1985-06-21

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, last night the Glengarry, Prescott and Russell Federations of Agriculture met in my constituency to express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the federal Tory Government, and more particularly with the Finance Minister's Budget. These Federations moved the following resolution and asked me to read it to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson):
Whereas Mr. Brian Mulroney during the last election campaign made a written promise to provide agriculture with long-term financing at stable and affordable rates, and
Whereas farm financing was not addressed in the recent Budget,
Therefore we, the members of the Glengarry, Prescott and Russell Federations of Agriculture jointly demand that the Prime Minister of Canada fulfil his campaign promises, and be it further resolved that we demand that the cuts of $60 million in the Agriculture programs announced November 8th 1984 and the proposed $50 million cut in the May 23rd Budget be cancelled and that full funding be immediately restored to the Agriculture Department.
It was evident that a feeling of anger and betrayal was expressed by the farmers of my riding last night. The agricultural community will not forget the unfulfilled promises of the Prime Minister.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this week in Stockholm, Social Democratic Parties from around the globe met to consider joint action to deal with the grim economic crisis in the world. The Members of the Socialist International endorsed a report from their economic policy committee stressing three broad conclusions.
The first of these conclusions is that, to spur world economic recovery, the industrialized countries must reject the prevailing approach of fiscal cut-backs and high interest rates, and plan a joint strategy of expansionary public expenditures focused on community needs. Second, the dangerous debt
crisis of the developing countries must be tackled with what amounts to a redistribution of purchasing power to poorer countries to help revive world economic demand. Third, solutions to the debt crisis will require an international conference to forgive debts for the very poorest countries, reduce interest payments for others, and tie repayments to export earning levels in the Third World. I cal! on the Canadian Government to provide leadership in such international action to respond to this debt crisis.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the preservation and creation of jobs are uppermost in the minds of all Members of this House. The shipbuilding and repairing industry has a ready-made capacity to create jobs now. The most efficient Canadian yards are using modern technology and advanced systems of management.
Governments in other countries have traditionally supported their shipyards in ways which make free competition virtually impossible. Previously, through subsidies and grants, Canada supported the shipbuilding industry in an amount approximating $4,000 per employee per year. Yards were busy. Today Canadian yards are struggling to survive.
Work is going on offshore at the expense of Canadian workmen. Welfare rates for a single unemployed person amount to over $4,000 per year. Unemployment insurance payments come to another $13,000 annually. Support, therefore, for the shipbuilding industry would achieve a net gain for every additional job created. Those workmen would then be paying income tax and contributing to social welfare programs, instead of drawing upon them.
A buoyant shipbuilding industry would be the shot in the arm needed by our steel industry, and would have numerous spin-off economic benefits. The shipping industry in a country such as ours, with its miles of coastline and an inland waterway comparable to none other in the world deserves the support of a Government such as this which has always put its priority on jobs, jobs, jobs. It deserves more.

June 21, 1985


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, some twenty of my constituents left Winnipeg by train this week to come to Ottawa. They have come to join their friends from Ontario and celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Franco-Ontarian Festival.
Mr. Speaker, 1985 is also the centennial of the death of Louis Riel. This delegation has come to Ottawa precisely to celebrate both anniversaries and it includes the character of Louis Riel and of his Metis supporters who are with us today to commemorate that event.
The past century, Mr. Speaker, was a stormy period in the history of the West. Various cultures and religions came together and clashed for the first time. It should be remembered that Louis Riel put his foot down to prevent Canadian surveyors from imposing their foreign system on us. However, 100 years later, Canada has made tremendous progress as far as respecting human and cultural rights is concerned. Canada must keep on showing the way. In this spirit of tolerance, co-operation and faith in the future, I welcome Louis Riel and the Francophone delegation from Manitoba. Welcome in Parliament, welcome in Ottawa and enjoy yourselves at the festival!


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Quebec Premier Levesque announced his retirement after 25 years in politics. I am sure all Members of the House will agree with me that we must pay homage to this man who devoted 25 years of his life to the service of the people of Quebec. Let us recall that, 25 years ago, Mr. Levesque began his political career with Jean Lesage's Liberal team and that he made a significant contribution to the quiet revolution, a step forward in the evolution of the people of Quebec.
Even though I did not share the political aspirations he entertained in recent years, I would suggest that Mr. Levesque is to be commended for promoting the cause of all Quebecers, upholding the French language in Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada, and boosting Quebec's economy.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members of the House wish him a happy retirement, active surely but perhaps less stressing than his political activities.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days Indian people from the Lac la Hache Indian Band, and environmentalists, have blockaded the road to the uranium mine at Wollaston Lake operated by Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.
The uranium deposits at Wollaston Lake are among the largest and richest in the world, and Eldorado Nuclear plans to keep mining there for at least 20 years. Then Eldorado will leave, but it will not take its garbage with it. Indian people will have to live with radioactive pollution for generations and generations.
Indian people take very seriously not only their aboriginal rights but also their aboriginal responsibilities to take care of the land for future generations.
When a 76-year-old elder toured the mine and saw what was happening, he said:
I almost cried when I saw what they have done to the land. If I would have known I would never have let this happen to my trap line. They didn't tell me all the problems uranium makes. I didn't know the mining would pollute the water, or that uranium is used in nuclear bombs. The mining companies should not be here. This is Indian land.
As inhabitants of planet Earth, we desperately need to realize that the struggle of the Lac la Hache Indians is also our struggle. We too have a responsibility to preserve the earth for future generations. The mining and the pollution must stop.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of the Metro Toronto International Caravan. For the next nine days Torontonians and visitors will have the opportunity to sample the myriad cultural heritage that makes up Canada.
Caravan was born as the idea of Zena Kossar. The very first Caravan of 1969 had only 29 theme pavilions, and lasted five days. It has grown to 48 pavilions and nine days. The aim of Caravan is to promote the cultural traditions that contribute to the Canadian mosaic. As an international cultural festival, it brings together nationalities from the four corners of the world. During the nine days, Caravan's visitors will enjoy dance, folk art, cuisine, and music.
Toronto will be alive with the sounds of many languages and the music of many cultures. Caravan is not just a festival of cultural activities, it is a celebration of heritage. It is a reflection of the cultural kaleidoscope that is Canada. Canadi-
June 21, 1985

ans from many cultures can share with each other the riches of their traditions. I can think of no better way to celebrate life and to promote understanding than through this international festival.
1 invite all Canadians to come and celebrate with us.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, there are rats in the House of Commons. They chew up the carpet. They make their nests in Rat Pack T-shirts. They leave tracks all over Hansard. They even crawl up on the television cameras to look at their reflections in the lens. As a result, Canadians from coast to coast have an infestation of rats on their television screens.
The rats are shrill; they squeak and they scream.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) speaks like Picasso paints. After listening to a speech by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), one is left with the impression that if the Member were ever to play the violin it would sound as if the strings were still in the cat. It is sad that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) sounds like a failed attempt to make her own perfume. The Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp-post-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal caucus of the Atlantic region recently visited Eastern Canada, Liberal senators and MPs were pleased to hear a most interesting brief submitted by the New Brunswick Economic Council, an organization held in very high esteem by the business community.
The Council's well-considered views certainly deserve the attention of all Hon. Members. The Council felt that the $2 billion tax credit which the Government has granted multinational oil companies will be only marginally productive. This tax credit should have been made conditional on new reserve discoveries and job creation, as a sort of incentive for the industry, which would have justified the government's decision to raise the price of gas by two cents a litre.
The Council was also concerned about the fact that small and medium-sized businesses, as well as medium and low income families are called upon to assume too big a share of the tax burden. It was also concerned about the impact the
Oral Questions
freeze on equalization payments will have on the less affluent provinces.
The New Brunswick Economic Council was equally concerned about the $200 million cut in the area of economic and regional development expansion, the $50 million cut affecting the agricultural industry, the $25 million cut affecting the fisheries, as well as cuts affecting the transport industry.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that the government would have been well advised to listen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired.

S)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, once again world attention is focused on the Middle East and the political tensions which exist there. The plight of the innocent United States citizens who are being held hostage is a tragic result of unresolved national and international problems. While the welfare and rescue of the victims of these problems have to be our paramount consideration, we must look beyond that to the broader reasons for the situation which exists.
What can Canadians do, given this violent and difficult situation? First, we can declare our utter revulsion at the tactic of using innoncent victims to advance a political cause. More than that, Mr. Speaker, we can look beyond that to view with sympathetic understanding the situation which besets the Middle East, and use the good offices of our Government and our government officers to take an interest in the tragic situation which has developed, and do what we can to assist in resolving the broad problem. We must consider the victims first, but we must consider the broad problem next.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: understand, Mr. Speaker, there is an emergency cabinet meeting going on, and 1 can understand why, but Parliament sits five days a week and there is not much scope for questioning here.


An Hon. Member:: They are flocking in.
6082

June 21, 1985
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Here they are. Good. Glad to see you.


An Hon. Member:: You smoked them out.


John Napier Turner: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The attack on senior citizens is only one of the flaws, albeit a very major one, in the Budget. I understand there is an emergency cabinet meeting and I hope the Minister of Finance, or the Prime Minister, will be able to come out of that meeting today and tell Parliament, either today or on Tuesday, that there has been full restoration of the indexing of old age pensions for all old age pensioners in order to fulfil two promises of the Prime Minister, first, that indexation would be preserved and, second, that universality of our social programs is a sacred trust.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the emergency cabinet meeting to which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers was planned six weeks ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: So it is not a great emergency. There is wonderful imagination being expressed over there on the other side of the House. Since the premise of the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is wrong, there is no point in answering the question.


John Napier Turner: I think there is every point in answering that question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister will be more and more rudely embarrassed over the next few weeks unless the issue is resolved soon.


PROVISIONS AFFECTING FAMILY BENEFITS
John Napier Turner: The
Minister of Finance should know that the combined effect of deindexing the baby bonus and the avalanche of new products to be covered by the new sales taxes means that the average Canadian family with an income of $25,000 per year will lose about $670 of disposable income per year. When the Minister of Finance attends the meeting of his colleagues this afternoon, will he also review a strong possibility-and we urge it-of restoring full indexation of family allowances?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as I have done practically every day-and it is not quite getting through his head-of the reason why we are making these decisions. There is a very, very serious financial problem with which the country has been faced, starting from his third Budget. This is the nature of the problem which we must address now or we are going to lose programs in the future, and not just scaling back on the rate of increase in these programs. I remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition again of those numbers. The debt has been growing at the rate of 25 per cent per annum for the last three years. That means it has doubled in
three years. If it continues in that direction, it will be doubled in another three years.
In 1979 we were paying $8 billion in interest on our public debt. It is now three times that amount, at $25 billion. We are now paying more for interest than the federal Government spends on medicare, Old Age Security, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Surely the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, who was a Minister of Finance for four years, understands that problem. Surely he, who spoke out against the deficit, who spoke out in favour of making some changes which would reduce the deficit, can get that through his head, take a leadership role in this country, and start to explain that to Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The answer is becoming very long.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand the problem of the public debt in this country. We undertook to do something about it, but never on the backs of the weak, the disadvantaged, the sick, the elderly, and the unemployed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If the hon. gentleman wants to refer to my record he can look at the national accounts. He will see that during the four years that I had custody of the finances of the country there was an average annual deficit of $711 million and the last two surpluses in Canadian history. He could only wish for something like that.


EFFECT ON MEDICAL SUPPLIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the new sales tax on products like aspirin, antihistamines, bandages, needles for medical purposes, poison ivy treatments, and diaper rash treatments. Why is the Minister broadening his scope to tax sick people and babies? Why is he into that as well?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. The policies put in place by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition from 1972 until 1975, when he left, are the basic policies which have gotten us into the mess we are in today. He knows that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I invite the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to sit down and discuss the finances of the Government of Canada at any time and any place, in order that he may understand them better than he does now, because he is not showing any awareness of the problems today.
June 21, 1985


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF POSSIBLE CHANGES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, today, Canadians are delighted to see that the Prime Minister got the message at last and has called an emergency Cabinet meeting to correct the injustice caused by the Budget proposal concerning the elderly and low-income families. Could the Minister of Finance give the House the assurance, first of all, that he will reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security pension, as his leader promised on July 26, and second, that he will reinstate full indexation of the child tax credit and family allowance benefits, as his Minister of National Health and Welfare promised to do in January, and finally, is the Minister going to withdraw this idiotic proposal to levy a 10 per cent tax on soap, shampoo and drugs like cough medicine?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the Hon. Member who asked that question may not understand the finances of the country as well as his Leader should. 1 can repeat the same answers that 1 have given to similar questions before, but I do not think that would serve much purpose. He can refer to Hansard to read the answers which I have given, which underline the very serious importance of this deficit problem and the necessity of getting control of the government debt which will double every three years.


Mr. Nunziata:: Not on the backs of the seniors.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I know the Hon. Member for York South-Weston will never understand the problem.


John V. Nunziata: Not on the backs of the seniors. When will you ever understand that? Show some compassion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I know the Hon. Member for York South-Weston will never understand the problem because he could never get himself out of the gutter.


John V. Nunziata: We care about seniors on this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. The Hon. Member for Mont-real-Sainte-Marie on a supplementary question.


