1985-03-04

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 28, 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. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-24. However, it is a pleasure which I would rather forgo, because in a sense I am an alumnus of the energy conservation programs which were established in 1981. I lived in a house which had been reinsulated under CHIP by the previous owner. I also took advantage of the program to upgrade a second house. I have a warm feeling for the program which dissipates when I look at the proposal to eliminate these programs.
CHIP provided for the upgrading of insulation in homes. It was an effort to conserve the precious resources of oil and petroleum products which have done so much to contribute to the economic development of Canada, and to our comfort, both in the home and in the workplace. Of course, those resources have Finite limits and must be conserved if our children and our children's children are to benefit from those resources.
The Canadian Oil Substitution Program is one of which I have not been able to take advantage. At one point my wife and I thought about taking advantage of the program, but we realized that an election would be held in a matter of months and, therefore, conserved our Financial resources. Nevertheless, I feel in a sense that I am an alumnus of the program, the termination of which we are now debating.
What were the benefits of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program? According to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada is saving approximately 42,000 barrels of oil per day, or 15.3 million barrels per year, as a result of
COSP. That is enough oil to heat 650,000 homes a year. It represents an energy saving of approximately 2.8 per cent of the country's total oil consumption.
Under COSP, a household which converts from oil can expect a return on the investment in a period of two to three years. However, the benefits of COSP were not limited to the saving of oil. Naturally, there was a reduction in the oil bill, but there was a stimulative effect on the awareness, consciousness and understanding of people in the country with respect to energy conservation.
I must take issue with the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Tupper) who seemed to believe that this particular egg preceded the chicken. I know from my own experience that until the federal Government established these programs and the Financial incentives and information which were included with the application packages, I was not aware of the potential for energy saving which they have promoted and realized. Of course, it is all very well for those who were professionally engaged in that field to say that the knowledge always existed. However, the communication of the knowledge to the people who were making the decisions-in this case, the home owners of Canada-was crucial. That knowledge was given a real impetus with the introduction of COSP and CHIP.
The effects of the elimination of COSP and CHIP will be considerable. I was surprised to hear some Members of the House addressing this matter without raising the effects that the elimination of the programs will have on employment in Canada. In terms of 1979 dollars, for every $1 million spent on the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, 30.5 person-years of employment were created. As a result of the grants alone, 16,750 person-years of employment were created between 1981 and 1985. If that figure is combined with the expenditures by householders and home owners, the figure comes to over 50,000 person-years of employment for the same period. OfFicials at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, have stated that if COSP had lasted for its planned duration through 1990, S650 million would have been spent on the program and a rough estimate of the employment lost in that period by the elimination of the program would be 59,000 person-years.
[DOT] (mo)
These Figures, Mr. Speaker, are serious. They are serious in good times but they are doubly serious in times of rising unemployment when it is extremely difFicult for youth to get their First job and the necessary training. One of the advantages of this program which I saw at First hand was that it enabled young people to work as assistants to retroFitters and

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
upgraders and to learn some of the skills which were involved. By comparison with expenditures on oil exploration, the investment in the Canada Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program were vastly more productive in terms of the creation of jobs.
I am sure Hon. Members on the government side will say that I am suggesting that oil exploration should cease in Canada; far from it. We have to recognize that through such loopholes as superdepletion, the PetroCan presence in frontier areas and the subsidization and financing assistance given to some of the high rollers in that industry-which have now come a cropper-the federal Government was indeed heavily engaged in that area and certainly not to as good an effect as in the conservation programs which we debate today.
One of the things that concerns me most, and I believe should concern all Hon. Members of this House, is that the energy conservation and substitution industries in this country are being hit with a double-whammy by this Government. On the one hand, we have the elimination of the CHIP and COSP programs; on the other hand, what do we have in terms of the innovative alternative energy programs which were introduced during the last Government? We have the same picture, Mr. Speaker. We have the elimination of those programs so that those who are looking at this sector for their main means of employment and livelihood are going to find that the upgrading and retrofitting is being shrunk back and that it is far more difficult to get work in terms of alternate energy programs which were financed through the National Research Council.
I remember watching on television, I suppose, slightly over five years ago now, a former Minister of Finance of Canada saying that there was a necessity to inflict, or, shall we say, subject oneself to, short-term pain for long-term gain. By the elimination of the COSP and CHIP programs, we are indeed going to find ourselves in a position of accepting short-term gain for long-term pain. In my opinion, that is indicative of a reversal of policy by the Progressive Conservative Party over the years.
We must remember, after all, that oil is a finite resource; it isn't going to be there forever. We are taking it out of the ground and the more we take out the less there is left, no matter how fast we find it. We may indeed, Mr. Speaker, be reaching the end of what was known as the "elastic horizon". The observation was made as early as the 1930s in the U.S. Congress that every 10 years there was a cycle whereby the oil companies came to Congress and said that the reserves were running out and three years later the proven reserves had doubled. We have to recognize that, like the frog on the lily pad which doubles in area every second day, the lily pad will eventually cover the whole pond and the pool of Canadian oil reserves will eventually be depleted no matter how much is found through new exploration efforts. The National Energy Board, after all, predicts that production of conventional oil 20 years from now will have declined to 28 per cent of the current level.
[DOT]	(IM5)
Let us look at what that means. Does it mean, for example, that each of us is only going to do one quarter as much driving? Does it mean that we are going to heat our homes to an average of 45 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the average 68 degrees we heat them to today? Certainly there will be new oil discovered in the frontier areas and certainly we are going to see further technological advances in the upgrading of oil sands and heavy oil deposits, but in many cases the production costs of those resources are prohibitively high and they are located in highly environmentally-sensitive areas.
The Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program represented common sense investments by the Government in Canada's future energy security, and I think it would be a great shame if they were entirely eliminated. I would also like to mention a few of the effects of the deadlines set in the elimination of those programs. My belief is that those deadlines were set simply by a reference to a calendar and with very little consideration of what was going to happen to Canadians as a result. The deadline of March 31, 1985, for large parts of this country-not, of course, the most intensively inhabited parts but the large geographical areas of this country where many Canadians live-means it would be impossible for a person to do in-ground installation and get in the program under the deadline. If that was a calculation on the part of the Government, and I hope it was not, then it was a cynical move.
I wonder, in looking at the elimination of this program, how much of it is owned to the pressure and influence of Canada's oil-producing provinces. I wonder if indeed we are seeing the effects of powerful interests in the Progressive Conservative Party which view conservation as a competitor for the resources which fill their slush-I am sorry, heritage-funds, and which give them the funds to make their governments go the way they want them to. We should look at evaluating the effect of the elimination of these programs on the world energy supply situation. The beauty, of course, of refined petroleum products as an energy source is their portability, their extreme flexibility. They cannot indefinitely or infinitely be substituted for by hydro-electric resources which this country is better endowed with. Thus the need to conserve them, because, after all, the countries which can supply the shortfall which Canada will inevitably have can also supply the shortfalls that other countries are experiencing, and which they may be better able to finance than Canada as we begin the 21st century.
[DOT]	(1120)
There was no evaluation done on the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. There have been suggestions that middle and upper middle-income Canadians benefited disproportionately from this program. The figures indeed suggest that that is not the case. The total CHIP grant money given to low-income households was higher than that given to middle and high-income groups; 24.3 per cent of CHIP dollars were given to the 21.1 per cent of eligible home owners earning less than $15,000 annually. Of course, when we consider the tax effects,
March 4, 1985

we find that an even higher proportion went to eligible home owners in the low-income range. Therefore, it was certainly not a discriminatory program in the sense of favouring the wealthy rather than the less well off.
From 1977 to 1982 insulation activities under CHIP constituted 43 per cent of all retrofitting work done. It is said that 65 per cent of the work done would not have been done if it were not for CHIP and that 75 per cent of all dollars would not have been spent without the CHIP Program.
What will the effect on our country be if these programs are simply eliminated as the Government proposes? I think a large part of the effect will be what is known as the shuffle down, of which we have seen far too much in Canadian society over the past few years. This is where a program is instituted at one level of government, is abandoned, and the levels of government below the level which instituted it find that program to be so necessary that they decide to carry on a replica of the program at their own level of government.
I can see, for example, that with the elimination of this program many provinces, municipalities and utilities will bring in similar programs to encourage conservation. In the sense that the torch of conservation will not be dropped and extinguished, which this legislation envisages, that is good. In the sense that Canadians will end up paying, because of the fragmentation of the program, a higher price for the very laudable, legitimate and essential objectives of these two programs, that will be a loss to Canada.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House on a Monday morning and to start off our debate with the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). I must deal with one of his comments about powerful influences in the Conservative Party and its impact on conservation. The Member may be new to the House, but I suspect he is not new to some understanding of the world-wide situation over the past decade as it affects oil and gas. The Member really should be aware of the fact that conservation, as it affects the use of oil, is clearly a function of price. World-wide patterns in terms of the consumption of oil show a very steady and clear decline in the world. That decline exists in Canada, the United States of America and around the world.
The clearest-cut indication of a reduction in the use of oil comes from Europe. In Europe, OPEC raised the price of oil. Furthermore, governments implemented punitive taxation so that the consumption of oil included not only the price of the product but the taxation. The effects were predictable: the consumption of that commodity dropped.
What did the Liberals and the New Democrats do in this country? When faced with that reality they regulated the price of that commodity so that it was less than the market value. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River says that he and his Party are concerned about conservation, yet his Party
Oil Substitution Act
supported the abolition of a basic principle that would have led to conservation.
The most important principle related to the conservation of oil is the price, because if it is raised the use of oil goes down and the commodity is preserved. However, we sat in this Chamber during the last five and one-half years and watched the implementation of the National Energy Program, the basic principle of which was to regulate the price of oil at less than 75 per cent of the market price. If that is not a principle to encourage use, I don't know what is. Surely one would expect greater use of that product when it is subsidized to the tune of 25 per cent of its value. Moreover, Canada did not even produce enough of that commodity for our use at that time, which meant that its greater use encouraged the importation of oil from other countries. Of course, the importation of oil from other countries means the export of Canadian jobs. That is the substance of the program that was put in place.
At the same time that Canadian jobs were being exported, inflation was being caused.


Mr. Hovdebo:: You voted for it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member says that we voted for it. It will be a very frosty day when any Member of Parliament from the Province of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Quebec votes for a program like that. It will never happen in his lifetime or mine.
Once the former Government set in place its national energy policy which exported Canadian jobs, increased inflation and the indebtedness of the nation, it then established the CHIP and COSP Programs. These were programs which gave grants to home owners who wished to convert from oil to another kind of energy. However, there was no money to Finance these programs and the Government had to borrow money which ultimately must be paid back by our children and our children's children.
Were these programs made available to all Canadians? No. Studies conducted by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources show that only 29 per cent of the expenditures for the CHIP Program encouraged people to insulate their homes. What does that say, Mr. Speaker? It says that 71 per cent of the money spent did not even do that. The Liberals as a government must have said, because they had no money and had to go to the market-place to borrow to give to someone, that this was a priority, that we have made oil 25 per cent cheaper than it should have been to encourage its use, and then borrowed the money to give to people to insulate their homes so they would use less. It was a transfer from oil to some other kind of fuel so people might use less fuel.
Can I suggest to this House, Mr. Speaker, that at that time it was an insane package. It was absolutely insane. If Canada at that particular point in its history had been less interfering, had let the true value of a commodity rise to its true value, the differential cost for someone to heat his home with oil or transfer to some other energy commodity, of which there is an

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
abundance in Canada, would have been so massive, the saving so enormous, that home owners could have quite easily gone to the bank, borrowed money, put in the insulation, made the transfer and had more money in their pockets. That was the potential reality of encouraging Canadians to transfer from this commodity called oil to something else called wood, electricity, coal, or whatever. That would have happened. It would inevitably have happened if one had simply left the market-place alone.


Mr. Boudria:: How can you possibly prove that?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If a person were paying $500 to heat his home in the cold winter months, and that person found out he could heat it for $200 or $250, he would have an enormous monthly saving. It is certainly an adequate amount of money to enable a person to go to the bank, borrow and do the sensible economic thing. But no, Mr. Speaker, we had a government that did not believe Canadians were sensible people. Instead we capped the price of oil, exported the jobs out of the country to Mexico, Saudi Arabia or wherever, and borrowed money which our kids will have to pay back. And this was done to give to whom?
The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, by educational and economic background, is someone we would call a middle-income Canadian. He is probably on the upper edge in terms of income and on the upper edge in terms of educational level, yet he stands in this House today and says: "I like this program. I took two houses. I got two grants". That, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is an anecdotal piece of proof positive of who benefited. That is the New Democratic Party. It was not one grant but two grants that he had. That makes the program twice as valuable.


John Edmund Parry: No way. Read the blues.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He insulated two houses. Where does that money come from, Mr. Speaker? It comes from your children, and your children's children way into the future. That is borrowed money that was used to insulate the Member's two houses.


John Edmund Parry: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My reputation for the ability to absorb provocation must have spread to the Government benches. If the Hon. Member cares to check the record, he will find that I purchased one house that had already been insulated under a grant and I insulated the second one myself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I thank the Hon. Member for the correction, Mr. Speaker. He lived in two houses that were supported by federal grant money. He took advantage of it with lower fuel bills in two situations because of a federal Government program. It is incredible.


Mr. Keeper:: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Member seems to be indicating that my colleague is the only person in this country who lives in a house that is supported by
federal grant money. Does he not know that housing in this country-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have a chance to reply after the Member's speech.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We heard statistics from the Hon. Member. They boggled my mind. Canadian home owners were eligible for this program and I thought, from sitting in this House for five and a half years, that the New Democratic Party cared a lot about renters. We have a large number of renters. Were they eligible for COSP? Were they eligible for CHIP? No, Mr. Speaker. Were all the senior citizens who live in lodges and public housing of one kind or another eligible for CHIP or COSP?
Would the federal Government, if it went into the marketplace to borrow funds, have given the funds to the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River or to the senior citizens in my riding, some of whom live very near starvation without funds to buy sufficient food? That is the business of governing, Mr. Speaker. That is really what governing is all about. There is not enough in the way of resources for us to do everything that we think we would like to do. We must make the hard choices. I suggest to the House that the only problem with this piece of legislation before us today from my perspective is that the deadline dates we are putting in are too far into the future. I would like to see them shortened. I would like to see today as the day the programs are ended. I have a sense of certitude today that in the month of March, 1985, federal taxpayers are paying 36 cents out of every dollar on interest on the public debt. When I came here almost six years ago that amount was 17 cents. We had 83 cents to spend on useful programs for senior citizens, children, family and health care. Six years later we have 64 cents, because 36 cents goes to pay interest on the public debt.
I think it is close to a crime that we have borrowed that kind of money-


Mrs. Sparrow:: It is a crime.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I have spoken in the House before about the social costs of increased unemployment and the reality that a 1 per cent increase in unemployment will bring about an approximate 5 per cent increase in stress-related diseases, including suicide, alcoholism, spousal battery and child battery. These things come as the natural consequence of bad economic policy in a country. When we make a mistake in this Chamber, the ripple effects and the consequences of that mistake can be enormous for individual Canadians. We have made nothing but mistakes in the last five or six years in terms of energy policy, nothing but mistakes. I feel proud and comfortable just to belong to a political Party which is moving as quickly as it can to rectify those mistakes and to turn the situation around.
I look forward to an energy agreement in the next few weeks which will say clearly to Canadians that we are returning to market-based pricing. We must have market-based pricing for the commodity called oil. We must move as quickly as we can to that market-based mechanism for the commodity called natural gas and for all other commodities within the energy field. In different parts of the country it will make sense to heat homes with one kind of fuel and in other parts of the country with different kinds of fuel. However, if we move artificiality into that system, we distort the market, our productivity and the long-term potential efficiency of the nation.
I spent the weekend in the Town of Oyen near the Saskatchewan border. It happened to be the fiftieth wedding anniversary of my aunt and uncle. On such an occasion there is time for reflection. When one tries to celebrate an event of that kind which spans a 50-year period of time, one looks back. We were sitting out there on the Prairies, on the Saskatchewan border, in the heart of wheat country. We noticed the snow. People were happy about the snow because they have been close to a drought situation for a couple of years and the presence of a great deal of snow augurs well for the potential of a good crop. When one looks back over that period of time, one realizes that this couple was married in an era when they travelled by horseback and transported grain in horse-drawn wagons. Now, 50 years later, we have jet airplanes, cars and highways. It provides one with a chance to reflect on how far the country has come, how far that particular region has come, in a period of 50 years.
Then one stops for a minute and says that one thing which was different 50 years ago is that government did not think it knew best. We did not have so many experts. We let people make their own decisions. We did not raise taxation to the point where we were taking money, great amounts of money, out of the pockets of people and letting bureaucrats and politicians decide how to spend it. We let people decide in their own wisdom how best to spend it. When it comes to the elimination of these two programs, all we are really saying to the Canadian people and to the House is: let the people decide; do not bribe them to make a decision which is not really in their best interests.


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


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to correct some of the fallacies and allegations inherent in the Hon. Member's speech, but with only 10 minutes to do it I will be put under some pressure. The Hon. Member used the term "insanity"-and indeed, if we listened to some of the comments this morning we must admit that he had some justification-to describe the legislation which the Government now plans to repeal.
In view of the fact that the Act implementing the Canadian Oil Substitution Program was passed in 1981, with second reading in one hour, referred to Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent and inside an hour read a third time and passed, does the Hon. Member think that that insanity was endemic in his Party at the time or that it was simply an aberration? Is he using the term "insanity" in a clinical or colloquial fashion?
Finally, I should like him to comment upon the observation of the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who said at the time: "I want to conclude by congratulating the Minister again for bringing this legislation forward". Let us hear what the Hon. Member considers insanity to be.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The insanity continues, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River will listen carefully. Some of his colleagues have heard this before. If we repeat it often enough they will begin to understand.
The minute the decision was made to implement the National Energy Program, to hold the true market value of oil at a minimum of 25 per cent below its value, it encouraged consumption of a scarce commodity which we could not produce in the country. The next thing the Government did was take away the cash which would have produced more oil in the country and chased out investment capital to the tune of $18 billion, which was destroying jobs and increasing the need to import oil. They increased consumption and had the need to import more because there was not enough; that was the basic insanity.
This program at that point was the only thing the majority Liberal Government was willing to bring into place which was partly in the direction of sanity. If we do all these other bad things, then we have to have something which will stimulate the economy as quickly as possible. That happened in the insulation industry and the energy substitution industry. They were chasing out a lot more than they were bringing in, but at least that created a few jobs and hopefully it would reduce to some extent the need to import oil.
In the midst of all that total insanity, this was the sanest piece of legislation to attempt to mitigate that massive insanity represented in the totality of the program. That is the context. I see from the nods across the way that maybe they are beginning to understand, hopefully.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to how the Hon. Member tried to weasel his way out of his previous statement, unsuccessfully I must say. Could he indicate to us what was the real policy of the Conservative Party

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
at that time? Of course, we know that through some fit of insanity they seem to have voted for the original Bill. The Hon. Member has now said that the reason they voted for it was that it was slightly less insane than other insanities, or something like that. Could the Hon. Member indicate whether he would have been in favour of going to full world prices at that particular time, recognizing the fact that it would have probably bankrupted all the Maritime Provinces of Canada, perhaps the Province of Quebec and part of eastern Ontario? Is it the policy of the Conservative Party to bankrupt eastern Canada? Yes or no?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Conservative Party as it relates to Atlantic Canada is to give it a fair shake on Confederation after all these years to help it develop its own sense of industry and resourcefulness and to help it reach economic health rather than providing the subsidies which made it dependent on the centre of the country. I am proud to belong to a Party that signed an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland and will sign an agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia that will give those provinces control over the pace of development in their regions rather than telling them that people in Ottawa know best what is good for the people in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. That is the philosophy.


Don Boudria: What does that have to do with what happened then?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member asked what that had to do with what happened then. The Hon. Member is new to the House of Commons. In 1979 he would have seen that when it became necessary to convert the Atlantic region from oil to other heating sources, there was to be special assistance for the entire region.


Don Boudria: Oh no, you said it was insane. You said that was insanity.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am talking about 1979 when we formed the Government. The Hon. Member is talking about 1980 when the National Energy Program destroyed the economy of the country. In 1979 we were moving toward assistance for electrical power generation in the Atlantic region. We were going to provide help in getting off oil for renters as well as home owners. This has nothing to do with COSP and CHIP and giving little grants of money to people in return for votes. That is an entirely different mentality from the mentality of using federal public policy to assist in infrastructure development in all regions of the country.


Mr. McKnight:: Somebody voted against it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Ultimately people got tired of these band-aids and indicated that it was time to change the major policies of the country so we could restore it to economic health. That is what we were elected to do. Like it or lump it, that is what we are going to do.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member about a few things. First, he made a case for market value of oil in order to encourage conservation and he indicated that he was opposed to the regulation of oil prices. Does he think that the oil prices that were determined by OPEC, an international cartel, were free market prices? Does he not understand that when regulation of oil prices was brought into the country, it was brought in as a response to the skyrocketing costs of oil, a response to prices that were rising as a result of an international cartel? Is that what he means by a free market? Perhaps the Hon. Member could explain to us what he means by a free market.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Hon. Member to get into his car next weekend and drive across the border to a town in which the free market is in operation. While there, I would advise him to fill up his gas tank. The regulated price of gas in Canada is 75 per cent of world price, or of cartel price if the Hon. Member wants to call it that. It will cost him more to fill up his gas tank right here than it would across the border where the world price is in operation. I believe that that was the basic mistake that was made. By regulating prices, by holding them down, we indeed increased taxes at all levels and made the price higher for the consumers.
Was the Hon. Member here in 1979? I think he was. He might realize that back in those days the policy that was then forthcoming would have protected senior citizens. The 1979 Budget that his Party used to bring down the then Government was judged by the Canadian Welfare Council as being the fairest Budget to poor people in the 1970s. It was judged as being the fairest Budget to poor people in the entire decade. His Party brought down the Government on that Budget. Since that moment that Party has had no credibility when it comes to financial matters in the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We shall resume debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-24. We must remember why Bill C-24 was introduced. It was introduced as part of the expenditure and program review cut-back. Of course, the program review cut-back, or the first attack on the Canadian people by "Mike the Knife", as he should more properly be called, advocated a reduction of $95 million in one program and a reduction of $84 million in another program. That is the real reason why the Bill is before us today.
If we were to have a free vote on this Bill, we all know that the majority of Members would support the Bill. However, when threatened by "Erik the Dreaded" and "Mike the Knife", Conservative members do not always do what they wish to do. They are sometimes forced to vote for the kind of reprehensible legislation that is before us today. There is nothing they can do about that. They must toe the line and clap at the proper time when cued to do so. You will know, Mr. Speaker, being the truly objective and non-partisan person that you are, that that is exactly what happens.
March 4, 1985

The COSP and CHIP programs were indeed excellent programs brought in by the Liberal Government of the past.


An Hon. Member:: That's right, the past.


