintaining this program which, for all practical purposes, has already met its objective.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the comments made by my hon. colleague, who is more interested in the cutbacks made by the Government than in the help these programs have provided.
When he asks whether it would not be better to consider other programs for job creation, I must say yes, but I would like to ask the Hon. Member: Where are the programs and where are the jobs? Today, there is a need in this country for the programs we are considering, and it is a real need and there are jobs to be had. Why not let people do this work and have the jobs we need so badly? These are real jobs, not paper ones.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) have a supplementary?


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague has been away from the House too long, when I hear him referring to new programs. In fact, I think he just got back from Cameroon. I must admit I was on the same trip, but when he refers to a program to help small businesses, I believe the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) has talked about employment programs, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has talked about jobs, permanent jobs. When the Hon. Member refers to job creation programs, and he says this was a job creation program, these are not the kind of jobs Canadians want, and they made this very clear on September 4, since we cam-
Oil Substitution Act
paigned on the issue of creating permanent jobs and not the kind of temporary employment provided in these assistance programs. I think the focus of the program was good. However, now that the program has done what it set out to do, we must concentrate on creating permanent jobs and use the funds to get rid of the deficit we were left by the former Government and promote the creation of permanent jobs.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, once again, I agree with my hon. friend that we all want permanent jobs. But since in our part of the world there are no permanent jobs, people will take on any kind of work, whether it is temporary or seasonal

they want work! If I could be sure that we would get the jobs, the tens of thousands of jobs we were promised during the election campaign, I would say: Congratulations. However, I and the people of my riding are still waiting for these permanent jobs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. I have something to add in response to what was said by the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the Hon. Member that he must address his questions and comments to the speech by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Ah yes, that is a problem. I would like to ask the Hon. Member who spoke, perhaps in English-

I just heard the Conservative Member say that the program has done its job.

The program is finished.

The need has been met. Yet the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) said in Vancouver just the other day, in a speech on March 8, that an existing residential housing energy cost could be reduced by up to 30 per cent through conservation investment. How would he explain those words of the Minister in response to what the Member has said? Does he have any indication in his riding of how poor people really need the Government program to continue the conservation measures?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) to answer the question this afternoon.
It being one o'clock, 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]

March 14, 1985


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in January of this year the Maritime Farmers Council made a submission to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) outlining the crisis situation that exists on the East Coast in the livestock industry.
In 1941, when the Feed Grain Assistance Program was introduced, 90 per cent of the cost of transporting grain to eastern Canada was paid by the federal Government. By 1976 the level of assistance had fallen to 59.3 per cent. By 1985 Feed Freight Assistance covers only 19 to 28 per cent of the transportation cost of Ontario corn, 26 to 33 per cent of the transportation cost of western grains, and none of the cost for protein concentrates.
Little or no research is being done on making use of the agricultural potential of the maritime provinces to allow them to achieve self-sufficiency in livestock feed production. The industry is in a crisis situation with feed costs $60 a tonne higher in the feather industry, $47 a tonne in the dairy industry, and $37 a tonne in the pork industry.
The Maritime Farmers Council has received the support of all three maritime provinces for its proposal that transportation costs assistance be brought up to the 1976 level of 59.3 per cent, and be indexed until self-sufficiency in feed production is achieved. In the meantime, the industry is in an emergency situation and needs the immediate support of the federal Government until changes to legislation can be introduced to increase the level of assistance. I would request that the Minister take immediate action in this regard before more Canadian farmers are forced out of their livelihood.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Government whose leader, according to Ottawa's paper The Citizen, gave the Armed Forces a priority level below the support price of hogs, this Government gives top priority to our Armed Forces, and has demonstrated its care through action and promises.
Our Armed Forces personnel are highly trained professionals, working with inferior or outdated equipment, but when their professionalism is combined with raw courage, exceptional achievements are possible.
On December 5, 1983, the crew of the freighter, Ho Ming, caught in heavy seas off the coast of Newfoundland, was forced to abandon ship. The Canadian destroyer, Iroquois, responded to the distress call of the freighter and launched a helicopter and two zodiac rubber rafts for the rescue.
The rescue was extremely dangerous, as the sea was swelling 12 metres. Sub-Lieutenant David Finch sustained a chest injury when he was pinned underneath a steel ladder during the rescue, and Ordinary Seaman Michael Bouchard was thrown into the freezing waters. Two crew members of the Ho Ming were also thrown into the water, and Able Seaman Dennis Morrison and Sub-Lieutenant Finch re-entered the water to save their lives.
Six crew members of the Iroquois are being awarded the Star of Courage, Canada's second highest bravery award, for their actions in this rescue. Six more will receive the Medal of Bravery, the third highest award.
It is not often that Members of Parliament from Ontario have the opportunity to speak on naval issues, but I am pleased that one of the men receiving the Star of Courage, Lieutenant Finch, is my constituent


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



DISASTERS


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, once again I feel it incumbent upon me to raise the issue of the disastrous economic situation in Glace Bay and the surrounding areas.
As all Members are aware, the town has suffered two serious set-backs in the past several months, with the Fire at the Highland Fisheries Fish Plant and the fire at the Number 26 Colliery, leaving 1,500 people out of work. While we were encouraged with the Minister of Employment and Immigration's (Miss MacDonald) recent announcement of $2.7 million to meet the immediate crisis, it falls very short of what is needed. What is needed for the town of Glace Bay and surrounding areas is a long-term reponse.
I urge that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and his Government strongly consider and take action on the following: first, the provision of a pre-retirement plan for miners who are 55 years of age and over, second, an early decision for coal development in Glace Bay, and third, a federal-provincial development agreement in order to provide some short-term assistance for much needed infrastructure as well as trying to diversify the economy of Cape Breton. Monies ought to be made available for forestry, tourism, small business, agriculture, research and development, and fisheries. Yes, much money is needed for human resource training and retraining.
These initiatives are realistic. These initiatives deserve the consideration of the Government and the co-operation of the Province of Nova Scotia, and I would ask that the Minister move forthwith.
March 14, 1985



AGRICULTURE


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, movements of Alberta replacement cattle into the U.S. market since the beginning of this year are alarmingly high. Up to February 25, 7,377 head of feeder steers and heifers were exported because of lower costs of production and better investment returns. It can be estimated that the total loss on exported feeders has amounted to in excess of $21 million just on the value added.
If this trend continues, it could very well result in the closing of one or more packing plants in the future.
There would also be a loss in feedlot employment, loss to the agriculture-service industry and to all the various multiplier effects the feedlot industry has within the province.
With the direct grain freight subsidy to the railroads, Alberta feeders are operating at a cost of production disadvantage of $35 per feeder. Barley in the Calgary area is 47 cents per bushel higher than would be the case if there were a change in the method of payment. Seventy-three bushels of barley, which is consumed to finish a 650-pound steer to 1,050 pounds, at 47 cents per bushel, amounts to the $35 disadvantage which I have mentioned.
These problems could be solved, Mr. Speaker, by changing the method of payment to the pay-the-producer solution, without causing any deleterious effects to the grain producers.



PUBLISHING INDUSTRY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention of the House to a major opportunity facing the Government in the cultural development of Canada. I refer to the review of the Foreign Investment Review Agency of the Gulf and Western takeover of Prentice-Hall publishers, and the opportunity for the Cabinet to ensure that Prentice-Hall Canada becomes a Canadian company.
In the Investment Canada legislation now at committee stage, there is specific provision for screening of foreign investment in industries "related to Canada's cultural heritage or national identity". Prentice-Hall Canada meets this criterion. It is a major publisher in our country where only 25 per cent of books sold are Canadian, a figure which has not changed for 10 years.
Several Canadian publishers have expressed interest in acquiring Prentice-Hall at its estimated value of $20 million.
The Association of Canadian Publishers, in an appearance before the House committee on regional development, called on the Government "to express its commitment to Canada's cultural industries" by allowing the patriation of Prentice-Hall. The Association also made recommendations to strengthen the legislation by giving Canadian purchasers more time and opportunity to acquire cultural institutions.
The Cabinet decision on Prentice-Hall will signal whether the Government has a serious commitment to Canadians controlling our own cultural destiny.
In 1976 General Publishing was able to acquire Simon and Schuster Canada after a FIRA ruling. We are now waiting with interest to see if this Government will follow this clear and positive precedent of putting Canadians first.



MEASURES ADVOCATED TO PHASE OUT TOBACCO SMOKING

Mr. Stewart  Mclnnis@Halifax: Statistics are instructive, Mr. Speaker. The great majority of peopfle who die of lung cancer are smokers. Smoking also contributes to other cancers, cardiac problems, and kidney disorders.
It is also a fact that the manufacture and distribution of tobacco products are not a trivial part of our economy, and an abrupt change in the laws about smoking would really hurt in many areas.
The following suggestions are sort of an a la carte menu. Some, or all, of the following could be implemented.
First, all advertising and publicity, including sponsoring of sports or cultural events, by tobacco companies, should be prohibited. Such a provision should come into force about a year after the legislation is passed in order to give publishers and others a chance to find other markets for their advertising space.
Second, a tax should be implemented, roughly equal to the amount that tobacco companies have been spending on advertising. The money from this tax would go into a fund, the purpose of which would be to help growers and manufacturers make the transition to other products.
Third, a standard drab packaging should be implemented for all tobacco products, perhaps the kind of black and white lettering you see on no-name merchandise.
Fourth, the distribution of tobacco products could be restricted making them available only through provincial government liquor outlets, for example.
Granted the economic impact is a reason for proceeding slowly with these measures, but it is not a reason for doing nothing.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Peace River farmers in northern Alberta and British Columbia

March 14, 1985
have about half of their crops caught under the snow. While some of the grain left over winter can be recovered, there will be high losses in bushel weight, and substantial losses in quality. Yes, they have access to crop insurance, but so did farmers in northeastern Saskatchewan, when they were flooded out last year, and they got disaster relief payments. When flooding occurred in northeast Saskatchewan, Conservatives in opposition said that a disaster area should be declared immediately and would be, if they were the federal Government.
The fact is that provincial Governments decide whether to declare a disaster area. Because of the unique geography of the Peace River area, both Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta must move together. Why won't these two Governments join in an application to the federal Government for the Peace River area to be declared a disaster area? What are they waiting for? Perhaps another election. That is what it took to get action for the flooded-out farmers in Saskatchewan. It is time these Governments began to fulfil their responsibilities to farmers in distress. Where is the advantage in having Conservatives in Ottawa, and Conservatives in Edmonton and Victoria, if they only co-operate in doing nothing?



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, statements in the press have given Canadians the impression that the recent agreement between Canada Post and its union guarantees Canadians their mail delivery.
Every riding in this country contains Canadians denied mail service. Canada Post has done something no other institute can legally do. It has created second class Canadian citizens, second class because they have invested in Canada's future and purchased new homes. Is this the way to treat Canadians who believe in the future?
The situation is so bad that a new medical centre in my riding is denied mail service that buildings on either side receive. There are 35 doctors, plus a new children's clinic, which cannot get mail service. An entire medical centre is denied speedy access to test results. Blood tests are hand-delivered by patients. Why? Because the post office marks them "return to sender" and does not deliver to their building.
This type of disgraceful behaviour by a Crown corporation cannot be allowed to continue. I urge the Members of this House to put pressure on this corporation so that there will no longer be two classes of Canadians and that all Canadians will get mail service, service we all pay for as taxpayers.



HOUSING


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, last week, representatives of housing co-operatives in the Montreal area, of technical support groups for social housing and of Canada housing co-operatives sat in the office of the Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand) to show their disagreement with the Minister responsible for Housing in Canada about the possible suppression of subsidies paid for the renovation of co-operative housing units.
Mr. Speaker, should the Hon. Members of this House take such a decision, there is the danger in the first place that housing co-operatives will disappear and secondly, that there will be a rather substantial increase in rents for social housing. I therefore ask all the hon. members of this House to suggest to the Minister responsible for Housing-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is not listening!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -who is not listening-to refrain from such action, to maintain the funds earmarked for that purpose and to borrow from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) some $5 million from the $100 million required to implement the stupid decision to send more soldiers in Europe.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has a new champion. It is not a duly elected Member of the House of Commons or even an appointed Member of the malignant Senate. Our protector is a bureaucrat, even worse, a lawyer. He is the Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, Ian Binnie. Mr. Binnie exhorted the Federal Court of Canada to dismiss the claim of the Auditor General. Kenneth Dye, he says, has assumed leadership of an extra-parliamentary non-elected Opposition. The Auditor General does not need me to defend his actions with respect to Petro-Canada's takeover of Petrofina against this outlandish and arrogant criticism. But I have a message for Mr. Binnie, virtually everyone of political integrity supports the Auditor General in his search for truth. The only reservation is whether the investigation should extend to areas protected by secrecy in the public interest.
There is a delicate balance between the public's right to know and the necessity for cabinet confidence. Mr. Binnie does not aid the rendering of judicious decision by attacking the person and clouding the issue. The real victim of Mr. Binnie's outrageous invective is not the Auditor General or Parliament, but the judicial process.
March 14, 1985_____________COMMONS DEBATES



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in refusing in clear terms to answer questions about protection of foreign missions arising from the Turkish Embassy tragic incident, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was trying to protect national security in not giving us clear answers. My suggestion to him is that he cynically tried to cover up government incompetence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: He told us that a month ago security over the Turkish Embassy had been reviewed. He did not tell us what we have learned from Ankara, that 10 days ago the Government was advised by the Turkish Government to increase protection at the Turkish Embassy. Since the Deputy Prime Minister advised this House that he is in charge of these matters rather than the Solicitor General, did he tell the Prime Minister of the warning from the Turkish Government about increased terrorism, and did he, or the Prime Minister, then order increased surveillance over the Turkish Embassy?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand, as I am sure all Hon. Members of this House can understand, the shock and dismay of the Turkish Government in Ankara over the events with respect to the incident at the Turkish Embassy here. However, that does not alter for a moment the facts as I have described them in response to the questions yesterday, that an intensive review was undertaken, not 10 days ago, but last month. I can assure him that was the communication that we had directly with the Turkish Government through its Embassy. After that intensive review, the Turkish Government, through its Embassy, a month ago expressed its satisfaction with the security arrangements which were made with the Turkish Government through its Embassy at that time, a month ago.