ALLEGED INJUSTICES CONTAINED IN THE BUDGET
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I think the Minister of Finance should realize that if he wants to save money, he can reverse his decision to send 1,000 soliders to Lahr and spend the $400 million over the next four years on the poor in this country. My supplementary is as follows, but first 1 can inform
Oral Questions
the Minister that I will be sending him a number of documents to help him correct the injustice caused by the Budget. Does the Minister of Finance realize, and 1 have a document here, does he realize that in a confidential document that is yet to be published by an advisory committee on social welfare, the point is clearly made that the Minister's Budget is making the poor poorer and the rich richer, and 1 quote: "Does the Minister realize that by 1990, a family with an income of $15,000 will lose $2,422 and a family with an income of $80,000 will make a profit of $6,287? Does the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, that is long enough for this question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Hon. Member again of the basic thrust of the Budget. It is first and foremost to create jobs to generate the wealth that is necessary to be able to support the social programs that the country wants. That is why we have done so many things in the Budget to encourage the generation of wealth by small business so that it will create those jobs and generate the revenues for the programs.
Second, 1 want to remind the Hon. Member-because he tends to forget-that there are many elements of fairness in the Budget. We will introduce a minimum tax in 1986. We are going to put a surtax on large corporations. We will put a surtax on upper income Canadians. We will put a special tax on the chartered banks. We are going to close a number of loopholes that have benefited upper-income Canadians.
All those measures are designed to generate a balance of fairness in the Budget. That is important for all Canadians to understand, and I hope that he will address that point himself.
[DOT] * *


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In 1980 the Minister of Finance told a press conference that a proposal to deindex pensions would be the thin edge of the wedge, a move that could be followed by removing indexing of old age pensions, baby bonuses and other programs.
Does the Minister still agree with his statement then, when he said that "the Tories agree that the federal deficit must be reduced but believe there are other ways of achieving it". Does he still agree with that statement, and not the thrust of his Budget as opposed to what he said in 1980?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let us look back to 1980. I believe the deficit was $10 billion or $12 billion. It is three times higher than that now. The debt of the country was half of what it is now.

June 21, 1985
Oral Questions
Surely the Hon. Member understands the significant and fundamental difference in the financial picture of the Government of Canada. During the five years between then and now the previous Government let the finances of the Government of Canada go totally to hell, and that is why we have to make some changes now.
They are changes with which I am not happy. 1 do not like making any cuts in programs. I do not like cutting indexation. But I look at the options that are available to us. I say to myself, to the Hon. Member and all Canadians, that we have tried to address this problem in the broadest possible way so that the load is spread as thinly as possible. That way we can address this problem fairly, equitably, and over a period of time to reach some solutions so that we can maintain these programs in the future.


REQUEST MADE BY SENIOR CITIZENS' ORGANIZATIONS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, I have been talking to senior citizens across the country for the last three weeks and they are saying very clearly that they do not want the Government to do what the Liberal Government did to them and limit indexation on their pensions.
Yesterday some 13 organizations, representing 1.3 million senior citizens, said very clearly that they want indexation fully restored as of January next year. Will the Minister stand up in the House and give those seniors that assurance today, or certainly before next Friday?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to senior citizens and senior citizen groups as well.
I know what they are saying, and I have a good deal of sympathy for what they have said. If I were in their shoes I would say: "Yes, please restore the full indexation to the GIS recipients as well as the OAS recipients". But I also say to them that I cannot do that, looking at the finances of the Government of Canada and the nature of the problem.
I say to the Hon. Member that if he can give me some good idea of where we can find that money, we will have a look at it. However, I tell the Hon. Member that, in the course of developing the Budget, we have looked at every nook and cranny in government spending. Every Department of Government will be affected. We simply must look at this in the broadest possible way, broader than simply the impact on one group of Canadians.


TAX RATES INQUIRY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, again my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week members of my caucus gave 11 proposals by which the Minister could have raised the revenue to reduce the deficit without taking the money out of the pockets of senior citizens. Seniors understand that very well.
Would the Minister change the marginal tax rates for those individuals who paid a higher rate of tax prior to the Liberals changing it in 1982? In that way he can raise the revenues but will not have to rob seniors. That is exactly what he is doing now and seniors understand it. What the Minister is doing is taking a big chunk of money away from seniors and giving it to the wealthy. Will the Minister not reconsider that proposal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I looked at the proposals which the Hon. Member and his colleagues put forward. There is one consistent theme through those proposals. Each one of them would result in some job loss.
The Hon. Member has to think back to the basic thrust of the Budget. On the one hand we are trying to create jobs. The reason for those jobs is to generate the wealth to pay for the social programs which not just the Hon. Member wants but all of us here on this side of the House want as well. That is a fundamental element of the Budget. If we cannot create the jobs, then we will not be able to afford the size of government we have today. That is why we have put the major thrust of the Budget on creating jobs, encouraging the small business community, giving it that encouragement to continue what it has been doing for the last nine months, which created 271,000 jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Questions and replies are becoming speeches again. The Hon. Member for Trinity.


ARTHRITIS-RESEARCH FUNDING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the Minister confirm that many thousands of Canadians of all ages, particularly older Canadians, suffer from arthritis and that his Department therefore allocates funds to research and treatment of this very painful disease?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member. 1 did not get the last part of her question.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm that thousands of Canadians of all ages, particularly older Canadians, suffer from arthritis, and that his Department therefore allocates funds to research and treatment of this disease?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her patience. I believe what she said is correct, that arthritis is a disease not only debilitating for Canada's seniors, but others as well. If she is asking me the exact amount beyond the medical research or the NHRDP, I do not have those exact amounts available right now.
June 21, 1985


SALES TAX ON PAIN RELIEVERS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is very simple. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform the Minister of Finance that the extension of the federal sales tax to pain relievers, such as ASA, used in the treatment of arthritis should be dropped, particularly at this time as senior citizens are losing income?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was where the Member was going to in her first question but, as I said, I did not get the last part
of it.
What the Hon. Member asks whether we want to look at sufferers of arthritis or other diseases. There is no question that part of people's disposable income is used for the purchase of drugs. She understands it. I understand it. A lot are protected through provincial pharmacare programs. Again, one can say that is not total or in every province, but there is that protection. I think the Hon. Member should also understand that these costs are not only borne by the individual but by society generally. There is no cut in seniors' income, as the Hon. Member likes to infer. There is a reduction in the escalation of the increase they would have had normally. I think, when one looks at balance, it is a position that has been taken by the Government over the long haul to try to get our finances back in order.


PENSIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Just an hour ago the Minister of Finance met with Mr. Burt Hamner who is a member of the executive of the Ottawa-Carleton Senior Citizens Council, and who has met with thousands of senior citizens across Ontario over the course of the last month concerning the Government's deindexing proposal.
This Mr. Hamner was the last senior citizen the Minister of Finance will meet before the special Cabinet meeting this afternoon. The message he has was clear-restore universality on indexing and don't go part way-


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: -over-


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: Will the Minister of Finance assure the House that when the Government does reverse its proposal in the Budget it will restore full indexing, and not simply partial reindexing of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I had a very good and useful meeting with Mr. Hamner. He has met, as the Hon. Member suggests, with a large number of seniors over the last two or three weeks. We had a very worth-while discussion. I would say to the Hon. Member in response to his preamble that we are not doing anything about universality. Every senior citizen who is eligible for GIS will continue to receive GIS. Every senior citizen will receive an Old Age Security cheque. 1 caution the Hon. Member not to spread or imply these changes in policy which he knows are wrong.


REQUEST FOR FULL INDEXATION OF PENSIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same Minister. He knows that universality is the maintenance of purchasing power and this simply means sending a $1 cheque to each senior in the name of universality. Does the Minister remember that in 1982, the Progressive Conservative Party opposed the measure taken by the then Liberal Government, which was to provide deindexing old age pensions while maintaining the purchasing power of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
Could the Minister guarantee that the Progressive Conservative Government solution will not be to resort to the inadequate compromise of the Liberal Government in 1982, but rather to fully index all OAS pensions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has been responded to on a number of occasions. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that there are a lot of issues Canadians are interested in today. Maybe in the interests of addressing matters of concern to all Canadians he might look at some of these other issues.


PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In a letter dated February 16, 1984, the Prime Minister wrote to a senior citizen in my constituency:
-clear and justified exceptions to the ban on indexing must be made for all social programs designed to protect the ordinary or disadvantaged Canadian from the ravages of inflation for which they are not responsible.
Why has the Government abandoned this position?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have not abandoned this position. I would ask the Hon. Member to be a bit more temperate in the comments he makes.
No changes have been made in the payments that senior citizens are receiving in July, August, September, and October. We have said quite clearly in the Budget that we are watching the progress of the economy. We are monitoring the

June 21, 1985
Oral Questions
situation up until January 1. A decision will be taken in order to respond to any changes in circumstances that warrant any change.


PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In that same letter the Prime Minister said:
Public servants have paid for and are entitled to indexed pensions, and our Party remains committed to the premise that pension contracts should not be altered unilaterally by the Government.
Is the Minister of Finance saying that senior citizens have not paid for and are not entitled to fully indexed pensions? Why has the Government moved away from fully indexed pensions for senior citizens? Will the Government not immediately drop this devastating position?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear to the Hon. Member, and through him to his constituents, that we are very sensitive to the plight of senior citizens and are worried about the anxiety that has been created by this debate. I would also say to him that the position of the federal finances is such that we have to look at a range of issues, matters, and measures to address the problem of the debt. I have gone through these numbers for him and for other Hon. Members before, so I will not repeat them again. However, if we do not start to save money today, we will lose total programs in 1990.


EFFECT OF BUDGET ON ELDERLY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last evening I attended a meeting in Hamilton with about 250 senior citizens, sponsored by United Senior Citizens, and a lady said to me that at the end of each month she has absolutely no money left over from her old age pension. She is diabetic, and she pointed out that, with the government provision, she would either have to cut back on food or on needles. Is the Minister prepared to see that happen?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is no, I am not prepared to see that happen. However, I think the Hon. Member also knows that there is a range of means by which that particular problem can be dealt with. I hope he discusses them with his constituent.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister perhaps suggesting a food bank, or some charity? How is it that the Minister can see the need for upper-income groups to have more money and better return on their investments, but he cannot see that that woman is representative of a large number of senior citizens who cannot afford to take a cut in their purchasing power? Why does the Minister not now
admit that he made an error and that there is in fact a need to maintain the indexation in order that women, like that woman and others, are not forced to make those kinds of choices?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me try to respond to that question in the most reasonable way, and with some logic. Around the end of the war, for every person who was retired there were Five people working. That is now down to about 3 or 3.5 people working for every one person retired. By the year 2010, there will be only two people working for every one person retired. Thus it is very important that those people who are working are working in the most effective way, and have jobs. That is why I say to him, and through him to his constituent, that it is very important that we generate economic activity in Canada, so that those two or three people who are working can continue to support the programs which are important to senior citizens.
For that reason we have said that there are elements of the Budget which are designed to generate jobs and economic activity. We will continue on those because they are proving to be effective-271,000 jobs have been created. We want to build on that, so that his constituents and others like her can feel secure that progress will continue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that again the answers are becoming long.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. There is concern in my riding about the transportation of dangerous goods through the Thorold Tunnel under the Welland Canal. In the absence of a provincial policy, what is the policy of the Minister of Transport regarding this matter?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the particular issue to which the Hon. Member referred. However, I have to advise him that this is a matter which falls directly within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation and Communication of the Province of Ontario. I understand, as well, that they are examining the problem and looking at ways and means of using alternative over-water routes, which would be appropriate in the circumstances.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for whomever is answering for the absent Prime Minister today. In the last election campaign the
June 21, 1985

Prime Minister made a clear-cut and positive commitment to the science community in Canada. To quote him specifically, with regard to the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories he said:
A PC Government will not only maintain this facility, it will consider providing additional funds to allow greater involvement.
How can the Prime Minister honour this commitment to the science community at Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories when his Government has stated that it will cut $100 million, or 50 per cent of the Government's research and development funding, from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? How does this honour his commitment to the science community?


Miss Carney:: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but could the Hon. Member repeat the question part of his remarks? I did not know it would be directed to me.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is indicative of how much interest there is for the science community on the government benches.
How can the Prime Minister honour his commitment to the science community at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories when his Government stated that it would cut $100 million, or 50 per cent of the Government's research and development funding, from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? How does this honour the commitment of the Prime Minister to the science community?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Hon. Member to repeat the question because I could not believe he would actually put that question when he has full knowledge, as a Member of Parliament, that the move we did on cutting the R and D funding was done with the assistance and the active help of AECL, which has a corporate plan that involves the privatization of some of its facilities, charging the users of its research fees to collect the benefits of the research, and other measures which will ensure that the R and D facilities continue.
The R and D commitment will continue. It is just that Canadian taxpayers will be paying less, and the users of the R and D will be paying more.


JOB SECURITY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the answer I wanted to hear from the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: She knows full well, as do other Members on the Government benches, that no concrete arrangements have been made-none-to pick up the dollar cuts which the Government is about to implement. I have had meetings with those people-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, on both sides. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?
Oral Questions


Leonard Donald Hopkins: How can the Prime Minister, the man who made this commitment to the science community, honour this further commitment, and I quote: "job security for employees of Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories and job security for their children"? What does the Prime Minister's failure to uphold this commitment really tell


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Hon. Member has asked a supplementary question.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not hear a question in that rhetoric. However, I would make the point that the Hon. Member said he was happy with my answer.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: 1 did not say that I was happy.


Pat Carney: AECL certainly would not have brought forward a corporate plan which allowed for the privatization of some of its assets and allowed for user-pay, without having some concrete program in mind to execute it.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Canadians have just witnessed a farce in which Canada Post printed new stamps before it received approval for postal rate increases, a farce in which the Minister paid more attention to the President of Canada Post than to ordinary Canadians. After such a performance, how can Canadians have any faith that the Minister has their interests at heart, when all he did was set up a study rather than hold the line on postal rate increases?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct in saying that Canadians have witnessed a farce. The last farce they witnessed was from the Hon. Member when he rose in the House of Commons and defended the unions and the illegal strike in Canada Post.
The Government was faced with the choice of allowing the increase in the price of postage, or increasing the federal deficit by a further $170 million, or cutting service to Canadians. I would be interested in knowing from the NDP what option it would have chosen and, in particular, what sort of leadership it is prepared to show workers in Canada Post by asking them to improve productivity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know that the Minister is listening to them

June 21, 1985
Oral Questions
rather than simply trying to get off the hook by bashing unions. Canadians over the last 60 days have made it clear to the Minister that they want improved postal service.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is again becoming a preamble to a supplementary. Is there a question, please?