Don Boudria: Should I describe it as the Liberal Government of the past and the Liberal Government of the future? That is what we will be after the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Let us look at some of the benefits of these programs. Over one-third of the housing stock of the country built prior to 1977 had benefited from these programs. The programs were indeed very successful ones. CHIP grants were provided to many homes across the country and, contrary to the popular belief of some Conservative members, it is not only rich people who own their own homes. As a matter of fact, I represent a constituency in which almost everyone owns his own home. Over 85 per cent of the population of my riding is comprised of people who live in their own homes. The average income of the people of my riding is considerably less than the national average. To me, that would mean that owning one's own home in my constituency does not mean that one is rich; it means that there are no apartments so a home is the only place in which one can live. That means that if one's salary is lower than the national average, one needs assistance in order to heat one's home.
In order to heat their homes in the past, my constituents were required to use oil. The majority of homes in my riding are heated by oil. There are one or two communities which happen to have natural gas. As natural gas was being installed in other communities, many people wanted to convert their heating systems and again, through financial constraints, were unable to do so. Through the COSP Program of the Government, for example, some people were able to convert their oil furnaces to natural gas or electricity in order to free themselves from being prisoners of a system which was ever causing prices of oil to increase and become less and less affordable.
In the national interest the Government recognized that if it was to keep a large portion of the population from being held prisoner by the need to purchase imported oil, it could do so by converting consumption to other forms of energy and by reducing consumption through energy conservation. These two programs achieved both of those objectives and indeed were excellent programs.
A chart which was produced in the last edition of The Financial Post indicates that in 1984 there was a net reduction of 8 per cent in fuel oil consumption in Canada. I think that is significant. We have an increase of 8 per cent in natural gas consumption. Inevitably, the programs which have assisted the people of Canada in converting their heating systems and conserving energy have been successful. I do not know why the Government wants to disband two programs which have been very successful. Perhaps it is for purely partisan reasons that the Conservatives want to abolish these successful Liberal
Oil Substitution Act
programs. But Liberal programs were not only designed for Liberals, they were designed for the benefit of all Canadians. If the Liberal programs have been successful, maybe Conservative members should start to become more objective and less partisan.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) told us that conversion and conservation only happened in concert with prices. In other words, if a product is priced out of existence, of course, people will convert to another product. Perhaps that is the policy of the Conservative Party, to increase energy prices so much that people will not be able to afford it and therefore, those people will have to convert to another product. But that was not the policy of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party tried to keep those products affordable for Canadians. The Liberals did not want to bankrupt the Maritimes, Quebec, or threaten eastern Canada. Indeed, the program was very successful.
I see a Conservative member in the House who said the other day that the only people who were benefiting from the program were the rich people who were buying heat pumps with a government subsidy. Well, perhaps his constituents belong to that financial bracket, but mine do not. The people of my constituency have larger than average households compared with the rest of the country. The census document for my riding indicates that 89.6 per cent of all housing stock is single family dwellings. The people of my constituency, whether they are well off or poor, have their own homes. The poor people may have larger mortgages, but nevertheless they do not have a choice when it comes to paying their heating bills. That bill is there whether they like it or not.
My constituency also has very high unemployment. The people of my riding do not have money to pay exorbitant oil prices. According to the census, the average income of the people in my riding is close to $1,000 less per person than the national average. With this evidence, it is quite obvious that the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell do not want the program to terminate. It was a good program from which the people benefited.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West said that the legislation was insane. He and his colleagues in the Conservative Party unanimously supported a Bill which they now claim is insane. Perhaps he should verify his voting record in the House before making such a claim.
As part of the famous "Mike the Knife" Tory cut-back book, Canadians will realize a fuel price increase of 1.8 cents per litre. The people will have no assistance to free themselves from the price of heating oil. There will be no programs of assistance-again according to the wishes of the Government-for Canadians to conserve energy and add insulation to their homes. The Government says that is all right. It says that if Canadians do not have bread to eat, then they can eat cake. The Government says that conservation will still take place. Well, if conservation will take place, why did that not happen before this program was enacted? Obviously, incentive was required in order to achieve that conservation. The incentive which is required should be manifested in the leadership of the

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Government. But this Government has washed its hands of that responsibility. It tells us that the free market and the cartels widll take care of the situation.
For Conservative members who believe it is wrong for the Government to be involved in regulating oil prices, when faced with the alternative of letting the cartels and industry regulate those prices, one has to ask, "Who speaks for Canadians?" Is it the multinationals or is it the Government of Canada? Surely, the Government should recognize that it is its job to govern. The Government should not wash its hands of that responsibility and give it to multinational companies. The Government says that it does not want to be involved and that the multinationals should regulate oil prices. That is the Conservative policy. It is wrong. That is not why the Government was elected six months ago today.
The Government was elected to fulfil a long series of promises. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will remember those promises because, like us, you suffered by listening to the litany of 338 promises which the Tories made. However, I do not remember a promise which indicated that the Government would abolish assistance for the poor, or assistance for people who could not afford to change their furnaces. In my riding the Conservative opponent did not say that. I am sure that gentleman did not stand on the stage in Alexandria, Hawkes-bury or Rockland, and say to the good people of those communities: "Vote for me and I will cut off your grant". I did not hear my Conservative opponent saying that. That is not one of the promises which was made. The Conservative promises were to give everything to everyone all the time.


Herbert O. Sparrow: We promised to cut the deficit.


Don Boudria: I am glad to hear a Conservative member saying that the Conservatives promised to cut the deficit. It is interesting to hear that, especially in view of the fact that 113 promises would have increased the deficit, and five of the promises would have reduced the deficit. In terms of revenue generation, two promises would have increased the funds coming in and 26 promises would have reduced those funds. I am glad the Conservative member has indicated that that was the policy of the Conservative Party during the election campaign. Obviously, those were not the policies of the Conservative Party.
The Government has asked the House to support legislation which will reduce benefits for the people of my riding who can least afford it. I say that we should not abolish these programs. We need this kind of legislation. All Hon. Members recognize that it was a good Bill and it was supported unanimously in 1981. It was supported by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who is now shaking his head. He knew at the time that it was a good Bill and I would venture to say that he still thinks today that it is a good Bill, but someone is directing him with cue cards, and all of those other props the Conservatives use, to tell him to vote against this Bill.


Mr. Lewis:: Cue cards?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: If he was a free-thinking Member as he sits in this House right now, he would not put up with that. I challenge him to stand and speak on behalf of his constituents.


Mr. Blenkarn:: I will.


Don Boudria: I challenge him to speak for the people with low incomes who own their own homes and who need to free themselves from high oil prices, those who need to convert their heating systems. I challenge the Hon. Member to stand and speak for those people, Mr. Speaker; not just for the bagmen of the Conservative Party, not just for multinationals and the very large companies, but for average Canadians, because they are the ones who elected Hon. Members to this House. They are the ones who want fair and honest representation from all of us. They don't want that grant cut off. They don't want to see these very good Liberal initiatives abolished. I am sure that deep down inside all Hon. Members across from me and the book-ends on this side, Mr. Speaker, really want to see this kind of measure retained.
The Tories have always been able to use double-speak very effectively. They tell us that they can be all things to all people. But the true side of the Tories is shown up when they introduce these kinds of "let them eat cake" measures. I am sure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), who is very concerned about the well-being of the people of this country-


Miss MacDonald:: That's right.


Don Boudria: -would stand in her place, if she could-but she can't-and speak on behalf of the people of Kingston and the Islands. She would speak on behalf of those voters because she knows that abolishing this kind of measure is a very sick joke indeed on the part of the Conservative Party. More particularly, it is a vicious attack by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). "Mike the Knife" is sticking it into the backs of all the poor people of this country when he introduces this kind of measure. I urge all Hon. Members to vote against it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has indicated that this program is meant to assist the poor. I was wondering if he could describe in what way this program deliberately helps the poor over the relatively rich? It seems to me only those people who own homes are entitled to these programs. Any cultural study which is carried out across the country would indicate that the people who own homes are usually better off in the community than those people who do not own homes; for example, those people who rent. Could the Hon. Member enlighten us as to how this is a program to help the poor, the under privileged and the downtrodden? Or is it perhaps just a regular Liberal program which is designed to ensure the national debt gets larger, that our children have greater burdens on their shoulders and that the people are bought with their own money?
If it was such a good program, I wonder why, in terms of purchase of votes, the Liberal Party did not do as well this
March 4, 1985

time in the election as it did the last time. Indeed, in 1979 the Liberals tried amending the program right in the middle of the election period in order to see if they could grab a few more votes. The Hon. Member will know that at that time the then Liberal Minister, the Hon. Alastair Gillespie, was running in Etobicoke Centre and that the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) represents the riding of Etobicoke Centre.


Don Boudria: I am very pleased to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, if the Hon. Member had listened carefully to my speech he would know that 89 per cent of the people of my riding own their own homes, but not 89 per cent of the people in my riding are rich. As a matter of fact, I also described where the average annual income of the people in my riding, according to Statistics Canada is less than that of the people in the rest of the country. The average annual income in my constituency is $1,000 less than the income of the average Canadian and 89 per cent of the people own their own homes. So yes, a majority of poor people in my riding own their own homes. That is a fact.
Why is it that this program will benefit the poor rather than the rich? it is simply because the poor don't have any money. Perhaps that has not gotten across to the Hon. Member opposite. Rich people can convert their heating system to something which will be cheaper. They can do it without assistance. But the poor people cannot. That is why they are poor, Mr. Speaker. They need that kind of assistance. That is the basis of social programs. We help out the people who need it, not just the rich, which is something the Conservatives want to do.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the speech given by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is not here but it certainly does alarm me to Find out how little Hon. Members opposite, and certainly the Hon. Member for Calgary West, understand Canada. That is really horrifying to me. The Hon. Member for Calgary West used half of his speech to talk about job creation in the country within the oil industry. Little does he know, Mr. Speaker, that-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member's question and comment should be made with respect-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member wish to speak on a point of order?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I think this time is for questions and comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), not on what was said or was not said by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). Surely that is not the question before us and the Hon. Member is misusing the time, I submit.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly rephrase my comment and say that Hon. Members opposite obviously don't understand what Canada is all about. My province of Prince
Oil Substitution Act
Edward Island has the highest energy costs in Canada, the highest electricity, oil and gasoline costs.


Mr. Foster:: And a Tory Government.


George Roland Henderson: Does the Hon. Member believe for one minute that people who are burning wood for fuel, a renewable resource, are not creating employment in this country? They may not be creating employment in downtown Calgary but they are certainly creating it in my part of the country. Poor people have obviously benefited greatly from the off-oil program; there's no question about that. Not only the poor people are benefiting, those who convert to wood, but also the suppliers of furnaces, chain saws, and skidoos, which most small woodlot owners use to take the wood out to sell. There is a tremendous spin-off and benefit, especially in an area which is depressed. We have a silviculture program which also is a follow up because there is good woodlot management in my area and, hopefully, also in New Brunswick and the other Atlantic Provinces. Sure, we may lose a few jobs in downtown Calgary if the oil industry fluctuates a bit, but we are creating jobs elsewhere. We are creating jobs with renewable energy resources which are just as important as, and probably more important than, oil. Oil is a non-renewable resource. The more that is used, the scarcer it gets and the higher the price.
I am delighted with the speech my colleague gave on this very important subject. I think Hon. Members of the House of Commons have certainly forgotten that they are looking after their own special interests when they deal with just one sector of the energy question. I believe in the ridings of all Hon. Members which are not fortunate enough to be situated in the heart of an industrialized city or province there is a great spin-off, a job-creation effect. Many of our poor people cannot afford to pay $2.20 a gallon for home heating fuel, the price in Prince Edward Island. The Hon. Member probably does not realize it, but for a 250-gallon tank of fuel you are talking about a price of over $500 in Prince Edward Island. Who can afford it?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the excellent comment made by my colleague here. I would just point out that in Prince Edward Island some 312 residential units participated in the CHIP Program with an average grant value of $10,048. In that same province, under the HIP program, some 29,643 residential units received grants of an average value of $9,903 each. So we can see the great benefit this program had in Prince Edward Island.
If I can turn very briefly to the COSP Program in Prince Edward Island, there were $4.4 million in grants. So again, both programs were very effective in Atlantic Canada, indeed everywhere else in the country, including my own riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and in Ontario generally where over one million homes were reinsulated under the CHIP Program.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that every program government

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
has is of some benefit to someone to some extent. That is the case with these two programs we are dealing with here today. There is no question that somewhere along the line people receive something from government. The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) said that people bought a skidoo and went off in the bush and hauled in wood. I suppose that was good for their health. It certainly gave me the thought that perhaps I could expense a skidoo as part of the cost of my heating. Perhaps I should go into the wood business as a means of writing off my skidoo. Perhaps that is what we can get from these debates as to how government expenditure can be used as a justification for all sorts of fun and games. But rather than fun and games I think we ought to talk seriously about where we should be going in this country.
One of the problems which has bedevilled us, Mr. Speaker, is the Bill which comes before this House all too frequently, the Borrowing Authority Bill. You will recall the impassioned speeches we heard on the Borrowing Authority Bill when it was before this House just a very short time ago. I have not looked up the record but when the Hon. Member for Glengar-ry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) spoke eloquently about the burden of debt, how we were running up the national debt and what we should be doing, I am sure he did not speak in favour of more borrowing. Indeed, his Party negotiated vigorously and insisted the Bill be cut back. They said we were spending far beyond all reason. He did not say we should not spend it because, of course, he wants money spent in his own riding. He thinks it is important we spend the money there, but he thought the borrowing was beyond all reason.
Well, Sir, the borrowing is beyond all reason. We must come to grips with government programs. Therefore, I am very delighted that we have finally decided to come to grips with these programs. If these programs could be justified at all, they have now well outlived their usefulness.
When these programs were first initiated, Mr. Speaker, world oil prices were spiralling upwards. There was considerable concern that we would be looking at oil at $60 or $65 U.S. a barrel in 1985. It was absolutely necessary that people be assisted in converting their furnaces to burn something other than oil. In was absoltely essential that people be encouraged to do whatever they could to cut down their consumption of fuels. Hence the CHIP Program.
But, Sir, this is 1985 and Texas light crude is selling in world markets at something between $25.60 and $25.80 U.S. a barrel. That is a bench-mark price for top quality petroleum, but this country pays in excess of $29 U.S. a barrel for top quality petroleum. Indeed, I am told that certain Canadian oil companies with oil production in western Canada have decided that it is profitable for them not to sell in the Chicago market but to ship their crude to Vancouver, load it on a boat, send it around the Panama Canal, and sell it in Montreal at $29 and change a barrel.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Same as we pay the Mexicans.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They make a lot more money that way. Same as we pay the Mexicans, says the Minister.
Sir, the whole system has got out of hand. Indeed, we must revise the National Energy Program completely. The first stage is getting rid of these subsidized programs which are no longer valid. The price of oil is decreasing. Indeed, if we were to get rid of the subsidized programs today we would lower the price of gasoline and home heating fuels dramatically in this country. I do hope that the Minister, in her next effort, will be introducing Bills to terminate the programs whereby we pay those who import crude oil into this country more than world prices as part of some sort of national oil policy.
The situation is that we can no longer afford a program which subsidizes people, no matter their wealth, status, quality and kind of living accommodation, to convert their homes to something other than oil heating. For example, they buy a heat pump for $3,000 to $5,000 which enables them not only to save oil but has the added benefit of giving them air conditioning. That is the kind of thing which has taken place time after time in grants under the COSP Program. It was a fine program, but when we wind up with a program which is used to help the relatively affluent to enjoy a better quality of life which air conditioning might provide, or to save them a few dollars on their oil bill which means they might do the conversion anyway because it would save them money, we are in a sense misusing the borrowing, taxing and spending capacity of the country. We transfer money to the relatively affluent in the country, money which they have no call to receive.
It has been suggested by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that his constitutents were relatively poor. Even his poorer constituents lived in homes and they needed some assistance in acquiring new heating equipment. Well, that perhaps is so. There is every indication that the cost of the heating units that were promoted in some instances as a result of this program were bonused up to include part of the grant. We should all question to what extent improved heating units have been available because of the grant and to what extent contractors and producers have taken advantage of the grant for promotion purposes. I submit that if the grant had not been available, the number of conversions from oil to other forms of heating would have been very much the same. There is no evidence produced by the Ministry , or any other source, that indicates that some, a good part, or all of this work might not have been done without the expenditure of public funds.
When the program was brought forth there was an implicit worry that things must be accomplished in a hurry because of the worry of rapidly increasing petroleum prices. That has not turned out to be the case. Consequently, we do not have to continue with programs just because they were put in place at one time. Times have changed.
I will deal for a moment with the CHIP Program. That program has been in existence since 1977. It originally started off with relatively old homes. It was extended dramatically during the 1979 election campaign as the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tried to ensure for himself his own seat. He unfortunately could not do that; he is no longer
March 4, 1985

with us. He got involved in other forms of energy in the east after the election. However, that is another matter. In any event, he decided to change the program during the course of that election. He was not successful in garnering many votes, but he changed the program.
At one point the program involved a grant of up to $500 and 100 per cent of the cost of materials. That became subject to astronomical amounts of fraud. I brought one case to the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, now the External Affairs critic in the Official Opposition, the Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien). One of my constituents was taken in by an operator under the CHIP program. He had a mobile home and the operator decided that he would insulate the mobile home for $350. He came around one day with three tubes of caulking cement and proceeded to insulate the mobile home. The bill was $350. He had the invoice all prepared and wanted my constituent to approve it. My constituent decided he would not approve it. Eventually the cheque came from the Ministry for $350. I still have the cheque in my constituency office. My constituent would not pay the bill and the insulating company has yet to take my constituent to court. However, the former Minister, the present Member for Saint-Maurice, could not see anything wrong with the case. He did not think it was a case of fraud. We wanted the courts to decide it, but unfortunately no one wants to take that matter to court. There is no question that the CHIP Program created all sorts of activity in the insulation field whereby insulation contractors managed to skew their invoices in such a way that almost all of the work was billed as material, little was billed as labour, and the CHIP Program was abused and misused.
We all ought to consider realistically what services government should supply to citizens in the normal course. There are some things that people can do for themselves. Indeed, everything should be done by people for themselves as far as possible. It is the job of government to look after the sick, those incapable of looking after themselves, and the old. It is not the job of government to look after those in society who are well and capable of looking after themselves.
That is one of the principal objections to this type of program. This program is an attempt by government to tell people how to spend their money. On that philosophical basis this is a bad program because it does not ask people to look after themselves. It attempts, in the big brother fashion, to direct how people look after themselves, how they live, and how they handle their own affairs. That cannot be the purpose of government. Government has become too large in our society. The function of government must be cut back. This is a prime example of how government function can be cut back.
I commend the Minister for introducing this Bill because it is a first step in cutting back the size, purpose, and direction of government. Ours is not a government of big brother as expressed by the Liberal and New Democratic Parties. The job of this Government is not to tell people how to insulate their homes, what kind of furnace they should have, or how to spend their money. This Government expects people to look after themselves, to be prudent in their affairs, to earn their own
Oil Substitution Act
money, and to spend their own money as they see fit. It should not be our job to do that for them.
This program, like a number of other government programs, must be eliminated. Even a government which is prepared to say that it has an obligation to look after people from the cradle to the grave would get rid of this program because the price of energy is falling dramatically. As the price of energy falls, the spending of money on energy conservation should fall as well. After all, why spend money trying to conserve something, the price of which is getting lower all the time? Even if a government believed in directing people how to live, why would it spend money on this program?
If a government had huge surpluses it might conceivably spend money on this kind of a program in a transfer back to home owners. That would be something similar to a state dividend. However, the December and January figures which have been circulated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicate that for this current fiscal year the Government is borrowing 38 cents for every dollar spent. This means that only 62 cents of every dollar we are spending is from the taxpayer while the rest represents borrowing.
These figures require us to look at every government program, not just the ones under discussion today. I include programs like the Federal Business Development Bank and others with respect to exports with which we are not being very efficient. It includes programs such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We must priorize our objectives in this country.
This particular subsidy program must be eliminated because it is no longer needed and causes undue interference in the way people live. It is a subsidy for relatively affluent Canadians. It is a waste of government funding that increases our deficit. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and a question. Why did the Conservative Party not raise its objection to these series of government programs during the election campaign if it is such an important issue to them? To my knowledge, all of their promises concerned offering more programs to Canadians, with relatively few cuts. If they are in favour of cutting programs, why was this not advocated during the election campaign?
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said that I neglected to talk about the deficit during my speech. So as not to disappoint the Hon. Member, let me remind him of some deficit-causing promises made by his Party during the campaign. Hon. Members should recall that 139 Conservative promises would have increased the deficit while seven promises would have reduced it. I thank the Hon. Member for raising that point because it is important for all Members to know where the Tories stood on the deficit during the campaign.
The Hon. Member is of the view that the CHIP Program and COSP Program artificially boosted the prices of such

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
commodities as furnaces. I suggest it is rather ironic that the same Member who says that the free market system does not work in terms of buying furnaces claims that it works well in terms of buying oil. I see that as a very curious contradiction. I find it puzzling that the Hon. Member, who is a right-wing Conservative, would advocate regulating the price of furnaces but not regulating the price of oil.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South told us the sad story of a particular business operator who attempted to defraud a client. Need I remind him that the consumer protection legislation of the Conservative Government of Ontario is absolutely preposterous. It is no wonder that consumers are being gouped as a result of the lack of proper consumer protection in the Province of Ontario. I am glad that he brought that issue up as well and I hope he raises it with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of Ontario.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed disappointed at the poorly organized objection to my remarks made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I thought he would have paid better attention to the question of whether these programs did in fact abuse the market-place. He ought to realize that subsidies can lead to price increases that are beyond what is fair in the market-place. However, I understand that he is a critic and his job is not to add too much to the validity of the debate.
Does the Hon. Member sincerely believe that we should continue to have a deficit anywhere from $35 billion to $40 billion? Would he have us continue with these programs because it is the Liberals' attitude that no existing programs should be changed or eliminated no matter what the cost? If that is his Party's position, then there certainly will be some interesting debates in the House.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) was critical of the CHIP Program and the COSP Program because of their influence on how people will spend their money, that they interfere with the market-place and allow too much government involvement. Would he apply the same criteria for tax write-offs to corporations as he would to home owners with regard to grants for insulation?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with the Hon. Member that the use of the tax system to influence the attitude of business people is subject to some serious criticism. Indeed, I have written to the Minister of Finance, as I hope the Hon. Member has, setting out a number of propositions whereby changes might be made to the tax system that would bring more fairness to it and perhaps eliminate a number of propositions that are exceedingly unfair. I hope the Minister will pay attention to some of those suggestions.
I hope the Hon. Member's Party will make some suggestions with respect to particular tax expenditures that might be eliminated. Obviously there is something wrong with the tax expenditure program when it enables some people to use tax expenditures as a means to reduce their income totally. While
people may use an expenditure program, I believe it is important to make sure that tax expenditures are not abused. The CHIP and COSP Programs are a direct grant expenditure and should be eliminated as well.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty understanding the logic of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). He seemed to suggest that saving a barrel of oil is not as beneficial as exploring and developing that resource, that only a few barrels of oil are saved. With respect to the COSP Program, 32,000 barrels of oil per day were saved; with respect to CHIP, it was 28,500 barrels of oil per day. These savings continue indefinitely.
I did not read anywhere in the Conservatives' campaign literature that they would either eliminate or reduce the life of the CHIP and COSP Programs. However, the Conservatives indicated that they would eliminate the PIP Program. According to the Estimates, there is $1.6 billion provided for the PIP Program-the program which the Conservatives promised to eliminate. The Conservatives did not say anything about eliminating the COSP or CHIP Programs but are doing so. It seems they are not doing what they said they would and doing what they said they would not do. I know the Hon. Member said that he is very concerned about big government and big spending. I was wondering whether he could identify closely with the article published yesterday in The Toronto Sun by Derek Hodgson which reads:
Brian Mulroney seems to have an office structure built along the lines of a court of the Russian czars-
Some malcontents say the only guy working on the third floor of the Parliament buildings is the jut-jawed chappie in the corner office. Everybody else is trying to line up a trip or hire an assistant.
In the operative clause relating to the Hon. Member it reads:
With a burgeoning budget that has suddenly been bumped by a "tiny" $2.3 million and seen the staff numbers jump from 90 to 120, there has been a growth industry in renaming job titles. Mulroney staffers who short months ago were somebody's assistant are now getting their own office help.
I know the Hon. Member has been very active on the Public Accounts and the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committees, but does he agree with that increase of $2.3 million a year and an increase in the Prime Minister's office staff of 33 per cent, which was so ably described by Mr. Hodgson in yesterday's Toronto Sunl