RCMP REPORT-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO SOLICITOR GENERAL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are referring to a communique apparently directly from the Turkish Government in Ankara, 10 days ago. If, as the Deputy Prime Minister attempted to explain to the House yesterday, in answering a question on whether or not the RCMP report on the international terrorism situation in Canada has or has not been implemented, that to answer that question would offend national security, which is what he suggested-he claimed that any statement on the matter would jeopardize security-why did the Solicitor General, when he left this House yesterday, tell reporters that that same
Oral Questions
report had not yet been considered by Cabinet? If security is indeed involved, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether that statement by the Solicitor General was a breach of national security?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows after my responses to him yesterday, I made the offer to him and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who was in his seat at the time yesterday, certainly not the day before when a similar offer was made to him, to brief them fully as Privy Councillors with respect to the ramifications of all of these matters, but they chose not to follow that constructive course. They choose not to be a part of finding effective solutions. They choose rather to urge us, as a responsible Government, to make disclosure of security arrangements which are being recommended or are to be considered for the protection of our embassies. I do not think that is helpful at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CABINET REVIEW INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. What the Deputy Prime Minister suggested was that he take me and the Leader of the New Democratic Party into his confidence under oath, hoping that this question would disappear from the floor of the House of Commons. This question will not disappear from the floor of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important question. The Deputy Prime Minister told me three times yesterday that the RCMP report on increased terrorism had been acted upon. He said he told me that three times. Then, in response to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, he said-


Mr.   de Cotret@: You got it right.


John Napier Turner: I always get it right. He said that it would not be in the interests of national security to say whether or not the report had been acted upon. This occurred about 15 minutes later. Then the Solicitor General left the House and said that that report had not been acted upon and had not even been considered by the Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John Napier Turner: My question-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has arrived at his question, please let him put it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know your patience is elastic because of the seriousness of the issue.

March 14, 1985
Oral Questions
In view of the discrepancy between the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks to the House and those of the Solicitor General on leaving the House, will he get his act together and tell us whether the RCMP report has been considered and reviewed by Cabinet, or not? I would ask him to please give us a clear answer. I will assure him that it will not endanger the national security of the country.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I very much doubt that the right hon. gentleman is in any position to advise me to get my act together. In any event, the answers I gave him yesterday still stand. It is the view of the Government that it is not in the interests of discharging the Government's responsibilities for the protection of embassies to be entering into this kind of exchange on the floor of the House of Commons.
With respect to the briefing which he dismissed yesterday, and in which he did not want to participate because it would somehow compromise his ability and that of the Leader of the New Democratic Party to ask questions in the House of Commons, that is precisely why there are traditional areas in which the Leader of the Opposition is taken into the confidence of the Government. It is so that he, as an officer of the House, can be made fully cognizant of the problems, and hopefully-


John Napier Turner: You should set this one to music.


Erik Nielsen: He says that I should set it to music. It is far more serious than that kind of frivolity. Once again, the matter is now under intensive review. We hope to arrive at an early solution. The Government would welcome the Right Hon. Leader's input and that of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in arriving at those solutions which would provide the kind of security measures for our embassies which the country expects, and which we have a responsibility to provide.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and Deputy Prime Minister. Last week in committee when we were preparing the agenda for the study of the Estimates, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister said that the Minister was not well enough briefed to come before the committee to explain the North Warning System agreement and its relation to star wars. Now that the Minister has signed it, I would hope that he has been briefed. Why does he not come to the committee this afternoon to debate the issue about which The Globe and Mail has said, "start debate before it is too late"? The Canadian people want to know why the Government refuses to explain to the House of Commons this $7-billion
agreement that might change the future of our policies for the protection of our territory and our sovereignty.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Hon. Member would ask that particular kind of question. He was a member of the Government throughout the negotiations which have taken place from 1976 onward, and which have culminated in us reaching an agreement on this very system. For over nine years the Hon. Member was privy to all-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I didn't sign it.


Erik Nielsen: He certainly did not sign it. That progress will be made on March 18 when the agreement will be signed. With respect to exposure, it has been before the Senate committee and the committee of the House of Commons at which the Secretary of State for External Affairs was prepared to answer all the questions of Members. However, Members ran out of questions. With respect to my going before the committee, I will go at the earliest possible opportunity.
[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised by the reply the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence has made. Last week, his Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the Minister was not sufficiently informed. This agreement will be signed this coming Sunday. We are told on the one hand that airports will be built in Northern Canada, and on the other hand that the North Warning System is only a radar line to watch over the Canadian North. Well, Canadians are asking a number of important questions, including this one: Could the Minister attend today our committee meeting, scheduled for 3:30 p.m. to provide some answers, in order to satisfy Canadians that we are not irrevocably jeopardizing Canada's future and allowing it to be locked into the Star War program which the Parliament of Canada firmly rejected as recently as last spring.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Sir.


TERRORISM
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the Turkish Government notify the Minister or any officials of his Ministry with regard to its concerns for the safety of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa prior to the recent terrorist attack?
March 14, 1985


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that question has already been answered by the Minister of National Defence. There was a request made in mid-February. There was a response made by the Government of Canada which was deemed satisfactory at the time by the Turkish Embassy. There has been no communication with the Turkish Embassy or the Turkish Government since that time.


LETTER TO SECURITY AGENCY PERSONNEL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State aware that one week before the attack took place, Pinkerton's sent a letter to its operatives who were guarding the Turkish Embassy, informing them that they had to be more vigilant during this high-risk period? Does the Minister feel that that was sufficient to meet the risks that were brought to the attention of the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such letter. It is precisely for that kind of reason, and for other very obvious reasons, that the invitation has been extended to the Leader of the Hon. Member's Party so that he may be fully briefed on the matter. Hopefully he can make constructive suggestions with respect to finding adequate solutions.


TRAINING OF AGENCY PERSONNEL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he is interested in holding a meeting with my Leader, if he would be kind enough to put, in a letter to us, what it is that he intends to discuss and the parameters of the meeting? Many times I have heard in the House offers to do things that never materialize. Is the Deputy Prime Minister-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Have Ed show up. He'll find out soon enough.


Ian Deans: What is he supposed to do, stand outside the door and wait to be invited in?
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the training requirements for Pinkerton's guards guarding the embassies are three to four hours of instruction in the law regarding the handling of guns, and three to four hours of target practice, and that that is it?


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the last question, if the hon. gentleman would send me a copy of the letter to which he refers, I am sure it would be most helpful.
With respect to the training, as I answered yesterday in response to a similar question, naturally training, or indeed roles with respect to the provision of security at our embassies, is one of those matters that is under intensive review at this very moment, the object being to ascertain whether or not the facts alleged by the Hon. Member are so. They may be so and
Oral Questions
they may not be so, but surely that has to be the subject matter of the kind of intensive review of which I speak.
Again, I would invite them to participate. Surely 1 do not have to send the right hon. gentleman and the Leader of the New Democratic Party a formal, embossed invitation to meet with me. Surely this exchange in public, on the floor of the House of Commons, should be sufficient. If they are at all interested, all they have to do is communicate with me and I will see to it that such a meeting is set up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence informed me that he did ask the Minister of National Defence to appear before the committee and that he could not attend this week. However, he has just said yes, that he will now go, and he said yes to me last Wednesday. What is the conflict?
Yesterday we were told that the North Warning System agreement would be signed this weekend in Quebec City, after only one hour and 40 minutes of very general discussion in committee. Naturally, it is an absolute understatement to say that many crucial questions have not been answered. Will the Minister assure Canadians that there is a clause in the agreement which will, without any doubt or reservation, protect Canada from being tied into future technological developments which Canadians may not want?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday- and certainly in the press package which was delivered and which the Hon. Member has in his possession-immediately upon the signing of the agreement it will be tabled in the House and made public. It may be referred, or taken up on its own initiative, by the standing committee. At that time the answers to all of the questions will be readily apparent and the provisions of the agreement will be public knowledge.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW PROVISION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, we will be waiting for the Minister at 3.30.
The existing NORAD Agreement has built into it a periodic five-year review by Parliament. Will the Minister now assure Canadians-and don't cop out because we deserve answers today before it is signed-that the agreement for a North Warning System will have a five-year review provision in order that the elected representatives of the Canadian people can

March 14, 1985
Oral Questions
examine it? Surely those are questions to which we should have answers before the ink is placed on the agreement.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can see no reason, if the standing committee so chooses, that it should not examine the provisions of the agreement every year-not every five years, but every year.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE TABLED
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence. He has just announced this afternoon that he will be attending a meeting of the defence committee today at 3.30. Is that correct?


Erik Nielsen: No.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Therefore, my question is: when he does go before the committee, or if he does not go before the committee, will he at least table in the House the exact wording of the agreement before it is signed? I put that to him, not only as the Minister of National Defence, but as a professional lawyer. Would he advise a client to sign a contract without first reading the wording?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my appearance before the committee, information has been conveyed to the chairman with a firm committed date for my appearance. I am trying to arrange my schedule to appear sometime next week. If that is at all possible, I will do that. I would be delighted to do that.
With respect to making the agreement public before it is signed, as I indicated yesterday, the agreement is to be signed in Quebec city on March 18. It will then be made public and tabled in the House of Commons.


AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, obviously, to a democratic parliamentary body that is totally unacceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: This Government was supposed to have a new wave of openness. Could the Minister of National Defence go part way? What specific wording in the proposed agreement precludes Canada from participating in a star wars defence system as an inadvertent consequence of signing? Could he at least give us the words which would provide that protection?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it may be unacceptable to the hon. gentleman, but the form of government which we operate under in this country permits-


John Napier Turner: Secret.


Erik Nielsen: Well, the right hon. gentleman has been away for ten years, so maybe he doesn't know.


John Napier Turner: Sign first and tell us later. I love it.


Erik Nielsen: All of the elements of the agreement were in my announcement yesterday.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No way.


Erik Nielsen: The reason they do not believe that is so is because they refuse to accept what is stated here. I can understand the Hon. Member wanting to look at every "t" which is crossed and every "i" which is dotted, but I certainly cannot understand those in the Official Opposition, including the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the former Minister of External Affairs, putting that kind of question. They were the ones who negotiated that very agreement for nine years. They cannot stand here now and tell us they do not know anything about it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. JOHN KERIN, AUSTRALIAN MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings to advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Australian Minister for Primary Industry, the Hon. John Kerin, MP, who is leading a delegation from Australia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY YITZHAK SHAMIR VICE PREMIER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ISRAEL
Mr. Speaker:: May I also advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Vice Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, Mr. Yitzhak Shamir.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would say by way of preamble to Members opposite that the reason we are so curious to know is that, if we were there signing that agreement, it would have been in the national interests of Canada. But, with the flip-flops they have had, we are not so sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 14, 1985


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question on another important matter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the recent discussions which were held with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, and requests which we have received from other allies, such as the United States and Egypt, concerning the commitment of Canada to replacing the Australian contingent in the Sinai Peninsula peace force, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs able to tell us today whether, on behalf of Canada, the Government will make that commitment and become part of the peacekeeping unit in the Sinai?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. He noted appropriately that the request has come to Canada from both Egypt and Israel, as well as other countries which are interested. He will know that the Australian commitment ends in slightly less than 13 months. The Government of Canada is seriously considering the request. We expect to have a response for the requesting Governments within the next few weeks, certainly in time for decisions to be made by the countries which might be affected.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Minister for that response. We can take from the response that the Government is considering, in a positive way, the possibility of becoming involved. We would like to know, at this point in time, what kind of planning is taking place, both within the Government and with our allies, in terms of the composition of the force, the kind of contingent which might be brought forward, and the kind of commitments which would be required. Can he give us some indication of what those requests were and whether in fact we are now in a position to respond to them?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the practice of former Governments, I have made it a practice on matters like the North Warning System, the Strategic Defence Initiative, and others, to call the House of Commons into my confidence, when there is something to announce.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a practice which this Government has renewed, and which we intend to continue. We are now at a stage of actively considering the request. Once that consideration is completed, I will advise Hon. Members of all aspects of that decision.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. According to today's press reports it looks as if the highlight of the summit meeting this weekend between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States will be yet another agreement to study further the effects of acid rain in this country. Acid rain has been studied to death, and the last thing we need in our country, or in the United States, is a further study. Would the Minister assure this House that when the Prime Minister meets with Mr. Reagan this coming Sunday he will demand that the U.S. Government not just enter into another study but provide some concrete program finally to find a solution to this very serious problem?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party would compare the performance of the previous Government with what we have accomplished over the past six months, there is ground for optimism.