Cyril Keeper: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question is the question that all Canadians are asking. How can the Minister expect to be believed when he says that he has their interests at heart, when what he has done is listen to the postal corporation rather than ordinary Canadians, and why does he not improve service instead of raising postal rates?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think the question that all Canadians are asking is how the NDP can get up in the House of Commons and defend the illegal strikes. I think, also, that Canadians are asking how the NDP intends to ensure that improved postal service is given to Canadians. I think Canadians are asking, as well, whether or not the NDP is opposed to a study which will ask some pretty fundamental questions about the nature and type of service that Canadians will be receiving between now and the turn of the century, for example, in terms of competition with the private sector, in terms of the exclusive mandate of the Post Office, in terms of improving competition, in terms of improving service. If the NDP has nothing to offer in those areas, that is fine, but I think the vast majority of Canadians will welcome that study and will say that it is high time that Parliament took a look at the Post Office to ensure that the mandate of the Post Office is brought up to date.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister is well aware, the policy of the former Government on agriculture has put the country in a devastating position. Could the Minister tell the House whether any of the recommendations that were brought forth by the Farm Financial Review Board in the Bruce-Grey pilot project will be acted on by the Government?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I certainly appreciate his interest in the pilot project and, indeed, the interest shown by other Members. I want to indicate to him that I received the final report of the pilot project from Bruce-Grey on May 17 and we have had an opportunity to review some of the recommendations. I want to compliment and congratulate those who participated, and in particular the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey for the leadership which he demonstrated.
Last week we had a meeting in Ottawa of the Farm Credit managers across the country. Next week we meet the chair-people of the Farm Credit Appeal Boards so therefore we will have the benefit of three different recommendations. I can assure you that we will look very seriously at moving forward with some of the recommendations because they indeed make a great deal of sense, given the problems in the industry.


SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the Science Council of Canada. The professionals and the business people who studied the Science Council recommended a review by disinterested parties in 1987-88. Yet the document tabled on budget night by the Deputy Prime Minister recommended gutting the Council without any form of consultation whatsoever. This flies in the face of the words of the Prime Minister at the Economic Conference that consultation cannot lead to consensus-


Mr. Speaker:: Again the preambles are getting long. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


David Berger: This flies in the face of the Prime Minister who said that consultation cannot lead to consensus unless the process is open and broadly based. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the final private sector report did not recommend cutting the Council's budget significantly? Who did make this irresponsible decision to gut the Science Council, and can he explain why?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the decision in respect to the Science Council as it was announced in the Budget Papers of May 23 was presented in the context of a review of a large number of programs having to do with support for science and technology and research and development by the Government of Canada. The review had shown that the government support system had grown overly generous over the years, and the Budget introduced a number of measures to provide support in a more rational and in a more relevant manner.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena.


EXPO '86 NATIVE PAVILION PROJECT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As he is no doubt aware, the Government of Canada funded the Teepee Pavilion at Montreal at Expo '67 to help promote national and international understanding of the vast and rich heritage of Canada's
June 21, 1985

aboriginal peoples. To date the federal Government has refused to fund the construction of the Native Pavilion at Expo '86. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Since today is the absolute deadline for construction to be able to proceed for the Native Pavilion at Expo '86, does his Government intend to provide financial assistance to the native people of Canada for their pavilion?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as a representation and ensure that the matter is considered. 1 must confess that the teepee program does not ring a large bell with me, but 1 will look into it immediately and take the question as a representation.


DEADLINE FOR FUNDING
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister again. The federal Government has spent about $250 million on the Expo '86 site. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been involved, the Secretary of State has been involved, as well as the Prime Minister's Office which indicated on June 4-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are into a preamble to a supplementary. Is there a question, please?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, since today is the final deadline for construction on the site, will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether his Government will be putting funds forward, or not, for the native people of Canada?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the Hon. Member for Skeena actually deals with a specific point when referring to Expo '86 in British Columbia. The application as originally submitted was not acceptable. Expo '86 being a transportation, a communication exhibition, the application was not appropriate to Expo specifically; this is the reason why it was turned down. I do not think it suited the program under which it was made, the Native Economic and Developing Board, and this is why it was turned down. But I can assure the Hon. Member that over these last two years, the previous Liberal Government only accepted 39 applications; over these last eight months-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Oral Questions
The Budget proposes an availability, or greater availability, of pension funds for investment purposes. May I ask the Minister what steps are being taken to protect or insure the pension funds of employees who are participating in a fund against bankruptcy, receivership, or dissipation of such funds?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. As he probably knows, we have already some provisions in the Pension Benefits Standards Act for that aspect. However, we have created a special advisory committee to address this matter through the bankruptcy legislation and we are expecting recommendations from them in the near future. We hope to introduce these recommendations as well.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, on March 1 on a television program called Question Period the Minister of Finance told the country that a general tax increase would dampen demand and he did not want to go that way. Can he tell us what has made him change his mind, recognizing that he is imposing more than $4 billion in additional taxes on the Canadian public next year.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think 1 have addressed this question in the House before, but I will do it again for the Hon. Member as he probably was spending some time back in Saint-Henri rather than being in the House. There is no question that when 1 made that statement, and I still would make that same statement, 1 was not in favour of raising taxes in the country, but we found that if we were going to be able to do as much as we thought was necessary to address the deficit problem, we had to get the deficit lowered. We had been looking on the spending side to meet that objective, but we are not able to do so without putting more pressure on the Atlantic provinces as well as some parts of Quebec and British Columbia by cutting programs further than we had. It is for that reason that we had to use some measure of tax increase in order to address the deficit problem.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a declaration that was made on March 1, not last year but this year, shortly before the Budget was tabled. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he knows that that was a mistake. We hope that during the summer months he will rethink his position and return here in the autumn with something that is more-

June 21, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Nickerson


Mr. Speaker:: I have already indicated earlier today with respect to the Hon. Member that he should ask his question, please.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, can we look forward to having the Minister of Finance rethink his position on these additional taxes during the summer months?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, a tremendous amount of thought went into the Budget. Therefore I do not think that the additional thinking the Hon. Member suggests I do will result in any changes. I would suggest that the Hon. Member spend the summer months giving some thought to the general direction of the Budget which contains what we are trying to do to generate jobs and to address the very serious problem of escalating government debt. Surely when he returns to the House on September 9, he will ask better questions than the ones he has just asked.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of three, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, June 20, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Two petitions presented by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and one petition presented by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I have notice of a point of order from the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order that will be of interest to parliamentary purists. In reviewing Votes and Proceedings for June 20, it would appear that the description of what happened during the debate in the Committee of the Whole examination of Bill C-36, particularly as it relates to Motion No. 7, is not a description of exactly what happened.
According to Votes and Proceedings, Motion No. 7 was negatived in the Committee of the Whole and then we went on to third reading. My recollection, as substantiated by the written record in Hansard, is that Motion No. 7 was in fact carried in Committee of the Whole, the report of the committee was concurred in and third reading debate began. At a point in time thereafter, by unanimous consent, 1 believe, the
Committee of the Whole was reconvened, had further debate on Motion No. 7 and on that occasion negatived Motion No. 7.
I wonder, Sir, if you would be kind enough to review that situation and perhaps have Votes and Proceedings reflect what actually happened. At the same time, I would ask you to look at the electronic record of the last part of the debate on Bill C-36. I think you will see that there were several errors in procedure made, not the least of which was the holding of a meeting of the Committee of the Whole with the mace still on the table.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. I shall indeed examine the record.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The comments made by the Hon. Member need to be examined. If they are in fact true, we will have to make the appropriate corrections.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was present last night. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that everything that was done was with the unanimous consent of everyone present.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member's point was that I review the record, and of course I will do that.



DISALLOWANCE OF SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION DURING QUESTION PERIOD

David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in the Question Period, you made a decision which effectively disallowed me a supplementary question. It is a point of order if not a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: It is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege. Is the Hon. Member objecting to a decision I made with regard to the allocation of questions during Question Period?


David Berger: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: That is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Chair.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a grievance to make, he can come to me to make it. However, it is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege.
June 21, 1985

Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS	[Translation]


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in both official languages.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Before I proceed to petitions, and I expect that there are a few to be presented, may I bring a small problem to the attention of Hon. Members who are presenting petitions? When Hon. Members present petitions in bulk and all on the same subject, something which has been occurring, unless the back of the first page of all of the petitions is signed, the Table Officers are having substantial difficulty identifying which petitions were presented by which Members. Could I therefore ask Hon. Members today and in future to make sure that they endorse the back of the first page of each petition?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have been signing the backs of these petitions as requested since we began presenting these hundreds of petitions asking the Government to reconsider its views on the deindexation of Old Age Security payments. I am at a loss to know where to start today because I have hundreds and hundreds of petitions and I hope you will be patient with me, Mr. Speaker. I will try to group them in order because they deal with two or perhaps three subject matters.
The first petition I humbly submit is presented by citizens of the Ottawa area who form part of a group of citizens known to be very active in the senior citizens' group, the Ottawa-Carle-ton Senior Citizen Council, and it is signed by a couple of hundred and perhaps even 300 people asking the Government to reconsider its view and to keep its promise that any savings which may result from program changes will not be applied to the reduction of the deficit, that deindexing of the old age pension, having a drastic effect on incomes of senior citizens, should be reconsidered and that the Government should maintain full indexing of pensions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 1 also have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of many residents of the province of Ontario, which petition was signed in Ottawa this week by members of the Federation des aines francophones de l'Ontario at their seventh annual conference on June 17, 18 and 19, 1985. This petition humbly showeth, that in the opinion of the petitioners, the Budget of the Conservative Government is harsh and without pity as far as senior citizens are concerned since it removes full indexation of old age security pensions, and the petition asks the Government to maintain full indexation of all pensions and to abandon its deindexation proposal.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have another group of petitions which deal with the spouse's allowance and which, as you will note, have been signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency, who ask the Government to reconsider once again its proposal to restrict spouse's allowance to widowed people, thus excluding all single, separated or divorced people from the legislation to extend the spouse's allowance to needy people between the ages of 60 and 64. Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find these petitions to be in order. I have numbered them as well as I could and the Clerk will be able to put them in order if need be.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which has over 1,000 signatures and is mainly signed by the senior citizens of Ottawa-Carleton. The signatures were collected by the Senior Citizens Council of Ottawa-Carleton and it will continue to collect signatures over the summer. The petition protests the actions of the Government and states that requiring large numbers of low-income pensioners to suffer additional reductions in real income is heartless, especially as so many already exist on incomes which are below the poverty line. The petition calls on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of Old Age Security forthwith. Other copies of this petition are being tabled by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner).


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present a petition which is signed by 271 citizens, mostly from the constituencies of Regina East and Regina West. There are also a few signatures from Humboldt-Lake Centre. The petition asks that the House of Commons and the Government retain full indexation of the

June 21, 1985
Petitions
Old Age Security pension starting on January 1, 1986. Your petitioners are duty bound to ever pray.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions with several hundred signatures from constituents in my riding, representing the towns and villages of Wadena, Claire, Southey, Quill Lake, Naicam, Watrous, Viscount, Colonsay, Meacham and Peterson. The petitions call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of Old Age Security pensions in Canada. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Commons accedes to their wish.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions which were signed by people throughout the riding of Algoma. They call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security pension. The petitioners call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to keep the commitments which he made during the last election campaign. They point out that senior citizens should not be responsible for providing income to the multinational oil companies and high-income groups. The petitions are signed by people who live in the communities of Hilton Beach, Bruce Mines, Spragge, Spanish, Blind River, Manitowaning, Sault Ste. Marie, the Spanish River Indian Reserve near Massey, and Espanola, Ontario. The petitions are signed by several hundred constituents from the riding of Algoma.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition which contains in excess of 4,000 signatures. It was signed by residents of the City of Hamilton. It is the first of what I anticipate to be a number of similar petitions. The petition asks the House of Commons to impress upon the Government the need to stop the proposal which will deindex old age pensions. The petition asks that the Government maintain in full force and effect the indexing provisions which presently exist for both the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which was signed by a number of people from the riding of Yorkton-Melville. The petition also protests the very regressive move which was made by the federal Government to deindex pensions partially. It is something to which I am sure the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is very much opposed, and she has the freedom to speak in the House on it. I am very pleased to table this petition in the House which protests the partial deindexation. It calls upon the Government to index fully the OAS and the GIS for all the senior citizens of the land. Those people have built this land and have made it the great country which it is today.
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to this House a petition signed by 60
residents of Orleans and of the ridings of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Ottawa-Carleton, who want to tell the Government that they disagree with the cutbacks in old age security pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a few more petitions signed by 34 residents of the village of Embrun in the beautiful riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and by 103 residents of the village of Wendover, which you probably know well, also in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


An Hon. Member:: It is a nice village.


Don Boudria: These people also want to express their disagreement about the Government's proposal to reduce the pensions of senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I shall have several hundred more petitions to table in coming days to convince this Government to change its mind and to give back their pensions to senior citizens.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present two petitions, one on behalf of a group of senior citizens from a building in my riding at 2100 Russell Road in Ottawa. They call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security benefits.
I have another petition which was signed by hundreds of senior citizens within the National Capital Region, under the sponsorship of the Senior Citizens Council of Ottawa-Carleton, which also requests the Government to reinstate full indexation of Old Age Security payments.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present two petitions I received in the mail this morning. The petitioners humbly call upon this House to urge the Government to reinstate the full indexation of old age security pensions in Canada.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of approximately 150 residents of the Lepage Senior Citizens' Home in my riding. They call upon the Government to maintain full indexation of Old Age Security payments.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by Trois-Rivieres Keranna Institute third year students who call upon the federal Government to promote world peace.

June 21, 1985

Mir. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River): Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a number of petitions which protest the deindexing of Old Age Security payments. The petitions are signed by numerous communities in the riding of Comox-Powell River. The communities include Powell River, Lund, Saltery Bay, Gillies Bay, Campbell River, Sayward, Zeballos, Kyuquot, Gold River, Tahsis, Courtenay, Comox, Cumberland, Fanny Bay, Union Bay, Royston, Merville, Black Creek, Oyster River, Port McNeill-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is extending the usual practice. Would he finish his list quickly, please?