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The second part of the Hon. Member's comments are not relevant to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I think we have to reduce government expenditures. If the Hon. Member will come to the committee and go after the Prime Minister's expenditures as they come to the committee, I am sure he will have ample opportunity to speak and perhaps we can get from his Party some advice as to what items in the Estimates should be cut back.
March 4, 1985

On the question of the oil programs, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member that we have an enormous deficit. We have programs that are running away from us. What we have to do is have the co-operation of the House in order to reduce those programs. It seems to me that the Petroleum Incentive Program will be up for some pretty serious cutting back. Obviously that program is in place and a Bill has not been introduced to remove it yet. I suggest to the Hon. Member, as I am sure he will discover when he asks the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), that the Petroleum Incentives Program will probably be more seriously cut back than the Estimates would even begin to suggest when the legislation changing the National Energy Program is brought in in final form. The Hon. Member knows that there are negotiations going on with the provinces. He also knows those Bills are very, very complicated. I am sure he will find that before this year is out the promises with respect to that type of expenditure will be gone.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now resume debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this Bill presents more than any other Bill the strange sense of priorities of this Government. We were promised during the election campaign two things. First was jobs, jobs, jobs. Second was the cutting of the deficit. The two might not always be compatible but we should look at them in the sense of promises made by this Government when it sought election last summer. The Government made the announcement two months after the election that it would cut these programs. This was immediately against promises the Government made that it would establish jobs.
One of the basic effects of programs such as the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, the Canadian Home Insulation Program, RRAP and others is that they are programs which are in a sense partly job-creation programs. There has not been any government program other than these three I have mentioned-and I include RRAP because it deals also with homes, as do the other two-that the Government has put before the people that has had a greater direct effect and indirect effect on job creation. If a person uses this grant program, $800 comes from the Government, and the individual in most cases making use of the program has to put in considerably more than that, perhaps as much as $2,000 or $3,000.
A good portion of the money was spent directly on jobs and the rest was spent on the purchase of materials, an indirect creation of jobs. The furnaces and the lines that were put in were in most cases made in Canada. It has been suggested that three times as much money was spent in these programs than was actually made in the form of a grant.
The announcement two months after the election that the Government was going to eliminate these programs indicates that the Government has no intention of making use of government funds for job creation. It is almost incredible that the Government would not recognize that this program is a better job-creation program than any of the money the Government
has put forward in its so-called billion dollar programs that have been announced in the last few weeks. The Government could very easily have transferred these three programs to job-creation programs and made better use of the money it is spending than it is doing in its present job-creation programs. In fact, the Government could fulfil one of the main requirements which the Minister has been saying about job creation. We need to use the private sector in these programs. With the $800 grant for oil substitution, the total bill was more like $3,000. The private sector put in the extra money for job creation; job creation directly for the fellow who put in the furnace and job creation indirectly for the materials purchased in order to instal the furnace.
This applies even more so with the Canadian Home Insulation Program. As most Members will know, the Canadian Home Insulation Program paid for 60 per cent of the labour. There was already a requirement from the private sector of 40 per cent to be put into labour, plus all of the materials that were required, of which you could also claim a certain portion in a grant.
In the few minutes I have, I want to put before this House the proposition that the Government, instead of cutting off these programs, would do far more for the country if it extended them. The Government could move them to another department if necessary, but we should keep them and expand them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the Hon. Member that he has 14 minutes remaining this afternoon.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, six months ago today, the Canadian people gave the Conservatives an overwhelming mandate to govern the country. Let us take a moment to analyse what the Government has accomplished, or not accomplished, so far.
One of its first acts, on November 8 when it tabled its economic statement, was intended to put the axe to just about every good program the Liberals had established. Thanks to the Liberal Opposition, the universality programs remained

March 4, 1985
untouched. The previously cancelled 1986 census was reinstated following pressures by Liberals, thus creating 40,000 jobs.
One Minister resigned. Another one or two should have resigned following their involvement in the Hatfield affair. Porkbarrelling has taken a new, undreamed of dimension, competence not being a criterion for appointment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has adopted a dictatorship approach in running the country, increasing the operation budget of his office by 57 per cent, continuously overriding his Ministers whose role is now more or less that of puppets, and spending millions of dollars to change the uniforms of our Armed Forces, money that could have gone to the needy people of the country. We could go on and on speaking of the unkept promises of the Government. It would seem that the biggest accomplishment of the Prime Minister over the last six months has been his daily comedy session during Question Period. He laughs at his own jokes, spends his hard-earned money in Florida to boost the U.S. economy, and then ridicules Canadian industry in Fortune magazine.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, last week we were treated to a new Liberal version of the about-face the Liberals were so fond of when they were in power and were governing by opinion poll.
Mr. Speaker, last week, we heard the worthy Liberal Members from Quebec, the silent and consenting majority on Bill S-31, protest the Conservative Government's realistic and wise decision to deny direct subsidies to a company as sound and profitable as Domtar. However, despite the indignant cries of the Quebec Liberal caucus, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), when asked about the matter, did not support his worthy Members led by the bellwether politician from the riding of Bourassa (Mr. Rossi). What a marvelous example of Liberal logic and solidarity we were treated to last week!
This is all the more reason for us to celebrate our first six months of sound government.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of International Women's Week. It is a time to celebrate women's solidarity in our long struggle for equality.

As we approach the end of the United Nations International Decade for Women, can we say that progress has been made? When the wage gap between Canadian men and women is virtually unchanged, when the federal Government still refuses to enforce its own equal pay guidelines and when men continue to outnumber women on government boards and commissions, can we say that progress has been made?
When women are still fighting for control over their own bodies in the raging battle over freedom of choice on abortion, when 62 per cent of single, elderly women, and 42 per cent of families headed by women still live below the poverty line, when the Conservative Government has still not addressed the issue of technological change, when millions of women's jobs in the clerical and service sectors are expected to disappear by 1990, can we say that progress has been made?
When the women of the world who represent one-third of the official labour force, account for nearly two-thirds of all working hours, receive only one-tenth of world income, and own less than 1 per cent of world property, can we say that progress has been made?
Women everywhere are still second-class citizens. This week the New Democratic Party will be meeting women's groups across Canada to hear their priorities for action. We urge the Conservative Government-


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



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, today our Government is celebrating the fact it has been in power for six months, and I want to take this opportunity to tell my constituents in Argenteuil-Papineau how proud and honoured I am to represent them in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely astonished to hear Liberal Members say in the House that this Government has done nothing of any consequence since it came to power. Allow me to recall the sad story of the Mirabel expropriations. The previous Government had wittingly and unnecessarily proceeded with the expropriation of 80,000 acres of the best arable land in Quebec, which led to one of the most violent protest actions Canada has known for many years. Unwilling to admit that their unrealistic project to make Mirabel one of the busiest airports in the world had failed because of poor planning, the Liberals maintained this confrontation with expropriated land owners so as not to lose face before the Canadian public.
March 4, 1985

An article published recently in the press pointed out how remarkable it was for a Government that had been in power for only four months to have been able to find a solution to a problem that the previous administration had been unable to resolve in 15 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, residents and expropriated land owners can start to live again.
I shall conclude by saying that the people of the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau are very pleased with the performance of this Government, and I might add, with respect, that I prefer my constituents' views to those of Hon. Members opposite whose speeches have reflected the general frustration of the Liberals since their crushing defeat last September 4.



CITIZENSHIP


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak this afternoon about Ernst Zundel, who was convicted last week in Toronto in connection with the publication of defamatory material denying the holocaust. In doing so, 1 am taking account of the rule of sub judice. I have looked at the precedents this morning and have satisfied myself that, because a judgment has been rendered and because as yet no appeal has been launched, it is appropriate to comment in the House about the case.
I should like to remind Hon. Members that my Party has stood for the concept of fighting hate literature through the use of the Criminal Code. We introduced provisions to make it a crime to propagate hate literature. I know those provisions were not used in this case. I regret that and, as Members will recall, before the election we had amendments on the Order Paper to change the hate literature laws, to make them more open, and to make convictions more possible.
Having said that, I want to note also from what I have read that Ernst Zundel is not a Canadian citizen. If matters continue, as it appears they will, I want to indicate for my Party that we consider this a case in which recourse should be had to deportation.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the Department of National Revenue. During the weekend, a number of my constituents spoke to me about the declaration of taxpayers' rights.

today is the six-month anniversary of our election victory, and this action by a Minister is an example of the Government's intention to follow through with the spirit of our election campaign. The Minister responsible for the statement is a neighbour of mine. I knew about his determination to return to the people of Canada their natural rights in the taxation area. I applaud and thank my friend, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty). This was done in less than six months.
Perhaps I could explain why I am wearing a surgical collar at this time. When one sits in such a draft for five months, one is bound occasionally to get a pain in the neck.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are asking themselves whether it can really be six months since the Liberal Party of Canada was sent into the political twilight zone. On September 4 last the people of Canada voted for change, and the Tories promised a new beginning and eternal bliss. After six months Canadians are still at the altar, still waiting.
Certainly there has been a change of a sort. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has given us change-it began as a dollar bill and now it is just spare change.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has shown some change as well. He has changed his mind about universality; in fact he has changed his mind a couple of times about universality. He has changed his mind about the rights of the Auditor General to have access to government documents and about parliamentary review of political appointments. He has changed his mind about the use of higher interest rates to prop up the dollar. He has changed his mind about openness in Government, by gagging civil servants. Yes, Mr. Speaker, he has changed Defence Ministers.
The Prime Minister has become known as a changeling. It was not long ago that our neighbours to the South were asking their politicians a simple question: where's the beef? After six months of the Tories, we have found the bull.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the six-month anniversary of the Government's election to office with the largest majority ever given a political Party in Canada. All Canadians from coast to coast are now being represented in Government as well as having representation at the Cabinet level where we in Saskatchewan had no elected representation for almost a decade.
Much has been achieved in this short space of time. I point to the long awaited changes to the Western Grain Stabiliza-

March 4, 1985
tion Act, voluntary metric so farmers will be able to have dual labelling on agricultural chemicals, the establishment of a drought assistance program with the prairie provinces, the signing of the Atlantic Accord with the Province of Newfoundland as an equal partner, the signing of the offshore development fund agreement with Nova Scotia, and the reforestation agreement with Alberta. Legislation has been passed to simplify tax procedures for small businesses. The concept of universality in our social programs has again been confirmed.
At the First Ministers' conference recently held in Regina, the change was most evident. There is a positive atmosphere of co-operation and consultation between the provinces and the federal Government as a result of the new direction taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). My constituents join with me in applauding the Prime Minister for initiating this new direction.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said repeatedly, when he was on this side of the House and throughout the election campaign last summer, that the value of the Canadian dollar was directly related to Canada's image abroad, and that the value of our dollar is directly proportionate to the confidence of foreign investors in Canada.
Considering the dramatic and historic drop of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar, I wish to inform the House and the Canadian people that for once I share the views of the Prime Minister. He is right. The dramatic drop in our dollar does indeed demonstrate the lack of confidence of investors in his party and his Conservative Government. Mr. Speaker, what is even worse is the attitude and behaviour of a Prime Minister who prefers to vacation abroad instead of dealing with a situation that is getting steadily worse, because while our dollar is dropping, interest rates are rising.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, anniversaries are a special time, a time to pause, to celebrate the achievements of the past, to gain strength from those accomplishments, and to look forward with optimism to the future. That is why it is a special privilege today for me to acknowledge and celebrate the six-month anniversary of the election of a new Government for our great country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: It would take many minutes to put on record the accomplishments of these first six months, so in the 90 seconds allotted to me I will only point out my pride in our Government's commitment to consultation and co-operation. There has been consultation and co-operation with the provinces, as evidenced by the Regina conference and the Atlantic Accord, and there has been consultation and co-operation with all Canadians, as evidenced by the consultation papers on economic renewal, trade, housing, child and elderly benefits, tourism, and small business. Ministers and private Members have been meeting with groups and individuals from all parts of the country on these topics, listening and responding to their input and views.
This past weekend the British Columbia caucus spent two days in Burnaby, British Columbia, hearing from over 20 groups and individuals on a wide range of issues. They expressed their appreciation of the Government, a Government which listens and cares. It is in this spirit of co-operation and consultation that we shall continue to develop policies which reflect not only the knowledge of the experts but the views and feelings of Canadians across the land. We shall continue to fulfil our pledge: "Together, we can do it better."



ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a recent series of articles about how the Atomic Energy Control Board has failed to regulate the nuclear industry. It has allowed dangerous levels of operation for nuclear plants. It has allowed workers to be exposed to radioactive materials and to inhale radioactive dust. It has allowed radioactive material to be left in communities like Port Hope, and it has allowed the storage of nuclear waste where there are no safe facilities.
Last year in the House I asked the then Minister of Energy, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), a number of questions about why AECB was increasing the allowable level of exposure for workers, and particularly for pregnant women. Hearings on the matter were held behind closed doors. It is obvious that AECB is ineffective in controlling the atomic energy field in Canada. It is obvious that we need open hearings at which we can discuss the role of the Atomic Energy Control Board, and that these hearings must take place now.
March 4, 1985



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to ask a question of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, or the Minister for International Trade. However, the Minister of Finance will have to do.
Last week Statistics Canada reported that we had a very strong period of growth during 1984, with the exception of the period of time from the beginning of September until December. We know that that growth was driven in large part by major investments and sales in the automobile industry. That progress has now been put in jeopardy by the actions of the President of the United States who has removed any form of quotas on Japanese automobiles, thereby affecting the entire North American market.
I see that the Minister for International Trade is now in his seat. He may wish to answer the question. With that very important development made by the United States President, can we now have the Government present its position? Will the Government follow the Americans? Will it negotiate for new investments? Will it maintain the quotas? In other words, does the Government have a position, and will it put that position before Parliament before it is too late?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that we are certainly aware of the President's decision. I had an opportunity to discuss it more fully with Mr. Brock this past weekend, while in Germany. Now that I have returned, I will be discussing the matter with my Cabinet colleagues, and particularly with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. We hope to arrive at a decision, certainly before the end of March, and we will advise the Hon. Member at that time.


REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES' QUOTAS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. We have heard a great deal about the alleged special relationship between the United States and Canada that has been developed over the past several months. Can the Minister tell us if President Reagan did in fact consult directly with the Prime Minister before this announcement was made? If so, did we make our concerns known at that time? What was the nature of those consultations? In other words, were we treated properly as partners under the Auto Pact before the United States went ahead and made its decision last Friday?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say specifically whether or not the
Oral Questions
President of the United States advised the Prime Minister of his decision prior to making it public. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that Mr. Brock certainly kept us involved as to their ongoing discussions, and we were fully cognizant of all the options they were considering. As well, I can tell the Hon. Member that, when Canada makes a decision, it will be a decision that will be in the best interests of Canada.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that is the best news we have heard in the House for a long time. If the Minister was in fact in consultation with his American counterpart, and therefore knew that such a decision was forthcoming, why then has he not begun direct negotiations with the Japanese to procure the kind of agreements and trade concessions that the Americans have apparently gained in the area of wood items, and other areas as well, so that we would also be in a position to make sure that the best interests of this country were protected, both by increased Japanese investment in the automobile industry and by further trade concessions and arrangements with Japan?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to and I hope I did not mislead the hon. gentleman in any way. Mr. Brock certainly did not tell us in advance what would be the decision of the President. The Americans informed us that they were attempting to arrive at a decision and that there were a number of options.
I can also tell the Hon. Member that, when I was in Japan several weeks ago, I brought it to their attention that, if they wished to receive consideration from us, they should consider further investment in Canada.


EXPIRY OF QUOTA ARRANGEMENTS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister for International Trade. There are approximately three and a half weeks left before the present Japanese quota arrangements expire. Why will the Minister not say right now that he and the Government will not allow Japanese automobile imports to swamp the Canadian market, which will wipe out tens of thousands of Canadian jobs and all the economic growth which happened last year, growth which, according to Statistics Canada, was mainly due to the progress in the Canadian automobile industry? Why will the Minister not give that clear signal right now to the Japanese, to show that he really wants to protect Canadian workers?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again I can advise the Hon. Member that we are well aware of the concerns of the workers and the industries in Canada. My colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, prior to his departure for the Far East, held a number of meetings with Mr. White, the auto manufacturers,

March 4, 1985
Oral Questions
and the parts manufacturers. We are well briefed on their concerns, and we will make a decision in due course, prior to the expiration of the voluntary restraints.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF QUOTAS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the first time all the major players in the Canadian automobile industry met with the Minister was two weeks ago. I do not think that is enough in the interest of this major Canadian industry. It is not a very good signal about consultation.
Will the Minister tell the Japanese right now that the quotas will have to be extended unless the Japanese enter into arrangements which are equivalent to those required of North American automobile manufacturers under the Auto Pact, for investment, purchasing, production and jobs in Canada, as recommended by the automotive task force which was set up by the previous Government, which represented a unanimous consensus of the workers, automobile manufacturers, and car parts manufacturers? Why will the Minister not speak up right now and make that commitment in the interests of the Canadian people and Canadian workers?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the Hon. Member to think that we have waited until the last several weeks to discuss problems of this nature with the auto industry. Late last fall I personally met with Mr. Lavelle and the major auto manufacturers. In any event, it is the strategy and purpose of this Government, before making decisions, to discuss things properly, and to investigate all of the issues.


JAPANESE INVESTMENT IN CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. Does the Minister recognize that among almost all of the industrialized nations in the world Canada stands alone as being the only nation in which the Japanese auto industry has not moved to make substantial investment? Does the Minister not recognize that if we do give up the quotas we will not have a lever to use to extract from them the kind of investment in Canada which we need in order to balance investment in the North American continent? Why is it that the Minister is unable to tell us what the Government's policy is, given that he has known for six months that the issue was before him, that he has known the circumstances for the last six months, and that now, with three weeks left to go, he is still talking to his fellow Ministers about a solution?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the Hon. Member that we are well aware of the problem and the implications. We have been holding discussions. When those discussions are concluded and we have arrived at a decision, I will be more than pleased to advise him.


REQUEST FOR JAPANESE INVESTMENT GUARANTEES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, that sounds so much like the answers I received when I asked Liberal Ministers questions about the same problem two years ago. Will the Minister-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Well, the NDP has not progressed far either.


Ian Deans: We are closer to you.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Geographically.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Deans: In the interest of allaying the fears of those who are involved in the Canadian automobile industry, will the Minister state today that there will be no lifting of the quotas until there are substantial guarantees of Japanese auto investment in Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again I can only reiterate what I have already said. We are discussing the problem, and an answer will be forthcoming. When the decision is made it will be a solution that is in the best interests of Canada and not some other country.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, according to the media this morning, the Prime Minister personally met the President of Domtar, Mr. James Smith, in the middle of February to inform him that Ottawa had turned down the requested regional development subsidy. It will of course not be easy to obtain confirmation of this meeting, but meanwhile, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would be willing to table in the House the Government's official letter to Domtar turning down the subsidy, so that we can see whether it alludes to other forms of government aid that might help Domtar renovate its facilities at its Windsor mill in Quebec.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, although the Hon. Member seems to think we could not confirm such a meeting, I can give him the assurance there was a meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of Domtar, but since I was not present, I cannot disclose what transpired. However, the meeting did take place, and I imagine that both parties explained their positions.
March 4, 1985


DOMTAR-NEED FOR QUEBEC TO BE REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER MINISTER
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, after an answer as vague as this one, I think I can ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following question: In light of the clumsy manner in which the Domtar case has been dealt with to date, does the Deputy Prime Minister not think it is high time there were some changes made in the Department so that a more responsible, stronger and more competent Minister can represent Quebecers on economic issues in this Government?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, all information submitted to the Government on the Domtar case has been examined. Looking at the sequence of events, the first issue was the subsidy itself. The Prime Minister, following the decision announced by the Government, made it very clear to this House that he was going to meet with the Premier of Quebec and that this subject would be on the agenda.
I would therefore ask my hon. friends opposite to wait until talks between the two first Ministers have taken place instead of jumping to conclusions the nature of which, for the time being, is not factual but political and as such, to no one's advantage.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, who is no doubt aware that this is the six-month anniversary of the election of the Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I did my best to set up the Government House Leader, as he needs all the assistance he can get.
Considering that the Government promised not merely new rhetoric but fairness, and considering that the Minister of Finance said on the weekend, according to the reports-and I know he corrects them from time to time-that there would be no increase in taxes, and that at the same time a report from Statistics Canada indicated that upper-income Canadians are still reaping immense tax advantages, will the Government at least re-establish the tax level of upper-income Canadians to what it was before the Liberals reduced their tax burden a couple of years ago to give them an immense advantage over the rest of Canadians?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the New Democratic Party has drawn to the House's attention that this is the six-month anniversary of our election to power. I just want to advise the Hon.
Oral Questions
Member and his colleagues that there have been quite a lot of things achieved during this period; the spousal allowance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is question and answer period. Statements come later.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I do have an awful lot of things here, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to get on the record.


Mr. Nielsen:: He had time to put the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It will only take me about 15 minutes, but out of deference to your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I will forgo that long list and respond to the Hon. Member's question this way. The whole matter of tax reform is going to be dealt with in the Budget this spring, and I would hope that a number of the questions which the Hon. Member has raised over the past few months will be addressed. We have very much of a like mind about some of those things. You would be surprised.


John Edward Broadbent: It's not a question of having a like mind. It's a question of getting action. That is what the people of Canada want on this issue.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is why they rejected your Party so wholeheartedly.


EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Another important aspect of fairness which the Government promised during the course of the election campaign was directed to the fate of Canadian women, particularly those in the workplace. My question concerns the reality that 42 per cent of the labour market is made up of women but they are receiving a much smaller percentage of the jobs which are directly funded by the federal Government. If the federal Government wants to deliver in a concrete way on a specific promise, will the Minister ensure that 42 per cent of the federally funded jobs go to Canadian women, who want nothing more, but nothing less than their share of employment opportunities?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the question put forward by the Hon. Member. I would say to him that the Prime Minister announced in Regina that the Government of Canada had accepted in principle the principle of employment equity as outlined in Judge Abella's report. I will be giving the details of the Government's response later this week.
I might also remind the Hon. Member that, since the Government came to office, a number of other steps have been
2690

March 4, 1985
Presence in Gallery
taken which have been of tremendous benefit to women. For instance, we have introduced-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -the amendments to the spouse's allowance which will affect-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can tell him a good many things which have been done in this regard.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister, with all due respect, as one says in this place, that it is not the principles of the Prime Minister which concern me, it is his practice.


RATIO OF WOMEN IN LABOUR FORCE
John Edward Broadbent: I go back to my question specifically. The Minister well knows that, of the parttime labour force, for example, who are given a bad deal in terms of over-all benefits, 72 per cent are women. Most of the people affected by technological change are women. In short, more needs to be done if we believe in equality. Since women make up 42 per cent of the labour force, will the Government ensure that 42 per cent of the jobs directly funded by the federal Government go to women?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party said that more needs to be done. I completely agree with him. It is for that reason today that I announced that there is an increase in dependent care allowance for children-


Ian Deans: What has that got to do with 42 per cent of the money?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -of parents-that is, single mothers- who are in training programs. For instance, a woman with two children who received $80 a week now will receive $150 a week-almost double-because we are concerned that women who are in the labour force, or who hope to get into the labour force, will get the breaks which they need. I would ask the Hon. Member to wait until later this week to hear the total response to the Abella report.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. PHIL GILLIES, MINISTER FOR YOUTH, PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings to advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery today of the
Honourable Phil Gillies, Minister for Youth, of the Province of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance said he could speak for 15 minutes about what his Government has done. We on this side of the House can spend two days telling him what it has not done.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We noticed, Mr. Speaker.


Sergio Marchi: Last June, in Toronto, the Prime Minister boasted that his Government would increase federal funding to the multiculturalism directorate. Last week's Estimates, however, revealed the real priority which his Government attaches to multiculturalism. That Ministry was cut by $2.2 million, which represents almost 9 per cent of its total budget. How can the Minister's Government justify promising ethno-cultural communities that it would increase the presence of multiculturalism within the federal Government, and then move to reduce seriously the financial life blood of multiculturalism? How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain this regressive flip-flop to the ethnic communities of the country?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for multiculturalism is absent today, and in view of the importance of the Hon. Member's question and the length of the response which would be necessary, I would be happy to take the question as notice and inform the Minister upon his return to the House.


Sergio Marchi: I would think that the Deputy Prime Minister would be important enough to answer, Mr. Speaker. The Estimates are there for everyone to see. They have been confirmed by the Government.


SIZE OF BUDGET
Sergio Marchi: With respect to my initial question, given the fact that the Government has made a multitude of promises and commitments to the multicultural part of Canada, how can it now justify reducing the budget for multiculturalism to a substantial degree? How will Government approach these same communities now? How can it have that credibility?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there are many areas in which we have made progress during the last six months. The multicultural area is one of them. With respect to the details asked for today by the Hon. Member, I am sure that, in all
March 4, 1985

reason, he would not expect me to be familiar with the Estimates of each and every single Department of Government. I would suggest that the reasonable course for the Hon. Member would be to wait until the Minister responsible returns to the House for the answer to the very important question he raises.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Minister of State for Small Businesses. It deals with the excellent record of women entrepreneurs in our society. During the election debate on women's issues the Prime Minister stated: "The problem for women is that they don't have equal access to credit with the lending institutions" and, second: "There must be very strong action by the federal Government as the regulator to ensure that those women involved in small business have fair and equal access to credit". Does the Minister agree with these statements? If so, where is the concrete action to ensure that women are given equal access to credit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses is absent today because, as I am sure the Hon. Member would be interested in knowing, he is on a tour across Canada and meeting with various groups to discuss-


Mr. Tobin:: He was here this morning. He is here.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -a number of questions, some of which have been raised by the Hon. Member today. I am sure that the Minister of State for Small Businesses, when he returns to the House, would be very happy to respond specifically to that question.


CONTENT OF DISCUSSION PAPER
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister agree that, if women entrepreneurs were given the opportunity to participate on an equal footing, they would be able to do even better at providing jobs in our country? If he does agree, would he tell us why the Government did not include in the Small Businesses Loans Act, and in the discussion paper on small business, a concentration on women?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Hon. Member's Party, we have great faith in the ability of women to get credit.


Pauline Jewett: Where have you been?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: One of the things which I have found out, in the many meetings which I have had with different groups across the country, is that there is a growing
Oral Questions
realization and understanding of the success of businesses which are run by women, and the success which they have had in creating employment over the last little while. This is recognized by people in the financial community, and they are responding now to the success performance of women in our country.


PUBLIC WORKS
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
The Minister and all Members of this House have witnessed what I would refer to as the monstrous land expropriations at Mirabel. Could the Minister inform the House whether negotiations on settlement proposals with expropriated landowners, residents and the Town of Mirabel are about to reach a satisfactory conclusion?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House today that a general proposal on the sale-back of land to expropriated landowners will be announced within a year, and also and I think all my colleagues will be happy to hear this-that ninety per cent of the consultation work and the work on the proposal that will be announced shortly has been completed.
I realize the Hon. Member is very interested in how the settlement is progressing, and I hope that with the co-operation of the expropriated landowners, I will be in a position to announce this general proposal before the end of this session.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns the Richard Hatfield marijuana case which was rendered a miscarriage of justice by the Conservative Government.
The Prime Minister has consistently refused to tell this House and Canadians when he was first made aware that marijuana was found in Premier Hatfield's luggage. One can only conclude that he is hiding something and is stonewalling. I would like to ask the Solicitor General when he first advised the Prime Minister that marijuana was found in Premier Hatfield's luggage. Was it on September 26 when he was

March 4, 1985
Oral Questions
informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that the marijuana was found?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: The reason I am rising to reply, Mr. Speaker, is that I informed the Prime Minister the day before the charges were laid that charges were to be laid against Premier Hatfield. That is when the Prime Minister first heard about the matter. Naturally, he made no attempt to intervene or influence the course of events in any manner whatsoever.


DATE INQUIRY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of when the Prime Minister found out that a charge would be laid. What I am asking, for the umpteenth time, is when was the Prime Minister first made aware that the marijuana was found? Was he told by the Solicitor General, by Premier Hatfield, or was he told by Dalton Camp?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is so blind, deaf, and dumb to the requirements of justice that he cannot understand English. He was told the day before the charges were laid that marijuana was allegedly found in the possession of Premier Hatfield and that charges would be laid. That is when the Prime Minister was told. If I had thought of it, I might have told the hon. gentleman as well.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I wonder whether he could give the House the assurance that the options considered by the Government for helping Domtar included purchasing securities that would make the Government of Canada a shareholder in this company. Could he also give the House the assurance that the policy announced by his Minister in November and denied by the Prime Minister last week, will not be used to discriminate against Domtar on the basis that it is a "branch" of a Quebec Crown corporation?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, I simply wish to recall what the Prime Minister said last week when he clearly indicated to the House that he intended to discuss with the Premier of Quebec various ways of helping Domtar. The Prime Minister also made it clear that the shareholding aspect was not a key factor in the decision made by his Government.


IMPORTANT ECONOMIC PROJECTS FOR QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. Since he has said that the Government has rejected the option of becoming a shareholder, since the Department's policy is to refuse to give subsidies to this company, and considering that all Quebec Cabinet Ministers have been kept out of this affair, how does the Government intend to pursue economic projects of any importance and scope for the province of Quebec in the future? Surely the Prime Minister can do something.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is talking about assumptions as though they were facts. None of these assumptions has been supported by some statement made on this side of the House. We have clearly said that we were going to have consultations with the Government of Quebec. The Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec will be meeting later this week to look into various options for helping Domtar. This, of course, in a situation where the present Government must cope with the tremendous burden of public debt and the cost of servicing that debt, a legacy from the previous Government which itself did nothing during the many months it was considering Domtar's application. We shall therefore be looking at what can be done.


AIRPORTS
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Consistent with the spirit of consultation and co-operation which have been the hallmarks of the first six months of this Government's administration-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Author.


Mary Collins: -could the Minister advise the House of the outcome of his Department's consultations with the various groups interested in providing an upgraded, high quality transportation service to and from Vancouver International Airport, including a luxury cab and limousine service, so that such services can be available well in advance of the great influx of visitors to Vancouver to participate in Expo 86?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I am sure, it was the intention of Transport Canada to call for tenders for limousine service out of Vancouver International Airport. However, there were some concerns expressed about the manner in which the tenders were being called and, as a result, it has been decided to postpone the tendering process pending further
March 4, 1985

discussions between Transport Canada officials, representatives of the Cities of Vancouver and Richmond, and the British Columbia Motor Carrier Commission. Those discussions are taking place today, and they will hopefully provide the terms of reference for a public forum to resolve the matter fully.


AGRICULTURE
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question concerning agriculture to the President of the Treasury Board, who is a partner in crime in this serious inspection fee problem we have with potatoes in the Province of Prince Edward Island. The Minister will know that for a number of weeks now officials of his Department and of the Department of Agriculture have been meeting with the provincial Government, the Potato Producers Association, and the Potato Marketing Board, to consider the proposed cost recovery increases, as the Minister calls them. As of Saturday, Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward island producers are selling potatoes at two cents a pound below cost. Will the Minister stand in his place today and tell the potato producers of this country that he will not impose any such fees on the backs of farmers?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to reply to the Hon. Member that I have had numerous representations on the issue. I understand well the concern of the potato producers in that province. The matter is under advisement and under very active discussion between myself and the Minister of Agriculture. I hope we will be able to reach a point where a specific declaration can be made very shortly.


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the proposed increases are to go into effect April 1. There is dumping of potatoes in Prince Edward Island today because of those proposed fees. Will the Minister postpone any such increases until September 1 in the next crop year?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, will ensure that whatever moves the Government takes are consistent with national interest and with the great need that we have, because of the poor administration of the previous Government, to bring our deficit under control.
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


EQUAL ACCESS BY WOMEN
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. [Translation]
At the meeting last week in Montreal attended by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Federation des femmes du Quebec, the Federation expressed its concern about the fact that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women in Canada had decided to abolish the committee on equal opportunities for women in the Public Service. Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Could the Minister now reinstate this committee on equal opportunities in the Public Service for Canadian women?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that the whole question of equal opportunities for women in the Public Service is not under review. This is a matter of the utmost importance to our Government. I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who is responsible for the Abella Report and who said earlier that she would be making a statement this week in the House on a number of measures that the Conservative Government intends to take, is handling this matter very well, and she has my full support.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister has yet to answer my question, and I shall repeat it. The Government now has a committee on equal opportunities for women in the Public Service, and the Minister responsible announced last week that he wanted to abolish this committee. Is the Minister prepared to reinstate this committee for Canadian women? It is a very important committee.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. friend's question, I can inform him that this Government intends to act quickly to establish a system that will provide fairer and more equitable recognition of the equality of women throughout the public service, Government's Crown corporations and agencies and all its activities, than was the case under the system established by the previous government.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of State for Finance. The Minister of State was quoted this morning as saying that the Government may reduce the budget of the Canada Post Corporation, a statement which must have an unsettling effect on the delicate labour negotiations now under way. Is it Government policy that any salary increases now negotiated may in fact be

March 4, 1985
Oral Questions
rescinded through budget cuts after the negotiation process is concluded?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should like to rephrase her question because that is not what my colleague said over the weekend. What she did say was in the context of the cost control exercise that the Government is going through, and will continue to go through. All elements of government spending are under review. That includes Crown corporations as well as the government services.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if Ministers on the other side would say what they mean, we would not be constantly asking for clarification.


LABOUR NEGOTIATIONS
Aideen Nicholson: In view of the fact that the Minister's unfortunate remarks were subject to the kind of interpretation I gave, will the Minister now confirm that there was no intention by the Government to derail what could be a satisfactory settlement which would avoid the severe economic costs of a postal strike?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are quite encouraged by the way the negotiations are developing between Canada Post and the union. We have no intention of trying to do anything to upset those negotiations. As the Hon. Member knows, they are in a very delicate state, but we are confident that the results will be quite satisfactory for all Canadians.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will he confirm to the House that negotiations which will restrict the production of generic drugs in Canada, and thus substantially increase the price of prescription drugs, have been going on between the Government, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, to the exclusion of groups such as the Consumers Association of Canada, in advance of the publication of the Eastman Report which was commissioned to provide information on what is going on and what is needed?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, I can inform him we have been advised that talks are being held by various groups of companies, including manufacturers of generic drugs and the pharmaceutical companies, for
the purpose of reaching a compromise on this difficult issue of pharmaceutical products.


LICENCE APPLICATIONS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not indicate whether his Department, or any other Department, is involved in these discussions. The Minister knows that the use of generic drugs has saved the people of Canada tens of millions of dollars.
Have applications for new licensing of generic drugs been frozen for 90 days? This action could mean the end of the industry and lead to tremendous increases in costs to the Canadian consumer.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the Hon. Member that, in fact, no licensing applications have been frozen for any period of time whatsoever and that all applications are being processed as usual.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for External Affairs and the Minister of External Relations, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday two of the Government's emissaries, Mr. David MacDonald and Mr. Stephen Lewis, returned from the Sudan and warned that the famine in that part of the world will take on even greater proportions if relief efforts are not renewed. In essence, they called on Canadians to contribute more.
Last Friday, in response to a question I put to the Minister of External Relations, she refused to promise that a CIDA program, destined to reclaim land from the desert in Africa, would not be cancelled. How can the Government justify even considering cancelling such a program which is designed to reclaim lands from the desert in Africa and, on the other hand, ask Canadians to contribute more?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we are very much concerned with the news that has been revealed by Mr. MacDonald recently and have that matter under active consideration. When any announcements are to be made, I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the Minister of State, will make those announcements.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, that is the same kind of fuzzy answer that we got on Friday. At that time, and I think in contempt for this House, the Minister answered that she did
March 4, 1985

not think she had any obligation to announce such a program in the House.


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM NOT BE CANCELLED
David Berger: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give his Government's commitment today that the $25 million project to irrigate the Sahel will not be cancelled and that Canada, through its Government, will continue its crucial work, using Canadian advanced technology, to combat starvation in Africa?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the efforts of Canada in the field of foreign aid are the private, personal preserve of any particular Member of the House or of any particular political Party. Canada can take pride in those efforts which it has exerted in the foreign aid field. Those who start programs which assist the underprivileged and needy people of the world surely should not be touted in a partisan way. I am sure that the history of the House of Commons will show that all Parties share a concern with respect to foreign aid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the specific question-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Gauthier:: Nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: I had, until now, been addressing the specific preamble. The Minister responsible will be making any announcement, if and when it should be made.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL OIL NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker I have a short question which is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the six-month anniversary period. One of the unnoticed failures of the Government has been its failure to achieve an oil deal with Alberta. The real deal is with Alberta, not Newfoundland.
If one reads the Government's Estimates carefully, they show that the Minister expects to get more money at the expense of the industry and the producing provinces. Will he indeed bring down a Budget without having an oil deal with the provinces. I do not think he can. Does he intend to rely on those Estimates and bring down a Budget without an oil deal with the provinces?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the long ques-
Introduction of Bills
tion is that the subjects which the Member has raised in the House today are under active negotiation with the provinces as we sit in this House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stewart Mclnnes (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 1,118 constituents of Halifax who wish to express their concern about recent and possible future cuts to arts and cultural funding by the Government.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reconsider the funding cuts which will have a devastating effect on the Canadian cultural community and society as a whole.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition whereby four Laval University students are asking for several changes to make the Auditor General's mandate clearer and to give him all necessary powers, including access to any information he may need to discharge his heavy responsibilities.



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-225, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this Bill is to implement the repeated recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction, including the Armed Forces and the RCMP, and to amend the Criminal Code and human rights legislation to put an end to all discrimination against gays and lesbians in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 4, 1985
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by as asterick.)
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 84, 244 and 255.



AECL-INVESTIGATIONS IN ATIKOKAN AREA

Mr. Angus: 1.	Did Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. conduct investigations in the Atikokan area of northwestern Ontario and, if so, in which fiscal years?
2.	For the same years (a) what goods and services were purchased by AECL or any firm acting on its behalf in the local area and from which suppliers (b) what hotel/motel facilities were used by AECL and how many bed-nights were purchased for each facility (c) what was the cost of public relations activities by AECL, including staff wages and benefits, purchased services, travel and accomodation?
Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Energy, Mines and Resources): Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
1.	AECL has been conducting investigations in the Atikokan area of northwestern Ontario since 1979.
2.	(a) See table below listing goods and services purchased in Atikokan by AECL and its contractors. This list may not be comprehensive because AECL's accounting procedures do not provide such a fine breakdown.
Expenditures in Atikokan since 1979 amount to approximately $1.4 million and represent about 20 per cent of the total Atikokan research expenditures, excluding AECL salaries.
(b)	AECL has spent approximately $290,000 in accommodation in Atikokan since 1979. This represents about 11,500 bed-nights with an approximate breakdown amongst the Atikokan motels as follows:
Radison Motel -45 per cent White Otter Inn -35 per cent Steep Rock Motel -10 per cent Atikokan Hotel - 5 per cent Pines Motel - 5 per cent
(c)	The total cost of public relations activities for AECL in Atikokan since 1979 is approximately $135,000. About $30,000 of that amount is for accommodation and local telephone and mailing costs. The remainder represents salaries for AECL's Public Affairs personnel.
Local Suppliers Used By AECL
Atikokan Hotel Harold Antler
Atikokan Progress and Printing Atikokan Public Library BR Davidson Construction Stan Bates Construction The Bay Bell Canada
Browns Clearwater Lodge Canadian Propane Gas and Oil Chesies Cafe Dougs Texaco Frankies Stationery
Food, accommodation Technical services* Advertising* Photocopying Road maintenance* Road construction and maintenance* General supplies Communications* Road snow plowing* Propane gas Food
Gas, oil, services* Stationery, general*
Freds Allied Hardware	Hardware*
Gils Furniture and Appliances	Electrical*
Bill Dutka	Road clearing, maintenance*
SG Hancock	Surveying*
Hoppy's Drive Inn	Food
Johnsons Esso (Avis Rental Car)	Truck rental, gas, services*
Kim Vi Restaurant	Food
Lakehead Freightways	Freight surveys*
M&C Motors Ltd.	Services
MacLeods	Hardware*
Major Machine Works	Machinery, fabrication*
RC Moffat Supply Ltd.	General supplies*
Fern Elizabeth Ltd.	Labour*
Monty's Jewellers	General supplies*
Myer Lumber Co.	Timber*
Norontair	Air travel
O'Brien Service	Gas, services*
The Pines Motel	Accommodation
The Pizza Barn	Food
Quetico Tackle and Sport Ltd.	Maps, supplies
FR Quinn Ltd.	Office, storage, electrical*
Radison Motel	Accommodation*
Redland Construction	Road construction bidding
Rockton Motel	Accommodation
Sportsmen's Restaurant	Food
Steep, Rock Iron Mines	Information
Thunder Bay Bearings Ltd.	Hardware*
Quetico Exploration and Development Ltd.	Technical services*
Walts Dry Goods	Clothing, supplies
White Otter Inn	Accommodation, food
Steep Rock Hotel	Accommodation, food
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources	Maps, information, photocopying
Little Falls Community Centre	Food
Eva Marine	Boat rental and purchase*
Ontario Hydro Construction Group	Storage, accommodation, food
Indicates that contracts have been issued or local accounts have been held with those suppliers.



DPW-AWARD OF CONTRACTS

Mr. Boudria: From September 4, 1984 to December 31, 1984, how many Department of Public Works contracts have been awarded or filled by suppliers or contractors, originating in part or in whole, from the constituency of Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Lanaudiere and, in each case, what was the total value of the contracts and the names of the individuals or companies who were awarded each of these contracts respectively?