Neil Young: We know what the previous Government did, and you are not doing much better.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT DEMAND ACTION
Neil Young: What we want to know from the Minister of the Environment is whether members of this Government are going to stop being a bunch of pussycats on this issue-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: -and demand that the U.S. Government finally do something about acid rain?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to answer that question. Recent polls have indicated, I believe, that Canadians are quite satisfied with this government's approach, and that is the same approach we are going to adopt this coming Monday in Quebec City.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The proposed inspection fee of 67 cents per head of cattle, or a minimum fee of $125 for less

March 14, 1985
Oral Questions
than 100 head of cattle, would be a severe blow to small, provincially inspected plants which now have Agriculture Canada grading. Will the Minister look into the suggestion made by the Ontario Freezer Meat Association that the meat inspection branch have its provincial inspectors do the grading in plants at the time they do their inspection?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member, and I certainly appreciate his concern and the recommendation. I must, however, indicate, Mr. Speaker, that in the Provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, I believe, we have federal-provincial agreements whereby we do share grading and inspection services. However, in the Province of Ontario the provincial plants are inspected under provincial jurisdiction and by provincial inspectors.
I met with the provincial Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Ontario this morning. He did not raise this issue. I share the Hon. Member's concern and, indeed, I can assure him that we will continue to work together so that we can maintain the high standard of inspection and grading. Perhaps we can even improve that system. By working together we will be able to work out some economies, both on the public and the private side.



David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister knows, the pay-out annually under the Western Grain Transportation Act and the Western Grain Stabilization Program is about $600 million. We on this side of the House certainly do not disagree with those expenditures. However, would the Minister explain the fairness, if you will, with regard to denying the request of the Maritime Farmers' Council for emergency funding in the amount of $13.5 million?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member must be greatly misinformed because at no time have I ever denied the request of the Maritime Farmers' Council with reference to additional feed freight assistance. We are having ongoing discussions with representatives of the Maritime Farmers' Council. At no time have I ever rejected such a worth-while and legitimate request.


TIMING OF DECISION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I suggest to him that this inordinate delay in acting upon the request is tantamount to a refusal. In view of his previous statement, would the Minister undertake to assure this House by March 20 or March 25 that he will have a firm
commitment in writing for the Maritime Farmers' Council who are requesting a meagre $13.5 million for emergency funding? Will the Minister give us that assurance?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 would love to give such an assurance but, obviously, common sense would dictate that it would be impossible for me to provide it at this point in time.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans admitted on the public record that the Canada-U.S. Salmon Interception Treaty went through Cabinet in 30 minutes. He admitted on the public record that it was riddled with problems but that the Prime Minister wanted it very badly. One of the Prime Minister's main concerns was how fast could the Cabinet get back to the Americans with it. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that this is the way for a responsible Government, or an independent nation, to make an international treaty? Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that that is the appropriate way to make an international treaty?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate way to make an international treaty is exactly the process which was followed in this case. After many years of negotiating, and after getting around the difficulties of two years ago when the American Senate was not prepared to accept the draft agreement which had then been reached, a negotiating team was set up which represented every user group on the west coast of British Columbia, and all interest groups. As a consequence of that, an agreement was reached. Under our parliamentary system it was then my responsibility to advise the Cabinet, the Government of our country, on whether or not that was an appropriate treaty to enter into. I took that responsibility and I gave that advice.
I say to the Hon. Member that this is not the American system. The United States has a republican democratic form of government. We have a parliamentary democratic form of government.


Raymond John Skelly: I might say that this is the most offensive mechanism that I think any democracy has seen.


YUKON FISHERY
Raymond John Skelly: My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Article 8 of the treaty says that Canada and the U.S. must reach a specific agreement on the Yukon fishery before the treaty comes into force. The Minister today in committee admitted that no such agreement was in place. Would the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the Government bungled this treaty and it is likely,
March 14, 1985

if this treaty is to come into force, it will have to give away the Yukon fisheries?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who is from the West Coast, is better at making statements than he is at reading the text of the treaty. The treaty does not say that Canada and the United States have to enter into an agreement on the Yukon River. What it does say is that both sides will set a range to establish a beginning of negotiation, and they will then meet in October of this year to talk about the Yukon River. The difficulty is that my hon. friend keeps confusing the setting of a range of fish available to either country as a beginning to negotiations with that of a commitment to settle the matter, when it cannot be settled without the negotiations the treaty clearly implies.


CRIMINAL CODE
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I ask the Minister if there is any intention to remove or amend the gambling provisions of the Criminal Code to legalize gambling machines, casinos, or other public gaming places?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we have a very rowdy opposition. There is no present intention to do what the hon. lady refers to in her question. However, there is a request from one of our provinces that certain changes be made-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Which one?


John Carnell Crosbie: -which we have under advisement. It shall remain secret until I reveal it in the next installment.


HOUSING
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Housing in Canada. Last week, spokesmen for the housing co-operative societies of the Greater Montreal area staged a sit-in in the office of the Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul, to protest the $4.5 million cut announced by the Minister in the housing renovation program that was related to co-operative housing. Can the Minister tell us whether he is aware that
Oral Questions
if he stands by that decision, he runs the risk, first of killing co-operative housing in the Greater Montreal area and in all Canadian urban centres, and, second, of witnessing a significant rent increase?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for assisting me in clarifying something which may be unclear in his mind and in the minds of his constituents. There has been no decision made by the corporation on the disposition of non-profit RRAP to which the Hon. Member refers. It is included, along with other programs, in the study that this Minister and the corporation are doing. I would also suggest to the Hon. Member that the decisions made by a Crown corporation are not decisions made by a Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Members were here when we passed the amendments to the Financial Administration Act, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that I am working with the corporation, with the group from his very city whom I met last night, and with the Co-Op Housing Foundation, to find ways, given the fiscal constraints facing this Government, to provide housing units for those in need in Canada.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT GIVE SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDING
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Rather than looking where to make cuts in social housing programs, would the Minister have the courage to do what the former Minister responsible for Housing under the previous Government did, that is get to the Minister of Finance and ask him to provide his Department with extra funding rather than invest $110 million in sending soldiers to Germany?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would only answer questions which are my responsibility. However, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that this Government will not cut co-op housing by 41 per cent as was done by the previous Government. I will inform the Hon. Member that, with co-operation from those who are committed to providing housing in this country, this Government will provide more units in the co-op housing field than that Government did last year, and for fewer dollars.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 14, 1985
Oral Questions


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In November, the Minister announced a $50,000 grant to "Action-Travail", a group that is supporting women who want jobs with the Canadian National. But the said group has not yet received that money. Can the Minister tell us now when his Department will dish out that money so that those women may take their case to the Human Rights Commission?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I recall making that commitment. If they have not received the money already, they certainly will do so. The mighty arm of the law will come to their assistance.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS' APPEAL
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that a cheque will be written out this afternoon and forwarded immediately.
Would the Minister comment on the peculiar way this has been arranged? On the one hand, taxpayers are paying the Human Rights Commission to deal with equal pay and insist on an affirmative action plan at Canadian National. On the other hand, the taxpayers are paying both Canadian National to appeal that decision and the women concerned to continue the case against the appeal. Would it not be better for the Government simply to order Canadian National to institute a realistic plan of action and get on with the matter of hiring women in sizable numbers in Crown corporations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Hon. Member does not seem to understand, and I would have thought she would have, how the Human Rights Commission works. If it thinks there is a reasonable complaint that should be examined, the Commission establishes a human rights tribunal and the tribunal makes a decision. Canadian National is receiving no money from the taxpayers to undertake its appeal. It is a Crown corporation which generates sufficient funds to operate, and it does so independently of government. It is financing its own appeal.
However, the Government, because of its sympathy for the position of the women involved, and because there are important points of law to be determined in this matter, is assisting them to finance their appeal. I think every Member of this House should applaud our action in that regard.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and deals with human resources management. The Minister knows of a purported reorganization of the Economic Development Directorate of his Ministry into what is to be known as a new Economic and Commercial Analysis Directorate. He also knows from reports of the staffing associations that certain staffing procedures have not been observed in this regrouping, indeed some have been judged to be illegal and have been appealed to the Public Service Commission. Will the Minister bring the House up to date on this reorganization and assure us that it is a real reorganization, not a phony one to favour some preferred friends?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the question is appropriate because there has been a complaint. As Hon. Members know, there is a procedure, and it is being followed. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the reorganization to which he refers is being done on the basis of increasing the competence and delivery of services and programs by the Department.
My hon. friend invites me to make a comment which I do not think is appropriate for me to make at this moment because the matter is in a, if not judicial process, a quasi-judicial process, and I will of course abide by the outcome of that process.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, having worked with the Minister, and knowing him to be a fair man and one who respects the law, will he personally intervene in this case if an employee of his is judged to have been laid off irregularly?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think it is my responsibility as Minister to guard with diligence the welfare and working conditions of employees within my Department. I will do that. I am quite prepared to meet with the Hon. Member and discuss the matter further, but I think it will become clear that we do not have a question here of anyone being laid off in the sense of losing their employment in the Department.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. The energy negotiations between the Conservative federal Government and the Conservative Governments of the producing provinces have bogged down for the second time. The Prime Minister
March 14, 1985

promised in his famous red barn speech that a Tory Government would completely eliminate the petroleum gas and revenue tax. It is well known that Conservative Premier Peter Lougheed wants to hold the Government to this promise. Are the Minister of Energy and her Government still committed to the complete elimination of the petroleum and gas revenue tax in an energy agreement?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I say almost daily in the House, negotiations with the western producing provinces are going ahead. There is a meeting today in Calgary. There was a meeting yesterday in Ottawa. At such time as we conclude an agreement I will so report to the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Prime Minister has opened the red barn door and let out the Minister of Finance's horse.


GOVERNMENT REVENUE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: In view of the fact that the spending Estimates indicate that the Government expects to get more revenue from the oil and gas industry than last year, how does it expect to increase its revenue without breaking its promises and holding on to the PGRT?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am not going to negotiate in public when I am negotiating in private with the Energy Ministers. In terms of the Estimates, if the Member will take a good look at the Estimates he will notice that there are PIP payments which must be made as we promised.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) on Wednesday, March 13, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on March 12, 1985. The Speaker, as Members know, does not judge the issue. Only the House can do that. The Speaker must simply decide whether, on the evidence available, there is a case sufficiently strong to justify the setting
Business of the House
aside of the regular business of the House and taking it under immediate consideration.
The Chair has a very delicate situation to deal with. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East sincerely believes that her privileges, and those of all Members, have been violated as a result of a press report of a statement attributed to the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean). I do not think it would be going too far for me to indicate that, given what I read in the press, I can thoroughly understand why the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and other Members were distressed.
Privilege is itself an exception from the normal law and falls within carefully prescribed and narrow bounds, as the Hon. Member indicated herself in her submission. As she also indicated, the question I must decide is whether there is prima facie evidence of a direct threat which attempted to influence Members' actions in the House. The action that is complained of is a statement to a reporter. There are, therefore, two issues: one, would the statement, if made, constitute a breach of privilege; and two, the prior issue, whether the action complained of in fact occurred.
As her evidence that such a statement was made, the Hon. Member relies exclusively on the newspaper report. Hon. Members will know that the Chair has seldom, if ever, given much import to such reports for reasons every Member who has ever been misquoted will understand all too well. In such cases the first question for the Chair is, therefore, the quality of the evidence.
In this case the remarks of the Hon. Secretary of State indicated clearly that the Minister does not deny saying the words complained of. However, he did also say that the report placed his words "in a new context", and that he did not make the threat which has been inferred from the way in which he was reported. As Hon. Members would expect, in a factual conflict between a report in the press and the statement of a Member to the effect that he or she has been improperly quoted, the Chair must always take the word of the Member. 1 do so in this case. No further issues need be resolved therefore, and I rule that a prima facie case of a question of privilege has not been made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend what the business of the House will be for the ensuing week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to announce that I will be allotting next Tuesday as the sixth Opposition Day in the current period of supply.

March 14, 1985
Petitions
With regard to today, tomorrow and next week, it is my intention to call the following Bills in this order: Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act; Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stablization Act; and Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada. It is also possible, Mr. Speaker, that pursuant to the agreement reached on the floor of the House with respect to debate on Bill C-32, and depending upon the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, I could move the resumption of debate on Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act.
Therefore, I will continue to monitor the progress being made with respect to legislation. If changes are to be made in the order of business that I have just announced, I will give the House the earliest possible notice of that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 46(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a paper entitled: "Giving Greater Point and Purpose to the Federal Financing of Post-Secondary Education and Research in Canada."


PETITIONS
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled, I have the honour to present on behalf of some Canadian citizens a petition dealing with the power of Parliament to use fiscal advantages taken away from corporations and reinvest them in the interests of all Canadians.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 59 gas retailers from border municipalities in the constituency of Brome-Missisquoi. The petition is signed by gas retailers operating near the U.S. border who are humbly asking Parliament to instruct the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. C6te) to set a competitive price for gas in their area in order to uphold the right to free competition.
I urge the government to accept that request and take action.



INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS ACT


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill S-3 (from the Senate), an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Zambia, Canada and the Kingdom of Thailand, Canada and the Republic of Cyprus and Canada and the Federative Republic of Brazil for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 30

Mr. Speaker:: I have received two notices of motions under Standing Order 30 and I propose to hear them in the order in which they were received. The Hon. Member for Saint-Mau-rice (Mr. Chretien).



NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE AGREEMENT

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Pursuant to Standing Order 30, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of dealing with an important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the signing four days from now of an agreement between Canada and the United States concerning a warning system in the North.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the debate in the House, I think it is very very important that we debate this situation. Today the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) said he was going to come to the committee. Afte that he said he was not going to come to the committee. Everyone in the nation is confused. The press is asking for a real debate before the agreement is signed. That is why a debate is urgent; there will be no other occasion since the deal will be concluded this Sunday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have been given advance notice by the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice of his intention to move the
March 14, 1985

adjournment of the House under Standing Order 30 to deal with an important matter requiring urgent consideration.
The matter referred to in his notice is indeed very important and is held by the Hon. Member and several of his colleagues as deserving urgent consideration.
I must say, however, that the signing of such an agreement between Canada and another country for the defence of Canada could hardly be considered, in view of the present circumstances, as being really urgent. Clearly, the decision to sign or not to sign such an agreement is the prerogative of the Government. Hon. Members can no doubt complain that the matter was not debated in the House, but the fact remains that such an agreement is a policy decision that should be considered during ordinary debates.
Moreover, there will certainly be an opportunity to deal with this issue very soon, because there are two allotted days left for the consideration of the business supply during the current period.
I must therefore declare that the request made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice does not meet the requirements of Standing Order 30.