Mr. Skelly:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as quickly as I can. The petition is also signed by people from the communities of Port Hardy, Port Alice, Mahatta River, Holberg, San Josef, Winter Harbour, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Ocean Falls-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that what he is doing is extending the normal practices of petitions.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, if 1 might quickly-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member can simply indicate he has a number of other communities in his petitions and end the matter.


Raymond John Skelly: If I might just complete the list and then we can-


An Hon. Member:: Come on.


Mr. Speaker:: It was a very simple request made to the Hon. Member that he simply indicate he has a number of other communities and get to the substance of the petition, please.


Raymond John Skelly: Then I will possibly raise the rest of them on Tuesday and be willing to submit the petitions which, basically, outline a substantial concern with the failure of the Government to live up to its promises to provide security of income. The petitioners also feel that there are many other people being exposed to deindexing and there is a lack of protection of pension income, which is contrary to the promises made and that it is an extremely serious situation.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Friday, June 21, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move her motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-39, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, our Government provided the Opposition lets us to do so quickly, will authorize payment of $285 million in lump sum supplementary fiscal equalization payments to the six provinces that are receiving equalization payments. This is in addition to some $5 billion the provinces will be receiving annually under the fiscal equalization program.
In making this announcement, our admirable Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated, and I quote:
These payments are substantial and should be of considerable assistance to the poorer provinces in meeting their commitments, especially with respect to essential services.
The Minister of Finance also mentioned that these amounts were the most the Government was able to afford in this respect, in light of its own serious financial situation, something the provinces can appreciate.
The decision follows consultations held with the provinces in recent months. It takes into account the concerns of the provinces about the level of equalization payments resulting in some cases from the expiry of the special transitional guarantee introduced in 1982 by the former Government, and which has brought about a significant decline in federal transfer payments, especially for Quebec and Manitoba. Our most

June 21, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments admirable Minister of Finance will soon be reviewing the equalization program with the provinces, in connection with the general review of fiscal arrangements between now and March 31, 1987.
Generally, the equalization formula is based on the population of a province and on its capacity to raise revenues, so that payments vary from province to province. The Minister of Finance has stated that the Government will make these supplementary lump sum payments which in fact it did not have to make under the present fiscal arrangements, in its concern to be fair and equitable to the provinces, at a time when financial restrictions are the order of the day at all levels of government. The Minister noted that over-all Federal transfers to the provinces, within the framework of equalization and established programs financing, are estimated to rise from $19.7 billion for the past fiscal year to $20.7 billion for fiscal 1985-86. For 1984-85, equalization payments would total $5,403 billion.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill will eliminate the shortcomings in a formula which is no longer readily applicable as a result of changing trends in the economic situation since it was first implemented.
The provinces have been made aware of the situation, of course, and some of them were not in complete agreement. Other provinces endorsed the measure since they considered that we had established a program which took their concerns into account.
The most significant consideration at this third reading stage is that the provinces are waiting for their payments. The Government is prepared to make those payments should the House co-operate and give speedy approval to the Bill. Since we do have a number of Bills to study and pass before the House adjourns next week, I seek the co-operation of all Hon. Members. I should think that everything has been said about this issue, so I urge all Parties in the House to show goodwill and adopt this Bill as soon as possible.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: In response to the invitation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier), Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to co-operate on behalf of the Party I represent. But there are still some disturbing facts which, in 1986-87 and even in 1985-86, will put some provinces in a difficult situation. We are now at the third reading of Bill C-39, the Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments (1982-87) Act.
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that no amendment has been made to this Bill even though the Opposition did make strong representations. We came up with particularly convincing arguments during the second reading debate and before the committee, and the Minister of Finance of Quebec had made serious representations of his own. In these circumstances, the arguments I made last April 18 are still valid, mutatis mutan-di, in the sense that although this measure does provide
equalization payments for certain provinces, as it is drafted it falls far short in the case of the Province of Nova Scotia.
It is unfair as well to the Province of Manitoba and, as far as Quebec is concerned, I think that the qualifier I used last April has lost none of its appropriateness-this Bill is inequitable.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the interim payments formula. Hon. Members will recall that the interim payments formula had been included in the 1982-87 fiscal arrangements as a kind of guarantee to the provinces in case the new formula that had been adopted did not produce results.
It was obvious, that whatever happened, the Government in power from 1985-86 would have to review this formula since the results were positive in some provinces and negative in others. It would therefore be necessary to amend the guarantee formula so that the provinces would not have to come back once more in 1986-87 to wait in line before the Office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to try to obtain a more equitable treatment.
Mr. Speaker, the Province of Nova Scotia, for example, received $620 million in 1984-85 in equalization payments. This includes the $72 million which Nova Scotia received in transition payments. As of 1985-86 these transition payments will no longer exist. Bill C-39 offers only temporary compensation to the Province of Nova Scotia. The compensation will only apply in the fiscal year of 1985-86. The federal Government has announced that it will renegotiate fiscal arrangements with the provinces by March 31, 1987. This means that no provision has been made for Nova Scotia for the fiscal year 1986-87. Nova Scotia is left at the mercy of the federal Government and will have to count on a special lobbying effort in order to defend its own interests.
The fact that Nova Scotia must now rely on political lobbying is particularly unfortunate. Equalization was established precisely to avoid the need for poorer provinces to come begging on a discretionary basis to the federal Government.
I am sad that the Conservative Government is politicizing the principle of equalization. This is particularly unfortunate for Nova Scotia at this time because it is highly unlikely that the Government will undertake the very political energy talks without consideration to the equalization negotiations. Equalization is in danger of being used as a carrot, or a stick, rather than as an instrument of national unity.
The financial and economic agenda of Nova Scotia has not yet been addressed. The Budget heralds a new era for the Canadian energy industry. Next year's financial and economic situation of Nova Scotia is still up in the air.
Bill C-39 is also unfair to the Province of Manitoba. Under the new equalization formula Manitoba received $439 million
June 21, 1985

in 1982-83, which included $169 million in transition payments. In 1983-84, Manitoba received $466 million, of which $163 million were transition payments. In 1984-85, the province received $479 million, of which $138 million as in transition payments. In general, Manitoba received 30 per cent of its equalization thanks to these transition payments.
Now that the transition program will be ending, the equalization payment to Manitoba will decline from $479 million to $407 million. This is a reduction of $72 million. Despite the fact that this Bill will provide some compensation for this current fiscal year, equalization payments to Manitoba will be reduced substantially in the fiscal year 1986-87.

As for Quebec, the formula proposed by the Minister of Finance in Bill C-39 is completely inequitable. Because the Government of Canada did not want to maintain, for the last two years of the fiscal arrangements, the transitional guarantee provisions which had been in effect during the last three years of these arrangements, the Province of Quebec will incur very substantial losses. For instance, after receiving $3.7 billion in 1984-85, Quebec will get only $2.7 billion in 1985-86, which means a loss of $290 million. In 1986-87, it is forecast that the equalization payments received by Quebec will amount to $2.9 billion, or $172 million less that in 1984-85.
If we consider the normal growth in equalization payments which should be generated from one year to the next, the loss for Quebec is substantial, and Bill C-39 only makes up 15 per cent of the equalization losses suffered by Quebec because the transitional guarantee provisions no longer apply.
During the debates on this issue, the Quebec Finance Minister had clearly indicated how the decision of the Conservative Government would affect the cash flow of the Quebec Treasury. Following the comments made by the Quebec Finance Minister, the Prime Minister of Canada said that the door was still open and that further negotiations could take place. For all practical purposes, he suggested that there would be some improvement, but as usual, this was only a smokescreen, statements for the press which had no concrete results since the Bill has come back to us in the same form.
To my knowledge, there were no further intense negotiations with Quebec, but it is quite clear and obvious that the Government of Canada did not change its approach and that Quebec will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in 1985-86 and 1986-87, which will result eventually in a heavier tax burden for Quebec residents.
When we considered Bill C-39 at the second reading and committee stages, the Budget had not yet been brought down. However, Mr. Speaker, according to the indications given by the Minister of Finance of Canada last May 23, provincial transfer payments will have decreased by $2 billion in 199091. This means that Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec will be affected not only during the next two years under the present Fiscal arrangements, but also that they must expect
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments other cutbacks beginning in 1986-87. The same will be true for all the provinces who receive equalization payments and transfers.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that those two measures, the one introduced in Bill C-39 and the announcement made in the budget, raise Financing problems for our Confederation as a whole.
Unless the Canadian Government is ready once again to renege on its election promises and jeopardize the universality of social programs, I do not see, once the Conservative Government has slashed $2 billion from its payments to the provinces, how the latter will manage to administer the post-secondary education programs, health care, medicare, and the Canadian Assistance Plan without increasing their own taxes, or imposing user fees which the Progressive Conservative Party fought when they were the Opposition.
Let us not hide our heads in the sand. The message set out in Bill C-39, and driven home by the Budget, is telling Canadians the Conservative Government is getting ready to renege on another of its election promises, even though in December 1984 the debate on the universality of social programs seemed quite clear.
This Conservative Government is sending out the message that it will try and do indirectly what it would not do directly last December.
Successive Liberal Governments have developed over the years a series of programs aimed at strengthening Canadian unity with a balance of services offered to all citizens of Canada, in whatever village, town, city, region or province they lived.
Those programs brought in a whole concept of funding for this confederation of ours, a concept which is jeopardized not only by Bill C-39 but by the message the Minister of Finance delivered to this House and the Canadian people on May 23, 1985.
I do not believe Canadians are ready to accept such a change without a substantive debate amongst the Canadian people and the Governments that operate those programs, whether provincial or federal. I do not believe that Canadians are willing to see their medical care, hospital care, and postsecondary education programs slashed, but they are not willing either to shoulder the Fiscal burden of those programs that have been contracted between the national Government and the provincial Governments, either to have the axe fall on those programs or to alter the funding and transfer the full fiscal burden of the administration of such programs from the federal Government to the provincial Governments.
This is why the Official Opposition will not support this Bill on third reading, because it is inadequate and because it is not fair to the provinces of Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec, not only for fiscal year 1985-86 but also for fiscal year 1986-87.

June 21, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be fairly brief in speaking to this matter.
First, I want to commend my friend, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) for his very careful analysis of the present situation and thoughtful review of what might well be the consequences of what essentially is a stopgap measure. We cannot provide adequate financing to the provinces in this way and expect them to be able to do any long-term planning.
Quite clearly, the intent of the equalization payment program was to allow provinces to be able to plan for their health care needs, educational needs and housing needs to an extent with some degree of assuredness. Therefore, they would need to know what kind of equalization would be available on a long-term formula basis so they could anticipate what financing would be coming from the federal Government. My friend from the Liberal Party has set that out well.
When there are gaps in the federal Government's commitment to ongoing finance, it causes concern because the provinces are left in a position of subservience in making representations on an annual basis to the federal Government. They must try to accommodate the federal Government's desire to establish new budgetary provisions. It will be very difficult for at least two of the provinces most directly affected to anticipate their revenues for the fiscal year 1987.
I would be remiss if I did not point out the battle that was fought by all provinces, particularly the Province of Manitoba initially, to confront the federal Government when it became apparent that the payments that had been proposed were woefully inadequate. I think it is fair to say that some degree of recognition should be paid to that province's Government, as it must to all Governments of the provinces, that they managed to exert the pressure that brought us to this point today.
Let me repeat the intent of the equalization system because, as the name implies, it is a way to try to provide a share of the substantial wealth that is generated in the balance of the country to those provinces which do not have the same economic capacity. The purpose of this plan is to assure the citizens who live in those less advantaged areas of an opportunity to enjoy an adequate level of public service for themselves and their children. It will enable those who live in the less economically fortunate areas of the country to have a standard of education that will enable their children to have the same employment opportunities in any part of the country and to participate in the ongoing events of Canada.
When we tamper with equalization payments, it is not simply a Government to Government arrangement. It involves people, a commitment from people who live in the more fortunate areas of the country to share with the people who live in the less economically fortunate parts of this country. In this way, growth will take place from coast to coast.
I want to caution the Government that in the case of Nova Scotia, as with Manitoba and probably Quebec, there will be problems in two years unless a new regime is put into place before 1987. Negotiations must be completed and a long-term proposal for equalization that is acceptable across the country put in place before we reach that period of uncertainty when it may once again be necessary to lobby the Government to become the main instrument to achieve fairness.
The fact is that this Bill must be viewed as a stopgap, and therefore inadequate. However, it is with that in mind that we accept the commitment of the Government at this point that it is prepared to move to negotiate an arrangement that will ultimately result in a fair distribution of wealth, which will ultimately provide the maintenance and advancement of many programs provided in those areas that are so dependent on equalization payments to sustain their economy.
I believe that there will be a much more intense debate on this subject in a year and a half to two years from now. I anticipate that debate to be centered on what will take place as we enter the 1990s. It will primarily reflect the intransigence that the Government has displayed in recognizing the necessity for the maintenance of the social system in Canada. If the Government takes the same approach to equalization as it has with respect to the financing of social policy and reneges on its commitment to fair and equitable economic growth through equalization, we will see a battle being fought not unlike the battle presently being waged against the deindexation of pensions.


Howard Edward Crosby: The OAS.


Ian Deans: The deindexation of the OAS. I might say, with respect to that matter, that I am somewhat concerned about the deindexation of the GIS with the ultimate deindexing of the CPP and other matters that the Government has fixed upon as being necessary in order to achieve its long-term goals. However, I do not intend to debate that here today.
We hope that the Bill will pass today and that the Government will make a serious attempt between now and 1987, presumably when a new agreement will be achieved, to rethink its views on the fair distribution of social systems, with particular emphasis on making sure that the educational system in the provinces that have less economic stability will be able to grow and provide for the needs of the people in that area. Furthermore, we must ensure that, in the case of health, the Government will be able to provide adequate health care facilities in areas where health care facilities even now are in need of upgrading. With those comments, we will allow the Bill to pass.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words. The hon. gentleman said there was a deal made. I can assure the hon. gentleman that there are no deals with regard to my expressing a few words of concern.