Roch La Salle: Seven contracts have been awarded from the Constituency of Berth-ier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere. The names of the seven contractors and the value of each contract are as follows:
Name	Contract Amount
Marinex Incorporated, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, P.Q.	$ 65,670
Sintra Incorporated, Saint-Paul-de-Joliette, P.Q.	$103,220
Casaubon and Freres, Saint-Edouard, P.Q.	$ 82,765
Norgaz Incorporated, Trois-Rivieres, P.Q.	$ 27,900
Monsieur Daniel Gaboury, Maskinonge, P.Q.	S 10,000
Services Sanitaires, Berthierville, P.Q.	S 20,462
Services Sanitaires, Bcrthierville, P.Q.	5 7,869



MATERNITY BENEFITS

Mr. Dingwall: In (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83 (d) 1983-84, what was the total amount spent on maternity benefits by the Unemployment Insurance Commission for women (i) 34 years of age or younger (ii) 35 years of age or older?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In so far as the Canada Employment and

March 4, 1985

Immigration Commission/Department is concerned, the maternity benefits for women (i) 34 years of age or younger (ii) 35 years of age or older are as follows:
Maternity Benefits ($ 000's)
34 years or younger	35 years or older	Total1980-81	233,308	9,696	243,0041981-82	270,215	12,614	282,8291982-83	305,933	17,429	323,3621983-84	333,468	19,894	353,362


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


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


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, since December 6 a question has been on the Order Paper involving government patronage and renting cars. Another question has been on the Order paper since December 13 involving certain frivolous expenditures that were made in decorating this building. The Government refuses to answer those two obviously embarrassing questions. It is unfair to the House that the Government does not choose to be accountable for the actions it takes, however reprehensible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Normally one rises on a point of order to ask when a question will be answered. I take it this was not the purpose.
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.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, when we broke for lunch I was explaining why these two programs and others, such as the RRAP Program, should not be deleted
Oil Substitution Act
from the Government's programs but expanded to increase their potential for job creation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to Routine Proceedings, I understand that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) intended to be here to introduce for first reading a Bill related to fisheries. Would the House be inclined to revert to Introduction of Bills so that I could move it on behalf of the Minister, who was unavoidably detained, and so that first reading could be given and Members could have the benefit of this legislation? There is a possibility of being able to discuss the Bill later this week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to revert to Introduction of Bills under Routine Proceedings?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-32, an Act amend the Fisheries Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[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.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, if we are to believe the promises made by the Conservative Party in

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
the last election campaign, these programs and others to create jobs across Canada would have been expanded rather than deleted. Today we are discussing two of those programs, the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
At the outset of my remarks this morning I suggested that these programs, by their very nature, should be kept and expanded. Instead, according to this Bill, one program will be terminated immediately and the other will be terminated in one year.
Let us take a look at the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. Under this program a home owner was reimbursed for 50 per cent of the eligible costs of materials and labour or for conversion up to a maximum of $800. As I indicated this morning, that $800 was a minor portion of the expenditure made by the individual who was having his home upgraded. Therefore, it was probably one of the greater job-creation endeavours on the part of the Government. It will continue to be so until it is eliminated by the Government.
According to figures from Energy Mines and Resources, this program was targeted to cover almost two million houses. The program is being terminated half-way through. Approximately half of the targeted houses have been treated. If the program were continued, we could have over the next few years considerably more houses converted and eventually the program could hit the target of two million houses.
It is amazing to me and to the people of Canada that two programs which are motherhood programs, programs that create jobs and allow the conservation of gas and fuel oil, are being cancelled by this Government. I have a feeling that the decision to cancel these programs was made in a hurry last September and now the Government is finding itself in a position where it does not want to move away from them even if it does recognize that they are valuable programs for job creation and conservation. The Oil Substitution Program was aimed directly at conservation. It is the kind of program that, once it is put in place, it helps the home owner as long as he uses another and cheaper fuel. The industry in its wisdom has said in the last few months that possibly within the next decade we will be looking at a shortgage of fuels developed from crude.
I know we have not learned to trust the point which the industry has been trying to make regarding how much fuel we have, because the industry has been so wrong in the past. But it is logical that in the future, maybe not in the next decade, crude will become in short supply again. The price will probably increase, making it more expensive for home owners to heat their homes. The Oil Substitution Program which allowed home owners to use electricity, wood, or gas was a method of preparing for that time in the future when costs will increase.
The EMR report suggests that there was a saving of approximately $600 a year for those who made the change. It also indicated that 25 per cent of the people who had made that change were home owners who earned less than $15,000. The
suggestion that it was a project only for the well-to-do does not hold true. It was of particular use at least in my part of the country with the assistance of a provincial government to help senior citizens prepare their homes so they could stay in them during retirement. Along with regular programs, such as RRAP and some provincial programs, thousands of Saskatchewan senior citizens remain in their own homes.
The second program being cut is the well known and probably the most popular across Canada with home owners, namely the Canadian Home Insulation Program. It provided financial assistance for the insulation and draught-proofing of homes. CHIP paid 60 per cent of the cost of labour and materials involved in insulating and draught-proofing a home, up to a maximum of $500. Again, that $500 is in most cases the minimum spent on a particular home because of the CHIP grant.
The Government has already changed the regulations under which CHIP operates. Since last Christmas the return has been changed from 60 per cent of the eligible costs to 33.3 per cent. It was not necessary to come to the House to make that change; it was done by a change in regulation. One of the main arguments which this Government has made for eliminating this program has already been dealt with by reducing the amount paid under these grants.
A number of the arguments Government Members have been making in this debate are debunked by the report on these grants. For instance, the report found upper middle-income Canadians did not get a disproportionate benefit from the program. More CHIP grant money was given to low-income households than to any other group. In fact, 24 per cent of CHIP dollars was given to the 21 per cent of the people who earned less than $15,000 annually. Those helped the most earned less than $15,000, and they are the ones at whom the program was aimed. Granted the program was used by anybody who was going to do work on a home, but it was used by those earning less than $15,000 more than any others.
The report also suggests than 65 per cent of the CHIP insulation activities would not have occurred had it not been for the CHIP grants. I think that is a very likely figure. Many people started renovations because they were going to get the grant and they then carried on doing other renovations. The report also suggested that 37 per cent of the CHIP users would never have insulated at all had the program not been in place. It also states that 75 per cent of the users would not have spent any money without the program. It indicates that the program created a lot of jobs. It allowed for a lot of conservation.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) spoke this morning and made an impassioned plea to allow market forces to control the price of oil. However, when he was questioned he admitted that those prices were not necessarily market prices but cartel prices, unnatural prices established by OPEC. He must have missed reading the pools last month which indicated that 85 per cent of Canadian consumers did not think that the price of oil in this country should be set by
March 4, 1985

OPEC. They felt that Canada should set the price on the basis of the cost of production.
I have been attempting to give some indication of what should be done about these programs. They should be kept because they are the best ones available for direct job creation. RRAP, CHIP and COSP have developed more jobs than any other direct expenditure of money. They are aimed at the conservation of fuel. That conservation is not only aimed at today, tomorrow or next week; it is aimed at people who make the original investment and it continues for those who will live in the homes in the future. Those are good reasons for keeping the programs.
We may in fact face a shortage of fuel, even to the extent of possible rationing of oil in the next few decades. I would not be a bit surprised if even before the end of this Government's term of office it will be looking at programs to conserve transportable fuel used in the heating of houses. Conservation is necessary; all of us recognize that conservation is a necessity. The elimination of programs which recognize conservation is a step backward by the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Am I allowed to make a comment, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Well, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has not been around for a while-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will make it objective.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. We have missed him around here.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will be very objective and try to make my question a lot shorter than the one I asked in Question Period. Perhaps I will give a little preamble to it. Mr. Speaker, you come from the cold climate of Edmonton where there are warm people. Perhaps you, like many Hon. Members, have found that individual constituents have utilized these programs. Also you have probably discovered, as has been the case in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, that many small businesses have grown up around programs which make houses energy-efficient using insulation and so on. There are also companies involved in the fireplace business or converting oil furnaces to natural gas or electricity. We have an abundance of wood, electricity and natural gas in Canada. Of course, we are in a surplus position now as far as conventional oil is concerned, but according to the figures of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and of oil companies, we will be short by the end of the decade. Has the Hon. Member had a similar experience in his riding in Prince Albert? Has he had any experience with local businesses or constituents who have taken advantage of these programs?
Oil Substitution Act
Once I had the privilege of working on the Beaufort Sea and travelling in that area where some of the expensive oil and gas production is going on. The cost of some of the wells is SI00 million. Sure, it employs people, but only a few of them. However, one small company in my riding employs eight people. It is doing work for $1,600 per contract. For $100,000 that company could keep the same amount of workers going as an oil rig over a one year period.
Did the Hon. Member have any experience in his riding with companies or individuals who took advantage of these programs and have shown that it is not really a capital-intensive industry but a labour-intensive one? In other words, it is a good value for government investment in the area and in terms of job creation.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the point the Hon. Member made in his question is exactly the one which needs to be stressed most often in this debate. For the $800 spent in COSP and for the $500 spent in CHIP, the resulting effect on business in the community is much greater. For the $800, it usually amounts to $3,000 and for the $500, it runs at a couple of thousand dollars. Local businesses which provide material and labourers who do the work are benefiting. No other program about which the Government has talked or has put in place acts more quickly in providing jobs than CHIP or COSP. The day the house owner is authorized to spend money, he finds someone to do the work. It is the quickest way of providing jobs in our communities. In the communities in northern Saskatchewan which I represent, these programs along with RRAP are the most popular.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act. Surely this Bill along with the dismantling of the renewable energy program announced in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last November 8, represent a very drastic and violent change in energy plans for the country. I think they are very detrimental and harmful.
It has been proposed that COSP be terminated on March 31 rather than continued to 1990 and that CHIP be terminated on March 31, 1986 rather than continued to 1987. Surely this is a very serious and backward step for the country. The Parliamentary Secretary led off the debate by saying that the country could no longer afford these two programs. However, if we look at the Estimates the Government tabled in the House last Tuesday, we see that it has committed some $1.6 billion as opposed to a little over $160 million for the upcoming year. Nowhere in the Tories' campaign literature can we find a plan to discontinue the Canadian Oil Substitution Program or the Canadian Home Insulation Program. Yet in the same campaign literature, the Government indicated it would get rid of the PIP program. It seems to me that the Government should keep its promises rather than doing things which it did not promise.

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
The other aspect of this Bill that I find very unsatisfactory is that the Government is proceeding with the Distribution System Expansion Program by bringing natural gas to many areas of the country. At the same time, it is discontinuing the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. Those people who live in areas where natural gas is now being provided will no longer have access to the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, but the Government is spending vast amounts of money on providing natural gas pipelines. There are incentive programs for private companies to put in these natural gas pipelines. One of those pipelines happens to be in my constituency.
The North Shore natural gas pipeline runs from Sault Ste Marie to Blind River and Elliot Lake. It will provide natural gas to those communities and will be very beneficial to the uranium industry and to Eldorado resources. I believe that the building of that pipeline is one of the most important decisions ever made affecting the future competitiveness and opportunity for expansion of uranium industry. Surely the price of uranium is much lower now than it was in the mid-1970s. We may well need very competitive mining operations in the future in order to compete with mines in Saskatchewan and Australia.
When dealing with this Bill in committee, I would call on the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to extend the program in communities like Blind River and Elliot Lake until the people have had an opportunity to instal natural gas rather than extending it only to June 30 for people who had taken out applications prior to November 8. That would be the only way to be in harmony with the construction of new natural gas pipelines. I believe a similar situation exists in Drummond and some other areas of the country in which natural gas pipelines are being installed for the first time this year.
The discontinuation of this program will have an adverse effect on many of the poorer areas of the country. Natural gas pipelines are just now being extended to outlying areas in the north and to other communities which were not supplied with natural gas in the first two or three years of the DSEP program. I believe the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last November will have a very adverse effect on these people. It tends to be lower-income people living in rural and northern areas who are converting not only to natural gas but to wood or in some cases electricity or propane. The substitution program will no longer be available to them. In concert with that is the CHIP program.
It is interesting to note that in many communities throughout the country, the CHIP program, the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the rural RRAP program all provided assistance to low and modest-income Canadians. It allowed them to improve their homes, to put in new heating facilities and to re-insulate and upgrade their homes. The RRAP program is being drastically reduced by some $29 million this year. That will have a very negative and adverse impact on many communities. I would hope that the Government would extend the Canadian Oil Substitution Program for at least
another six months or one year so that these additional communities can be served with natural gas.
It is significant that when oil is substituted with natural gas, an investment is made in the future. Under the COSP program, some 32,000 barrels of oil per day are saved. Grants have been given to over one million homes. Under the CHIP program, we save some 28,500 barrels of oil per day. That program was made available to 2.5 million homes. Through those two programs together, we will save about 60,000 barrels of oil a day every day forever. That is the advantage of oil substitution in conservation.
Of equal concern is the fact that the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance last fall, with the same kind of cavalier approach to economic programs, cut back on the renewable energy programs of the Government. The entire Energy Division of the National Research Council will be wiped out. Some $41,482 million will be wiped out by the end of the coming fiscal year. Programs that involve heat pumps, fission energy, solar energy, bio-energy, wind energy, peat energy and hydrogen and energy storage and co-ordination will be wiped out by the Government through the economic statement. These programs have been recognized around the world as being in the vanguard of forward-looking energy policies. We know that the fossil fuels like oil and gas will ultimately be used up. Yet the economic statement essentially demolishes some $41 million worth of these programs. We had one of the most forward-looking energy programs and it is now being wiped out by the Government.
I would like to mention some of the programs that were wiped out. The development and commercialization of vertical access wind turbines and the exploitation of our forest biomass have been discontinued. Clearly those of us who represent areas of the country in which there are forestry operations know how much waste occurs in those operations. We know how valuable that source of energy can be. The passive solar research into the super-window is being cut out. The electrolytic production of hydrogen is being cut out. The application of energy conservation to building construction is being cut out. The tidal electric power production program is being cut, which amounts to $1,430 million. How many Atlantic Canada, and especially maritime Canada Tory Members have spoken about tidal power and the tremendous potential of the Bay of Fundy tidal area? That area has tides which rise to 45 feet. They are the highest in the world. There is enough electricity there to provide electrical power to all of Altantic and maritime Canada and much of the upper New England states. Yet, in spite of all the speeches which the Conservatives made in the last several years about developing tidal power, in this program of cost reductions, which was announced by the Government in the economic statement, we realize that the hydraulic energy research program, which is being carried by the National Research Council, has been totally wiped out. As well, 85 per cent of the program to study energy in buildings will be chopped by the Government. It is not only one small program relating to oil conservation and building conservation through oil substitution which is being wiped out; it is the
March 4, 1985

entire renewable energy program which is being attacked by the Government. The renewable energy program has been recognized by the OECD and by many other countries and international agencies as being a model program for energy conservation and substitution.
If we look at the projected spending of government Departments we see that in 1984-85, $33.8 million has been committed to energy conservation. By fiscal year 1985-86, that budget will be cut to $18.7 million. If we look at the budget for renewable energy, we see that in 1984-85, $38.4 million was committed, however by 1986-87, that budget will be chopped to $6.1 million. If we look at the budget for new liquid fuels for 1984-85, we see that $35.9 million has been committed, but by fiscal year 1986-87 that budget will be chopped to $15 million. There are drastic cuts in the whole field of renewable energy.
Members who took part in the special task force on renewable energy have made glowing speeches about the whole question of hydrogen and energy storage research, but that program, which has a budget of $6.5 million, is being wiped out by the Government in its drive toward complete eradication of renewable energy research and development programs. Canertech was set up in western Canada to develop research and innovative design and to assist private entrepreneurs in getting involved in renewable energy research, and it is being wiped out. The budget for that program is some $30.6 million. It is a very important program for western Canada.
Those are some of the concerns which I have with the legislation. Not only are we wiping out the two programs of oil substitution and conservation, we are taking Canada backwards toward the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s in energy design. We are taking the emphasis away from renewable energy conservation and returning it back to a dependence on oil. With the North Shore natural gas pipeline, which I previously mentioned, the savings amount to approximately half a million barrels of oil a year. That is about one-third of the production of oil in Canada for one day. It is one small pipeline which happens to be located within my constituency. If we looked around the entire country, we would see that there are many, many oil substitution opportunities which could be made that would result in similar savings.
I know the Government is on the defensive about this legislation. It is obviously a very bad move. The Government knows that Canadians are opposed to it because Canadians not only want to save energy, they want to save money. When Canadians buy natural gas furnaces and convert 25 or 30-year old oil furnaces to natural gas, they do not only have new heating units in their homes, but, with these programs, they have better insulation in their walls and ceilings which effect a 30 per cent or 35 per cent savings in their heating bills.
These programs were forward looking and were designed to benefit the country and at the same time the consumer. The programs also stimulated a lot of investment by consumers. Even though the Government provided a $800 grant under
Oil Substitution Act
COSP, often individual home owners would have to put an additional $1,500 toward the purchase of a furnace. If that person was in a high tax bracket of 45 or 50 per cent, the Government would recover half of the grant, so the net cost to the country was not very high. However, the net benefit was very high in the saving of oil. That is why, when the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources published its figures a couple of months ago on oil supply and demand in Canada, it showed that on a net basis Canada will be oil energy self-sufficient through to the end of the century. Much of the fact that we are oil self-sufficient only three years after the National Energy Program was announced is due to the fact that we have had the best oil conservation and substitution program of any country in the western world. I certainly think the Government is making a very bad mistake and I hope it will withdraw this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Hon. Member made a good speech. He piled up the evidence about conservation to show that we should look on the demand side to see if the amount of demand which Canadians have for oil could be cut by one of the oldest methods which is known to mankind, that is, conservation. I thought those were the basic things about which Conservatives were interested. Perhaps, we will hear from an old-time Conservative next and not from a yuppie-type Ontario Conservative.
I wonder if the Hon. Member could give some explanation as to his figures. He mentioned the figure of $1.6 billion and then said that the Government was spending approximately $160 million for the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. I gather that the $1.6 billion was for the Petroleum Incentives Program. I wonder if the Hon. Member could say whether that is right, or what that $1.6 billion was spent for and what he was contrasting it with. Second, the Hon. Member gave the figure of 28,000 barrels a day saving of energy. I just used my calculator and it comes out to something like $35 a barrel for oil. That is a saving by conservation of about $1 million a day. Perhaps the Hon. Member could comment on those particular figures?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I mentioned that the savings in oil is around 60,000 barrels a day from both the CHIP program and the COSP program. I just pointed out that in fact the Government made no promise-and I can well imagine why-that it would wipe out either the CHIP or the COSP programs, because the Government knows they are very popular. At the same time, the Conservatives made a commitment in their election campaign literature that they intended to do away with the PIP program. I believe the Estimates which were tabled this week show that they were going to spend $1.6 billion on that program, which they said they were going to do away with but which they are keeping, and at the

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
same time they are doing away with a program which they did not say they were going to wipe out. The savings are there and are obvious. I believe they are a really important aspect of the oil supply situation. We were up to some 1.8 million barrels of oil production back in 1972-1973, according to the latest figures of EMR. The demand now has dropped much lower. It is down around 1.4 million barrels. I believe that is due in great part to programs of oil substitution and conservation.
It is rather interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the figures provided by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that in 1984, its total revenues were some $3.8 billion, or 17 per cent, due to petroleum revenue sharing. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) gets around to making the deal with the Province of Alberta, it would be interesting to see how much of that 17 per cent of the petroleum revenues the federal Government received in 1984 it is going to be willing to give up in order to provide greater incentives, both to the provincial Governments and to the industry itself.
The figures for 1984 indicated that the industry was going to get 52 per cent and the provincial Governments across the country were only going to get 31 per cent. We will just have to wait to see how much of that federal Government share of energy revenues will be given to the industry as incentive. I hope I have been able to explain to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway the figures to which I alluded earlier.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I understand. What the Hon. Member has said is that the Government has budgeted $1.6 billion to pay oil companies in petroleum incentive program grants to go to the frontier areas of this country where sometimes it costs $100 million a well in order to find oil which will be priced way beyond the world price. The Government is prepared to do that and at the same time it cuts out a $160 million program for home insulation and substitution of wood and electricity for oil. The Hon. Member says we are running out of oil. That is why, of course, we are going to the high Arctic. The Hon. Member also said that something like $1 million a day would be saved if we continued this conservation program. For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see the logic in the Progressive Conservatives acting in this way. It is absolutely beyond me.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I just wanted to confirm, Mr. Speaker, that those were the figures which were provided in the Estimates. Of course, the daily saving of 60,000 barrels a day would be even larger if this program were continued and expanded and we had more than the 2.4 million homes under the CHIP insulation program and the 1 million homes under the Canadian Oil Substitution Program grants. When we look at drilling wells in the frontier areas, we are talking about $50 million or $100 million. This program, which is worth $179 million, that is being cut out by this Bill will only provide the Petroleum Incentive Program grant for a few wells, but it will continue to expand the COSP and CHIP programs and the savings which occur day after day, year after year. Every time we save a
barrel of oil, we not only save it once but we save it every year forever.
One of the interesting things which has happened since the 1980s is that the supply of natural gas has expanded dramatically. We are at something like a 33-year horizon supply of natural gas. Naturally, the exploration for natural gas has dropped off some 65 per cent since 1980 because we would not go out to discover natural gas when there is a horizon of 30 years or 33 years. It is interesting to note the number of wells which were drilled in 1983. And I understand the 1984 figures are very similar. In fact, there was something like 53 per cent increase in the number of wells over 1980, which was a record year. So I believe those-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The time for questions and comments is expired, and I recognize now the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and the Liberal Party must think that the memory of the people of Canada is pretty short. I just cannot understand an Hon. Member of the Liberal Party rising to speak in the way the Hon. Member for Algoma did just a few moments ago. His Party was the one which brought in the PIP program. We told those Hon. Members then what was happening. But did that make any difference? No, they were determined to make sure that we did not discover oil or continue to search for oil in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It had to go to the Canada Lands. The Hon. Member did not stand up and support us when we tried to stop the National Energy Program.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I said exactly that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) did, but the Hon. Member for Algoma did not. Now that same Hon. Member complains because we are spending $150 million on drilling a well in the Canada Lands. We told you that four years ago but you would not listen. You were so determined to hurt Alberta and Saskatchewan and the West.


Mr. Halliday:: And Ontario.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, Ontario, and the rest of Canada. Now he stands up and protests because contracts were let. If I had my way, the PIP program would have gone out the window yesterday.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You are in Government, why don't you do it?


Gordon Edward Taylor: You know why! You started the program and contracts remain, and we do not believe in cutting contracts. You are the fellows who started it. The contracts were made. Now you say, cut the contracts. Big deal. No wonder the people of Canada threw you out on your ears!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 4, 1985


Gordon Edward Taylor: Complete hypocrisy in the Liberal Party, that is all it is. They talk about how we are now short of oil and they talk about conservation suddenly having to end. Conservation is not going to end because the Government stops spending on one program. The Canadian people are not that stupid. The Canadian people believe in conservation and this Party believes in conversation. But removing one program built on the debt of the Canadian people is not going to stop conservation. Not a bit. We stood for conservation before and we stand for conservation now, not only in oil but in many other things.
They talk about a shortage of oil. Are they trying to kid the Canadian people? We are short of oil only because of Liberal policy in the last four years. We could have had a program under way by now where we had a sufficiency of oil had the Liberals listened to the Opposition four years ago. But no, they had to hurt Alberta and the West; Alberta must not keep on producing oil. They closed down the big oil production plants in the provinces and then encouraged people, by giving big grants of public money which they borrowed, to go up into the Canada Lands where they have to spend $150 million or $200 million on an oil well. Then the Hon. Member stands up and says the Government is spending some money on PIP. They invented PIP. They created it. Now we are left with the baby. Well, the sooner we get the baby out the window, the better it is going to be. But we have to honour contracts that were made.
The Liberals talk about the PGRT. They taxed the oil industry out of existence. They crippled the industry and then they stand up and say that we produced more oil after the NEP. That is nonsense. The producers were leaving the province in droves. Equipment, expertise and jobs were going down to the United States because of the National Energy Program. They crippled the industry. Now they say we are going to be short of oil. If we are ever short of oil, it is because of Liberal policies. That is what created the shortage. How can the Hon. Member for Algoma and other Liberal Members stand up and say this when they were the ones that created the conditions we are living under today? I do not think the memories of the Canadian people are that short. No wonder the Liberals are down to a rump and are even falling behind the NDP, the socialists of the country. They cannot even hold their own as the Official Opposition. The people of Canada are fed up with their talk in opposition, which is so completely contrary to what they did when they were in power. Then they expect us to undo in six months all the damage they did in 16 years.lt cannot be done and the Canadian people know it.
What will this Bill do? The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) suggested this morning that this program must be wonderful because we voted for it. He does not know what happened four years ago. The Liberal Government brought in a stack of Bills, including the COSP and CHIP programs, so we could not debate them in principle. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) put up a terrific fight, and the then Speaker of the House, Madam Sauve, ruled that the Government acted improperly in bringing in so many Bills all in one. That is why we rang the bells
Oil Substitution Act
for two weeks, to protect the people's right to debate issues in this House. We did not do it for the oil companies, we did it for the people. The Speaker supported what we did, so the Government finally brought in the separate Bills and we had a chance to debate the COSP and CHIP programs.
The big item then was conservation and the best program the Liberals could think of were COSP and CHIP. Naturally we supported the Bill when we had a chance to debate it. But we also pointed out a number of follies in the Bill, and I want to deal with one or two of those today. I am not going to say that those two programs have not done some good. They have. They have helped conserve oil. They have enabled some people who otherwise would not have been able to insulate their home or change their heating system to do so. But it also enabled a lot of people, who had the money to do it themselves, to take advantage of the program. We had no better example of that than this morning when the Hon. Member from the NDP said he took advantage of it. He was not poor. He took advantage of it, and he is not the only one. Hundreds of people did.
Many people have said to me they would not have converted but for the Government offering the $800. I was in one home where the wife said she was afraid of natural gas, she did not like it. Her husband said, "Natural gas is going to save us money, lady." That is what he called her, "lady". "So", he said, "I am going to do it". He was the boss of that house and so he did it. But he had the money to do it on his own if he had wanted to. But no, $800 was coming into his pocket out of government coffers. Of those people who accepted that $800 when they did not really need to, I wonder how many realize they were placing a debt on the young people of this country who will have to pay it for years, and years and years. They contributed to that debt. The Liberals talk about one little program but they forget that the people have to pay.
Another Liberal said, Mr. Speaker, that, "you're cutting it out", as if the Liberals never cut out a program. I would like to remind the Liberal Members who are here that a few years ago, when they brought in an excellent program, the first home ownership program, where they gave $3,000 to young couples who wanted to get a home for the first time, suddenly one week they cancelled it. The Minister extended it for a few days, but hundreds of people who had started their foundations were left out in the cold. The Liberals cancelled the program without debate, without notice. This Government is at least giving a little time for people who want to use the COSP or CHIP programs. They have time to insulate their homes with the use of this grant because we are not suddenly cutting it off. They have until March 31 under COSP. Members who have spoken either do not know what happened in the past or are trying to fool the people a little more.
I grew up in a coal mining area, Mr. Speaker. My dad and brothers were coal miners and I probably would have been too if they had not made me stay at school. We used coal for years. My mother said many times that she did not want natural gas. She was afraid of it because it explodes too easily.