IMPENDING SIGNING OF AGREEMENTS WITH UNITED STATES

['Agreed.']
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I also filed with you my intention to move that three matters of urgent importance require the House of Commons to adjourn now in order that we can discuss, in order, the following questions. The reason I suggest that each case constitutes an emergency is that the signing of three agreements or treaties with the United States will take place over this coming weekend.
The three agreements are as follows: an agreement on the salmon fisheries; an agreement on the question of acid rain; and the agreement with respect to the matter raised by my colleague from Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), the North Warning System Defence Agreement.
I believe this is an emergency because the agreements in question have been debated and discussed by the Congress and the Senate of the United States but they have not been debated or discussed by the Parliament of Canada.
My second point is that there is in fact a serious disagreement over the intention of the North Warning System Defence Agreement itself. In fact, there is a conflict in interpretation between those learned commentators for the U.S. and certain members of the administration of the United States Government and the Government of Canada as to the ultimate results of the signing of this agreement. Therefore, this must be debated by the Parliament of Canada in order clearly to determine what will be the ultimate consequence.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Member is putting me in terrible difficulty and he knows it. The Standing Order stipulates very clearly that his right to make a statement at this point is to present to the House the statement he has sent
me in writing. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) presented me with the same difficulty. I am therefore attempting to allow the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) the same leeway that I allowed the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is now putting me in difficulty.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and the House if I am overstepping the bounds but I thought it important to point out why I consider the matter to be an emergency. However, I will not continue with that. I want to suggest, as I have indicated in the letter, that it is of vital importance that these treaties or agreements be looked at by the House in advance of the signing.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I take it that the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice was indicating earlier that my disagreement was that I in fact granted the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain more leeway than I granted the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice in diverging from the statement. That is fair enough.
However, Hon. Members will know in the future that applications under Standing Order 30 are to be made to the Speaker in writing. It is in that letter that the arguments should be made so that the Speaker may have some prior opportunity to think about the matter. The rule very clearly says that the argument made now should not diverge from that which is given to the Speaker in advance.
Indeed, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain gave me notice of his intention to request an emergency debate on three important matters. As must be clear to the Hon. Member, the matter of substance which he has raised has already been dealt with in my previous ruling. As I have already indicated clearly, the concluding of an agreement is a policy decision and policy decisions are matters for normal debate. In addition, an application for a debate under Standing Order 30 should propose one subject only, a single specific matter on which debate should be concentrated. Proposing the same matter three times is not one subject.
I must therefore rule that this application does not meet the requirements of Standing Order 30.


Ian Deans: On a matter of clarification?


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


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a separate point of order because I did not understand the ruling. Would the Speaker clarify one aspect of it? I am not challenging the ruling, I am simply asking. The Speaker indicates that one cannot raise the same matter three times. I am raising three separate matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I misspoke. I concede what the Hon. Member is saying.
The point I was trying to make is that Standing Order 30 allows the raising of a specific matter for debate. If the Hon.

March 14, 1985
Order Paper Questions
Member says he raised three different specific matters, it would clearly be a violation of Standing Order 30, which requires one specific matter for debate.

[ Translation]



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 164, 218 and 241.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many men and women are serving in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	How many (a) men (b) women are (i) Brigadier-Generals or higher (ii) officers lower than Brigadier-General (iii) non-commissioned officers (iv) privates?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The following figures represent the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces Regular Force, as of December 31, 1984:
I. Men - 76,370 Women -	7,260
Total - 83,630
	(a)	(b)
	Men	Women
(i) Brigadier-Generals or higher	122	0(ii) Officers lower than Brigadier-General	15,641	1,276(iii) Non-Commissioned Officers	44,969	3.740(iv) Privates	15,638	2,244


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


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Twenty-six per cent.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1984, were studies regarding child abuse and neglect done for the Department of the Solicitor General by (a) departmental personnel (b) outside consultants and, if so, what are the names and publication dates of the studies?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.
[ Translation]


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: Questions, comments or debate?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Table advises me that as we adjourned a question had been put to the previous speaker. I understood the question was put to the Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). It would now be appropriate for the Hon. Member to respond. Therefore we would now proceed to other questions or comments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had put the question. There was time left to comment on the matter and I wanted to point out that I had talked to the Hon. Member-


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to explain why the Member is not here. I had put a question to the Hon. Member since there were a couple of minutes left. I had a chance to talk to him and I indicated that it would be no disrespect to me if he was not available to answer my question because I knew he was busy. I just wanted to put that on the record because we might be looking for him.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case I think we must move to further comments in the remaining period and, with great respect, shall we leave out any further comments about where the Hon. Member is? Comments on the Hon. Member's speech? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
March 14, 1985


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we all know how very important Bill C-24 is to the development of energy conservation. We have seen in proceedings in this House that there are events which take great precedence over this particular matter. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray):
That the House do now adjourn in protest against the lack of opportunity to debate the critical-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion under the comment or question procedure is entirely out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Resuming debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. With the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order concerning the matter that just transpired.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have already ruled. With great respect to the Hon. Member, I have ruled.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to you, the basic principle of Canadian and British justice is to hear the other side, and it is time for you to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the Hon. Member to resume his
seat.
I have indicated to the Member clearly, as is my obligation when a motion is moved before the House, whether such a motion is in order. Hon. Members must move that motion-I think the Opposition House Leader knows that full well- when in possession of the floor for debate.
I think that matter is well known. If the Hon. Member would like me now to back up and give the Opposition House Leader a chance to indicate why he believes such a different matter would be appropriate, in this one case I will do so. But the Opposition House Leader knows full well what my initial view is. On that basis, since the Hon. Member seems to think that by knowing the rules I am somehow being unfair to the Opposition, I will now let the Opposition House Leader indicate his case.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is the understanding of myself and my colleagues about the rules that a motion to adjourn the House is in order when there is a question before the House. There is a question before the House, and that is whether this Bill should receive second reading. The rule does not say that the Member must have the floor for debate. It says simply that there has to be a question before the House. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to look at Beauchesne and I would be happy to send forward the reference.
Oil Substitution Act
There is a question before the House for debate. My hon. friend, the Member from Fort Garry, had the floor. Therefore,
I submit with the upmost respect that this motion is fully in order and it is something that is capable of being accepted and should be accepted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think I want to make just a couple of observations with respect to the point put forward and in support of what I anticipate will be your judgment, which I think is correct.


John Napier Turner: What does that mean?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Speaker has indicated preliminarily he believes that on questions and comments, which is a procedure which was developed under the provisional rules under which we now operate, a motion to adjourn the House is not appropriate. I simply say I can understand that in terms of logic. I want to put forward on the basis of the rules and the element of logic and fairness that the provisional rules do provide for this part of our debate, but the debate is in addition to what is a traditional debate in the House of Commons.
I think you would probably be inclined to agree, Mr. Speaker, that if a Member has the floor in the course of debate itself, clearly at that time I suppose the motion would be receivable. But when we have a question and answer period, an analogous situation, it is clear you cannot use the period of questions and comments as an opportunity to move a motion to adjourn the House. It is not contemplated. It is not part of our particular procedure and rulings. I would say to the Hon. Member that if he would have a little patience and if the Liberal caucus would mind staying around, eventually I suppose in the course of this debate they will get the floor. I do not agree with anything the Liberals say-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Neither do we with what you say.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -with respect to the legitimacy of the motion they made nor with their attempt to disrupt the House, which I think is regrettable. I ask them to observe the rules, and if they are going to use diversionary and obstructive tactics, I say to them at least have patience and wait until they get the floor legitimately.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, in providing my contribution to this point, I would like to bring to the attention of Your Honour Citation 283(1) of Beauchesne. This citation is found on page 91 of the Fifth Edition. It reads:
(1)	A motion "That the House do now adjourn" is always in order but no
second motion to the same effect may be made until some intermediate
proceeding has taken place.
(2)	A Member may not use a point of order to secure the floor in order to
move the adjournment of the House.
This is a specific case where a motion to adjourn is not in order. As Beauchesne does not enumerate any other situation or conditions where a motion would not be in order, I suggest

March 14, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
to Your Honour that this would be the only case where a motion to adjourn the House would not be in order.
Citation 283(4) reads:
There must be some question before the House for a Member to move a motion to adjourn the House.
I respectfully suggest that there was a question before the House. That appears to be clear. I do not think it has to be demonstrated. Your Honour was in the House and able to ascertain that there was a question before the House. I specifically draw the attention of Your Honour to the fact that Beauchesne says that a motion "that the House do now adjourn" is always in order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I admire the creativity of the argument. I am sorry, I thought the Hon. Member had concluded.


Jacques Guilbault: I wanted also to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 29 which is found on page 20 and reads:
A motion to adjourn, unless otherwise prohibited in these Standing Orders, shall always be in order-
I will not read the last half of the paragraph which is irrelevant to what we are discussing.
With all due respect, I would ask Your Honour to reconsider the motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and to allow the motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That is creative but it has not changed my mind. I will make it simple. The Hon. Member reads Standing Order 29 which supersedes the citation in Beauchesne because it refers to leave to move the adjournment of the House-the Hon. Member made this point himself-"unless otherwise prohibited in these Standing Orders". The prohibition in the Standing Orders relates to what is appropriate during the ten-minute question and answer period after a debate is concluded. That was brought into our rules on an experimental basis in order to allow not debate but specifically, if one wants to go back as far as the original committee report, questions and comments. It specifically says "for no other purpose".
Therefore, while the Hon. Member may seek the floor under debate when it is the Hon. Member's turn to speak on the matter, a motion to adjourn would be in order at that time. But a motion to adjourn during the comment and question period, specified in the rules because Standing Order 29 says that a motion to adjourn is in order unless the Standing Orders specify otherwise.
On that basis, 1 rule the motion out of order.
Questions and comments being concluded, debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Can I be recognized for debate, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: No. The first Member who rose for debate was the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce).
[ Translation]


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in the debate on Bill C-24 dealing with oil substitution and conservation and also with the Canadian Home Insulation Program. I have a few specific remarks to make in support of this Bill.
I would like first to briefly outline the thrust of this Bill, which actually has two distinctive aspects, so that its practical impact once it is passed and enacted may be better understood.
First I would therefore like to stress the fact that this legislation, to amend to Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, relates to the Conservation and non-petroleum sector.
Cutting down on the use of oil and energy generally in Canada remains a major national objective for this Government. The Conservation and non petroleum sector-GNPS as we call it-effectively contributes to the security of supply sought by the National Energy Policy, by improving efficiency in the use of all energy sources, by developing these sources and by turning to energy sources other than oil.
It was under the guidance of the Energy Conservation and Oil Substitution Branch that those two specific programs were implemented for the purpose of helping Canadian homeowners reduce their heating costs by having their homes adequately insulated as provided for by the Canadian Home Insulation Program (CHIP), promoting alternative fuels, and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program (COSP).
Implemented in 1980, the COSP program provided for the payment of taxable amounts of up to $800 for the conversion of any oil heating equipment to natural gas, electricity, propane, wood or any other renewable energy. We should remember that under the existing act, the program will come to an end on December 31, 1990. On the other hand, the CHIP program, implemented in 1977, provides for the payment of taxable amounts of up to $500 for the insulation and draughtproofing of existing houses.
After an exhaustive review of the operation of those programs, it is readily obvious that the time has come to change them, in view of the new energy and economic context that now prevails in this country.
As announced in the economic and financial statement of November 8, 1984, basic changes are called for in the operation of those two programs. The proposals included in the legislation now before the House would provide for the program expiration date to be changed from December 31, 1980, to March 31, 1985. As far as the CHIP program is concerned, it is to be phased out in two operations. That program will therefore end on March 31, 1986, rather than on December 31, 1987. Let me add that these proposals now before the House will be implemented progressively because in both cases the Minister, further to recommendations made by the officials
March 14, 1985