John Barry Turner: The House Leaders agreed.
June 21, 1985


George Baker: I am going to say a few words regardless of any deals that have been made behind the scenes because we are talking about a very important subject. We are talking about equalization payments. We are talking about equalization payments that are supposed to equalize opportunity across the nation to provincial Governments for the amounts of money needed in order to get an equalization of services across the country. In other words, what the provinces cannot make up for in their normal tax revenues, what they cannot raise locally within a province to make up the average amount necessary, is given to them as an equalization payment every year. In other words, the rich give to the poor. The federal Government, through this mechanism, is supposed to go a long way in trying to give the poor provinces of Canada adequate funds to allow them to have some semblance of services. Regardless of whether you live in Newfoundland, Alberta or Manitoba, at least the services given to the people should be approximately the same.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing this Bill, condemned the former Liberal administration and said there had been cuts.
I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary, as far as this Bill is concerned, of what is contained in the Budget in one sentence on page 18, which reads:
To spread the burden of expenditure reduction fairly, the Government will also be seeking to limit the rate of growth of transfers to provinces to yield annual savings of $2 billion by the end of the decade.
It says, "To yield annual savings of $2 billion by the end of the decade." It goes on:
In 1990-91, they would represent about the same share of total program expenditures as they do today.
In other words, there would be an extreme limitation from what the former bad, terrible Liberal Government had in place. This Government in the Budget it had just presented is going to have annual savings of $2 billion by the end of the decade. That sets it in focus. If the Liberals reduced equalization payments, then there is now going to be a further substantial reduction in the rate of increase.
If you look at the services provided across this country that are supposed to be subsidized through the equalization formula so that they will be approximately equal, you will see a great diversity of them. You could go to the richest province, some people claim that that is Alberta, and you would see assistance in the form of workmen's compensation that is not as good as that which you would see in Newfoundland. There is a great divergence. You would see less of a minimum wage in Alberta than you have in Newfoundland. You would see great differences in the services given to the general public.
It must be borne in mind that a lot of the measures serving the public are the decisions of the provincial administrations. When you get into the payment of welfare, of social services, you see a great difference. Sometimes you see the poorer provinces receiving equalization payments giving better services than some of the richer provinces.
If you get hurt in Alberta and you have to go on workman's compensation and then you go back home to Newfoundland to live, you discover that your payment is less than if you had
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
been hurt in Newfoundland and were still living in Newfoundland. If you were working in Newfoundland at minimum wage, you would find it higher than the minimum wage paid in Alberta. By the same token, if you were in any other province in Canada you could have some services in daycare centres, the cost shared by the federal Government, but in Newfoundland you would not have that same service. That is a decision of the provincial administration.
Where you really see the difference in services to the general public, Mr. Speaker, is in the area of infrastructure. A provincial government Department tries to do certain things. If its responsibility is in transportation, it would try to upgrade and pave roads. If its area is municipal affairs, water and sewer services, the Department would try to improve that. Where do they get the money from? If you looked at provincial Governments, in the poor provinces you would see that half of the money given, if you took the percentage, comes from the federal Government in equalization payment. That is the purpose of the equalization payment, to have an equality of services even in infrastructure.
The Newfoundland Government, the Nova Scotia Government or the New Brunswick Government could not pave the number of roads they are paving or what they are doing without these equalization payments. It boils down to what their priorities are. It boils down to what happens in their Cabinet meetings and what happens to the equalization money, because it represents a blank cheque, Mr. Speaker.
Transfer payments over the years have become blank cheques. It was not too long ago that you made a payment according to a percentage of what a provincial Government spent, say, on senior citizens' homes or nursing homes. Then we changed it to block funding, so provinces got the funding which increased as a percentage every year. It was given with no strings attached. The provincial Government could decide what it was going to do with the federal money. We saw provincial Governments throughout Canada putting a freeze on building senior citizens homes but still receiving the money and the increase and then redirecting it in different directions.
When you talk, as the new Budget does, about reducing these transfer payments to $2 billion annually, you are not really giving the provincial Governments a chance to do what they are supposed to do and I am not saying they are doing what they are supposed to do because they are not.
Take a look at some of the so-called poor provinces, Mr. Speaker. There are people in Canada today in 1985 who do not have community water systems, yet there is supposed to be equalization under the equalization formula. People in some communities are drinking contaminated water out of an existing system or from wells that pick up surface water from the highway. When you realize that that is the case today in 1985 in a great many ridings represented by MPs in this Chamber, you have to say that something is wrong. Somebody's priorities are wrong. It just so happens that it is the priorities of the provincial Governments that are wrong. No matter how much money is given to the provinces in equalization payments, they have formulas for supplying services to the general public.

June 21, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
Perhaps there should be even more strings attached to equalization payments.
People in Ottawa and in other major centres across Canada think nothing of turning on taps and drinking tap water. It is a normal occurrence. They do not think about it until they visit communities such as some in my riding of Gander-Twillingate and discover that they cannot turn on taps because they do not exist, or when they turn on taps that the water is not drinkable.
When we look at equalization of services across the country, at equalization formulas and at the Act, they look great. It sounds good to equalize payments across Canada and to equalize services to the general public. However, when we look at some of the smaller communities in the country, we discover that they have no drinking water. In 1985, in this great country of Canada, there are schools with no drinking water and there are wells which contain contaminated water. We have to wonder about equalization in services when we drive down unpaved roads in some communities and there is dust everywhere. The women in those communities will tell us that they cannot hang out their clothes or that it is difficult to paint their houses because of the dust. We must remember the actual rationale behind equalization payments.
No matter what is the decision of a provincial administration, whether it is good or bad, whether it tries to save money when it should not be trying to save money, and regardless of how it treats the poorest within its provincial jurisdiction, the federal Government cannot say that it will try to save $2 billion annually under the equalization formula. In the meantime, it introduces a Bill in the House and kicks in $200 million to make it look good. However, in reality, it is cutting back $2 billion annually from the equalization formula.
When we look at the services to the general public and at what Members of Parliament have to deal with every day, we see some incredible differences in provincial legislation dealing with payments to individuals. For example, we find that some provinces have 90-day rules respecting welfare or social assistance. When individuals attend welfare offices, they are asked what amount of money they made in the last 90 days. If a person has made more than he would receive on welfare, he has to wait until it runs out. In the meantime, what is he supposed to do if he has children attending school and has to pay perhaps as much as $100 per child for school books? He has to live, but he is faced with the 90-day rule. We must remember that the Government of the province in which he lives is obtaining half its budget from the federal Government in equalization payments. The rules indicate that there must be an equalization of opportunity in Canada, but we see, for example, a Tory Government in the Province of Newfoundland with the audacity to turn around and make the 90-day rule.
Other provinces will tell welfare recipients who are living with people over 18 years of age that they cannot obtain anything from welfare. What does this mean to a woman on widow's allowance with three children over the age of 18 years living at home, who cannot find work, and is not receiving
payments from a provincial Government which is receiving massive equalization payments from the federal Government? However, if she moves to Ontario or to some other province, she discovers that the system is completely different.
I could point to things like minimum wages and workmen's compensation. They are much better in Newfoundland than they are in Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia. They are equal to those in Ontario, but they are not better than those in Manitoba or in Quebec. In fact, Quebec has one of the best minimum wage schemes in Canada.
My point is that regardless of what provincial Governments do with their money, regardless of how bad they are-and just by accident, they are Tory Governments and there is no equalization in services to the general public across the country-we cannot have a federal Government which is prepared to cut back even further or will not even give provincial administrations a chance. The new federal Government is saying that it will cut back by $2 billion annually to provincial administrations.
It is all right for the Government to introduce this Bill which provides a momentary increase, a drop in the bucket, a smidgen of hope, but we must keep in mind what it did after it introduced this Bill-it slashed by $2 billion annually.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


OIL SUBSTITUTION AND CONSERVATION ACT CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM ACT MEASURETO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
June 21, 1985


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker ... do sit down my friend!
Mr. Speaker, we are about to complete our study of Bill C-24, a legislation providing for the termination of the Canadian Home Insulation and Canadian Oil Substitution programs.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree, I am sure, that this bill has been fully considered. On more than 90 occasions, comments were made during debate on second reading.
The closer we look, the more we realize that the current state of the economy compels us, as the Government, to speed up the rationalization process of the budgetary spending under various programs, including the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
Our Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works has held most constructive hearings and heard testimonies from such organizations as the Canadian Gas Association and the National Association of Insulation and Energy Conservation Contractors. There seems to be general support for the government's decision to phase out these programs.
The years during which the need for these programs was the greatest are long gone, a fact that is well recognized both by the public and the industry. And I dare hope, Mr. Speaker, that it is also acknowledged by Members opposite.
Since it is necessary indeed, essential, to reduce the national debt, it would therefore be utopian at this stage to try to lessen the deficit burden while advocating a welfare state.
Thus, Bill C-24 represents the will of this government to strive even more to stabilize its spending and balance its budget as any conscientious administrator should do. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the decision to bring to an end sooner the COSP and CHIP programs is also due to the fact that conditions have greatly changed since their inception. Our government recognizes, Mr. Speaker, that since the Canadian market place has undergone a change, the state's role in the substitution of oil and the conservation of energy must also change.
The CHIP program has created a market for home insulation products and has led to the sitting up of a specialized installation industry throughout the country. Moreover, the CHIP program has succeeded in making owners aware of the importance of energy conservation and of the benefits of insulation in terms of greater comfort and lower heating bills.
Mr. Speaker, it is of the utmost importance for all Canadians to understand that future conservation depends on present investments. Some 2.8 million Canadian homes have received financial aid and before the program is terminated, over $1 billion will have been spent. Substantial energy savings have
Oil Substitution Act
been made and the over-all assessment of the program shows that such expenditures have proved worthwhile.
The COSP program has shown that since 1980, significant savings have been made in terms of heating costs through the conversion from oil to natural gas, electricity or wood. The program has promoted the development and marketing of high performance systems, for example, slow-combustion gas heaters, electric heat pumps and controlled combustion stoves.
The COSP and CHIP programs have made it possible to conserve some 75,000 barrels of oil per day or its equivalent in other energy forms.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is an outstanding achievement in the management of our energy ressources. Further progress must be made with regard to oil substitution, the upgrading of heating systems and energy performance of existing houses, and this, by reinsulating them and making them airtight. Such progress will require different environment and energy markets than those existing when the COSP and CHIP programs were implemented.
The role of our Government in this new process will not be to subsidize but to educate the consumer. Energy conservation measures will enable consumers to enjoy substantial cuts amounting to 30, 40 and even 50 per cent of their heating costs. It is about the best investment available to homeowners which would be worthwhile without government assistance. Of course, as some ministers have already pointed out, the industry will still get assistance for the research and development of products resulting in lower heating costs for our Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect the Treasury to use borrowed funds to provide grants for consumers to invest in energy conservation. It is obvious and logical that the government should play a more limited and balanced role and should be aware of the need for information of users and suppliers on unresolved technical problems and on improved energy use.
I am convinced that this is the path we must follow, away from massive intervention and Government subsidies which can so easily result in arbitrary decisions and abuse, and that we should opt for government guarantees for better quality work and better decisions by home owners for reducing energy consumption.
Mr. Speaker, we have believed for too long that our prosperity was due to our natural resources, to governments and to foreign investment. We came to believe, and some of us still do, that we could stop being a working society and become a leisure society. We have become used to enjoying the profits instead of taking pride in our work. We will have to realize that our strength lies in our human resources. When individuals are strong, our institutions are strong as well. If our institutions are strong, the country will be strong. Mr. Speak-

June 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
er, that is why I feel I must support Bill C-24, because it arises from that sense of responsibility that all Canadian men and women must have if they are to take an active part in the economic development of our country.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 is a very clear expression of our desire to stop the increasing balkanization of the energy sector. To do this, we must confirm the present division of powers and jurisdictions with the provinces and put an end to the tradition of interference in this area, a legacy from the previous government.
Bill C-24 arises from the present Government's desire to build a national, not a federal, consensus on our goals for developing our energy resources.
Mr. Speaker, I have said before that there is still a lot of potential for oil substitution and energy saving in Canadian homes. Although conversion is fluctuating in this country, far more than was the case when the COSP was introduced four and a half years ago, and especially in key markets in Ontario and Quebec, where three-quarters of the conversion potential is located, we believe that oil substitution will proceed at a steady pace.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall the Government's role with respect to energy savings: its responsibility is to educate consumers and to guarantee better workmanship. The Government has indicated that a program based on these principles is being considered.
Bill C-24, Mr. Speaker, paves the way for more worthwhile energy savings measures, with the help of a strong and independent private sector. This is far more desirable than massive intervention in the market and is also entirely compatible with the new challenges and measures resulting from the energy accords with Newfoundland and Alberta, which will provide a much stronger basis for Canada's energy supply industry.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made a nice speech, but he operates more or less like his colleague from LaSalle, in that he read a speech prepared by Government employees.


An Hon. Member:: They can read!