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
She liked the coal so we hauled it from the pit and hauled out the ashes year after year and no one complained. We did not want a substitution program.
As the years went by, mines closed, oil and gas became more competitive, and coal couldn't keep up. At one time there would have been a revolution in the Drumheller valley if it had been suggested that we convert to gas. However, I saw the day when hundreds of former coal miners voted for a change to gas. They had to adapt to changing conditions. Now that entire valley is served with gas. I know what it means to change and I know that at times changes have to be made. However, the decision should be made in the home as much as possible.
There are a lot of new things happening today, Mr. Speaker. I received a letter the other day suggesting that we are not using our wind power. I have never been to Lethbridge when there has not been a wind storm. Consider the power they could generate. What about tidal power? I do not know very much about that, but I think it has great potential. What about solar energy? They laughed a few years ago when a chap was building his home and said that he was going to heat his home with the sun. He said that in a country which has 50 below zero weather he could build a house and keep it warm with the sun by conserving the sunshine. That home has no other power and they live comfortably in it winter and summer. That is conservation.
There are many ways to conserve. We should not be wasting oil and gas just because we have a lot of it. I had great faith in the Dean of Engineering at the University of Alberta. At one time he appeared before the Cabinet in Alberta and said that this good clean fuel, natural gas, is too valuable to be used by industry. He said that we should insist on industry using coal, the dirty fuel, and keep the nice, clean natural gas for the homes of the people. I thought that made sense. If we were short of natural gas, that would be the thing to do. However, we are not short of natural gas, and I do not think we are short of oil. We have the greatest reservoir of oil in the world in the tar sands of Alberta.
I was on a committee years ago to try to separate the oil from the sand. On my first trip to Fort McMurray I took a handful of sand and sqeezed it and found that there was oil all over my hand. Oil was oozing down the coulees. I thought that was a tremendous thing. We had a conference at which one of the professors of the University of Alberta said that he could separate the oil from the sand with a hot and cold water method. A pilot project was established with some public money and with the expertise of university professors. They found that they could separate the oil from the sand. Then others came forward with more modern techniques.
I remember standing in a plant in Fort MacMurray and seeing thousands of ton of beautiful white sand that people would love to have on a beach. From the other spout came the beautiful black oil that was going to go all over Canada. There are millions of barrels of oil waiting there to be separated if only we had the policy. However, the Liberal Government was too busy importing oil, closing up the sources in the country,
discouraging exploration, and importing oil. In 1980, the price to import a barrel of oil was around $31. The price to produce it in Alberta was about $16.50. However, the Liberal Government decided it wanted to import oil. It moved the exploration up north and gave PIP grants. They let the people in Alberta and Saskatchewan go without jobs.
There are still all kinds of oil in the Province of Alberta. We need an incentive program to search for it rather than a discouragement program such as the Liberals introduced. They continued to pay $31 of Canadian money for a barrel of oil. The Liberals then decided on the petroleum tax to make up the difference between the price of Canadian oil and imported oil. I think it amounted to 85 cents a barrel at that time which the people had to pay. The people of this country have paid and paid for the faulty Liberal policies which have discouraged the production of oil in this country and encouraged the importation of oil. They now stand up and talk about a shortage of oil.
I admit that this program has done some good and that conservation will not stop, but a lot of the people who took advantage of this $800 or 50 per cent of the cost to convert could have done it themselves. A lot of people will do it on their own. And yet many people, whom I really felt sorry for, were left out of the program entirely. The people in the small shacks around the coal mines in Drumheller could not afford the $3,000 required to convert. In some of those places they still use coal. The $800 grant was not sufficient for them because the conversion would probably cost $1,600 or $2,000. Where would they get the additional money? They just do not have it. They are retired coal miners who spent their lives in the bosom of the earth bringing out coal. They did not have that kind of money and could not take advantage of the program. Thousands of renters could not take advantage of the program.
Conservation will not end, Mr. Speaker. In March of this year COSP will end and in April of 1986 CHIP will end, but conservation will continue. The debt load that is being placed on the backs of the people through this program will be removed and conservation will continue with the people's own money, which is a far fairer program.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions. I will first say how much I enjoy listening to the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I do not agree with a lot of what he says, most of it as a matter of fact, but I enjoy hearing him. I have a great deal of respect for him because he has been around a lot longer than I have.
It is very impressive to hear the Hon. Member-who has a great deal of credibility-talk about actually seeing and feeling the oil in the tar-sands for the first time. I agree that the Liberals have short memories because our Party and the Conservatives, when in opposition, told them that the National Energy Program was a transfer of the exploration plays from the western sedimentary basin in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia to the North, to the Arctic and offshore.
March 4, 1985

The reason for this transfer is outlined in a new book entlitled Energy Politics in Canada, by Bruce Doehrn. It was simply a power play because the federal Government had jurisdiction in the Canada Lands and not in Saskatchewan and Alberta. I totally agreed with the Hon. Member when he said that this was a basic objective of the National Energy Program. We said so then and western Canada has paid for that transfer.
I agree with the Hon. Member that the Government must honour the contracts for the $1.6 billion in PIP grants. There are some questionable contracts, such as that with East Coast Energy Corporation, which must be phased out.
The Government stated its intention to replace PIP grants with tax incentives such as the superdepletion allowance and other tax rip-offs which helped the oil companies. If these only amount to PIP grants that are called tax breaks, I challenge the Hon. Member to vote against those tax changes. I believe the Hon. Member understands what I am saying and we will see what happens with the new schemes.
The Hon. Member also said that the Liberals taxed the oil industry out of existence. In 1982, the profits of Imperial Oil were $289 million. The latest report for 1984 shows that their profits are $533 million. Texaco went from $215 million to $423 million. Gulf went from $201 million in 1982 to $308 million in 1984. Shell went from $133 million in 1982 to $158 million in 1984. Given those figures which come from the business sections in the Financial Post and the Globe and Mail, could the Hon. Member explain how these companies were taxed out of existence? I do not believe that assertion to be correct.
The Hon. Member also said that Canadians would convert on their own to other forms of energy such as solar, tide and wind. I suggest Canadians will convert to other forms of energy only if they are paying too much for oil or if they are given an incentive to convert. Since I am in favour of providing an incentive for conversion, I suggest that these programs are justified. It makes sense to provide $500 when the home owner contributes $1,500. That is fair and it seemed to work well in the past.
Finally, one of the Government's first steps in dismantling the National Energy Program has been to eliminate the conversion measures in the program, that is, the off oil program and the insultation program. In my opinion, these were the only beneficial aspects of the National Energy Program. Would the Hon. Member, who is a sensible Canadian, explain why the Conservatives would dismantle, as its first step the only effective part of the National Energy Program.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the last part of the question. This Government has been in power for six months. We have yet to bring down a budget. Since we cannot accomplish all of our objectives in six months, we are doing so individually, and when we come to the end of our mandate in four years the Hon. Member will see that we will have kept every promise we made. The National Energy Program will be out the window and this country will be working because we
Oil Substitution Act
will have alternative programs that provide incentives that do not come from tax money.
The Hon. Member asked me to explain why the oil companies have large balances. I am not a spokesman for oil companies like Imperial and Texaco. I was talking about the destruction of ordinary Canadians who were exploring for oil. The small oil companies were the ones who were put out of business because, unlike the multinationals who derive income from different sources and do not have to depend on one particular item, the small oil companies in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia did not have those different sources. They either went out of business, became defunct, or went to the United States to try to keep working. That is the industry which was crippled by the National Energy Program. No one who lives in the West would dispute that. Was there another part to the question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I believe the Hon. Member has answered my questions.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Auditor General-Recommendation that audits be reported on completion date; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre ! (Mr. Keeper)-The economy-Economic statement (a) Impact on proposed Manufacturing Technology Institute (b) Background documentation; the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin)-Energy-Hibernia oil-j field (a) Environmental Impact Study (b) Content of report.


OIL SUBSTITUTION AND CONSERVATION ACT CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[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.
[Stage Direction]
March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is a good friend of mine and I appreciate hearing his arguments in debate. He talked about the shortage of oil. I would commend for the Hon. Member's reading a very interesting document published by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister (Miss Carney) which shows that since 1983 we have a net self-sufficiency in oil through to the end of the century.
He also talked about saving money. The Estimates show that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will spend $2.3 million for his office operations and the employment of an extra 30 people. Would he not rather see that $2.3 million provided in CHIP grants to some 4,600 low income Canadians so they can insulate their homes, save money and meet their expenses? I am sure there are many such people in his riding as there are in mine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now expired.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the effect of Bill C-24 will be to cancel a program and remove a potential $800 in grants toward the poor people of this country. Second, as a result of the action by the Government since it came to power, the heating oil prices have risen in this country. Another factor is that this Government, for the first time that I can recall in Canadian history, has developed a policy since January of selling oil cheaper to a foreign country than it is sold here. Since February 1, an oil company in the province which the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was talking about, can sell a barrel of oil at the Chicago gate for about $5 a barrel cheaper than that barrel is sold at the gate in Toronto.
The other fact pertaining to this Bill is that people need that conversion grant in order to convert to alternate energy uses.
I think what I will deal with in my remarks is something that has not been dealt with adequately today in this debate, and that is, the conversion of oil to wood.
If you examine the statistics, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will find that the majority of conversions in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and in the northern parts of this country have been toward wood. When you look at these grants, COSP, CHIP, RRAP, the programs initiated by Liberal administrations, there is one thing that everybody should keep in mind. These programs put money directly into the hands of the home owner. You can talk about lots of government programs that operate indirectly for the benefit of individuals, but these were transfer payments as outlined in the Estimates, transfer payments, as outlined by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), into people's pockets. These were the only grants people could get if they were living in a rural area and were below the poverty line. If they wanted to do anything at all with their houses, these were the only identifiable grants that put money actually
into people's pockets, primarily into the pockets of the poor people in this country.
I am surprised to hear the Members in this Chamber talking about where this money went. We have heard speaker after speaker in the Conservative Party say that some of that money, most of it or almost all of it, went into the pockets of people who really did not need the money. That is a complete fallacy. There are people who, if they did not get the $800, could not have converted to an alternate energy source. For example, how could somebody on welfare in those areas that I named convert to wood without the $800? How could somebody living on a pension convert to wood if he or she did not get that particular grant under COSP?
There were advantages to that program beyond the actual placing of money in the hands of an individual. The benefits can be seen in the provinces that utilize the wood conversion mechanism in the forestry sector. I am referring specifically to people who got cutting permits from provincial jurisdictions to utilize this grant program to convert to wood. They would take the tops of trees left by the paper companies which were strewn around all over the place in the forests. They also took the hard woods in the forests in which the paper companies are not all that interested. We still have pulp and paper companies that utilize just the soft woods. It is criminal in some places to see a paper company take the wood that was not hard wood. In other words, they would leave the birch trees and the like to die over a period of time, and leave the fallen tops to rot or start forest fires. I would say that the greatest assistance to the forestry industry is to have more people utilizing wood as a fuel source than anything else.
We have paper companies today that utilize herbicides, aerial spraying of herbicides, to get rid of the hard woods they do not want. Surely there can be a policy to allow the people of Canada who want to utilize wood as a source of fuel to go on company lands and take it, since the paper companies themselves are not all that interested in it.
There have been other remarks made today in which Members said that the $800 was a giveaway. I think the point was made that when you convert to wood in the northern areas the $800 does not even come close to the total conversion cost. Poor people have to do with just the $800, and they did using their own intelligence, so to speak. They left the hot water heater still on the furnace. That was the only portion used in the home for oil purposes. Apart from that, people took the idea of the wood stove or the wood furnace and usually put it in the basement of the house. They had their own duct system that came up to the main floor of the dwelling. It was not permissible for insurance purposes to plug in the wood stove with the furnace duct system, and there was a restriction in the program that you were not allowed to do it. There had to be a separate duct system, if that is what you were using. Or if you wanted to put in a completely new system with a wood and oil furnace, then that would be permissible under the rules.
For the poor people living on pensions, on welfare, on works programs, or on unemployment insurance, the obvious advantages in the rural areas to that gentleman in the example was
March 4, 1985

that he was able to instal a wood furnace with the $800. If he had not had that money, he would not have done it. He was able to utilize what materials he had in place in his particular dwelling. People normally had a chain saw. You would not use a buck saw these days and an axe. People normally had a chain saw and a snow machine to bring out the wood, a ski-do, as the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Island mentioned. In certain parts of the country they still have horses. A horse has even greater utility than a snow machine. First, a horse is cheaper to buy, although it costs more to feed. In certain areas of the country a horse is used as a means of hauling wood from the woods. Therefore, a person would save on the cost of a snow machine and a pick-up. People had a chain saw and transportation out of the woods. That is all they needed. They used their own muscles to supply themselves with heat. For what, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you. It was to save $200 a month. That is what they did it for, because that is what it cost in January, February, and March. When you look at ordinary people, say a widow with one son at home getting about $350 a month and having to pay out $200 a month to heat her home with oil, you can see what a saving it is to that person and how necessary it is.
The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) mentioned that the ski-do or the snow machine was utilized in bringing in that wood for utility purposes. It is interesting that people in some parts of Canada actually believe that a snow machine is only used for recreation. Not at all, Mr. Speaker. It is used in conjunction with supplying the heating source in a home. That is the most important use of the snow machine. If the companies that build these machines would only look at that and keep producing the 12 horsepower and the 15 horsepower models, the best ones for that purpose, they would sell more snow machines.
The other point I should like to make is that the Government is saying that it is cancelling this program because it wants to cut back and because most people have utilized it. It is saying that there is no real need for the program and that it will be cancelled on March 31. There will always be a need for this particular program as long as we have people in the country who are relatively poor or live in areas where there is an adequate supply of wood. Thus we see the importance of this particular program.
The Government has turned around and cancelled COSP. It will also cancel CHIP and it has reduced the budget of other vital programs for home repairs which financially assist people. In particular, I am referring to RRAP, which goes hand in hand with the other two programs. It has been reduced to such an extent that in certain areas of the country it will be unworkable. We cannot have from 400 to 600 people on a waiting list for a program in which the delivery agent knows that probably only 50 of them can be approved because of substantial cut-backs. The general philosophy used by the Government in the cancellation of the program is wrong.
Oil Substitution Act
As I mentioned at the beginning of my intervention today, it is not good enough to have a policy of selling oil and reducing the charge to foreign countries. Since January 1 the charge went down 48 per cent for exported oil, heavy and light crude. The reason for this was obvious. The eventual product from oil was going into the United States at such low costs that the competition was too great for some of the oil companies in Alberta and Saskatchewan about which the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) spoke. To reduce the charge by 48 per cent to a foreign nation, to another country, without making the same reduction for refineries in Canada, is not good enough. To be able to sell a barrel of oil at $33.50 to an oil refinery in Chicago in the month of February and demand a charge of $39.50 for that same barrel at a refinery in Toronto is just not good enough.
There has been much discussion about the past Government and what it did, according to certain Hon. Members, to the oil industry, as well as about the foreign importation of oil to the East Coast. Mention was also made of the additional charges placed upon domestically consumed crude oil in Canada. The general philosophy behind this was to try to have some semblance of unity in the price of a barrel of oil, no matter if one was in British Columbia or in Newfoundland. That was the philosophy behind it, and it is a good philosophy. If we look at the refineries utilizing imported oil in eastern Canada, we find that there was always a mix of imported and domestically produced crude oil from western Canada which came via pipeline into Montreal. Those are the facts. Also there has been a declining demand for home heating oil in this country for the past three years to six years. The only increase in demand, if one looked at the figures, was in diesel fuel. Many oil companies in the country have made changes in their processes and are involved in different extractions and the building of petrochemical industries. All we have to do is to look at the enormous petrochemical complex at Sanford as well as the one at Sarnia, Ontario. We see a change taking place in the oil industry as far as what it does with oil and what is the demand at the other end are concerned. If we examine the entire industry, we will see that refineries have closed down in eastern Canada. Four closed in the Province of Quebec and three others in Atlantic Canada because the demand was not there for their product. At the same time we have seen a great increase in the number of petrochemical industries, especially in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. We are into ever changing times.
Let us look at the oil reserves to which reference was made earlier in the House. It has been said that they are good enough for Canada for about 14 years. No matter at what figures we look, normally they indicate that they are good for 14 years. If we go back 15 years, we find that they have always fluctuated-in the past they have been good for 14, 20, 15 and 10 years; now they are good for 14 years. However, that is not the important point. We have to look at the total production in Canada and wonder whether we are actually utilizing too much. Should we be exporting oil outside the country if we are in a tight squeeze? Should we be exporting oil out of Canada

March 4, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
and charging refineries in Chicago less than we are charging refineries in Canada?
This month the federal Cabinet was supposed to make a decision, in fact it was to be last Thursday. It was to be a decision on what would be the export charge of oil going into the United States. I do not believe that decision has been made, but I understand that since the demand for Canadian oil is increasing in the United States-and it fluctuates considerably from month to month-the export charge will be increased by about $2. That would mean that, for the month of March, instead of there being a $5 or $6 difference between the oil being sold in Chicago and the oil being sold in Canada, there will be a $2 or a $3 difference. If it is the philosophy of the Conservative Government to sell oil cheaper in the United States than it is selling oil in Canada, I am afraid the Government is in very serious trouble. It will not wash with Canadians. There is no way Canadians will put up with it. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) can turn around and say that that had to be done for the first time in Canadian history because the only thing that could be changed was the export charge, that they could not change the charges on domestic oil because we needed the money. However, we also need the money on the export charge. It makes no difference what taxes are levied on the domestic; there is always a tax on what is exported out of the country. It just does not add up, for the sake of conservation, to be cutting back and encouraging Canadians to use oil. That will be the only result of the move to cut back on CHIP and to cancel COSP. It will encourage Canadians to use more oil. However, are they being encouraged to pay more for oil than United States refineries? If the Government feels that it must cut programs which benefit the ordinary and poor people of the country, the very least it could do is to maintain the section of that program that was most utilized by the poor people, and I am referring to the section relating to the conversion to wood. There are not many people who are making $100,000 per year who will put a wood stove in their house to keep their families warm.
I know my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, let me say that if this is to be the continued direction of the new Government, it will have to do something different in three or four years' time in order to maintain its credibility.


