1985-03-21

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to briefly speak on Bill C-24. We have had an excellent debate on this Bill and a large number of Members have spoken on the main motion and on the amendment.
I would like to see this Bill now go to committee. Therefore I move, seconded by the Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the question be now put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The problem is that the Member for Brampton-Georgetown has already spoken to this Bill and therefore cannot second the motion. I suggest that the Hon. Member find another Member to second it.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, are you going to give other Members the floor?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. First, the Hon. Member for London West had been recognized by the Chair. It is his decision who to choose as a seconder. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is the seconder.
Therefore the question is as follows: Mr. Hockin, seconded by Mrs. Mailly, moves:
That the question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it takes a few minutes to understand what is going on in the House, when the Government uses these blockbuster techniques, when it will not give the Opposition a chance to speak to a Bill as important as this one, and when we have a Government that is in such a hurry to do the wrong thing, to eliminate two very necessary and important programs-programs that are very worthwhile for Canadians-and I am referring to the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canadian Oil Substitution Program.

Bill C-24 provides for the termination of two very important programs. One is the Canadian Oil Substitution Program which will end on March 31, 1985, which is approximately a week from now. The other is the CHIP program, a very good program that assisted Canadians to better insulate their homes and therefore save energy.


Mr. Caccia:: A good Liberal program.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A good Liberal program, as the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) says. It is a program that was well received and very useful.
The termination date in the existing legislation for the COSP program was December 31, 1990, and for the CHIP program, the end of 1987. The Government has decided to compress the time so that the COSP program will end on March 31 and the CHIP program at the end of 1986.
Government Members, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid), who is not here now, have spoken about the use of these programs since their inception. Both have been spectacularly successful. But most people have had an opportunity to take advantage of them. Those are the words the Tories use. These programs are now limited and questionable in their value. Therefore, the Government said it would stop them.
[DOT] (mo)
The premise of these arguments, that yes, the program has been successful, most people have used it and the value of it is now questionable, is questionable. This morning I wanted to put a motion before this House before we were frozen, zapped by the Government, into its question be now put motion. I wanted to put to this insensitive Government a proposal that this entire subject matter be referred to a committee for further consideration and understanding.
There are regions of this country in my Province of Ontario, in particular the northern part, where COSP and CHIP have

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
not had full utilization because the people up north have not had the gas distribution system, the gas lines, that we have had here in southern Ontario. As a result they have not had the opportunity to substitute oil for other energy, such as gas.
I said in my speech last week that gas and electrical contractors are experiencing difficulties in being able to complete the work they have started on conversion programs assisting Canadians who want to change oil furnaces to electrical or gas furnaces before the termination of this program.
We have had some problems with frost this winter, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact of Canadian life that the ground freezes over in wintertime. Gas companies have had trouble getting their pipes to the homes and into the streets in our cities. But this Government does not care. What the hell does it care. Frost, that is just too bad. That is the attitude. We could not cut off the heat in January when it was 20 below zero. We could not cut off the heat in our homes and take away furnaces in order to change over to gas or to other energy forms. That is why COSP should have been prolonged. Let me say welcome back to the Hon. Member. That is why COSP should be extended and fully available to all Canadians.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Liberal Party Whip referred to the absence or presence of a specific Member of this House. He knows better than that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the spokespersons for the Government have also made much of the fact that the intention to end these programs was clearly indicated in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8. The intention was there. We all heard him. We all heard him say that the Government was going to cut $4 billion from the federal programs. That was clear. It is the method the Government is using that we do not accept. The Government is doing everything without notice. The Government told Canadians on November 8 in a very abrupt manner that it was going to cut the programs. The Government was saying: "Too bad, Canadians, you did not take advantage of it. Too bad, you are out. If you do not have your contract signed and delivered by March 31, you are out of luck".
What kind of a decision is that, Mr. Speaker. That, to me, is a reflection of the lack of understanding of the Government for Canadian housing problems and for Canadians having difficulties heating their homes. Canadians had zero lead time concerning this program. There was absolutely no lead time given. On November 8 we heard the cut-off was March 31. Bang, that is it. That is how we were told. The Government says it is going to consult. There was no consultation on that. There was no consultation with industry. The Government consulted no one.