Jean-Claude Malépart: They can read, but they can't write!
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) just said is full of inaccuracies. He says that the Government's finances are such that it is obliged to put a stop to insulation programs, to deprive citizens on modest and low income of the means to insulate their homes, which makes heating bills more expensive. Their bills are going to go up even more because of the 9 cent tax for carrying one gallon of heating oil from one location to another, and at the same time, the Hon. Member, together with his Prime Minister, would rather spend $56 million just to change
the colour of our soldiers' uniforms, instead of maintaining programs to help Canadians insulate their homes and create jobs in Canada. That same Member, along with the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) and the Prime Minister, thought it would be better to do away with programs which made it possible to insulate the homes of senior citizens and middle and low income families. He supported cut-backs even though these programs did create jobs throughout Canada. As to the aspiring Minister of Finance from LaSalle, he has decided to spend $100 million a year-that is $400 million over the next four years-to send additional troops to Lahr. That is a paying proposition for Lahr's Tiffany Club, but it is not going to create employment in Canada, in Quebec, or anywhere else, Mr. Speaker.
That is the kind of reasoning we get from the Member for LaSalle, Mr. Speaker, a Parliamentary Secretary yet, and the same thing goes for the Member for Champlain. I can hardly wait to see him leave for his riding this weekend so he can tell his constituents how much money he has wasted. A million dollars for the Economic Summit where our national president and Prime Minister acted as master of ceremonies, $1 million for that summit means a waste of $1,000 a minute, half a million dollars for the Tory show in honour of the President of the United States in Quebec City! Then the Member for LaSalle, the Minister-in-waiting, tells me he has no money left. He would be well advised to go back to school because the Government did have money. It is true, we all agree that the deficit has to be reduced, Mr. Speaker, but not at the expense of poor Canadians.
The Member for LaSalle, I mean the Member for Champlain will explain to his constituents why he would rather hand out $2.5 billion to the multinational oil companies-they have posted profits of $130 million-than help middle and low income people.
The insulation program was a source of employment in all regions, his riding included. Not only is he satisfied with that, Mr. Speaker, not only does he support cut-backs in those programs, but he even learned recently that, because of the stand-pat approach of those Members, the CMHC offices in his region and in the region of Sherbrooke are going to be administered by the offices in Longueuil and Laval.
Mr. Speaker, housing programs such as RRAP have also been adversely affected, so there will be no more rehabilitation and insulation projects in most rural areas, but fortunately there are good Liberal Members in Montreal and we managed to salvage some of that money.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking at my Member for LaSalle who is behaving like a jerk, showing off as he usually does. I think that the Hon. Member for Champlain this weekend ... I can understand why the Prime Minister decided to keep all of you here in Ottawa last weekend, you could not show your faces in
June 21, 1985

your ridings where the people were waiting for you. Mrs. Denis explained here on Parliament Hill that, since the Members did not go to their ridings-
Mir. Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I can very well understand the frustration expressed by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I realize that for the past four years he has had to keep his mouth shut, but 1 should like him, under these circumstances, to deal expressly with Bill C-24, and quit talking about deindexation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that so far . .. No, I am not going to hear any more views on this point of order. I think that so far the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie have generally been to the point. In view of his long experience of the House, he will continue to deal with the bill. I feel that comparisons are in order. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has the floor.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, once more the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) got his lesson smack in the face. Next time before you stand up, I hope you will remember this lesson.
Coming back to Bill C-24, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Home Insulation Program provided an important and essential service to Quebec-Quebec especially-and other parts of the country. But job creation was an equally important factor. This program made it possible-


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party will have the opportunity later on, during debate, to make a speech. This is a period for comments and questions, and some of our own people, among others, would like to ask questions.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been allotted a 20-minute period.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the point made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Wadell). I think that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) is speaking on debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understood him to be on debate.
Oil Substitution Act

Now, if the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) would kindly ask a question, then we could continue with the debate, and the Hon. Member would be recognized. [English]
I thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway for raising his point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, you must have noticed that the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) is hard of hearing and only seems to understand after being told repeatedly. Today, I should like him to tell me why he is so pleased to terminate a program which created jobs in his own riding, helped improve there the quality of lodgings, and why he would rather spend $56 million for new uniforms and $400 million for more troops to patronize the "Tiffany" establishment in Lahr.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, when 1 hear the demagogic comments of my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), who told us-listen for once, my friend for Montreal-Sainte-Marie-that we are wasting millions of dollars, he should remember Sport Select and Maislin. As for blaming anyone for the $211 billion deficit, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie should first look in the mirror, and he should do the same as far as deindexing is concerned.
As for Bill C-24, we said that it had been good, but you are too deaf to hear. We said that this legislation had been good, but the situation in Canada can change, like it did last September 4, and the Hon. Member should be aware of it. You should take better care of the business in your own constituency instead of looking at what our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is doing. Things will go much better that way. As for the $56 million on one side or the other, as you say youself, you do not even though from where these figures come. They are simply plucked out of thin air. You should mind your own business, my dear colleague, and it will be much better for Parliament!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Hon. Member and while it is rather difficult for me to ask them in French, I shall try. Wait until I have finished asking the question.
Here is the first one. The Hon. Member said that it was impossible for the Government to continue to allocate funds to such programs for ordinary Canadians because of the deficit problem. I would like to know in that case how the Government could find money to give to the big oil companies in Canada. The Financial Post, which is not an NDP newspaper, said that probably $9 billion would go to big oil companies. At the same time, it is impossible to continue to provide subsidies for ordinary Canadians to conserve energy. Why is this?

June 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
For my second question, 1 want to refer to a letter dated January 15 of this year in which the Hon. Member stated: I am beginning to believe that we are being held hostage by these companies which think only of their own profits and that the Federal Government is letting us down.

In other words, he writes to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and says that we are being held hostage by these large oil companies which are only concerned with personal profit. Then the Government gives away $5.6 billion through the PGRT taxes to the oil companies, another couple of billion dollars in windfall profits on old oil, and at the same time it takes money from the ordinary people by discontinuing the $500 grants for home conservation and $800 grants for con-verlting furnaces. How does the Hon. Member square that with the problem of attacking the deficit?
[ Translation]


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, it is quite clear, and I believe that the Minister told this herself to the Hon. Member in committee, that we were confident that these companies would launch new projects, that many jobs would be created and that, with new tax revenues, we would be able sooner or later to offer programs of a better quality than the existing ones. At the time, the Hon. Member had seemed to agree with the Minister. I do not know why he is asking me this question today.
As for the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I recall very clearly the letter read by my colleague, and I call him my colleague because he is a Member of Parliament and not because we belong to the same Party. In this letter dated January 15, if he goes back to the facts and quotes me properly, he will realize that we were then talking about the price of gasoline. To my knowledge, and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) would do better to listen to what I am saying, Bill C-24 does not concern the price of gasoline, but two Canadian programs, namely CHIP and COSP I can understand that the Hon. Member opposite would like to read my letter time and again, but could he please refrain from quoting it out of context? This letter dealing with gas prices is no way relevant to a bill on home insulation. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, since this letter has been mentioned, that it should have been sent out in the ridings of Montreal-Sainte-Marie and Ottawa-Vanier as well, because the price is 47 cents in my own riding, less than in the Ottawa-Vanier riding.
[English ]


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) made such a good speech that is inspired me to make a comment.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) fails to understand the Western Accord. I thought the Western Accord was designed to stop giving money to the oil companies
and, at the same time, stop unfair taxation. I did not think that he understood that, and today he has confirmed it. To accuse the Government of giving money to the oil companies is nonsense. We are stopping that. That is what the Western Accord is all about.
I was in the Chamber when we presented a Budget which would have placed a tax of 17 cents on a gallon of gasoline. That was a heavy tax for someone who drove a Cadillac, but for someone who drove a Toyota it would not have amounted to very much. The senior citizens of the country who did not have a car would have paid no tax. That Budget was defeated by the opposition Parties and replaced with a Budget that took the tax from the Cadillac and placed it on home heating fuel, which every senior citizen had to pay. That was the rhythm of 1979 and 1980.
Having done that, the Government then brought in a program which gave bonuses to people who wanted to insulate their homes. That means that it was collecting more money from senior citizens through the home heating oil tax, and giving it to people who were rich enough to own a home in the first place. Their property values and their profit increased. However, the program took money away from those who were living in rental accommodations. It took the money away from the poorest in the country and gave it to those who really did not need it.
I am proud to belong to a Government which is now going to end that. I was pleased to hear the remarks of the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), which supported what the Government is doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On resuming debate, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-24. I feel the Bill is typical of the kind of Government which we have. It is a Government that takes from those who need the most. What does it offer in return? It offers studies, proposals, and a promise to look at the impact of its actions. It is a Government that lives on hindsight. It does not care about the future.
This Bill ends the hope of energy security in the country. The Government says that it is okay to cut off incentives for consumers, because Canadians are energy conscious now. That is far from the truth. This week, the International Energy Agency said that Canada was one of the most inefficient users of energy resources in the western world. What did the Government do? It cut off the incentives which helped Canadians to conserve energy and save on their energy costs.
The report of the International Energy Agency was very interesting. It said that Canadian energy efficiency started out at the same level as the United States ten years ago, but has become an energy waster since that time. The International Energy Agency is a very reputable organization. It has criticized the Government for ending the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and for phasing out the Canadian Home Insulation Program. In fact, the report predicts that under the
June 21, 1985

Government's current policies, Canada is likely to maintain its poor performance on energy efficiency through to the year 2000, unless the Government changes its policies.
The Government is gambling with our energy future. It is becoming complacent. It says that we have enough oil and gas. It says that we do not have to worry about the future. That is wrong. That is the attitude which the report warns against. The International Energy Agency forecasts a tight oil market by the end of the century with an "increasing risk of massive upward price movements in the event of any disruption of supplies". Yet, the Government is cutting off the incentive to conserve energy, not only with this Bill, but with the many other worth-while energy conservation programs which have been cut.
The Canada Energy Audit Program will be ended. That program featured 10 specially-designed energy buses which provided special mobile energy audit services throughout Canada. That is another program for Canadian consumers which has been cut.
The Government has ended the Atlantic Canada Capital Investment Program. It is hard to believe that it could find more things to cut in Atlantic Canada, but somehow it managed. That program provided financial assistance to companies undertaking energy conservation, with a three to six-year pay-back period.
In addition, the Government has ended the Industrial Conversion Assistance Program, which helped industry to convert from oil to natural gas-fired boilers. Not only has it decided to cut the program, the Government has now said that it will pay only 50 per cent of the costs for those who have taken part in the program in good faith.
The Government does not care about people. All it cares about is the establishment. It wants to take money from Canadians-just like it is doing to our senior citizens-and give it to the multinational oil companies.
The Government has taken yet another service away from consumers. It has decided to end the Energuide labelling program. That provided consumers with energy consumption data for home appliances. The program did not cost the Government very much, but it helped consumers quite a lot. That does not seem to matter to the Government.
What did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) offer Canadians in return? After cutting all the programs she said that the Government would announce the details of its conservation program "after discussions with the provinces". How considerate! In the meantime, consumers lose. They will not get anything back.
What is the Government doing to ensure that our energy future will be secure? It is doing nothing. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources promised, on a number of occasions, that she would replace the Petroleum Incentives Program. However, when she talked to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), he said no. He is too busy taking money from the pockets of pensioners. What incentive is there in the country to look for new sources of oil and gas? The Govern-
Oil Substitution Act
ment is not planning for the future. In fact, the Government is setting us up for a potential oil and gas disaster by encouraging Canadians to become more dependent on foreign, imported oil. Where will that leave us in Canada? If the price of oil shoots upward rapidly, as it has in the past, where will that leave Canadians? It will leave us, as once was predicted, "freezing in the dark".
This Government is making us more dependent on oil and our non-renewable energy sources while it is completely ignoring the development of renewable energy sources, and the Government is going to make things even worse. In its Budget or, as it is now called, "a set of proposals", this Government says it will begin putting taxes on goods which have been exempt in the past. Not only does it have the nerve to take away the grant which helps consumers insulate their homes, but Government is now making it more expensive to insulate by putting taxes on insulation. It is putting taxes on wood stoves, which is a viable alternative to oil. It is becoming more and more obvious that the Government does not care about this country's future energy needs.
Last November the Government cut the energy division of the National Research Council so that the momentum which had been built up in the past into developing new forms of energy has now been lost. The Government tells us the private sector will look after research and development into new forms of energy. That is how this Government looks after our energy future.
When we debated this Bill during the winter, we asked that the Government at least consider extending the Canada Oil Substitution Program for six months because there were so many problems in trying to instal gas lines in the winter when the ground was frozen and covered with snow. It was bad enough that it was cutting the program, it did not give Canadians a chance to take advantage of the it. However, it did not budge. It did not allow an extension of the program, even though it knew many Canadians were going to be disappointed. The Deputy Minister of Energy, Mr. Paul Tellier, told us why. He said, and I quote:
The Minister was under pressure to extend ... as you know in the case of CHIP the program is being reduced, scaled downed and is being terminated at the end of this fiscal year. In the case of COSP, the program was terminated last March 31. Because of the difficulty of doing some connections during the winter months, the Minister was under pressure to extend that program until June 30. I know that three month extension would have cost $40 million.
The Deputy Minister went on to say, and I quote:
In the context of general government restraing programs, the Minister decided not to reopen that decision that was taken in the context of Mr. Wilson's economic statement of last November.
The Government could not find $40 million to help out Canadian consumers, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) could find $1.3 billion to give to the multinational oil companies this year. This Government is becoming quite expert at taking away from ordinary Canadians who cannot afford to be picked on by this Government. It