in charge of the work involved in achieving the objectives of both programs, is allowing for additional delays in order to help consumers ascertain the good quality of the work done by the contractors, primarily under the Canadian Oil Replacement Program.
In the case of the Canadian Home Insulation Program, the federal contribution against eligible costs will be reduced in the first instance from 60 per cent to 33 '/5 per cent, as of January 31, 1985. The industry and the Government are planning to terminate this program that will be definitely cut off in its second stage on March 31, 1986. Therefore, the reduction of the Government contribution to the costs of this program is a natural and important step towards an adjustment of our energy policy.
While being aware of the impact of those programs, introduced at a time which I often called the "illusion of scarcity", $80 a barrel, when the price of oil was ever increasing and Canadian homeowners hardly knew about oil substitution, we are prepared today to support Bill C-24 which brings about some changes through a gradual withdrawal of COSP and CHIP programs, with a view to making profitable the framework of the Canadian energy policy.
These measures are all the more necessary that at present, both programs are about to come to an end. As far as oil substitution is concerned, the Canadian people understand a lot better now than 7 or 10 years ago the benefits of energy conservation. They have been able to benefit from it by reducing their heating bills and ensuring a better comfort at home through COSP which, at the end of 1984, had achieved 96 per cent of its goals. The Government contribution and energy savings due to changes made under the CHIP program are outstanding as well. Estimated at about 28,500 barrels of oil a day, the fallouts of this program are reflecting the age of houses that have fully benefited from insulation and airtightness in the various provinces as well as the cost of energy which varies between our regions.
In both regards, the Atlantic region has been the main user of the home insulation program, under which an average of 80 per cent of houses eligible in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have been insulated. In Quebec, Ontario and the Western provinces, about 30 per cent of houses have benefited from this program. Those remarkable rates prove that the Government money has been used to good purposes. However, those programs have lost some of their effectiveness since then. It would therefore be useful for the whole country, instead of making new financial contributions to those programs, to promote some substantial progress in the area of research and new technology which will enable us to tackle the ever existing problem of renewable energy resources and their management.
It is with the general agreement of the Provinces that we are supporting this legislation today, because is has now become essential in the present economic circumstances not to duplicate our efforts in identifying adequately the needs of our future program on the rational use of energy in the home.
Oil Substitution Act
Finally, let us not forget that we can and must no longer continue to have borrowed funds handed out by the Treasury as grants to consumers. In order to make sure that investments in energy conservation are continued, it is obviously better that the Government, having beforehand seen to it that the investments in that area are put to good use, should act as a catalyst sensitive to the information needs of users and suppliers, to the technical problems still unresolved, and to the improvement measures which could still be implemented with regard to the use of energy.
Quite obviously the Government can no longer afford to subsidize consumers, and the Bill now before the House is a necessary and essential step in our quest for a fresh approach in that field. Since it was an illusion, it is imperative that we avoid all waste which may stem from the lower efficiency of the programs introduced a few years ago and from duplication which is due mostly to the existence of similar federal and provincial energy conservation programs.
Having decided to examine the results achieved so far under energy programs and projects, we would like to make some progress in energy conservation in Canada, primarily by using the money we might save by terminating those two programs. It has been estimated that we will save something like $180 million in fiscal year 1985-86, and $315 million in 1986-87.
It is because we aim to strengthen our structures in the energy conservation sector that we support Bill C-24. This is our way to assume our responsibilities with respect to the over-all Canadian energy conservation issue, and we are preparing a better future by trying to make Hon. Members consider this Bill as being more than a simple change of course in our home energy conservation program.
We are getting ready to redefine our energy policy so that, in future, Canadians will no longer have to face such costly heating bills. By eliminating programs which are already obsolete and which no longer meet the requirements and standards of our current energy sector analysis, we will make room for new incentive measures.
The so-called oil shortage denounced by the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Lalonde, was indeed nothing more than an illusion. The positive aspect of that incident is that all Canadians had an opportunity to find out that there are other energy sources besides oil-black gold, as it is sometimes called.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know that the Hon. Member is a very reasonable Member even if he does have some incredibly hot old cars that he keeps as a hobby. By hot I mean good looking old cars, not stolen old cars.
I wonder if the Hon. Member and his colleagues would be prepared to consider a proposal. I have a number of letters from constituents, as does the Hon. Member for Thunder

March 14, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). We have also discussed this matter with other Members of the House.
These programs are to be cut off at an arbitrary date, but there are businesses in northern Canada which are still ordering parts for people. They must get these parts shipped in but they will be cut off by the deadline. There are other places in which pipelines are being built and the program is being cut off too early. I do not want to see this program cut off at all. There are other people who are lining up to get contractors, but the contractors are all booked up to the deadline.
Would the Hon. Member and the Government be prepared to consider extending the deadline for cutting off the program? I could show the Hon. Member in committee that there is sufficient need for it in the outlying areas where people will be done a great injustice because they do not have the same opportunity as Canadians in other parts of the country. Would the Hon. Member and his colleagues be prepared to consider that if I can show that kind of evidence in committee?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that my cars are not "hot". I built them with my own hands. And when he says he received a number of letters, it worries me, because when my hon. friend has letters, that is something to worry about.
As far as the question is concerned, I think the subject has been abundantly discussed in committee. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, to whom I put the same question, and there was a very thorough discussion. We were promised that for contracts signed before November 8, the deadline could be extended beyond March 31, but for contracts signed after November 8, it was agreed-and that was the solution the majority of the committee decided on-there would be no extension.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), for questions or comments.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question put by my hon. colleague a little earlier, and it is this: In a number of cases in the province of Ontario, and especially in Eastern Ontario, electric furnaces were installed by contractors, and Ontario Hydro's list of people where it has to carry out inspections before March 31 is so long that there will be no final inspections. This is a situation where the contractors acted in good faith but people will not get their grants because an agency of the Conservative Government of Ontario is unable to provide this service. Could the previous speaker tell the House whether he thinks this is fair?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce).


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, either my hon. friend is not telling the truth or he is misinformed.


An Hon. Member:: He is not telling the truth!


Vincent Della Noce: No, Mr. Speaker. Because if I remember correctly, what we said in committee was that the deadline for inspections would be extended, and that was the whole point. In fact, the inspections were not the only problem, and in any case, the party the Government belongs to is totally irrelevant. As I was saying, there was another problem namely with natural gas, because the ground was frozen, and that is something beyond our control.
It was agreed in committee that the deadline for inspections would be extended in such cases.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the subject introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). In northern Manitoba and in the City of Flin Flon in particular, people applied for assistance after November 8, but because of the nature of living in the North, in remote or farm communities or elsewhere, they cannot get the equipment installed by March 31. Certainly they made the application after November 8, but they do not live in Toronto or in the City of Montreal, they live in remote areas. It will take time to get that equipment put in place.
If the Government is going to be strong-headed and abolish the CHIP and the off-oil programs, that is its business and it can take the blame for doing so. However, why punish people in the North? Why not extend the deadline for the program so that these people will have the same chance to qualify as people who live in some of the larger cities in this country?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will understand that when this question was asked, a few words were said indicating that we have to treat everyone equally and we cannot draw a magic line somewhere. I think that makes sense. Some people do not understand that and want us to believe that we must draw a special line at a certain place. I do not think it is possible to do so. The Hon. Member can read the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister who spoke about that matter. If the Hon. Member were to read that speech, he would get the answers.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) rise for a question or a comment?


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, the speech of the Hon. Member was a most interesting one. I have a question for him since we have been speaking of house insulation. He knows that thousands of Canadians, and more precisely 80,000 Canadian families, are still facing the problem of urea formaldehyde foam. And he knows also that his colleague, the Honorable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote), has received representations about the UFFI. Could he tell the House whether or not he secured funds for the victims of the
March 14, 1985

UFFI before this program is abolished and budget cuts are made by his government? Those people were supported by the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who advocated full compensation for them when he was on this side of the House. Did the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) make sure that that full compensation requested by his party when they were in the opposition will be granted now that they are on the government side?


Vincent Della Noce: I thank my colleague. As I said a moment ago, the program was fully operational, and I could see that my colleague was quite pleased about it, because it is a fact that it went well. However, the problem just raised by my colleague is one which we have inherited, we got stuck with it. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) is looking into it, and it seems that he has taken the issue very seriously because he has already raised the matter with our energy committee. I am confident a solution will be found, but 1 cannot say any more about it because we are still searching. But I remain confident since the Minister went to the trouble of consulting us to seek our views.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to listen to the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) who, in my opinion, is one of a handful of Conservative Members who is objective and does not spend his time congratulating himself. He said-and just admitted again-that it was an excellent program which met the needs of the people, and he also admitted that a great many Canadian men and women could still use it to insulate their home. He went on to say that his Government has been left in a financial mess by the previous administration, but would he not agree that his Government would have been better advised not to spend $56 million to change the colour of our military uniforms, and $110 million to send our forces spend their money in Lahr, in Germany, that it should have given those millions of dollars to Canadians, knowing as he certainly does that the home insulation program made people spend less on energy besides creating jobs in all regions of Canada?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, that is just like my colleague, he simply will not give up rehashing the issue of military uniforms. I want to confine my remarks to petroleum. Should he go over my speech, he would find out that I did not denounce the program, I said that enough is enough, that we must think about something else. Everything comes to an end.
With respect to insulation, my colleague knows that the program will last for a while yet, he should know that it will continue for another year so that Canadians will have further opportunities to use it, but the program cannot remain unchanged until 1990. I was never taken in by the illusion of the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I will remain convinced that it was just that, an illusion. I liked the program, sure, but illusions I could do without. Illusions are over!
Oil Substitution Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to make some comments on the Hon. Member's speech because I disagreed with some of the things he said. I want to tell him that when I referred to his cars as "hot cars", I meant fast, beautiful and worth collecting.
There is another matter which arose in the House this afternoon about which I am very concerned. While this Bill about oil substitution is very important, the Government has entered into several agreements concerning defence, fisheries and other things, which have taken away the sovereignty of the country. It is a fast public relations exercise for the American President. That is not the way we in the NDP believe Canada should be governed.
Accordingly, we will take the only move which we can. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House do now adjourn.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Attewell
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blais
Blenkarn
Blouin (Mrs.)
Bourgault (Mrs.)
Boyer
Brightwcll
Brisco
Browcs (Mrs.)
Cadicux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney (Miss)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Collins (Mrs.) Comeau Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cdte
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosbic
(Si. John's West) Darling Daubncy de Cotret Della Nocc Desjardins Domm Duplcssis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Gass
Gerin
Gervais
Gormley
Greenaway
Grise
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamclin
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Horner
Jacques
(Mrs.)
James
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-Conception) Joncas Kellcher Kempling Kindy King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming) Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
McCrossan
McCuish
McDermid
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
Merrithew Minaker Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
O'Neil
Oostrom
Peterson
Pietz
Plamondon
Price
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Ricard
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenbergcr
(Wctaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow (Mrs.)
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stevens
[Stage Direction]
Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg) Thacker Toupin Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Weiner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Winegard Witer-123.

Mr. Speaker:: 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 Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan)-Energy- Negotiations with western provinces, (b) Petroleum and gas revenue tax; the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy)-Regional Economic Expansion-Government aid to Domtar. (b) Important economic projects for Quebec-Government position; and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Terrorism-Role of Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (b) Surveillance of anti-Turkish terrorists.



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. Speaker:: Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Questions or comments?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


HON. STANLEY KNOWLES FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION AS HONORARY OFFICER OF HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Before exercising my duty pursuant to Standing Order 45, may I advise Members of a happy event. We should have done it yesterday perhaps, but we did not have a vote. A year ago yesterday, we elected a certain gentleman here as honorary officer of the House. I thought Members might join with me in wishing him first anniversary wishes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presumably questions and comments are at the end of the speech.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. About an a hour and a half has elapsed during the ringing of the bells. 1 wonder if you would take under advisement the question of whether that time counts with respect to discussion on the Bill. I just raise this by way of preliminary observation. Under Standing Order 75c, there has been a judgment rendered by your predecessor that during that particular proceeding the time which elapsed during the ringing of the bells counted in the time allotted under those particular rules.
It would be interesting for you to consider, in view of the fact that the motion to adjourn the House was made in the context of this debate and subsequently came to vote, whether the time that has elapsed during the ringing of the bells should be included in the calculation of time under the rules.
March 14, 1985

I know that the normal inclination of the Chair will be that where it is appropriate to expedite the passage of legislation, if there is any question in one's mind, one will make sure that the due process of consideration of the Bill will be given favourable attention as opposed to allowing diversionary or obstructionary tactics to interfere with the due process of the passage of legislation through the House.
I do not want to speak for another five minutes, but I think it would be appropriate for Your Honour to consider whether, in view of the precedents on the books at this time, that time should be counted.


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker has been told in the past that he sometimes rules on these matters too quickly. I think in context I will take the matter under advisement, and I accept the fact that the Hon. Member was trying to speak right through to five o'clock.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to Your Honour when you said that you want to take the matter under advisement and render a decision later. Before rendering an appropriate decision, you may want to hear a little more. I would point out that there is a danger attached to the proposal made by the Hon. House Leader. Some day during a debate that may be extremely embarrassing to the Government. It may call the adjournment of the House and expect that to be counted as time in the debate. I would like you to have both sides of the story before making a final decision.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Government House Leader, has a great sense of humour, but when it comes to making a great argument on a point of privilege, with all due respect, he has been less than convincing today. I respectfully suggest that he should not be allowed to have his argument stand in such a way as to mean that my silence on behalf of the Official Opposition can in any way be taken as assent to a very spurious argument.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has made an excellent point. If the argument of the Government House Leader were accepted, it would be open to abuse by a Government which wished to choke off debate. That could never have been the intention of the rules or of any precedents with respect to this matter.
In conclusion, I would respectfully say that the argument of the Government House Leader is particularly specious and in bad odour on a day when government Members prevented or were unwilling to agree to a full and open debate on a very important matter, namely, the terms and conditions of the agreement on the North Warning System.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter into any discussion of this matter. I considered it to be such nonsense that I anticipated a ruling indicating that that was the case. Lest my silence, which would be my normal posture, were to be interpreted in any way as agreement with the Government House Leader, I want to say that the points raised both by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the Opposition House Leader, the Hon.
National Parks
Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), are valid. In addition, I suggest that we would have been willing to have spent the last hour debating the treaties that this Government is denying the House of Commons and the people of Canada an opportunity to see and to understand.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: There being nobody else on this point of order, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) on a separate point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) started his speech with an adjournment motion, may I assume that we can now begin our 10-minute questions and comments on his speech? Is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Let me suggest that that matter will be dealt with when we return to the matter. It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Speaker:: Could I seek the consent of the House to move to Item No. 167?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of continuing negotiations with the British Columbia Government to find ways, in cooperation with the Native people, of creating a national park at South Moresby, in the Queen Charlotte Islands, as urged by UNESCO.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having put the motion before the House. This motion in essence boils down to the desirability of the Government and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) continuing negotiations with the British Columbia Government so that ways can be found to create a national park and possibly a national marine park at South Moresby.
South Moresby is truly one of the few remaining examples of the greatness that nature is capable of producing. It encompasses some 139 islands and includes 43 freshwater lakes. On those islands are found some flowering plants which are