An Hon. Member:: Wrong.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: CHIP is not as bad as COSP when it comes to lead time. At least the lead time for CHIP is a year or so. The Government gave us time to insulate our homes better. I
say thank you very much to the Government. It is very nice of the Government. But how about the oil conversion which saved Canadians 60,000 barrels of oil a day? Figure that out at S35 a barrel, Mr. Speaker. It comes to over a million dollars. That is a lot of money which Canadians actually saved as a result of the oil conversion program and the home insulation program. I think that is good. But because the oil conversion program is good, the Government cuts it off.
When speaking to the Bill on February 28, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), pointed out to the House and to the Government, if it had ears to hear, that Consumers' Gas in Ontario, which is my province, between October 1, 1984 and February 26, 1985 received 17,912 applications for conversions from oil to natural gas under COSP. You are out of luck, Canadians! The Electrical Contractors Association reports that in the same period 6,348 applications were processed for conversions from oil to electric heating, of which 2,956 were in the Ottawa region. What will happen to those? Nix, nothing. The Government says that the program has been used by most Canadians, that its value has expired. That is nonsense. The Association also reports that there were 2,000 applications in the month of February alone.
I am not inventing these figures; they come from Ontario Hydro, which is a pretty good authority in matters of conversion. That company knows what it is talking about. That was the number of applications in the month of February under COSP, for Canadians to transfer from oil to electricity. It is a good indication that the program has been working and has been accepted by Canadians. It would seem to me that most people have not taken advantage of the program.
At any rate, the figures which I just quoted indicate that we should be sensitive and allow for an extension of the limits on these programs. We have also been told by the Electrical Contractors Association that it is not possible, due to manufacturing shortages, for them to deal with the applications received and that many of these will be and are ineligible for COSP grants. If we have a difficulty with manufacturing because of the demand, then God knows the program has been successful and should be prolonged. I blame the Government for its lack of sensitivity. I say to the Government that it is to be damned for this.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in my speech I will make it very obvious that I am speaking about the concerns of people in northern Canada. On March 7, 1985 1 wrote to the Minister, pointing out that electrical contractors in my riding know Canadians want to take advantage of the existing program which the Conservative Government is now cutting off. Unfortunately I do not have the time to list the names, since the Government has now cut off debate in the House. Since they are located in communities in northern Manitoba, they will not be able to get the equipment into the communities on time. Contractors have pointed out that they have to bring their equipment from Toronto and from Mon-
March 21, 1985

treal. Yet because of the increased demand at the present time, they cannot get these supplies, and people in those communities will not be able to benefit from the program.
I raised this issue in the House a couple of days ago in support of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). At that point I heard someone on the Tory side respond: "If they had applied before November 8, they would be okay". Before November 8, those people did not know that the Government would cut those programs. Aside from that, it is obvious to most Members of the House that most Canadians do not want their houses ripped apart in the winter-time. Most people cannot afford to have the temperature in their house go to minus 20 Celsius, or in my riding to minus 40 or minus 50 in the winter. Telling people on November 8 that they had to have everything done by the end of March excluded a large number of Canadians from benefiting from this program.
In defence of the Conservative position, some of their speakers have said that a million people have already used this program and that is enough. The fact that a million Canadians have seen these programs as beneficial points out that there is a demand in this country for the off-oil program, that there is a demand for a strong CHIP program to provide home insulation. This Government is limiting those options. CHIP is reduced and the off-oil program is cut off completely.
The point has to be that these are programs which were instituted for the purpose of saving our limited oil resources and to help people reduce their energy costs. Energy costs in Canada for heating are extremely high. This Government, which is willing to continue grants to the large oil companies and tax write-offs for so many corporations in this country as well as allowing the banks to pay criminally low rates of income tax, will not allow the ordinary Canadian home owner to benefit from a program which has been used by so many in the past.
I regret very much that the Government has moved to cut off debate on this matter. This is something that is now getting the public ire. In the last couple of days there have finally been some newspaper articles regarding consumers and corporations involved in the electrical and gas fields coming forward and saying that this program is a benefit to them and that they would like the opportunity to participate in it. Cutting off debate in this House excludes these people from being able to make their point.
The information that I received from the Flin Flon Electric Shop, which I mentioned earlier, is information which I conveyed to the Minister in March of this year. That was when I received their inquiry. Consumers Gas is listed in the Ottawa Citizen for today, March 21. Obviously, they are still making their point to the public. In the name of public participation, consultation, co-operation and all the things that this Government made its trademark during the election, why is it cutting off debate?
Why would it not accept the motion that was made by our Party to have a six-month hoist of this Bill to allow people who
Oil Substitution Act
want the programs that exist at the present time to continue? Why not allow them to take advantage of the Canadian summer to switch from oil to natural gas, hydroelectricity or, in my riding, to switch to woodburning furnaces? Why not allow them that opportunity? This is a program of which the public approves. That is obvious from the use it has had in the past.
Let me speak on the other side of the ledger. Let us talk about the jobs that would be created if this program were kept in existence. If the Government were to change its mind and leave this program in place over the summer, allowing as we suggested six months or another year for the program to be in existence, it would create many, many jobs in small businesses right across this country. There would be a need for electrical parts and, as was pointed out, some communities would require pipelines. There would be a need for gas lines in some cities. A number of small contractors in each and every riding of this country would be employed throughout the summer.
This is a job-creating program which is working at the present time. If the Government is going to make jobs, jobs, jobs, its number one priority, which was another election promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), why is it cutting a program which not only provides a consumer service, but provides jobs for so many small businessmen, contractors and construction workers at a time when they need work the most?
Unemployment figures are still high. It is obvious that there will not be that much work this summer for a great many of those people. By passing this legislation now, the Conservative Government is guaranteeing that people in my riding, people in Quebec, people in Ontario, people in every province of the country, will be laid off. The Government must take the responsibility for that.
I see that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) is present in the House today. I am glad to see him here. He of all people should recognize that many reserves do not have gas lines at the present time. Many reserves do not have adequate hydroelectric programs to provide for electric heat at the present time. These people will not be able to change their heating systems by March 31 of this year. By giving people time to take advantage of this program, we will be providing services to those communities. We will be providing jobs this summer. I think we will be providing some leadership in terms of a fair program which, to use our election slogan, can be taken advantage of by ordinary Canadians.
I see I have only one minute left so I will have to wind up my remarks. It is obvious that in the general program of the Government, the real rip-offs in taxes which benefit large corporations and the reductions in personal income taxes introduced by the Liberal Government for those people at the top of the earnings scale will continue. It is amazing that this one program of which so many ordinary Canadians without large incomes can take advantage is the program the Government has made its number one target in terms of legislation.