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


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) thoroughly expressed the views of the people from rural areas of Newfoundland and of the people across the country who happen to live in rural areas. I would like to make an observation and then put a short question to the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member spoke about the increase in oil and gasoline prices and about the selling of oil and gasoline out of the country at lower prices than in Canada. His constituency is
similar to my own. The only exception is the Town of Gander in which wages may be a little higher. However, the outports in his constituency are similar to those in mine.
In 1964, I built my own home and installed an oil furnace. At that time, I was paying 18.3 cents a gallon for home heating fuel, and I still have the bills. Today, I am paying over $2.18 a gallon. Like me, the Hon. Member has many constituents who can be described as single parents who draw old age security and GIS and live in their own homes. These people have annual incomes of no more than $7,000. My electrical bill is $70 per month and, like most others, I have no extra frills or gadgets in my house. My oil bill in the month of February will run to approximately $400. I do not know if people understand the significance of that. We as Members of Parliament can afford to pay that amount because we are the fortunate people of the country. There are a great many people who are making a gross income of $7,000 per year and cannot afford to pay over $2,000 per year on home heat. Therefore, they have to convert to wood.
The provincial Department of Forestry in Prince Edward Island, aided and abetted by the previous federal Government and the present federal Government, has what I believe to be an excellent reforestation program. In Atlantic Canada, we have a problem with the spruce budworm. A great deal of wood is going to waste. The Department of Forestry cuts down the unwanted wood and puts it up for tender so these poor people can buy it at a good price. By converting to wood, their home heating probably costs between $400 and $500 per year. That is a tremendous saving. However, the Bill is taking that opportunity away from the ordinary Canadians who are striving to survive. The Government is trying to force these people into senior citizens' homes, thus costing the federal and provincial Governments three times as much.
As I see it, the Government is penny wise and dollar foolish. I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment briefly on that.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Hon. Member's point is well taken. There are many family units being run by widows or by the unemployed. These people get to the point where they cannot afford those exorbitant oil and gas prices that are mainly caused by differences in provincial taxes. It is a heck of a lot different to be living in the Province of Alberta than it is to be living in the Province of Newfoundland where we must pay a flat rate on the bottom line of 22 per cent provincial tax. Those people to whom I have referred will be placed in a position in which they will have to convert to wood somehow. This Bill will discriminate against those people because it will take away from them the opportunity that was given to their neighbours. That is simply unfair to the poor people of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any other questions or comments? If there are no other questions or comments, we shall resume debate.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join in this debate on the Bill before us, a Bill that would
March 4, 1985

effectively kill the conservation and off-oil program. I see that there are only a few minutes remaining to me. I wish to continue at a future time.
Perhaps at this time I could put on the record what I discovered while researching this topic. I went through the Senate hearings on energy and natural resources of June 1984 and I glanced through the submission made by the City of Whitehorse. At the end of that submission there are some figures regarding the costs of Canada for reducing our dependency on foreign oil. For example, it is stated that so far, according to Statistics Canada and the National Energy Program update, the Canadian Government has spent to the end of 1983 some $8 billion on new energy, some $3.4 billion on existing energy programs, and some $3.3 billion on the Oil Impact Compensation Program, making a total of $14.7 billion. In addition, as of June 1984, some $2 billion was committed beyond 1983 for the Western Canada Development Fund and some $.5 billion for the Atlantic Canada Development Fund, making a total of $17.2 billion committed to and spent on the National Energy Program. All of this created a total product reduction of some 6.7 per cent of 425,000 barrels, or a reduction of some 28,475 barrels per day. In other words, the submission indicated that after having spent some $17.2 billion, we reduced our dependency on foreign oil by some 28,475 barrels per day. However, so far the COSP and CHIP programs have reduced our dependency on foreign oil by over 60,000 barrels per day at a cost of only some $1.3 billion.
I do not understand the economics of the Government. I never understood the economics of the Liberal Government. It was willing to spend over $17 billion on reducing our dependency on foreign oil to the tune of only 23,000 barrels per day. The CHIP and COSP programs reduced our dependency on foreign oil by some 60,000 barrels of oil a day and only cost a little over $1 billion. However, it is the conservation programs that the Government wants to scrap. It is insanity.
I will continue my remarks when the Bill will be considered in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have 16 minutes remaining for his speech plus a 10-minute question and comment period when we resume debate on this particular Bill.
Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Constitution Act, 1982



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in the debate this afternoon on this very significant motion put by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). The motion reads:\nThat, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include a human foetus or unborn human being.\nHaving said that, I want to make it quite clear at this stage that I agree very strongly with that principle. I believe life does start at conception. I believe what we need is something to enshrine that principle in the law of the land. What better law can there be than the Charter of Rights?\nBecause this is such a very important principle, it is disappointing to me to see, notwithstanding the fact that there are snow storms swirling around us, that there is really just a handful of people in the House this afternoon to take part in this important debate. It is a debate that has had the attention\nof the country focused on its subject for a long period of time. Looking back to the election campaign, I think that along with the issue of unemployment and capital punishment this had to be one of the main and principal issues during that time. This was an issue without any grey area. It was a black or white issue as far as the people of my riding and, I suspect, people across the country were concerned. They saw the issue as a matter of right or wrong. They did not see the issue as a question of maybe or compromise. It was strictly a matter of principle.\nI think it is clear that there is a great gulf and a great difference of opinion between people in this country. While I do not share the ultimate opinion of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) on the principle we are debating here today, I do share a good many of her views and the concerns she has raised, particularly with respect to the whole concept of further debate, further discussion, and the further refining of this issue. I believe that if we go on from here, we will be on a collision path. A great many people have strong views on this issue.\nI think probably those views have best been demonstrated recently in my own City of Toronto in the Dr. Henry Morgen-taler case. The issue received a full court hearing and review, but at the same time it left a strange feeling and a strange concern in the minds of a vast number of people, particularly on the issue of jury selection. I think it surprised a lot of people that there could be an organization whose main purpose was geared to advising on jury selection to produce a jury, if at all possible, that shared the views of one side or the other to such an extent that perhaps it could tip the balance in the case. When people learned there was a professional body that gave advice on the selection of a jury, and that in selecting the jury anyone who had strong religious feelings or convictions was not acceptable as a jury member, people in the City of Toronto and across the country felt there was something wrong with a judicial system of that sort. That although Dr. Morgentaler was acquitted on the charges, there was grave concern that the kind of jury selection we had was not really and truly a trial by Dr. Henry Morgentaler's peers. It is that feeling that has put in sharp perspective the conflict between the different points of view that we are dealing with in this significant issue.\nIf we proceed with an amendment at this time, I do not think there is very much doubt in the minds of those who feel very strongly one way or the other, as I do, that we will have a great confrontation, a confrontation that would probably put the whole prohibition issue of a number of years ago to shame. It could turn that issue into something very insignificant in comparison with this and in comparison with the kind of confrontation we could walk into if we take precipitous action.\nI think this motion is a good one in that it starts to define the issues. It encourages debate and it does that not only on the streets, on television screens and on the radio, but in the House of Commons, the place where the debate will ultimately have to take place.\nI believe we will have to have a lot more public debate before it is an appropriate time to deal firmly and once and for\nMarch 4, 1985", 'all with this issue. There are a number of problems. The Hon. Member for Capilano touched on some of them that are involved in this issue besides those raised by the mover of the motion, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe. Some of those concerns and problems have not, as yet, been addressed properly, in my view. One concerned the whole question of whether we enshrined this as a constitutional question.\nI suspect, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that my time has drawn to a close. I would like to have a future opportunity to expand on my views on this subject. I hope this debate will inspire the Government to bring forward further legislation. This will give all of us an opportunity to expand on our views in the House of Commons.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 38?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe) moved: that:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include a human foetus or unborn human being.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this country has split into two decidedly hostile factions since the Criminal Code was amended in 1969 to exclude from prosecution those abortions performed for certain specific reasons in hospitals which have therapeutic abortion committees.
Those who feel that easy access to abortion is necessary to protect women who are unwillingly pregnant, state that a woman should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy freely, and that abortion should be available to all women, regardless of age, marital status or income level. Those who disagree base their reasoning on a definition of human life which was given by members of a scientific conference in Washington, D.C., which is as follows:
The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month foetus, a one-week child or a mature adult are merely at stages of development and maturation.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for those us who accept this concept of life to find a common ground on which to meet those who choose abortion as a means of ending pregnancy. Because there can be no common meeting ground, emotions run high and a feeling of hysteria is always in the air.
We who oppose abortion do so because we believe in the right to life. We are depicted by those who are opposed as unconcerned with the reality of the 15-year old girl who is pregnant because she does not know any better, or the mother of five who can see no way to support another child, or the mother who is carrying a defective child. We are seen as forcing a theory of life on a world which is torn by suffering and personal torment.
"Individual liberty" and "freedom of choice" are catch phrases that are fast gaining control of our society. Peoples' feelings are for what they can see, not for what someone has told them exists. Their eyes and minds focus on the woman, not on the child she carries. The sympathy is for the suffering of those already born, not for the one who is waiting to be

March 4, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
born. They care not for the right to life, but only for the lives that are apparent.
Some time ago I received information on the stand of the Canadian Association for Repeal of the Abortion Law. Added to the information were copies of letters which were sent to the Badgley Commission. Without going into detail or individual cases, I would like to quote part of one letter which illustrates exactly what I mean by society's misunderstanding of the stand which is taken by the right-to-life groups in the country. It reads:
You are doubtless receiving many communications from anti-abortion crusaders. No one is asking them to have abortions. No one is denying them their right to believe that a fertilized ovum is a human person from the moment of conception.
No one expects them to campaign for birth control clinics which are also against their beliefs. These are basic religious freedoms. But the essence of religious freedom is that it applies to oneself, and not that one should force one's views on those who do not share them.
I think it is statements such as this which confuse and dismay, more than any of the hysterical accusations which are levelled at the pro-life organizations. It seems to imply that to fight abortion is to put a woman into a state of perpetual pregnancy.
I am against abortion, but I do believe in birth control and the education of the public regarding the various means of preventing conception. The public has become confused by the fact that those who favour abortion, state that they believe every woman should have the right to decide whether or not to carry a child. To them, abortion is a matter of personal conscience, and no woman should be forced to carry her child or terminate her pregnancy.
Aside from the fact that women can and have been frightened or manoeuvered into having abortions, the destruction of the child is the main issue. As long as I believe that life begins at conception, I will do everything in my power to prevent the termination of that life. The Canadian Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Law states that Canada must be willing to join the 64 per cent of the world where legal abortion is readily available. Their reasoning for this is that it prevents illegal abortions, that it faces the reality of abortion as a major health issue, and that it preserves the physical, mental, social and economic well-being of the women concerned. If it does all those things, it is a hypothesis which has not yet been proved.
The ends envisioned can be met through other means. Proper education solves many problems, especially when that education gives complete understanding of birth control methods which are available and a thorough understanding of the value of human life.
Man must learn that the preservation and continued growth of the human race demands more than ensuring that the poor have the same rights as the rich. It also demands that the weak must be protected from the strong, and the unborn from the mature.
The attempt to guarantee that the poor have the same rights as the rich was the main reason for the appointment of the
Badgley Commission. As I am sure everyone in this House knows, the Commission was to discover if the procedure was and is operating equitably across Canada. The terms of the Commission's appointment did not allow it to discover if the underlying policy was a just one, nor if the legal requirements to obtain an abortion were being met. By its very basic terms of reference, the Badgley Commission was destroyed as a forum for discussion of the abortion situation before it ever began. Those members of the general public and the medical profession who see abortion as the destruction of life could offer nothing to a commission which accepts abortion as a fact of life.
Finally, after intensive and prolonged research, the Commission discovered that the abortion law was not operating equitably across the country. The Commission pointed out that abortion is mainly available in major urban centres, and that many women still travel to the United States to obtain abortions because their hospitals do not have therapeutic abortion committees, or, if they do, the backlog is such that the child would be born before the abortion could be performed.
In addition, the Commission reported that there are also some hospitals with abortion committees which will not perform abortions just because a woman is pregnant. So the Badgley Commission proved that abortion is not offered equally across the country and that the rich and those who live in cities can obtain abortions almost on demand, while those who live in rural areas or small towns have much more difficulty, unless they are rich.
But one would think, in discussing a law, that an attempt would be made to gain justice for all and that the unborn child would be granted the same say as those who can speak for themselves. The concept of equality before the law demands that all participants be included, not just those who yell the loudest.
One of the means used by the Commission to discover if abortions were being granted equally was a survey of the hospitals in terms of total numbers, eligibility by provincial regulation, to have abortion committees, as defined and the number of those eligible which did in fact have abortion committees. It was discovered that of the 559 general hospitals across Canada which met the requirements for therapeutic abortion committees, only 271 or 48.5 per cent had done so.
Over half of the hospitals involved did not choose to have abortion committees. Their reasons for this included professional ethics of the staff, religious denomination, avoidance of conflict, and lack of demand for abortion. One of the staff members of a hospital responded to the survey by saying, and I quote:
Under the present circumstances, there is no longer any medical indication to justify therapeutic abortion to protect the life or physical health of the mother.
Some doctors themselves are now admitting that there is no medical reason for abortion. Even the late Dr. Gattmacha, who was one of the strongest allies of the abortion movement, stated; and I quote:
March 4, 1985

Today in our modern society it is possible to take almost any woman safely through her pregnancy except if she has cancer or leukemia, in which case an abortion would not save her life, much less prolong it.
One of the most definite problems for those fighting abortion and the destruction of innocent life, is that while there is proof that life begins in the initial or very early stages of a pregnancy, people are willing to destroy that life, to make the social and economic status of the mother more important than the right to life of those who cannot speak for themselves. We are fast losing sight of the traditional western ethic which has always placed emphasis on the basic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. Short-range utility is taking the place of a code of ethics which grants to everyone the right to live his own life to the best of his ability.
By destroying another life to ensure one's economic and social success, the human race is losing whatever dignity and honour it has worked to build for itself over the centuries. It is right and proper that the individual be protected, that he or she be granted their God-given life and the right to grow and learn at his or her own rate. Unfortunately, all individuals are not granted the same rights. The legalization of abortion would imply that the end justifies the means and that destruction is allowable if a certain quality of life is preserved for those who remain.
Self-interest is held, then, to be more important than the common good. Truth becomes lost as man learns to define himself in terms of what he thinks is useful and convenient. To place a utilitarian value on human life, to see each person only in terms of his economic worth, can and will lead to the destruction of human life and can and will lead to the murder of those already born who through mental or physical incapacity are not able to contribute to society what may be demanded of them by extremists.
These and any other attempts to negate life, to state that it has no value in itself must never be tolerated. Life is an automatic value and the handicapped child has the same right as any other person to develop his full potential as a human being. Abortion, infanticide and mercy killing have a tendency to follow one upon the other. To destroy life at any level is to accept that all life has only relative value. Can those who propose the complete legalization of abortion guarantee that it will end there? Can they guarantee that the legal murder of the unborn will not lead society in general to other forms of murder? I think not, Mr. Speaker.
Conflict of interest automatically arises when attempts are made to legitimate the value of life. The abortion law in Canada, as it now stands, opens the doors wide to those hospitals in Canada who want abortion on demand. Statistics show that the number of abortions have increased by leaps and bounds, creating a situation whereby those hospitals which choose a lax interpretation of the law are now experiencing difficulty in dealing with the backlog. Needed elective surgery is backed up and operating theatres are constantly tied up. The abortionists would like to force the other hospitals and doctors into accepting this backlog. That must be prevented at all
Constitution Act, 1982
costs. Never do I want to see individuals and institutions forced into the taking of life, forced into the murder of those who are classified as unwanted, unwanted by a society that cannot be bothered with the question, let alone try to find an answer. Unwanted does not describe the child, merely the reaction of society of which he or she is a part. It is a state of mind, not a state of being.
In most of the disagreements and arguments that have taken place between pro-lifers and pro-abortionists, the focal point has been the issue of contraception. Those who favour abortion state that pro-lifers want to put women into a state of continual pregnancy. I have said before, and I must stress now, that proper birth control methods must be made readily available to all, and sex education must be taught in such a way as to make all people understand those methods. Money can and should be spent on the education of all people, not just those attending high school or college. Once that is done, people will be able to make the choice concerning the birth of children. As it stands now, abortion is becoming a means of contraception. Many women are choosing not to make full use of contraceptives. It has become much easier to terminate an unwanted pregnancy than to take the time to use proper birth control methods.
Destruction of the unborn child has become the accepted means of ensuring that a sexual relationship is not based on artificial means. Even the Badgley Commission agreed that the number of abortions will continue to rise if some means is not found to ensure that women have contraceptive protection. Its statistics show that 25.2 per cent of the women questioned who had abortions, discontinued use of contraception some time before the pregnancy; 27.2 per cent had not used contraception at any time. Those are definitely not hopeful statistics for the future children of Canada.
For those who do not want children, contraception is proper and necessary. For once conception takes place there can be no more contraception. Once a life has begun, it has the right to reach its natural end. That life has the same right to protection under the law as has its mother or any other of society. The right-to-life movement must be willing to show the people of this country that it does care. We must show that we are aware of the problems of illegal abortions and of the pregnant woman who needs assistance and guidance before, during and after her pregnancy. The public must learn what really we are trying to do, not what the pro-abortionists say we are trying to do.
Governments and the medical profession must be willing to offer assistance and explain exactly what that assistance is to women who are pregnant. The men cannot be forgotten either. The development of women's rights does not demand the end of male responsibility. A sexual relationship demands responsibility on both sides in the understanding and use of contraceptives and in the care of any child who may result from that relationship.
The legalization of abortion must be averted and the type of abortion available now must be ended before there will be any change in the values of Canadian society. To ensure that the

March 4, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
intrinsic value of human life supersedes the monetary values of this nation, we must be willing to fight to prove that there are no fast, easy solutions to social problems. The pregnant woman and society must learn that killing the unborn child is not going to solve problems. The social problems which lead to unwanted pregnancy must be attacked at their base, through education, assistance and compassion. To insist that abortion be legalized because illegal abortion and maternal death will result if it is not, is much the same as saying that homicide should be legalized because murder will take place whether it is illegal or not.
The legal murder of the unborn must be stopped. Once that is done, all levels of society can join together to attempt to solve the social problems which are its cause. The sure way to do this, Mr. Speaker, is through this House, and that is, by amending the Constitution Act, 1982 to recognize the undeniable fact that unborn human persons have the same rights as other human beings, which is the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of all unborn children who cannot speak for themselves, we will see this happen in the not too distant future by taking the necessary steps to amend the Constitution and prevent the wholesale murder of unborn babies, which now exceeds some 80,000 lives per year from one end of our country to the other.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate on what is obviously a very important and sensitive question, indeed, one of the most difficult questions which faces this Parliament.
In approaching the motion of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) who has just spoken, I feel it is important that we look carefully at the substance of that motion. The Hon. Member has suggested that the Constitution Act be amended in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include a human foetus or unborn human being. That is the motion of the Hon. Member. In analysing that motion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is only appropriate that we look at the substance of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights. That section, under the heading "Legal Rights", reads as follows:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
In his remarks, which I listened to with care, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe quoted from Section 7 of the Charter, but in doing so he omitted the final words of that section. I am sure that was just an oversight, but the fact is that the Hon. Member's motion would permit the deprivation of life, liberty and security of the person in circumstances which accord with the principles of fundamental justice. I suggest to the Hon. Member that if his objective is to end all abortions in Canada today-and while I respect the view of the Hon. Member I disagree fundamentally with it-then he will not achieve that objective through the motion which is
before the House today. Far better, surely, to come before the House with a motion which would repeal those sections of the Criminal Code which permit therapeutic abortion and, presumably, return to the days in which all abortions in this country were illegal.
Having said that, I think it is only appropriate that I note that the position taken by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe is fundamentally different from the position taken by members of his caucus in 1981, including the seconder of his motion, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Perhaps a bit of history on this matter would be in order. In November of 1981, the official spokesperson for the Progressive Conservative Party, then in opposition, moved the following motion. The Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) moved:
That the proposed Constitution Act 1981 be amended by adding after Clause 31 of Part 1 the following new clause:
"32. Nothing in this Charter affects the authority of Parliament to legislate
in respect of abortion."
The argument, made with considerable persuasiveness by the Hon. Member for Rosedale in November of 1981, was that there should be no amendment made to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would deny Parliament, as the ultimate representative of the people, the right to legislate on the very difficult question of abortion. However, the motion before the House today would do precisely what the Hon. Member for Rosedale said this Parliament should not be doing. Indeed, it would entrench in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms certain rights of a foetus or an unborn human being. That flatly contradicts the position taken by the Hon. Member's colleague, including the Hon. Member for Bow River and the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) in November of 1981. I want to remind the House what those Hon. Members said in 1981. The Hon. Member for Rosedale said:
In my view, all sides of the House and, indeed, Canadians across the country, want to ensure that Parliament has the right to legislate if any changes are deemed necessary with respect to the law on abortion. The difficulty for a great number of Canadians is that conflicting legal difficulties throw that matter into doubt. We want to make it clear that Parliament's freedom to legislate on this matter is unimpaired.
Surely the Hon. Member who put forward this motion today and his colleagues who support it must recognize that it would do precisely what the Hon. Member for Rosedale suggested should not be done. It would indeed entrench in the Charter a specific provision on the question of abortion. The Hon. Member for Rosedale went on to say:
It took 350 years to establish the parliamentary system where legislation governing our actions with respect to life and death would be determined not by those appointed by the state but, rather, by those elected by the people themselves.
Members of this House applauded those sentiments, presumably including Members now on the Government side. He went on to say:
None of us disagree on that: not the Liberals, not the New Democrats, not the Conservatives, not Pro-Life, not Pro-Choice, and not anyone in the middle. We all agree that Parliament must have the freedom to decide. The purpose of this amendment is simply to make sure and to make clear to all that that is, indeed, our intention.
March 4, 1985

As I say, Mr. Speaker, that amendment was supported by Members of this House on the other side, so it was with considerable surprise indeed that I read the motion of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe, which represents a complete reversal of the very reasonable position taken by his distinguished colleague from Rosedale.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This is Private Members' Hour.


Svend Johannes Robinson: There are some Members on that side who will be given an opportunity to speak and, presumably, indicate if they oppose this motion, as they apparently did in 1981. I will look forward to hearing from those Members.
Certainly it is interesting to note this reversal of position, at least on the part of the Hon. Member for Bow River, who now supports a motion which flies directly in the face of the motion he supported in 1981.
As to the substance of the question, there are Members of this House who, in good conscience, believe that the Criminal Code should make no provision whatsoever for therapeutic abortion. I want to make it very clear that my position and the position of the NDP is that the provisions of the Criminal Code which deal with the question of therapeutic abortion should be repealed and the abortion decision should be one made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, that is, in terms of the provisions of the Code itself. However, we recognize as well that this is not just a legal question by any stretch of the imagination. It is essential that there be a whole series of other measures undertaken by Governments, both federal and provincial, to support women who are too often faced with the very difficult decision as to whether or not to give up a child because of economic circumstances. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is fundamentally wrong that the level of support for single parents in our society today is so appallingly low that there are still women, particularly single parents, who feel they cannot afford to have a child. That must be a concern of all Members of this House.
As well, we must support, indeed encourage, the funding of programs which enhance an awareness of sex education and family planning. We must also support the availability of safe contraceptive devices. I was pleased to note that the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe also supported that particular suggestion. When we talk about contraception, it is, I think, important that we recognize that contraception should not be solely the responsibility of women. The Ministry of National Health and Welfare should be undertaking research to deal with the whole question of contraceptive devices for males as well as for females. It is also important that family life programs and sex education programs be made a part of the regular school curriculum at both primary and secondary levels, and that this item be placed on the agenda of conferences between the federal Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) and his provincial counterparts.
It is fundamental to this issue that if we were to return to the days in which abortions were illegal in this country, that would not put an end to abortions. Rather, it would mean abortion would continue to be carried out in conditions which
Constitution Act, 1982
are often unsafe and, indeed, hazardous to the woman involved. The evidence shows very graphically that a woman who is desperate enough to want an abortion will have that abortion. Whether it be at the hands of a backstreet butcher, a self-induced abortion in conditions which are unsafe and hazardous, or whether she be forced, if she can afford to, to leave the jurisdiction and go to another province or outside the country, a woman will take the necessary steps if she is desperate and if abortions are made illegal. This has actually happened in other jurisdictions. For example, in Romania during the 1960s that country decided that because of certain demographic issues it wanted to tighten up considerably on its abortion law. The statistics showed that the number of abortion-related deaths increased markedly. To return to the days in which abortion was entirely illegal in the country would be an ultimately regressive and harmful move.
I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that we look very seriously at significantly increasing the funding made available to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada and other organizations which are attempting to promote awareness of safe contraception and attempting to educate young people, adolescents in particular, about the importance of sex education.
In that regard, I would like to quote from a speech that was given in 1980 by the President of the Canadian Medical Association. It was a very thoughtful speech by Dr. W.D.S. Thomas. In that speech he urged the Government to repeal the present abortion law so that this would be a decision between a woman and her doctor, a position which the Canadian Medical Association has espoused since 1971. He urged that the Government increase, rather than cut, its funding for family planning programs. He went on to say the following:
I know that the best sex education program in the world will not eliminate unwanted pregnancies, it will not eliminate the need for therapeutic abortion, but it will help.
We need an educational program that will not only transmit the necessary information to teenagers, but one that will alter the basic value structure of our society. If we talk about conception control in isolation, isolated from other basic issues and values of society, our advice will fall on deaf ears. We have to deal with feelings and emotions, we have to talk to them about relationships, about decision making, about short term and long term effects of decisions, we have to talk to them about respect, what it is, how you get it, and how you show it. We have to be honest and open with them about sexual exploitation, about peer pressure for sexual gratification and its effects on a person's behaviour. We have to help them to clarify and adhere to their own personal values, we have to teach them that they have the right to say no, not just to sexual advances but to other things as well. We have to teach them about the different ways of showing affection and the advantages and disadvantages involved.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, he said:
More importantly, we must do a better job of teaching them how to build personal relationships, to understand the mental and emotional needs of themselves and others. With these foundations in place, with the proper attitudes, if teenagers are sexually active they will use birth control because of self respect and a sense of responsibility.
Many of us recognize that indeed there are too many abortions in Canada today. However, rather than repealing the provisions of the Code which allow for safe therapeutic abortions, albeit flawed provisions that discriminate between women in rural areas and other areas, and making all abor-