June 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
does not matter to this Government that the CHIP and COSP programs have been estimated to save at least 115,000 barrels a day of oil equivalent.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources admits that without these two programs, 75,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day would have been used. That is a reduction in equivalent oil demand of 25 to 30 million barrels a year, but that does not matter to this Government. It seems to think that we will always have plenty of oil and gas to look after our needs, so why worry about conservation? Why worry about looking for new sources of oil and gas? Why worry about trying to find new ways of heating our homes and saving on energy costs?
We have to start worrying about this Government, Mr. Speaker. Our energy future is very insecure with these kinds of policies. No one likes to predict the worst, but at least we should be prepared so that we do not make the same mistakes after learning from the OPEC crisis in the early 1979s.
I would like to go back to the International Energy Agency and its report of this week which was released at the close of meetings of the agency's governing board which elected Mr. Paul Tellier, the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as its next chairman-and I would like to congratulate him on his appointment. The report warns that a surplus of energy resources, which is what we are now experiencing, may turn to shortages which could spark a new energy crisis like the oil shocks of the 1970s. We have to be prepared for that. We cannot let our reserves sit and wait for a better price.
We need incentives for offshore and frontier development. We need to bring on Venture, Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea and, of course, continue to develop the rich resources in the west. We must be prepared for shortages, we must have the resources developed, and this Government must provide the incentive. The Government cannot look at the present situation, when OPEC is having trouble keeping the oil price stable and there is a possibility that the world price for oil could go as low as $20 a barrel. The Government cannot be fooled by the present surplus in energy resources which we are now experiencing because things change and they can change very quickly.
The International Energy Agency states, and I quote:
Unless the IEA countries achieve further major improvement in the efficiency with which energy is used, and a major expansion in the production of energy resources, they could once again become vulnerable to oil supply disruptions in the 1990s similar to those of 1973-1974 and 1979-1980.
Canada is one of the most inefficient users of energy. The Government must listen to the predictions of the International Energy Agency because, after all, the agency was formed in 1974 in response to the OPEC oil crisis in an effort to co-ordinate the energy policies of western countries and avert further instability in the energy market. Now the agency is telling us something. It is time the Government listened instead of taking the grants and incentives away from consumers which would help them save on their energy consumption and energy dollars. What is this Government doing? It is doing the opposite.
This Government plans to take money away from our senior citizens and plans to offer great tax incentives to anyone who may want to invest, even if the investment is in a condominium in Florida. We cannot afford to gamble with our energy future. The Government has to act. We need incentives to conserve. The Government owes Canadians the right to a secure energy future. We need to develop new sources of oil and gas. We need to find ways of using alternate and renewable energy sources and we need to conserve the sources we have.
This Government should not be taking away from Canadians, which is exactly what this Bill does. The Government should be giving us policies which let us know it cares about the future, that it cares about Canadians. This Government does not care about Canadians. Its idea of making the public energy conscious is to increase the price of gasoline by two cents a litre. That is the way it impresses upon Canadians that they should conserve; it ups the price of gasoline.
The Government has been receiving a lot of strong messages lately. It is time it acted on the good advice it has been receiving from seniors and now from the International Energy Agency which has criticized the Government for cutting the programs in this Bill and gambling with the energy future of this country. The agency says this country must start to conserve its energy sources. This is not going to happen with the introduction of such a Bill. This House cannot support a piece of legislation which does this to our country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that Member, who studied this issue, is reading someone else's speech. He could not have delivered that from his own knowledge base because it is the complete opposite of reality. The Member said that Canada is an inefficient user of energy. That may or not be true, but it is certainly the conclusion of a report. The Member knows that high prices for any commodity, particularly oil, leads to conservation, and that low prices lead to inefficient use. He sat in this Chamber and voted for those low prices which have created the problems we presently face.
The Member voted for a policy which provides for companies to sell their oil and the Government to take their money, leaving no money to search for oil. This Government is introducing a policy which would impose high taxes unless the companies continue to look for oil. That will lead to exploration for that commodity about which he is so concerned. How can the oil company look for oil if the Government takes all its money? He was told that in 1980. He lived through the period when the companies stopped looking for oil because it was not profitable and they did not have the funds.
To say that you are in favour of conservation, and therefore prices should be low, is a complete contradiction of the reality of the market-place. This applies not only to oil but to chairs, tables, and typewriters. If they are high priced, people will buy fewer of them and if they are low priced, people will buy more of them. The Member knows that one-third of the known oil in the world is found in the tar sands. The only way in which that
June 21, 1985

can be economically processed is to raise prices. If the Member is truly concerned about security of supply in this country, he must realize that oil must be sold at a price which will create jobs to develop it. If we move in that direction, we could begin to export energy which would bring revenue into the country which would, in turn, create more jobs. That is what the Government is devoted to.
I would like the Hon. Member to stand in his place and admit that high prices lead to conservation, job creation, and the development of security of supply. Low prices lead to consumption-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No way.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -job loss and fear about the future because the oil will not be processed. Surely the Hon. Member has the guts to stand in the Chamber and admit to those very basic realities.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, at no time did 1 talk about the need to have a low price. That is another subject altogether. The Member said that I was in the House and voted for the National Energy Program. He is right, 1 did, and the National Energy Program did an awful lot for the country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A lot of damage.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It did a lot of good for this country. It may not have done as much for the multinational companies, but it did an awful lot for Canadians. They are realizing this more now as time goes on. Under that National Energy Program was the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program.
The Member talks about developing the heavy oil of the tar sands. How are they going to be developed? Is the Hon. Member saying that the philanthropic oil companies are going to develop them without squeezing everything they possibly can out of the Government first? If they don't get everything they want, they won't do it. Give me the guarantee that these developments will ensure a secure energy future and the development of Hibernia and Venture. The newspapers have been reporting that the oil companies feel that the Western Accord has been good but does not give them enough. They want further benefits including lower royalties from the provinces. I believe that the Government will knuckle under again and give further benefits to the oil companies to the detriment of policies and programs for ordinary Canadians. I will be the first to have told you so.
Are the jobs which we need going to be created? We have asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources how many jobs will be created. She has no idea. We have asked in committee whether any studies have been done. The Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that they had not. Members opposite say that we will be able to export oil. We are already exporting more oil than we are importing. We are exporting light crude oil which is taken out of the ground without any windfall profits for the multinational oil companies. It is piped into Chicago, depleting our reserves of oil.
Oil Substitution Act
without any assurance that it will be replaced. The Hon. Member tries to say that the policies of this Government are good.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, we now see the difference between the Liberal Government and the Conservative Government. They are exporting oil, Mr. Speaker, but the Hon. Member did not complete the analysis. They are exporting oil to Chicago for less money than the refineries of Canada are paying. Since this Government took over we have been exporting oil $7 or $8 a barrel cheaper to American refineries than we are selling it to Canadian refineries. Did the Government promise that to the Canadian people when it ran for election?
The Member of the Conservative Party says that the Liberal Government kept the price too low, thereby encouraging consumption, and therefore the Conservative Government will raise the price to discourage consumption. Did the Government say that when it ran for election last September?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He said "freeze, freeze".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak on third and final reading of this Bill. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), who covered the waterfront in his debate. 1 hope the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) will not leave because I have a couple of comments to address to him. He said that the purpose of the Western Accord was to stop giving money to the oil companies. He should look at the reality of the Western Accord. The Western Accord in fact gives straight windfalls to the oil companies. Oil found before 1974 in Canada was called "old oil" and was priced at about $28 a barrel, much lower than world price. The price of that oil was raised to world price, about $37 or $38, on June 1 as a result of deregulation through the Western Accord. That resulted in a big windfall.
The Independent Petroleum Association of Canada reckons that there was a windfall of about $400 million to $500 million to the holders of that old oil. The old oil is held by Texaco, Shell, and Imperial.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Pensioners.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Sure, pensioners. Imperial is owned by Exxon, and Texaco is owned by Texaco in the United States. That was a straight windfall for those companies. The price of new oil, that found after 1974, went down slightly. That oil is held by small Canadian companies.
There is a recently formed group called the Small Explorers Association of Canada. They wrote a letter to the Alberta Energy Minister and said that as a result of the Western Accord's favourable treatment of the big oil companies, the smaller ones could be moved off the property. These are small companies in his home province of Alberta. Therefore, they lost as a result of the Western Accord while the big companies won.

June 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
The Hon. Member claims that the Government stopped giving money to the oil companies. The second effect of the Western Accord is that it will remove some $5.6 billion in taxes from the oil companies by 1990, according to the Government s own figures. It will not collect those taxes under the PGRT that it could normally collect.
Third, the Government is giving money to the oil companies through other forms of tax relief. It will end the PIP grant system which is direct grants to explore in the frontiers and offshore. However, I predict that it will be replaced by the old super depletion allowance and other tax advantages which the oil companies had.
Let me quote the President of Texaco Canada, William Gatenby, who was speaking to the annual meeting of the Regina Desk and Derrick Club. He said that the oil industry "supports and confirms all the concessions agreed to in the Western Accord" and the Budget, especially the fact that the industry would no longer be singled out for a high rate of corporate taxation. The poor oil companies had a 10 per cent increase in profits between 1983 and 1984, totalling approximately $32 billion. They have been given windfalls and tax advantages, subsidies and favourable treatment.
We forget that the Western Accord allows the oil companies to export and sell off some of the cheap Canadian oil now so that they can make a quick dollar from those exports. The Canadian consumer will have to pay for the more expensive resources from the Arctic and tar sands. There are winners and losers in most games of life. During the last two weeks in Question Period, we have heard that the losers are clearly the pensioners because the deficit must be reduced. It is the pensioners and consumers who must pay as a result of a two-cent per litre increase at the gas pumps and an increase in sales tax.
The Conservatives, who talk so much about research and development and small business, have attacked those small, lean and efficient Canadian alternate energy companies. Therefore it is the pensioners, the motorists and the alternate energy companies who are the losers as a result of the Government's actions.
I am holding the brief of the Canadian Petroleum Association that was presented to the Senate Energy Committee in April of 1984. When I reread it, it became clear that the Conservative energy policy, the Western Accord, was in this brief and written by the big oil companies. The Canadian Petroleum Association promotes a two cent a litre increase at the pump, the abolition of the PGRT and the phasing out of PIP. The companies ask for more tax incentives.
The oil companies want to get rid of the back-in provisions on the East Coast. That will be the Government's next step. The Minister's prediction of the creation of 300,000 jobs was taken from this brief in which the oil industry says 300,000 jobs will be created. We heard it said that this industry would be the engine of economic growth. I am from the West Coast and realize that the oil industry will help provide jobs, but it is
a capital intensive industry that is primarily foreign controlled. How do we know that they will not take this money and run? The Minister disagrees. I suggest he look at past investment figures to see that smaller Canadian companies have invested more than the large multinational oil companies. The interests of the multinationals are not necessarily the same as ours. They have a world-wide interest, basically an American interest.
According to the Financial Post, the Government's energy policy will give $9 billion to the oil companies without the benefit of a study as to how many jobs will be created. It takes these steps on the hope and prayer that money will be reinvested. What kind of policy is that in view of what the Hon. Member for Cape Breton said about the world oil picture? There will be a drop in demand and then an increase which will cause supplies to drop. In 1969, Bruce Wilson, a distinguished former oil industry executive, told the committee dealing with this Bill that since 1969, Canadian supplies of light crude oil, which is the basis of our transportation fuels, is declining and will continue to decline.
We are about to make the same mistake that we made before the first energy crisis. Before the first oil crisis in 1971, we exported oil. The oil companies, which want to export, ask for more money and more tax breaks in order to find more oil. When they find more oil, they say that they must export it and then ask for more money. Although they may create some jobs in that process, it is nothing compared to the jobs that can be created by the manufacturing and alternate energy industries.
Presently, the world is burning oil at 900 billion gallons a year. One-fourth of the recoverable oil that existed when the first well was drilled just over a century ago has been burned. Exploration has already found about two-thirds of the oil that we will ever discover. At the present rate of consumption, there is roughly a 60-year supply.
The United States, which consumes one-fourth of the world's oil supply, and which has only one-tenth of its oil reserve, will look increasingly for its oil supplies to the Persian Gulf where what is left of the world's oil will be increasingly concentrated. In the next six years, the supply will be concentrated in the Persian Gulf, which is perhaps the most instable area of the world today. That is the energy fact to which my friend was referring.
Quite frankly, I believe that we have the seeds of the next energy crisis in the Western Accord. It gives more money to the oil companies in vast windfalls, favours multinational companies over Canadian companies and favours the export of oil. Between 30 per cent and 44 per cent of our light crude oil production is being exported. We are the second largest customer of the United States. We supply approximately 12 per cent of their oil and Mexico supplies approximately 14 per cent. For that reason, it is important to consider what has been said by the International Energy Association. A story in Canadian Press states:
Canada is one of the most inefficient users of energy resources in the West and will continue to be through the year 2000 if the federal Government sticks to
June 21, 1985

its current policies, the International Energy Agency warns in a report released yesterday.
What does the federal Government do? It cuts back on home insulation and off oil programs. It cuts back on research and technology conducted by the NRC, one of the world leaders in photo voltaic cells, solar wind and small scale hydro. These are fields in which we can make money on export markets but must research now. However, the federal Government cuts back in these areas because it is preoccupied with the deficit. It is against subsidizing industry purely on ideological Conservative principles, but will give money to the oil companies through the backdoor with such things as tax breaks and windfalls.
There is no energy policy in this country. Its energy policy is simply to follow the advice of the Canadian Petroleum Association, as evidenced by this Bill. It is clear from this debate that the Government is not amenable to change. I accept some of the remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that there was some consensus in the hearings, that perhaps these programs should be phased out, but phased out when?
[DOT] (U10)
I will give three examples from Minutes of the committee meetings. Gordon Patterson, chairman of the customer services division of the Canadian Electrical Association testified that the Canadian Electrical Association has sent a telex to the Minister requesting an extension of the program until the end of August. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that the program was cut off in March because that was the end of the fiscal year, forgetting that it was still cold in March in some areas of Canada. The Association was prepared to accept cancellation of the program, but felt that an extension should be granted to permit installations where contracts had been signed before the March 31 deadline.
I draw Your Honour's attention to page 19:10 of the committee minutes for Tuesday, April 16, 1985 for the evidence. I have another piece of evidence. Jeff Passmore, Director of Conservation, Renewable Energy Council, said that the termination of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program should have been given a one year warning as was the case with CHIP and, failing that, at least an extension until June or July, 1985. He spoke at the committee meeting on Tuesday, April 2, 1985. He said:
It was very bad timing from the woodstove industry point of view to end the program on March 31, right in the middle of the season.
Third, John Guenin, Executive Director, Canadian Wood Energy Institute testified on Tuesday, April 2, 1985 that March 31 was not the best time to end the program. He suggested that June at least would be a better time. Fourth, there was a letter from the Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association of Canada. This association called for an extension of the program to August 31, 1985. A telex was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in that connection.
The Canadian Gas Association appeared before the committee hearing. It requested an extension of the deadline. This goes on and on. These were not difficult requests. The Hon.
Oil Substitution Act
Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) wrote to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and said that in parts of his riding it was difficult to buy equipment. He said in the Flin Flon Electric Shop there were a number of applications on which they were prepared to commence work. The company could not because there was no equipment in stock.
It would have to come from Toronto and Montreal. They asked for the program to be extended, but no, the Government would not.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) wrote to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and said that many home owners wished to take advantage of COSP but there was a delay in installation and they needed assistance. He said that Northern Ontarians seeking shelter from rising oil prices deserved special consideration.
I have a letter from a person who lives in West Vancouver, a Mr. Michael Down. The letter was sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), with a copy to me. He said that the Government should not terminate the Canadian Oil Substitution Program because it contributes to conservation. This view is supported by the Economic Council of Canada. Mr. Down goes on to point out the benefits and the difficulties with megaprojects and how small scale energy is so important. He asked for an extension of the program.
Why would the Government not extend that program? Would that not make sense in view of the International Energy Agency saying that Canada has a real problem in energy consumption? My friend from Calgary said that one way you deal with it is price, that price leads to conservation. I agree. Price does lead to conservation, but there are penalties for price. If we want more conservation, let us triple the price of oil or quadruple it. Obviously that does not make any sense. It hurts the economy.
I have some evidence from John Helliwell, the distinguished professor of economics at UBC. He is an energy economist who suggests that the Western Energy Accord, the rising prices and the tax advantages will lose jobs in the long run in Canada. As we have to pay more money for energy, it will hurt parts of the economy, obviously. There are countries such as Saudi Arabia and Mexico, oil producing countries like Canada, which hold down the price of oil as the National Energy Program did. You can make the argument that it is a subsidy, but there are other ways of subsidizing.
We can go to higher energy prices. There may be ways of subsidizing by giving the home owner a break, and what about the pensioners? We could give an energy credit or we could give a subsidy to people to insulate their houses or to switch from expensive oil to more abundant natural gas, to wood heat or electricity, which is renewable, or to solar energy, which is also renewable and is the energy wave of the future. I think that is uncontested.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys dealt with the International Energy Industry which is an indictment of us in Canada. We should all be worried. We are all complacent. We are being lulled to sleep. We alternate between complacency and panic when it comes to energy. We