March 14, 1985
National Parks
unique in the world. Virgin rainforests, red cedar, Sitka spruce and western hemlock are found on those islands. As well, yellow cypress, which rank with the largest remaining trees in the world, are found there. There are some 16 kilometres of coastal shoreline, which is home to whales, porpoises, seals and sea lions. We are informed that it is also home to 25 per cent of all nesting sea birds on the Canadian Pacific, including the peregrine falcon and the bald eagle. Seven land mammals can be found in South Moresby, including the world's largest black bear and the unique pine martin with orange under-fur. There are over 50 salmon-spawning streams in the South Moresby region.
South Moresby is nationally significant both from the land and the marine perspective. We have an opportunity to protect significant cultural heritage and values that are associated with the Haida culture. In addition, South Moresby is of international significance. It has been recognized by UNESCO which has urged Canada to do all that is in its power to preserve the area not only as a national heritage region but as a world heritage region.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, as you are one of the privileged few who have had the opportunity of visiting South Moresby, this area has an overwhelming beauty unmatched in the world today. Each island has a character distinctive unto itself. At this point, 1 would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who in 1980 put forward a motion for the retention and protection of the original beauty of this particular area.
The position of the native people regarding South Moresby is a very significant one and must be put on record. It is that South Moresby is regarded as a critical area for the retention of their cultural heritage, and the area is covered by the Haida land claim. The Haida people support the creation of a wilderness area wherein they would have the right of traditional resource use. They welcome the concept of the creation of a park in a way that would strengthen their ways of life and their economic activities.
The Government of Canada put forward a proposal to the Government of British Columbia to explore together the pos-sibilites of creating a national park and a national marine park in the South Moresby area, possibly complemented by a provincial park. This proposal was made in response to the South Moresby land use alternative report released by the British Columbia Government in February, 1984. Subsequent to that, the British Columbia Cabinet announced its intention to visit the islands, and a group of five Cabinet Ministers did so in June of last year. However, to date, to the best of my knowledge, we are still waiting for a decision to be made by the B.C. Government as to the future of these islands while logging continues. If the British Columbia Government rules against the preservation of South Moresby as a national park or a national marine park, logging of the island will continue unabated.
I would like now to paint for you, Mr. Speaker, a brief global picture of the logging situation according to the latest figures we were able to gather. In 1984, trees were felled
throughout the world at a rate of some 50 acres per minute. In the past 30 years, we have cut over one-half of the earth's virgin forests. The deforestation of the past 75 years has resulted in the loss through erosion of an estimated 75 billion tons of topsoil. It is against this background that we must look at the virgin forests that we still have in Canada and decide on the merits of retaining them for future generations.
Logging on the Queen Charlotte Islands is an example of the over-exploitation that is taking place in all of British Columbia. Habitat destruction has taken place on a very large scale. Recent studies show that six times as many landslides occur on logged sites as on natural sites. This is one of the reasons why the people on Meares Island have recently registered such a strong public message against logging on their island. It is understandable that they are opposed to logging on their island in the light of the experience of the communities along the British Columbia coast so far.
Of course, we are running out of time, and the time to act on South Moresby is now. That is why, through this motion, I am asking the Government to continue the efforts and negotiations already started. In this context, I am glad to report that in June of last year, on the eve of the federal election, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, outlined the Conservative position in a letter to the Islands Protection Society, the Queen Charlotte Islands environment group that champions the South Moresby cause. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey wrote the following:
I would like to confirm that the area is viewed as a unique and sensitive natural ecological system that deserves respect and protection, and we feel a "Canadian" responsibility ... In short, the federal Progressive Conservative Party, if in a position to do so following a federal election, would be prepared to actively participate with the British Columbia Government in the establishment of a "park at South Moresby".
I am sure the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey is still of the same opinion and that he did not make this suggestion out of greed for power. He did not need to do that. He did it because he felt very strongly about this issue, and I commend him for having done so.
More recently, on February 7, 1985, The Vancouver Sun quoted the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) as saying:
I couldn't care less if it's a national park or a provincial park, or anything else. 1 would just like to see a park.
Those two Members are to be congratulated and supported for having made these statements. Of course, the question is whether the spirit which they have expressed is shared and supported by the Government which they support and represent.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House to the fact that the preservation of South Moresby is supported by hundreds of organizations which represent hundreds of thousands of members. I would like to mention a few. Those organizations include the Alberta Wilderness Association; the B.C. Native Brotherhood; the B.C. Wildlife Federation; the
March 14, 1985

Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied Workers Union; the Canadian Nature Federation; the Confederation of Canadian Unions, B.C. Council; Elsa Canada; the Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C.; the Federation of B.C. Naturalists; the Federation of Ontario Naturalists; the Friends of the Earth; the Friends of Ecological Reserves of B.C.; the Graham Island East Coast Farmers Institute; the Haida Nation; the Islands Protection Society; the National and Provincial Parks Association of B.C. and Canada; the Northern Trollers Association; the Ottawa Field Naturalists; the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.; the Pacific Seabird Group; the Progressive Conservative Caucus of B.C. and Canada; the Prince George Naturalist Club; the Pulp and Paper Woodworkers of Canada, Local 4; the Queen Charlotte City and Skidegate Landing Advisory Planning Commission; the Queen Charlotte Islands Tour Operators Association; the Saskatchewan Federation of Naturalists; the Sierra Club of Ontario and of Western Canada; the Simon Fraser University Student Society; the Tourism Industry Association of Canada; the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, and the World Wildlife Fund. Those organizations have gone on record in support of creating a lasting place in the form of a park on South Moresby for present and future generations to enjoy.
Inevitably, when tackling this issue, one must consider the question of the exploitation of our forest. As we all know, in British Columbia, 120,000 hectares of mature forest land are cut every year, while only 50,000 hectares are replanted, not all of them successfully. There is a need for the MacMillan Bloedels of this world to start managing our forests in a manner which would take into account the necessity of rotating the yields and the necessity of better managing the public lands which have been given to them for their utilization. They must acknowledge that we can no longer permit the creation of lunar landscapes whenever deforestation is launched. There must be a commitment to ensure that there is growth for future yields on the same sites. They must consider, when cuts are taking place, the damage to spawning grounds, habitat destruction, native rights and cultures, the logging which is so profoundly resented, the damage which is caused to anchorage facilities, the spawning grounds which are wiped out, and the long-term, serious effects which it will have on the tourism industry.
The time has come for us to look at the way in which we exploit our natural resources. We must ask ourselves if we should draw the line and stop logging and cutting the few virgin forests which are left in Canada. We must better manage the lands and the forests which we have already started to exploit. I am sure that can be done on a rotating basis in a manner which will permit us to do better on the lands which we have already started to harvest, and in a manner which will permit the rotation of the lands which have already been assigned to forest utilization. We must call a halt once and for all to the exploitation of the few virgin sites which we still have in this country, which are the objects of immense interest, for ecological and other reasons, to Canadians and the global community. South Moresby is one of those areas.
National Parks
Over the years we have allowed greed to play a major role in our approach to forests and our desire for an industry whose approach has been more one of mining the resource than of ensuring a careful, thoughtful, long-term approach in order that the cycle would occur again and provide harvests for future decades. We must respect the frail ecological character of those areas, particularly the ones along the West Coast.
It is clear that the survival of man is dependent upon our approach to natural resources. That argument has been valid for centuries, but it is becoming more and more so as we begin to approach shortages in our natural resources. We must ask ourselves whether the time has come for us to rethink our approach with respect to forests. We must find ways to preserve the forests which have not yet been touched by man and which are, in a way, the object of this debate.
It is clear that there are certain areas which must be left intact. It is also clear that Governments must accept their responsibility and make every effort to preserve our heritage for future generations. That is what the debate on South Moresby is all about. It is a unique site which has attracted the attention of former U.S. Presidents who have visited the site during their vacations, as well as of other outstanding personalities of the world who, like all of us in this Chamber and across the country, have a sensitivity for the beauties of nature and the ecological richness that the Islands offer in one of the most remote areas of our beautiful nation.
I urge the Government to keep the promise it made during the election campaign, through the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey, and to heed the call in The Vancouver Sun for the creation of a park, as expressed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. What is needed is a negotiation process with the provincial Government of British Columbia for the creation of a national park.
Beyond the question of that particular location, is the vexing issue of how we manage our forest resources. I know there is increasing public concern about the way in which we handle our forest resources and the profoundly-felt necessity that we must draw a line between the sites which have already been commerically exploited. We must make a provision for the areas which have not yet been touched so that they will remain available to future generations.
South Moresby is a classic example. Meares Island is another one. Evidently the public and the native people are very concerned about this matter. It is the responsibility of the provincial Government in the first place, but it is also the responsibility of the national Government, particularly when the request is made by an international body like UNESCO. We should listen to the messages that are coming to us from the public and make provisions for the future. I believe that as a nation we will be that much more rich and endowed if we are able to one day inaugurate and include in the second centennial of Parks Canada a real gem, the potential park of South Moresby, because it is one of the most unique sites in the world. A national park at South Moresby would be a special

March 14, 1985
National Parks
attraction for Canadians and for all the inhabitants of this globe who enjoy and love the beauty of nature. I am sure that all Hon. Members will concur with my conclusions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about the order of speakers. I have not had a chance to talk with the Parliamentary Secretary. I will be speaking on the Bill from my Party's point of view, and I wonder if he would not want to wait until I had made my contribution, following which he could reply perhaps to both Parties. Or does the Hon. Member want to keep to the order of speaking now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member is going to make some sort of arrangement, he should do it before Private Members' Hour. I did not see the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) rising. I saw the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) rising and, therefore, in order that we can carry on and not waste any time in this Private Members' Hour, I will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we did not have an opportunity to discuss the Hon. Member's suggestion previously. I think it is a useful suggestion and I will keep it in mind for another occasion.
I was most interested in the comments of the mover of the motion, particularly because of his past experience with this issue and the responsibility he has had along the way for environmental issues. I believe his comments bear considerable weight on that ground alone. A number of environmental problems exist in this country, a number of opportunities have been missed historically and a number of wrongs need to be righted. I would like to indicate as clearly as I can, Mr. Speaker, that the sense of this motion itself is something which I can support, and I feel that probably all Hon. Members of this House can support this Bill with very little difficulty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: There is no argument with many of the details which the Hon. Member has placed before us in terms of geography, the uniqueness of the area and the real importance that area has from an ecological point of view. However, I take exception to the premise that what is in the motion has not already been accomplished. There is the suggestion that commitments, or interpretations of commitments, may not have been fulfilled by this Government. I can give several recent examples to the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), Mr. Speaker, which pertain directly to this point.
I am sure the Hon. Member will recall that during an Opposition Day one week ago commitments were made by members of the Government on the control of acid rain. During the election campaign there were commitments made that within a period of six months the Government would bring forward an action plan which would provide tangible and real progress in the control of acid rain in this country. That
was a commitment which was made, and this Party, this Government, has fulfilled that commitment to the letter. The Government has fulfilled almost precisely the tone and intent of the commitment. We have fulfilled our obligation to the Canadian public, and we intend to make sure that legislation will be enacted in that way. There are other examples of commitments we have fulfilled which relate not only to acid rain but in terms of the CN double-tracking and a broad range of issues which developed and were difficult to deal with because appropriate action had not been taken in the past. If action was taken in the past, it was too slow or inappropriate, which put at risk a number of areas including the environment. Lack of action put at risk native rights and economic development in the West as far as the double-tracking was concerned. Because of the fact that commitments have not been fulfilled in the past or in terms of process had not been conducted properly we are left with these problems. I know the Hon. Member will be interested in the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), because of the interventions he was able to make, is in the process of working out a conclusion to what was a totally unsatisfactory situation from almost everyone's point of view. So it looks as though we are going to solve another one of the problems we were left with.
The Hon. Member mentioned commitments made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election campaign to groups which were interested in establishing a national park in the South Moresby area. I can tell the Hon. Member that the commitment made during the last several months has been fulfilled. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) has had at least two meetings directly with the Minister of the Environment of British Columbia and is actively trying to develop a program which would see that area become a protected area. As the Mnister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) indicated, it will be protected on some basis, but there are a number of options to be considered. The final conclusion depends on continuing discussions and decisions which need to be taken by the Government of British Columbia. But our commitment has already been fulfilled. It is another example of action rather than just discussion.
We have had in the past many examples of recognition, for instance that of the terrific abuse of our forests historically. I personally have had meetings with native groups from different areas and they have told me about the great abuse of our forests in the past. That abuse cannot be corrected in one month or six months, Mr. Speaker, because it has developed and evolved over many years. During the last 16 years, the Government of Canada has been controlled by one particular Party. It has been controlled in part by Hon. Members who were Ministers of the Crown and who, despite good intentions, good words and, perhaps, even good understanding, were really incapable of achieving action which would result in the saving of the areas of importance in an ecological sense as well as from a forestry point of view. There were things which we would have liked to have seen accomplished in the past which have not been accomplished. The Minister of the Environment
March 14, 1985