March 4, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
tions illegal, we should consider the steps which I have indicated as being more appropriate in order to reduce the number of abortions. We must study sex education, consider better awareness and availability of contraceptives, and consider economic support for women who desperately want to keep their children. In some cases, as a result of the pathetic levels of human resources payments for women who are single parents, those women occasionally make the decision to give up their child.
I would like to applaud the steps which have been taken by the Government of Manitoba. That Government has recently embarked upon a very important funding program which enhanced the availability of contraceptives. It also expanded obstetric and gynaecological services at a number of Winnipeg hospitals. The Government of Manitoba funded a program of education and counselling on family planning as well. All these steps are very important and I would encourage other provincial Governments to look at them seriously.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, it would be a fundamental mistake for Parliament to accept the motion which has been put forward by the Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) and to entrench these particular rights in the Constitution itself. Some representatives who appeared before the constitution committee, of which I had the honour to serve as a member, urged that we entrench the concept of reproductive rights in the Constitution itself. Both sides were heard from on that issue and in the end Parliament decided that neither of them would be entrenched.
The logic of the Hon. Member for Rosedale was very compelling in 1981. It was so compelling that Members on that side of the House voted in virtual unanimity for the proposal that was made. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that logic is just as compelling today as it was in November of 1981.
In conclusion, I would urge that this Parliament recognize that Canadians, through one of the bulwarks of our criminal justice system in the country, that is the system of the jury, have sent a very clear message to parliamentarians. That message has been sent now by four juries in Canada in the case of Dr. Henry Morgentaler. That message surely must be recognized by Members of the House. That message is that the fundamental decision on abortion must be left to the woman in consultation with her doctor.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), in introducing this motion to entrench constitutionally the rights of the unborn, feels very strongly about this issue. I always have admiration for people who have strong feelings about issues. His comments contribute to the public discussion on this debate, as have the comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). From listening to the comments of both previous speakers it is evident that, despite our differing views on the motion before us, we all believe that there must be further public recognition and public involvement in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. We must ensure that all people take more responsibility in this area. If we had a motion
which suggested the advisability of the Government considering further work with the provinces and other groups in our society to increase funding and accessibility of information on those topics, we might indeed have all-Party agreement on it. That is the fundamental problem that we face.
Being a mother of teenagers and working with young people, I know that they are faced with such a barrage from the media and other sources in our society about their sexual involvement that sexual identification is extremely difficult. There is very little available to them with regard to the things that the Hon. Member for Burnaby brought forward. I remember one other time in the past six months when I agreed with the Hon. Member for Burnaby, and I do again today. I would like to have the quotation which he made from that doctor, because that expresses my feelings about what the thrust of our efforts should be and the direction that we as responsible parliamentarians should take.
The motion before us today does not address that issue. It is asking for the entrenchment of the rights of the unborn in the Constitution. I personally disagree with the motion, and I also think that it is an inappropriate way to bring about change on this issue. Whether the matter is abortion or dealing with constitutional change, it is one of the most serious issues facing Canadians.
I would like to address the subject of the appropriateness of trying to bring about change, first, in a Private Members' motion and, second, through constitutional reform. As Hon. Members know, I have my own Private Members' motion coming up next week with respect to that issue.
I believe that we need more time than available in Private Members' hour to discuss a major issue such as entrenching the rights of the unborn in the Constitution. We are all aware of how sensitive this issue is as a result of the barrage of viewpoints we received about this issue in our constituencies. I do not believe that there is a clear consensus in any part of the country.
There was a case in the United States. We should note what was said by Mr. Justice Blackmum of the United States Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade. He said:
We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes towards life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.
I think it is evident here today that this is not an issue that divides on Party lines. Rather, it is a reflection of many of our own personal experiences. Having been involved in the women's movement in this country in many ways, I suppose that my own views are coloured by the kinds of experiences I have seen and been involved in. Certainly, I respect Members who hold different views on this issue.
March 4, 1985

The Hon. Member proposes to extend the rights in Section 7 of the Charter to a human foetus or an unborn human being. Section 7 guarantees to everyone the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The issue of whether or not the Charter protects the rights of the unborn is already before the courts in at least two cases. They are very well known and publicized cases.
In the Borowski case, opponents of the present abortion provisions of the Criminal Code have argued that Section 7 of the charter does protect the rights of the unborn after a very thorough analysis of whether or not a foetus is a legal person. The trial court ruled that the term "everyone" in Section 7 did not include the unborn. That decision, as we all know, has been appealed.
In another case, Dr. Morgentaler argued that the restrictions on abortion in the Criminal Code conflicted with the mother's right to life, liberty and security of the person as guaranteed in Section 7 and with other provisions of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Ontario rejected this argument and held that the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code did not conflict with the Charter.
I am sure that we will hear more about the rights of the unborn under the Charter. Personally, I do not think that the fundamental controversy surrounding our abortion laws should be solved in the courts. I believe the issue is far too important. The courts have already indicated their discomfort at being placed in this position. After reviewing the history of the abortion laws in Canada in the Borowski decision, and noting that the present law had not had the effect of placating individuals or groups with an interest in the issue, Mr. Justice Matheson concluded in the Borowski case:
-it is the prerogative of Parliament, and not the courts, to enact whatever legislation may be considered appropriate to extend to the unborn any or all legal rights possessed by living persons. Because there is no existing basis in law which justifies a conclusion that foetuses are legal persons, and therefore within the scope of the term 'everyone' utilized in the Charter, the claim of the plaintiff must be dismissed.
Clearly, the question of rights for the unborn and whether or not abortions should be permitted and under what circumstances is an issue that concerns and divides Canadians. It is a very unfortunate division and something which I believe worries many of us. We need only to have watched our television in the last few weeks to see marchers and supporters and adversaries and opponents of abortion marching in Toronto in front of the Morgentaler clinic to put forward their views of our present law. As well, the polls which have been taken indicate that Canadians are seriously divided in their views as to what the law should be. As we are all aware on almost a daily basis, it is an issue on which those who do hold definite views are very reluctant to accept any compromise. In my opinion now is not an appropriate time to make a change in the law as such until we are able to develop a greater understanding and consensus among the public.
These are some of the reasons why I believe that Private Members' hour is not a suitable place to consider the issue of whether or not protection for the unborn should be put into the
Constitution Act, 1982
Constitution. We must make sure that we provide a full examination of all the issues.
If the Hon. Member is serious about changing the law, we should go about it in a different and proper way. First, we must make sure that we know what we mean when we say that we want to provide protection for the unborn. Second, we must be aware of what it means to add "human foetus" or "unborn human being" to Section 7 of the Charter. We are still at a very early stage of the interpretation of the Charter, and the provisions of Section 7 are being considered by our higher courts. We must also carefully assess the advantages and disadvantages of keeping our laws with respect to abortion in the Criminal Code.
I believe we should also keep in mind that there is an established process for amending the Constitution. Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that amendments must not only be approved by the Senate and House of Commons, but by resolutions of two-thirds of the provinces having at least 50 per cent of the population. This is a process which calls for close consultation with the provinces on the nature of the change to the Constitution and the impact it would have. If changes were proposed for Section 7 of the Charter to ensure protection of the unborn, this could have important implications for the provinces, especially in the area of family law. I do not believe that issue has been addressed by the Hon. Member.
Most important with respect to this issue, we must provide Canadians with an opportunity to make their views known on what the law should be. I do not think we can do that properly until we have done some of the things I have talked about at the outset and the other two speakers have talked about. We must make those kinds of fundamental changes in assisting young Canadians to become more responsible, to have a greater understanding and to have access to information and services. We should put the emphasis on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather than on having to deal with the growing number of abortions, many of which are related to the socio-economic conditions of the women involved who have not had access to appropriate information. Perhaps they have been reluctant to have access to that information. I think birth control information should be more publicly accessible to young women rather than in under-the-table discussions with girlfriends. I feel strongly about that, having a young daughter of my own.
Our Government believes in consultation and co-operation, a Government which consults before it makes fundamental changes in our laws. We take pride in involving Canadians in decisions on social benefits, housing and equality issues. We are proud of that record and it is one that we want to continue to maintain.
If we were going to consider changes in our abortion laws and to consider the Hon. Member's suggestion of enshrining protection for the unborn in the Constitution, we would have to make sure that individuals and groups with views on this issue could come forward to make those views known. This is an area in which we need consensus. I honestly believe that

March 4, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
any legal changes that we might propose will not work. Potentially we would be in an even worse mess than we are today.
The Badgley report, to which the Hon. Member referred earlier, indicates that the present system is not perfect. It indicates that abortions are not available equitably across the country. We know that the present law does not work perfectly for people of either point of view.
While debate in Private Member's hour may touch on some of the issues and give us a better idea of what is involved, that is not the place to solve one of the most complex social issues facing Canada today. We must be sure that if we move to change our laws with respect to abortion, to protecting the unborn, we have the support of as many Canadians as possible. Without this we may be causing more problems than we are solving. In this forum we lack the time and the collective capacity to assess the complex issues involved in this one hour. We also need to ensure that we know as much as possible about the impact of any constitutional amendment in this area.
I urge all Hon. Members in this House to consider that whatever point of view they have on this issue, this is not the motion that is most urgently before us. We should be working together to solve the basic issue and working toward the greater awareness of Canadian men and women to ensure that there are no more unwanted pregnancies and that we bring a true sense of responsibility to our own sexual activities. If that were the direction we were to take, Mr. Speaker, we could all be very proud and optimistic about the results.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the debate today. I know it is an issue that will come forward at other times and in other forums. Through the opportunity to debate this issue and discuss some of its implications, we can learn about our different views, an interesting aspect to Private Member's hour. Perhaps in the next four years we will be able to reach some new approaches, new understandings, and new recognition on this whole issue of women and the unborn.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in the debate this afternoon on this very significant motion put by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include a human foetus or unborn human being.
Having said that, I want to make it quite clear at this stage that I agree very strongly with that principle. I believe life does start at conception. I believe what we need is something to enshrine that principle in the law of the land. What better law can there be than the Charter of Rights?
Because this is such a very important principle, it is disappointing to me to see, notwithstanding the fact that there are snow storms swirling around us, that there is really just a handful of people in the House this afternoon to take part in this important debate. It is a debate that has had the attention
of the country focused on its subject for a long period of time. Looking back to the election campaign, I think that along with the issue of unemployment and capital punishment this had to be one of the main and principal issues during that time. This was an issue without any grey area. It was a black or white issue as far as the people of my riding and, I suspect, people across the country were concerned. They saw the issue as a matter of right or wrong. They did not see the issue as a question of maybe or compromise. It was strictly a matter of principle.
I think it is clear that there is a great gulf and a great difference of opinion between people in this country. While I do not share the ultimate opinion of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) on the principle we are debating here today, I do share a good many of her views and the concerns she has raised, particularly with respect to the whole concept of further debate, further discussion, and the further refining of this issue. I believe that if we go on from here, we will be on a collision path. A great many people have strong views on this issue.
I think probably those views have best been demonstrated recently in my own City of Toronto in the Dr. Henry Morgen-taler case. The issue received a full court hearing and review, but at the same time it left a strange feeling and a strange concern in the minds of a vast number of people, particularly on the issue of jury selection. I think it surprised a lot of people that there could be an organization whose main purpose was geared to advising on jury selection to produce a jury, if at all possible, that shared the views of one side or the other to such an extent that perhaps it could tip the balance in the case. When people learned there was a professional body that gave advice on the selection of a jury, and that in selecting the jury anyone who had strong religious feelings or convictions was not acceptable as a jury member, people in the City of Toronto and across the country felt there was something wrong with a judicial system of that sort. That although Dr. Morgentaler was acquitted on the charges, there was grave concern that the kind of jury selection we had was not really and truly a trial by Dr. Henry Morgentaler's peers. It is that feeling that has put in sharp perspective the conflict between the different points of view that we are dealing with in this significant issue.
If we proceed with an amendment at this time, I do not think there is very much doubt in the minds of those who feel very strongly one way or the other, as I do, that we will have a great confrontation, a confrontation that would probably put the whole prohibition issue of a number of years ago to shame. It could turn that issue into something very insignificant in comparison with this and in comparison with the kind of confrontation we could walk into if we take precipitous action.
I think this motion is a good one in that it starts to define the issues. It encourages debate and it does that not only on the streets, on television screens and on the radio, but in the House of Commons, the place where the debate will ultimately have to take place.
I believe we will have to have a lot more public debate before it is an appropriate time to deal firmly and once and for
March 4, 1985

all with this issue. There are a number of problems. The Hon. Member for Capilano touched on some of them that are involved in this issue besides those raised by the mover of the motion, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe. Some of those concerns and problems have not, as yet, been addressed properly, in my view. One concerned the whole question of whether we enshrined this as a constitutional question.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that my time has drawn to a close. I would like to have a future opportunity to expand on my views on this subject. I hope this debate will inspire the Government to bring forward further legislation. This will give all of us an opportunity to expand on our views in the House of Commons.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on December 11, I asked a question of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) concerning the issue of the Auditor General being empowered to report more frequently to the House of Commons on a completion date basis rather than on an annual basis. I should like to discuss this issue to a little greater extent.
The Minister indicated that he was open to making the change. He referred to having had a meeting with the Auditor General, but he did not refer to the many recommendations of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I should like to give a little history.
In July 1980, the Public Accounts Committee recommended that the Auditor General use more often his power to make special reports so that the Committee would be able more often to examine current issues. When a legal opinion was sought about these powers, the opinion was that in fact Sections 7 and 8 of the Auditor General Act did not contemplate regular, interval or completion date reporting and limited the Auditor General to reporting annually to the House of Commons, except in cases of special importance or urgency.
The legal remedy proposed was the insertion of the words "at least" in Subsection 7(1) and various consequential amendments to Subsection 7(3) and Subsection 8(1). Those changes were discussed at the time, and the President of the Treasury Board was in agreement, as was the then House Leader of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic
Adjournment Debate
Party caucus. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis), who I assume is answering this evening, is familiar with this matter since he as former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee put forward many of the recommendations to which I am referring.
In June 1984, in its fifth report to Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee again recommended the reporting of comprehensive and other audits on a completion date basis. Then on March 31, 1984 the Auditor General referred to the issue in his report.
The present situation is that the Public Accounts Committee very often deals with matters which are rather old because the Auditor General reports to Parliament in December on issues which have been audited by his staff many months before. In the case of a comprehensive audit, it is practice to allow Departments an opportunity to comment and for their comments to be included in the Auditor General's report. The constant recommendations for reporting on a more frequent basis were with the idea that the Public Accounts Committee could have before it matters which were more current.
If I may quote the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, in his previous role as committee chairman, he once said:
By the time the Public Accounts Committee reviews the comprehensive audit or the audit notes our review may be nothing more than a confirmation of the Auditor General's Report, rather than a useful exercise by a Parliamentary committee to reinforce the concerns of the Auditor General and make a public and departmental impact.
That was nicely said.
If the present President of the Treasury Board is willing to introduce a Bill which makes this simple amendment, the advantages of completion-date reporting as against waiting 12 to 18 months to get all the issues together would include the following. The subject matter of each release would be current in that it would have been recently completed and finalized by the Auditor General and his staff. The Public Accounts Committee would be more likely to review the matter thoroughly and enthusiastically because it was current. It would be more likely that a review would increase the effectiveness of the Auditor General's Report. The Public Accounts Committee would be able to plan its work better and the workload of the Auditor General would be distributed on a more even basis throughout the year. For all those reasons, I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us tonight that we will soon see this amendment to the Auditor General Act.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as Past Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, it is my pleasure to reply to the Hon. Member. I might add that she is my successor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I compliment her on the job she is doing with the committee.
I am still aware and supportive of the comments contained in the Fifth Report of the previous Public Accounts Committee. I know that I and the President of the Treasury Board

March 4, 1985
Adjournment Debate
(Mr. de Cotret) are supportive of the question of strengthening the ability of the Public Accounts Committee to perform its important responsibilities on behalf of the taxpayers of the country and to see that the Government, no matter which Party is in power, is operating with due regard for economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The Hon. Member will know that at the present time the Auditor General has testified that he feels he can bring his report forward in October rather than December. I believe this is something which will enable the Public Accounts Committee to set its agenda earlier. It will be closer to the completion date of the audits in question and will allow the committee to plan its work for the entire year.
Second, the Hon. Member will know that the Parliamentary Committee on Reform of the House of Commons is actively working and hearing views and briefs on what can be done to improve the efficiency of the Parliamentary Committees. I believe that its report should be taken into account before any changes are made.
I note, as does the President of the Treasury Board, that the Public Accounts Committee has gotten off to a quick start and is doing some viable work in reviewing the Auditor General's Report. At the same time, the Government has embarked upon a heavy program of consultation and legislation, both economic and social, which we feel is designed to address the problems we found when we came into Government.
At the present time, amendments to the Auditor General Act are up for discussion but we do not want to impair the effectiveness of the Parliamentary Committee on Reform, or the Public Accounts Committee, by suggesting that their current reviews are being stale dated. I believe that this is a subject for discussion and I can tell the Hon. Member that it is the intent of the Government to deal with this matter at some time.


THE ECONOMY-ECONOMIC STATEMENT-IMPACT ON PROPOSED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE. (B) BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question in the House last November 13 with regard to the closure of the Manufacturing Technology Institute in Manitoba. I want to make a few comments today and I hope that the Government will take them into consideration in its long-term plans.
When the Government Party was running for office it promised tens of thousands of jobs overnight. It promised to replace confrontation with consultation and co-operation. It also promised that it would have a place at the Cabinet table for the West. It promised to bring western Canada into Government.
When we examine the specific instance of the handling of the Manufacturing Technology Institute in Manitoba, and when we examine the performance of the Government now
that it is in office relative to its promises during the election campaign, the Government gets very low marks. I am not only concerned about how it is rated in terms of its performance, I am concerned about its performance because that performance affects people in Manitoba.
The Government cut the Manufacturing Technology Institute last November, along with the many other cuts which were made in public spending. The Government cut that institute in spite of the lack of consultation which it promised when it was running for office. In spite of the fact that they promised consultation and co-operation during the election campaign, the Government cut that institute without any consultation with the people or the Government of Manitoba. The Government only met with the people of Manitoba concerning the question of funding for the Manufacturing Technology Institue after the question was raised in the House and pressure was put on the Government to meet with the people of Manitoba. Even though the Government then met with the people of Manitoba, the consultations were largely meaningless because they had no real impact upon the direction of the Government with respect to the Manufacturing Technology Institute.
The Government cut the institute in spite of the fact that it would have meant assistance to the private sector. It would have meant more secure jobs in Manitoba. When the Conservative Party was running for office, it promised to use the private sector as a means of job creation. This was an ideal opportunity to marry activity in the private sector with activity in the public sector and produce employment for Manitobans. However, the Government chose to cut back on this activity for some strange, inexplicable reason. It makes me wonder whether the Government sees no role for the public sector in assisting the private sector to grow, develop and provide employment. I wonder if the Government has such ideological blinders that it sees no role whatsoever for the public sector in encouraging private sector growth.
The Manufacturing Technology Institute was established to help manufacturers deal with new technologies-robotics, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing- and the changes which are ongoing throughout the economy in relation to the new technologies. In spite of the fact that adjusting to new technologies is crucial to employment in Canada, the Government cut that institute. It cut an institute which would have had a positive impact on productivity. Rather than simply blaming our lack of productivity on wages, here was an opportunity to do something on the capital side of the equation to ensure productivity and continued employment.
The Government cut the Manufacturing Technology Institute in spite of the fact that there are a couple of Ministers from Manitoba who sit at the Cabinet table. It was the promise of the Conservative Party when it was running for office that there would be effective representation for the West at the Cabinet table.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Three Ministers.
March 4, 1985


Cyril Keeper: I am sorry, I have been corrected. There are three Manitoban Ministers at that Cabinet table. In spite of the fact that that trio sits at the Cabinet table, Manitoba got hit harder than other provinces in relation to public spending. There were other institutes of research which continued in the Budget, even though Manitoba's was cut. What is the use of having a voice at the Cabinet table if it is not effective in terms of protecting the interests of Manitobans? It is not only with regard to the Manufacturing Technology Institute that Manitoba is being hit hard. All Manitobans are familiar with the fact that the Government, in terms of equalization payments, has cut very deeply into the money which goes to Manitoba. There is some $72 million which needs to be rectified.
In spite of the fact that there were no meaningful consultations, in spite of the fact that this Manufacturing Technology Institute would mean jobs in Manitoba, in spite of the fact that there were Manitobans around that Cabinet table who would have spoken up for Manitoba, this Government chose to cut that institute.
Not only did the Government choose to cut it, it chose to do so without any adequate analyses of the impact that would have. The Government acknowledged that. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) said it was a question of philosophy rather than a question of analysis. We need to bring the facts to bear upon decisions of Government.
I would hope that the Hon. Member, as he speaks today, will give us some solid reasons why the Government is proceeding in the direction it is with respect to the Manufacturing Technology Institute. I hope he can hold out the promise that the Government will reinstitute this program which means so much in terms of jobs for Manitobans.


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before in this House, the decision to end the ongoing funding of the institute was not an easy one for the federal Government. Nor were we pleased to take the course. However, as with many of the difficult decisions which were announced on November 8, the Government is confronting the unpleasant fact that we cannot afford to do everything we would like.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party has said that the deficit should be treated as a long-term problem and should not colour our actions today. This statement ignores the fact that our actions today will have a long-term impact on the
Adjournment Debate
national debt. For example, the ongoing operating costs associated with the institute in Manitoba would have been in excess of $20 million per year.
Last November 13 the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) referred to the negative impact of the decision on the institute. Today he has said the same thing. In response, I would point out again that it would be difficult for anyone to credibly ascribe a specific impact to the decision. I say this because those involved in this very institute were still struggling to define the type of research and kinds of equipment the institute should have, and they did not even know then what to do with it.
As the Hon. Member will know, the previous Government was criticized by the Wright task force, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Senate Committee on National Finance. This institute was often cited specifically as a concern by those who criticized the policies of the previous Government. It was in this context that the November 8 decision was taken. Immediately, an effort was launched to find a more productive use for the IMT building. As the Minister said in Winnipeg last November, the building offers considerable potential and the Government is determined to see it put to productive use, notwithstanding the financial restraint which is facing the country.
In this regard, the Minister invited the private sector and the provincial Government to participate in the staffing and operation of the facilities. The Government believes that the private sector is more likely to take an interest in research and use it if it has a financial interest in the activity. It is for this reason that we are optimistic about the initiative of the Minister in relation to the Winnipeg institute. The Minister has already received several substantive proposals on the use of the facility. In February last he went to Winnipeg to continue consultations with the provincial Government and other interested parties. I can report that he was encouraged by the co-operative attitude and constructive recommendations which were presented to him. The Minister is actively considering these proposals now. Nevertheless, the federal Government welcomes further input and representations by interested Hon. Members of this House.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 5, 1985