June 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
should be very careful as to what is being said to us. The President of Mobil Oil of the United States was quoted in the Washington Post a few months ago as saying that another energy crisis could be in the making. Mr. Edge, Chairman of the National Energy Board, said to the Energy Resources Committee the other day that in real terms, oil prices will be higher in the 1990s. Why then are we cutting back on alternates and conservation? Why? I guess to deal with the deficit. Why did we not put a windfall tax on the $500 million we give to the oil companies? That is the choice governments have to make. That is why they are Conservatives and we are not. We take a different view of the situation.
Let me talk about sacrifices in conclusion. This Bill is causing the alternate energy industry to make some sacrifices. It is just like the Budget. The Minister of Finance on September 27, 1980 said to get rid of indexing for old age pensioners that would be:
-a very sneaky way of bringing in a tax increase.
He also said:
-the federal deficit must be reduced but believes there are other ways of achieving it.
What hypocrisy. He said that in 1980. Now the Minister turns around and attacks the pensioners. In this Bill, the Government turns around and attacks small business, the ordinary Canadian with the $500 or $800 grant, one of the few things he gets from the Government.
The oil and gas belongs to us. It does not belong to the multinational oil companies. It belongs to the people of Canada generally. They are entitled to a good rent for it. The people of Canada generally have a responsibility to conserve it. We should not be exporting it at the rate we are because we will run short. We will have to go to the tar sands and the north and deal with very expensive energy.
This Bill today is a failure because it is based on ideological reasons. It does not make sense practically and in light of what the International Energy Industry has said about Canada needing to conserve. This comes at a time when we have lulled ourselves into believing, because of temporary market forces, that oil prices are going to go down. I say in the long run we are flirting with another energy crisis.
I have suggested to the Government that it postpone the Bill for three or four months to give those people some more time who want to conserve and take advantage of the program. The evidence in committee is overwhelming that people wanted that extra time. I do not see why the Government cannot accede to that request. We cannot propose an amendment because of the Royal prerogative in spending money.
A country that makes the same mistake twice is really a fool. That is what I think we are in this Bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments on third reading of
Bill C-24. The last time I spoke on this Bill, we were 15 days away from the implementation of one of the measures proposed in the Bill, namely the termination of the energy conservation program. I simply want to add a few comments on the scope of this measure, especially with regard to energy conservation, and to deplore the fact that the government is compelled today to introduce a measure which I believe will in fact discourage consumers who still need government assistance in order to insulate their homes.

As I said, the last time I spoke on this matter, it was about 15 days before COSP was to terminate, and CHIP was to terminate in about a year from then. I indicated that we in my riding felt particularly bad. I represent a riding in Ottawa which has some of the city's oldest housing stock. Although we have used these programs to better our housing stock and to conserve energy, we still have a lot of housing which requires attention and would have benefited from a government assistance program that encouraged insulation of our homes.

I would like first of all, Mr. Speaker, in the brief comments I have to make, to join all Hon. Members of this House in congratulating the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Paul Tellier, who was elected President of the International Energy Agency, based in Luxembourg, and to wish him the best success in his new role.
I regret that Canada ranks today, along with Luxembourg, as one of the countries which conserve the least and waste the most energy. This statement does not come from myself, it was made by the Agency in a recent report. I read in Le Droit newspaper dated June 17, and I quote: "The Agency- referring to the International Energy Agency-was critical of the Canadian government's decision to terminate the subsidy program for home insulation and to reduce the scope of the measures aimed at encouraging industries to conserve energy and to switch to alternate sources of energy".
Mr. Speaker, I think that at this point where we must take special care to preserve for the future generations the natural resources which we inherited, it is important that this Government should seriously consider the comments made by such an important body as the International Agency, set up in 1974 if my memory serves me right, for the purpose of advising and counselling member countries on matters of energy.
When he addressed the issue, the Minister told us that Canadians are aware of federal programs, of the need to conserve energy, of the benefits of insulation, of the benefits to be derived from better conservation. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that some Canadians are aware of all that, but I would point out to the Government that in January 1985, we had here in Ottawa some 13,000 applications for natural gas, for converting from oil to gas, filed with companies, and of course they could not all be processed. Because of winter and bad weather conditions, the companies involved did not have
June 21, 1985

enough time to make the necessary changes to the systems, furnaces and, heaters before the program ended.
Therefore, we had unprocessed applications from a number of Canadians who wanted to benefit from the insulation programs, the conversion programs, but could not because the Government cancelled those programs introduced by Liberal Governments.
Mr. Speaker, what struck me during the second reading discussion of Bill C-24 was the near-unanimity on the value and benefits of those two programs. I do not think there was one Member, at least whom I heard, who condemned or criticized those two programs. I think both those programs had their usefulness and still have, and I had hoped the Government would have given greater attention to the issue of insulation and oil substitution.
I remember the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), speaking for the Government, used up quite a number of minutes explaining where and how those programs had tremendously promoted public awareness of energy needs. I was therefore surprised to find that his Government was terminating two programs which, to everyone's satisfaction, were good, needed, worthwhile, and meeting modern and basic requirements.

I am at a loss to explain why some Members rise in the House and start talking about the cost of oil or gas, using the argument that low prices will encourage waste. Actually, I do not think any Member would disagree with that statement. If we put it into context and go back a few years, we realize that the price of oil in 1973, if my memory serves me correctly, went from some $3 per barrel to some $38 per barrel today. If the Government of the day had not intervened at that time, God knows that inflation would have been much higher, much more serious and much more severe than it is today.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) made the point to the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) that today it is a reality that this Government is selling oil at the Chicago price. This means that Canadian refineries in Toronto are actually purchasing oil at about $7 per barrel more than Americans have to pay. Perhaps he could explain that to the House. How can he argue that it will contribute to energy conservation? Perhaps he has some wisdom which I fail to understand.
In any event, there are four points which I should like to make. I believe a great number of people still want to convert from oil to gas and would like to have a program which encourages insulation. As I said before, Mr. Paul Tellier will be presiding over the International Energy Agency. He is one of our good, solid Deputy Ministers, and was chosen as chairman of an agency which told us in its annual report that we use energy very inefficiently in Canada and that we should move to correct this problem now. As far as this agency is concerned, it sees nothing in the way of government policy or
Oil Substitution Act
Canadian policy which will change things. We will still be inefficient and facing a difficult problem come the year 2000, and we should anticipate the difficulties which will arise.
I am sure Members on all sides of the House will agree that the programs have been useful and effective. Many of us think that the cancellation of CHIP and COSP will have an adverse impact upon employment, because the bottom line is jobs. If jobs were created by encouraging insulation of Canadians' residences and if jobs were created by converting programs from oil to other sources of energy, that was good. This Government cancelled them.
Fifth and last, we will fall further behind in our efforts to achieve energy self-sufficiency and meet our energy goals, but I think we all agree that we have to be self-sufficient. God knows we have tried hard to do that and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that the Government would seriously consider putting forth measures that would encourage energy conservation. If they do not like the programs that the Liberals put forth, then let them come in with something different, but with the same purpose in mind, to encourage Canadians to better conserve, to encourage Canadians to see that we make sure that the generations that follow us will have the same advantages, the same resources and at least have the benefit of some security of Canadian resources.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, two speakers have mentioned the difference in selling price in Chicago. I guess they have persuaded me that perhaps they really do not understand the difference, and I would just like to put it into context.
If one went out to buy a case of apples and the apples were fresh and prime, they would cost more than a case of apples that were bruised or getting old. It is the same with crude oil. Some crude oil is a good barrel of crude oil which refines into such things as aviation fuel and gasoline for cars. That kind of barrel sells for a much higher price than a barrel of heavy crude which breaks down into, for instance, asphalt rather than aviation fuel. That is the difference in the price of a barrel of oil. It is very difficult. There are in the pricing market in Alberta something like 32 different types of barrels, each priced separately. If you start comparing, if you like, the bruised apples with the good apples, that is the kind of problem you are going to have with a price comparison. The price of Canadian crude as of the Western Accord is simply the world price for the quality of the crude, whether it is good or not so good. Wherever it is sold, it is sold at that price.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, to put this whole question in context, the fact of the matter is that last year the federal Cabinet gave approval to the National Energy Board starting in December, to reduce the export charge. That is what it is called, an export charge on oil exported to the United States. It is a mechanism that is there to encourage exports of oil from

June 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
Canada to the United States. There are two charges. One is an export charge for exports and the other is a Canadian charge, both levied by the federal Government. It has nothing to do with the National Energy Board, the oil companies or anybody else. They did not reduce the charge to Canadian refiners.
Since that time it has gone from a 48 per cent, 49 per cent reduction to total elimination now in the Budget. What you saw, starting in January, was a $7 a barrel difference between oil delivered at the gate in Chicago and that same oil delivered at the gate in Toronto. That is $7 cheaper to the United States than to Canada. That is the export charge, that is what we are dealing with.
The hon. gentleman brought up the matter of heavy crude for asphalt and so on, and that is quite correct, but let me remind him that in the Minister's own province all seven refineries produce asphalt from heavy crude and those refiners were having to pay $7 and $8 more a barrel for Canadian oil than did the Chicago refiners. That is an incredible system, Mr. Speaker, a disgraceful system. To have that total export charge on exported oil eliminated while Canadians still have to pay the charge at the refinery is absolutely disgraceful, a first I suppose for any country in the world. Then, again, good relations with the United States, and the Canadian consumer have to suffer.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments on the Hon. Member's discussion of the National Energy Program. We have debated everything else and I will tie it in with the particular Bill.
I might say there is nothing that has been more maligned than the National Energy Program. A lot of myth has built up around it. The fact is that the National Energy Program wanted to make Canada self-sufficient by 1990. So did the Clark Government program in 1979. We are self-sufficient. This is June 1985. The reason we are self-sufficient is that we have had an economic downturn, we found more oil than we thought was available, we have practised conservation, but we are self-sufficient right now and that is something to be pleased about. We are also the most wasteful user of energy in the industrialized world, next to Luxembourg.
The National Energy Program wanted to have 50 per cent Canadian ownership. We have the most foreign-owned industry of any of the industrialized countries. Right now the figure is about 44 per cent Canadian-owned and about 56 per cent owned by countries abroad. That is still bad.
The National Energy Program erred in that it brought in PIP grants, these very rich grants that moved a lot of the exploration from the western sedimentary basin, and I hope some of the central Canadian Members will listen to this, out to the frontiers in the north. That hurt Alberta and Saskatchewan. The grants were ill-advised in the sense they were very wasteful. They totalled less than $8 billion. They helped some small Canadian companies to get into the major play so they
were successful there, but for $8 billion we could have bought Imperial Oil and had instant 50 per cent Canadianization.
The problem with the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax was not that it was getting money from the oil industry. For the first time the oil industry was really paying taxes. That is what they did not like, that is what they hated, but there were some problems with the tax because it was like a provincial royalty. We western Canadians do not like the federal Government to have royalties because they are our resources, they belong to the provinces, although they are to be shared with the rest of Canada, under the Constitution. They are the vehicle of economic growth in western Canada if they are used properly. That is why we were critical of the PGRT.
What does this Government do? It attacks perhaps the most successful aspect of that National Energy Program, which was the conservation programs. They were working.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) might like to respond to the comments. 1 am sure they were all directed at him, since it was his speech that everyone was commenting on.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I just want to say that I think the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate made the proper response to this. He knows a lot more about oil prices than the Hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Also, I have a lot of respect for my hon. friend from Calgary West. I think this whole debate is an interesting one, but I would like to finish my remarks. I still deplore that the Bill has to be passed by the Government today and it is, I think, going to cut off a lot of incentive for conserving energy.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations, and if you look closely at the clock, you will notice that it has just struck five.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I sense that there is unanimous consent for this proposition?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is rising not to indicate disagreement but to
June 21, 1985

ask me to say something traditional at this moment because of the specialness of Monday for many Members of the House of Commons. 1 would wish everyone an especially happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and a happy weekend. It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, June 13, 1985-
Oil Substitution Act

-perhaps because it is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, I can say: It being 5 p.m., pursuant to the Order of Thursday, June 13, 1985, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, June 25, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 25, 1985