is in the process now of negotiations and discussions with the Minister of the Environment of British Columbia.
I think the Hon. Member who moved the motion would be interested to know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) recently visited the Queen Charlotte Islands and the native group in that area. That Minister made his views known to the Minister of the Environment. He is very supportive of the idea of protecting the area from undesirable development, yet he is looking at it as a possible area for tourism and a potential pilot project for allowing a native band to control or manage an area. I do not know if all those things can be accomplished, but I wanted to add the Minister's name to the list because he has made the effort to visit the Islands and discuss the problems with the native groups affected, and his comments have been related to the Minister of the Environment. That makes three Ministers of the Crown who have indicated their support for a reasonable resolution of this opportunity, which this is, on behalf of the Canadian environment and the Canadian people.
It might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, to explain how a national park might be developed. While we were in opposition, we indicated a very clear disposition to assist in the continued development of a national parks system in Canada. In the last month of the last Parliament we supported on very short notice an amendment to the National Parks Act which established a new national park in the Mingan Islands. At that time, the Hon. Member for Davenport was the Minister, although I think he was absent. In supporting that motion we indicated our support for expansion when possible of the national parks system. In addition to that, however, there is a process which needs to be understood. It is not a unilateral process. It must be undertaken in co-operation and in conjunction with the provinces, and this is precisely what has been undertaken with the province of British Columbia. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, given the kind of relationship this Government has established with the provinces, we have an excellent opportunity of achieving the maximum degree of co-operation with the provinces as compared to other Governments in the recent past. If we continue that kind of constructive relationship, we can except to get the most positive and favourable results.
Parks Canada has defined 48 natural areas across the country in conjunction with future park expansion. Each one has specific attributes. Included in this is South Moresby which has been clearly identified by Parks Canada, and this is part of the process which can ultimately add to the establishment of a national park there. For reasons the Hon. Member has already mentioned, this area is certainly unique in Canada and perhaps in the world. It has been called by many groups the second archipelago. I have not had the opportunity of personally visiting that particular piece of the Canadian landscape, but I have seen an excellent selection of well-documented presentation slides which exposed me to flora and fauna which I did not really know existed in Canada. So there is no question that we have a unique opportunity, but clearly we must follow a process in co-operation with the province and
National Parks
native groups as well as the long list of environmental groups concerned.
The Hon. Member indicated that the Parks Canada centennial could be recognized in this way. He will know that the first national park in Banff 100 years ago was created almost by accident, and I do not know that anyone really could have anticipated the extent to which we have developed a national parks system across this land. But with 31 national parks, as well as a number of areas under active consideration to become parks, I think it is a particularly appropriate time to recognize the contributions made over many years by many individuals, groups and Governments to the development on behalf of the Canadian public of a system of parks that we can all be proud of.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back a little to commitments and obligations and to the premise of this motion. I do not think the motion is completely redundant in that the Hon. Member is using this opportunity to bring forward his views and those of others, and I am happy to have had the opportunity to express mine. But the motion really lacks anything extraordinary over and above what the Minister of the Environment has already done, is continuing to do, and will hopefully be able to bring to a successful conclusion in the future. So the motion has really little place in the whole scene, if you will. It is in and of itself redundant. The thought is genuine, I am sure, and it is supported by the Government and is being acted on by the Government, which, again, is in contrast to the past.


Mr. Caccia:: When will you announce the park?


Gary Michael Gurbin: The Hon. Member knows this is not a process which is put on an exact schedule or time-frame. He was the Minister of the Environment for a period of time. I cannot remember exactly how long his predecessor was there, but I believe it was several years. This process was not started yesterday and will not finish tomorrow. If we continue with the positive approach and constructive dialogue which the Minister is undertaking, I hope we will have a positive conclusion in which we can all take some satisfaction.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the NDP and on my own behalf because I visited this area a couple of times. I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) that I am really disappointed in the attitude he took in his speech. I would ask him to reconsider.
As I understood his speech, he said he can support the motion. Those were his words. However, he thinks the motion is redundant and therefore the Government is not going to let it through today. That is what I understand from his speech. He feels that the process is going ahead and therefore we do not need the motion.

March 14, 1985
National Parks
Mr. Speaker, do you recall my bringing forward a motion in the House to acknowledge what the Chinese Canadians had done for Canada? You were speaking for the Conservative Party at that time. You and I convinced the Government that it would be an important signal if the Government let that resolution through. The world would not end because that resolution went through, or a new world would not be born. However, Mr. Speaker, it gave a signal to our Chinese Canadian community. I have heard that motion talked about by that group. I have heard people from that group mention speakers from all three Parties. The Government was big enough to let the motion go through.
Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying, it is a very important signal to allow this resolution to go through. The Government is getting a bad reputation on the environment. I know that it has done something with acid rain, but the impression of the Canadian public is that the initiative on acid rain was taken very quickly in order to have something with which to meet President Reagan. The Government does not have a good reputation on the environment. The first cut-backs were in the environment area. The reaction of the Canadian public was absolutely fascinating. There was real public opinion out there. It was not just Members of Parliament getting up and shouting. There were letters and a genuine swell of public opinion. It was reflected by the Government's own back-benchers who said that the Minister had better review those cuts.
Canada has changed. The environment has come of age in Canada. The work done in the 1960s and 1970s has come to fruition. Canadians are not anti-development. However, a modern Canadian is very conscious of the fact that he or she wants to live in a good environment. Canadians also know that we probably have one of the best environments in the world and they are not prepared to let that environment go to waste. That was the message, and if the Government did not hear that message it will have some political troubles and it is indeed deaf.
I am tired of hearing the Government say that the Liberals had 13 or 16 or 33 or 85 years, or whatever they had. I was critical of the Liberals. I know they had a lot of time. It so happens that the Member who introduced this motion is a former Minister of the Environment. He served in that capacity for only a short period of time, but he was very distinguished as Minister of the Environment and showed great promise. Let us not have any more of this needless, partisan rhetoric. This is not a partisan motion. The motion says that:
the Government should consider the advisability of continuing negotiations with the British Columbia Government to find ways, in cooperation with the Native people, of creating a national park at South Moresby, in the Queen Charlotte Islands, as urged by UNESCO.
It is not a partisan motion. It takes time to do these things, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in his own speech. Would the Parliamentary Secretary please grow up and have the Government grow up and approach these matters in the way in which they should be approached? They are not in opposition
any more. They are the Government. They are it. They can do it. If the Government is in favour of the resolution, why not pass it? It is a very important signal.
As I said, I have been to that site. That does not make me anything special, but I would like to make some comments about what it is like. As the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said, I presented Private Member's Bill C-454 in the last Parliament. A group called the Western Canada Wilderness Community interviewed 94 MPs in that last Parliament. Seventy-five were in support of the Bill, one was not in support, and 19 were non-committal. There was support at that time and there is support in the House today.
South Moresby Island is internationally recognized as an outstanding biological, geographical and cultural area. The Member for Davenport covered a lot of ground, but I do not think he had time to tell you what that means. The UNESCO convention is a treaty among 60 nations which recognizes that the world's natural and cultural heritage transcends national boundaries and must be identified, protected and preserved for future generations. Among the world heritage sites are the pyramids of Egypt, the cathedral at Chartres, the ancient city of Damascus, the centre of Rome, the Galapagos Islands, Mount Everest National Park in Nepal, Yellowstone National Park, and Venice.
We want to add South Moresby Island. It has been determined, by an international organization, that that area of Canada is of that standard. We should be pretty proud of that. The coastline of South Moresby has exposure to both the Hecate Strait and the open Pacific. It has a rich variety of shorelines including sea caves, sandy beaches, tidal falls, hidden coves, shallow reefs and safe anchorages. The area contains a remarkable variety of intact ecological systems ranging from the San Cristoval alpine environment to the freshwater Victoria Lakes and from the Skincuttle Inlet marine gardens to the bonsai forest of Gowgaia Bay.
Moresby Island is home of the world's largest subspecies of black bear and the rare peregrine falcon. The unusual salt marshes are part of the migratory flyway of the Pacific Coast, and there are numerous highly productive salmon streams. The virgin rainforests of the area have Canada's largest and tallest red cedar, sitka spruce and western hemlock. Moresby Island was inhabited by the Haida Indians until the last century and includes numerous archaeological and village sites.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you have seen the picture of the totem poles which are falling in the rainforest on Anthony Island. It is a very famous picture which has been shown in many different books. I will try to explain what this is like to Canadians who may be watching on television. Canadians who live in Davenport, Toronto or Montreal have seen the beautiful scenery on the show The Beachcombers. That scenery is just north of Vancouver at Gibsons. As one goes farther up the coast, the scenery becomes twice as good. It becomes even better than what is seen on The Beachcombers. If one goes up to South Moresby Island, the scenery becomes absolutely magnificent. It becomes more than magnificent, it becomes magic.
March 14, 1985

I once worked for the Berger inquiry on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I heard native people speak about the land and the trees. It took me a long time, but I came to understand that for them the trees and the land were actually living. It is not as if it was us, the trees, the land and the animals. For them we are all equals. The trees have a right, the land has a right, the streams have a right, the human being has a right, and the animal has a right. It is almost as if we were all equal.
We in southern Canada could learn from the native people to feel in touch with our land. It is really part of being Canadian. Most Canadians do not live in the North or on the West or East Coasts. They live on a small strip of land near the American border. Canadians understand that we are a northern people and therefore support the preservation of this park.
The Hon. Member for Davenport comes from an urban constituency in Toronto. People from the Queen Charlotte Islands have questioned the credibility of people from Toronto with respect to environmental issues. They do not work as loggers or in other professions in areas like the Queen Charlotte Islands. I have constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway who work as loggers and at other professions in the forests. Therefore, it is my political responsibility to consider the effects of these questions on people who are loggers and so on. Therefore, perhaps I can comment on that aspect with more credibility than the Hon. Member for Davenport. I have met with the International Woodworkers of America and I have met with the loggers.
We are not unrealistic. We do not want to have a virgin North where the entire coast is frozen into a museum-like state. We want logging to take place in the forests, but not at this particular area. As the Hon. Member for Davenport says, there must be proper forest management with respect to logging, reforestation, marketing and the processing of logs in Canada. These all form part of a forestry policy that should be in place.
There are certain areas of our country that are virtual miracles. South Moresby is one such area. This area should not be part of the controversy between logging and environment.
I have visited that area. The first sight of the Queen Charlotte Islands is breathtaking. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) owns a log cabin on the Tllel River in the Queen Charlotte Islands. South Moresby lies to the south of the Queen Charlotte Islands off the West Coast of Canada. Those from the city who visit this area can sense the age of the trees and feel the magic that Emily Carr captured in her magnificent paintings of the rainforests. For instance, falling asleep in a cabin in a rainforest is almost a mystical experience.
I will conclude my remarks soon in the hope that the Government will allow this motion to pass today. If it is serious about helping the process, it will do so, because the motion simply asks that the House support the continuing process. It
National Parks
is a signal to the Government of British Columbia and all Canadians that we in the House are concerned about South Moresby Island and the environment in general. It is also a signal that the Government is concerned.
I suggest that the Government would receive support from many Canadians if it would allow this motion to pass. The Government would not be committed to any firm action but it would send a signal that it is concerned. The Russian writer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, once said that any village greybeard will tell you that a dozen worms can only gnaw at one apple for so long.
The Hon. Member for Davenport is saying that Canadians should continue to be aware that we must maintain some of the great environment that was given to us. We are one of the few remaining countries in this hemisphere to have the opportunity to maintain this extraordinary environment. We are fortunate to be able to do so in order to be able to pass it on to future Canadians.
We must give that signal to Canadians today that we should preserve this magnificent jewel which is part of our richness and heritage. Let the Government have the courage to pass this resolution and send a signal to Canadians and the Government of British Columbia that we want South Moresby made into a national wilderness park.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly regret that the Hon. Member opposite did not leave me much time to speak on this motion because I consider it extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, the southern tip of Moresby Island is a very beautiful area having and great heritage value, by reason both of its national resources and its cultural treasures. Parks Canada indeed has identified the southern part of Moresby Island as a land and marine area of national importance.
Preserving that part of the Canadian heritage has become a prime concern of environmental groups since the early eighties. The southern part of Moresby Island also has drawn the attention of nature lovers and of the public in general, both in the United States and elsewhere in the world. The long-term protection of certain natural resources that are unique to that area would be considered a major achievement, both in Canada and on the international scene.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good thing for Canada that additional national parks be created; we still lack several of them. Our national parks are more important now than they were a hundred or even 50 years ago. With the constant sprawling of our urban areas our parks are acquiring greater importance.
Nothing can replace nature. We only will have in the future what we are preserving now. In our national parks, nature becomes the heritage we are passing on to future generations.
3042

March 14, 1985
Adjournment Debate
We are part of nature and our civilization has its roots in it. It has moulded man's culture and influenced most of mankind's economic, artistic and scientific achievements. To live in harmony with nature is our best hope of promoting the development of our economy and of our creativity, of enjoying relaxation and recreation.
Respect for nature may help us find solutions to the acid rain problems and make sure that our streams and rivers and also the air we breathe will cease to be poisoned. National Parks are essentially one aspect of the preservation of our environment. Those are privileged places protected by the National Parks Act for the benefit of present and future generations.
The Minister of Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) will be guided by those principles and by the National Parks Act when dealing with Canada's national parks. Of course, she is also subject to certain constraints, such as available funding.
To put matters simply, this Government's expenditures must be controlled. There must therefore be some restrictions, which means that we must put our dollars where our priorities lie.
One of the priorities of the Minister of Environment is to maintain the magnificent national parks-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) about the Government's position with respect to the petroleum and gas revenue tax and the present negotiations with the three western provinces. I pointed out to her, as something that she knows, as does everyone in Ottawa, that there are varying opinions with respect to the future of this petroleum and gas revenue tax in her own Government. She said:
I can assure the Hon. Member that he could not have heard conflicting positions on energy policy from members of this Government, because there is only one energy policy of this Government and it is supported by all of us.
That is not the case. It has not been the case for some time and as time goes along it is becoming less and less the case.
First let me go to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who was not Prime Minister on July 8 when he spoke in Edmonton just three days before the election was called. He said:
We're going to replace the front-end PGRT with a profit-based tax system.
Nothing could be clearer than that. That was the statement.
If you look at the Progressive Conservative election platform, during the election campaign Mr. Speaker, they called for the implementation of a tax system that recognizes bottomline profits as the bottom line for assessing taxes in order to stimulate the investment needed to bring on new energy resources. That was the Progressive Conservative platform during the election campaign.
On October 26, 1984, when asked about the timetable and the replacement of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
Until world prices stabilize, we'd rather be slow than sorry especially on the big ticket items like exploration incentives and changes to the tax regime.
Already we are seeing a waiver of what was promised by the Prime Minister before the election campaign and what was stated in the Progressive Conservative election platform.
To go a little further, I would like to mention the statement during the election campaign of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She said that the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax was "one of the most devastating fiscal highjacks that has ever happened to any region of the country, and the most hated word in the West". That was the bravado of the Progressive Conservative Party prior to and during the election campaign. That is not the case now, not at all.
We have talked about the situation. There is a great deal of difficulty now. The Minister of Energy for Alberta was in Ottawa recently. He did not even meet with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), yet he met in Toronto with the Minister of Energy for Ontario. The Minister of Energy for Ontario said "believe it or not, Lougheed is insisting that Ottawa make good their promises in the next budget, then maybe he'll talk about what he's prepared to give up". Then he spoke in terms of reduced royalties and lower natural gas prices. There is obviously a discrepancy here. I feel very strongly about this.
As a Liberal we heard criticism after criticism from the Progressive Conservative Party when it was in Opposition about the PGRT which the Liberal government had implemented. They could not say enough bad things about that tax.
Then the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the energy critic prior to the election, had the benefit of speaking to people in the energy sector and seeking their advice. Her statements during the election campaign and after are clear. The Prime Minister knew about the deficit. When he spoke in Newfoundland in August, he practically hit the deficit to the penny. Therefore, there can be no statement now from the Government that the deficit is the concern.
March 14, 1985

What we have is a Government misleading the energy sector in western Canada to secure its support and, even worse, misleading the people of western Canada to gain their support during an election campaign and to belittle and berate the Liberal Government over something that they may very well had been planning to follow even at that time, if they were privileged with the opportunity of serving as the Government. That is a treachery. Regardless of what one thinks of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, there was a misleading of the people of western Canada in this regard.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the Hon. Member has chosen this particular forum in which to raise his concerns about details relating to the current energy negotiations with the western producers. He is always a little out of character when he gets so irate, at least he puts on a great show of being irate. We in the House all know that he is not like that at all.
In responding to questions yesterday in the House, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) very candidly stated that negotiations have reached a sensitive point in the bargaining process. I might as an aside remind the House that the Hon. Member delivered the same speech about a week before the Newfoundland agreement was signed, how terrible it was and how it was going off track. That came back to haunt him. I am sure this one will as well.
She emphasized that some hurdles could be anticipated at this time since we are involved in a highly complex regulated system which is being deregulated. Nevertheless, the Minister stated that she was confident that an agreement would be struck by the end of March. Again, today in this House she indicated that negotiations are going ahead, with meetings taking place yesterday and today.
I am surprised that the Hon. Member would say that the Alberta Minister of Energy is ignoring her. In fact, my Minister talked to all three Energy Ministers from the producing provinces today. She will announce an agreement when it is duly concluded. We on this side of the House share the Minister's confidence that a new and beneficial agreement is in the offing.
This Government has been committed to the expeditious resolution of outstanding energy issues. We moved quickly and effectively at arriving at the Atlantic Accord, which the Hon. Member remembers all too well, and we intend to reach an equally just and honourable agreement with the western provinces, which deserve it. This Government has attained a high level of success in negotiations to date because we are operating in a conciliatory environment, something that was markedly lacking during energy negotiations that were carried out in the early years of this decade.
As the Minister of Energy recently stated, the federal Government is working very diligently at putting our energy policy house in order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You're not in Opposition now.
Adjournment Debate


John Horton McDermid: If the Hon. Member does not be quiet, I'll push the down button on his elevator shoes.
We intend to put the oil and gas industry on a predictable footing where market forces govern both producer and consumer. Most important, this must be done in a manner that will benefit all regions of this country. The Minister of Energy has stated on many occasions that she will not carry out negotiations in public, and we readily respect this stance. We are buoyed by the progress being made in these negotiations and are confident that we will have formalized a new energy pricing accord with western producers in the not too distant future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) I believe is next. Was there not an agreement?


Mr. Kaplan:: I can speak now, if the Government is ready.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Was it not agreed by unanimous consent?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I understood that an agreement had been reached as I was replying on both of the Government's responses. The change of order had been agreed to at some time around five o'clock.


Mr. Cassidy:: That is okay then.


TERRORISM-ROLE OF CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. (B) SURVEILLANCE OF ANTI-TURKISH TERRORISTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear before I begin that I had no difficulty with the original arrangement. However, I am happy to proceed now.
I would like to inform the House that many questions have been asked in the last few days about the responsibility of the federal Government in relation to the Turkish Embassy tragedy which occurred this week in Ottawa. Questions have been asked, but I would say that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the answers that have been given. The Government has not yet fully acquitted itself for its responsibilities in this matter.
There was an interesting reflection made on the attitude of the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) on this question the other day when he believed for a short period of time that a certain security report which I requested had in fact been delivered to me in the month of June, about two months before the change of Government. At that time he waxed very indignant that I had received the report and sat on it for two months without doing anything.
It appeared later during the day, as confirmed by Ministry officials, that I had not in fact received the report in June, that it had not been presented to the former Government at all, but that it had been presented as a new document to the new Government. The Minister was ready to criticize me for not

March 14, 1985
Adjournment Debate
having responded in two months when he thought I had had the report for two months. We learn now that he was the first politically accountable person to receive the report, and from September until now, more than six months, it had not yet been taken to Cabinet.
I commissioned that report because I believe that security at foreign missions needed to be upgraded, and I wanted the advice of the RCMP on how that security should be upgraded. Six months after the Government received that advice it still has not gone before Cabinet, and a terrible tragedy has occurred involving the death of a Canadian and serious injury to the Turkish ambassador. It has also embarrassed the Canadian Government considerably before the Turkish Government. I would like to elaborate on that for a moment.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) said that Turkey was satisfied with some increase in security arrangements that were made a month ago. That was contradicted from Ankara. We learned that the Government of Turkey, through Ministers in the Turkish Assembly, had indicated that it was not satisfied with the amount of security that was provided by the Canadian Government for its mission here. The Ministers say that 10 days ago they warned the Canadian Government of the possibility of a terrorist attack on their embassy.
It is clear from the answers the Government has given that, whatever it did one month ago, it certainly did nothing 10 days ago when news of a possible terrorist attack on the Turkish Embassy was given to Canada. If we saw evidence of it in the arrangements that existed and were made public at the time of the terrorist attack, what the Government did one month ago was not much. It seems to me that in the range of security responses and precautions that could be taken, what should be taken in relation to an embassy with regular threat assessments is action of a much stronger nature than that which seems to have been taken in the case of the Turkish Embassy.
The question that has still not been answered by the Government, which claims that Turkey was happy with the arrangements made one month ago, even though that has been contradicted by Turkey, is whether or not the Mounties were happy with the arrangements that were made one month ago. Were those arrangements the ones that were recommended in their report?
I can see the Parliamentary Secretary preparing to rise to indicate that he does not have to tell us what security arrangements were made on the grounds of national security. I agree with that. I think there are 100 questions I could ask that I should not ask and for which answers should not be given. However, the question of whether or not the RCMP were satisfied with the security arrangements and whether or not they conformed with what was recommended for the Turkish Embassy, particularly at a time of a specific threat assessment which was brought to the attention of the Government by the Turks, ought to be answered, because I believe the Canadian people are entitled to an assurance that those security arrangements were made. If they are not, they should be entitled to the resignation of the Minister.
[DOT]	(1815)


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, of course, this is a very serious subject. Any suspected terrorist activity is a threat to our security, and as such is within the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to investigate. I might say that the Hon. Member took some poetic licence in that he did not hold his comments to the specific question which he asked the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) in the House. That question is to be found at page 2929 of Hansard.
The priority given to the investigation of any particular group by the Service would be consistent with and appropriate to the degree of the threat posed. The record of terrorist acts claimed by anti-Turkish groups in other parts of the world, as well as in Canada, is well known and is a clear indication of the level of threat these groups represent.
I would like to take this occasion to raise my strong concern with the nature of the Hon. Member's question, which I find, in light of his earlier responsibilities, to border on being irresponsible. As the previous Solicitor General, the Hon. Member knows full well that public discussion of security threats and the Government's response to those threats is not in Canada's interests or in the interests of those who may be the subject of such threats. In light of these well-understood and accepted principles, I would strongly urge the Hon. Member to consider very carefully pursuing any further questions of this nature in the House.
In light of the respect which the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) has for these principles, I am sure the former Solicitor General would agree that it would be irresponsible for the present Solicitor General to provide any further indication of the extent or nature of any ongoing investigations or surveillance which is being conducted by the Service. I would like to repeat what I have already said. The priority given to the investigation of any particular group by the Service would be consistent with and appropriate to the degree of the threat posed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.
[DOT]	(1820)


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION (A) GOVERNMENT AID TO DOMTAR. (B) IMPORTANT ECONOMIC PROJECTS FOR QUEBEC- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you for your intervention in French. We are dealing now with the subject matter of a question which I put on March 4 and to which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) replied in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). It is about the Domtar Corporation and the federal government's failure to intervene in the corporations' investment project for the Eastern Townships, a project of utmost importance for the econom-
March 14, 1985

ic development of this region and the province of Quebec as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, the Domtar issue has been raised many times in the House over the past two weeks, and I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the government's replies have been unsatisfactory, not only on March 4, but every single time we have heard about this matter.
On that date, I asked whether the government was looking into the possibility of becoming a shareholder in the Domtar Corporation, and whether this was one of the alternatives being considered. Moreover, I was seeking the assurance that it would not discriminate against that company on the ground that 45 p. 100 of the shares were held by agencies of the Quebec government. I never had any answer to the first question, and so far, the government has seemed unwilling to reply to this question: What options are being considered to salvage this important project which is necessary to the economic stability of the Eastern Townships?
Also, last Friday, the Prime Minister met with the Quebec premier. He had promised to discuss the Domtar project with Mr. Levesque, but his pockets were empty, and he had nothing to offer. Mr. Levesque has therefore had to admit that he has received nothing from the Federal Government for the Domtar project.
Indeed, we learned during the weekend that Domtar was now considering a major investment in Minnesota, which would mean a lot for the fine paper market in the United States and effectively prevent this project from going forward in the Eastern Townships, even though it would benefit the economy of Quebec and create jobs for Quebecers in that region.
However, what disturbs us is the contradiction between the official statements made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Last November 8, Mr. Speaker, the Department announced the changes to be made to the Industrial and Regional Development Program. Among the changes introduced last November 8, apparently as part of the new governmental policy, the Department stated that, in the future, Crown corporations would not be entitled to any subsidies. This policy was confirmed in the estimates of the Minister which were published only two weeks ago. This is indeed departmental policy and it is quite clear that departmental officials understand this to mean that Crown corporations and their subsidiaries, such as Domtar, will no longer be able to receive subsidies or financial assistance from the Government. However, when we asked the Prime Minister about it, he said: "No, that is not my policy." In fact, on March 1, he said that this was the interpretation of the departmental officials not his own nor that of his colleagues. These interpretations are completely contradictory, Mr. Speaker.
Adjournment Debate
Even more recently, on March 11, the Minister finally came back to the House, and in reply to the questions addressed to him, he said that these two statements, namely that of the Prime Minister to the effect that Domtar could receive subsidies, and the statement of his department that a company such as Domtar would not be eligible or entitled to subsidies, were quite consistent with each other, in spite of the obvious contradiction.
Second, Mr. Speaker, what disturbs me as the spokesman for my Party, is not simply the discrimination directed against a Crown corporation or its subsidiary, but also the discrimination against poor provinces and especially the Province of Quebec.
In Quebec, the industrial structure is quite different from the one in Ontario, for instance, because of the Caisse de depot et de placement du Quebec, because of the intervention of the Societe generate de financement, and because the public sector is involved in provincial industries in a way unparalleled in other provinces. This fact was ignored in the policy announced by the Minister on November 8.
Mr. Speaker, this is why we are not satisfied with the replies of the Government.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the question put this evening by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is, I think, related to a question that has already been answered by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). The Hon. Member also mentions questions that were not answered by the Minister or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). In each case, considering the information available and the questions that have been put in the House, 1 would advise my hon. friend to review his notes, and I would also like to point out that during the adjournment debate on Tuesday evening, I answered a question put by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).
In my answer I mentioned the situation at Domtar and the reasons behind the Government's decision. I would urge my hon. friend to look up all the answers that have been given on the subject and to refer to Hansard of March 12, 1985, where 1 answered a question of our Hon. Member for Shefford about Domtar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is appropriate, since the House will not be sitting on that day, to indicate that St. Patrick's Day falls on Sunday. This day is very dear to everyone who is Irish or wishes they were on that day. St. Casimir's Day was of course on March 4 and I celebrated that quietly. I am getting ready for the days of St. Vladimir of Kiev and St. Stanislav of Cracow, patron saint of Poland. St. Stanislav has come up strong on the calendar of Saints under the present Pope, but I can assure you that St. Patrick will continue to be revered wherever there is a touch of the green or a bit of the blarney.

March 14, 1985
Adjournment Debate
May 1 take this occasion to wish all Members and staff of the House and the media the top o' the morning. I mention the media because not only are they aware of the blarney, they bottle and sell it for a living. And so a tip of the hat in honour of the day and the Saint himself for all those of Irish background, whether they come from Riviere du Loup, Killarney or Byelorussia, which is a suburb of Tralee.
The "ayes" have it, and this Sunday the "ayes" will be Irish "ayes" and they will be smiling when those two Irishmen who are going to Quebec City shake hands in honour of the day and St. Patrick.

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 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 15, 1985