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
There are many reforms that are needed. There are many areas in which we must have responsible government accounting. Why pick on the little guy? Why pick on the widow? Why pick on the person who needs government assistance the most?


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the amendment to Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Elome Insulation Program Act, because I think this is one of the few programs that has been used to help thousands of Canadians who showed an earnest desire to change their living habits.
Under the Canadian Oil Substitution Program introduced in 1980 by a Liberal Government, taxable grants of up to $800 were available as partial payment for the cost of converting from oil to heating systems operating on natural gas, electric power, propane, wood or other forms of renewable energy. According to the present legislation, the program expires on December 31, 1990. The proposed Bill provides that the deadline will be moved up to March 31 of this year, which is in about a week. We believe that by asking to have the bill withdrawn and referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee, we can make the transition period easier for Canadian consumers.
1 must emphasize that Bill C-24 represents a threat for direct action programs. These programs are designed for consumers. They also directly concern families and homeowners. Thus, by their very nature, they have a very special character. Eliminating these programs means that we are going to deprive Canadian families of funds earmarked for them by the Federal Government.
It is important to realize the impact these cuts will have. The Canadian Home Insulation Program is designed for homeowners who want to conserve energy. They can obtain up to $500 to help pay for costs incurred.
As for the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, homeowners have taken advantage of this program to convert from oil to another kind of heating system. The $800 grant was very well received and has been an incentive for Canadians to do the requisite conversion.
The benefits of both programs now extend well beyond the dollar value of the grants. These programs are meant for consumers who are worried about the price of oil for home heating. The people who wanted to take advantage of the programs were counting on an expiry date on December 31, 1990, according to the information given by the federal Government. The problem is, however, that many Canadians who felt that a program set up by the Liberal Government would be maintained by the new Progressive Conservative Government, are now seeing another series of cuts, which of course, translate as lay-offs in the construction industry.
The Government claims that everything will be all right, and that people will still convert their heating system. The Government claims that Canadians are well aware of the options they have as far as energy is concerned. Many are. And they can afford to be because they have been able to take advantage of these programs. However, there are Canadians who will not be able to take advantage of these programs because they were waiting for the weather to get better before starting work on these projects.
The Government must revise its position and postpone consideration of the Bill if it wants to maintain its credibility before the Canadian public. This would give people a chance to have their systems installed, and it would also be more convenient for installers and suppliers of natural gas and heating equipment to install the systems at a time of the year when conditions are more favourable.
The Government, by ignoring requests for extending the program, gives the impression it does not care about the average Canadian. I think Canadians are going to find it very hard to accept the fact that these programs have been scuttled. I do not think the Government has given the needs of the average Canadian enough thought. I do not think the Government opposite realizes that Canadians had great confidence in this program and not just because of the grants. And once again, the people who are going to suffer will be Canadians on set or low incomes and the unemployed.
As Members of the Liberal Party of Canada, we ask this Government to have the courage to accept the amendment we are proposing today, which will allow Canadians who want to take advantage of the program to do so. The program should be maintained so that people will not have to suffer the inconvenience of installing equipment in the winter.
The Government maintains that Canadians will be able to save energy without these programs as well. However, it will soon realize that removing the programs will create a number of problems. It is too bad that the Government insists on making cuts that will affect those Canadians who are most in need.
Why should the Canadian consumer always be made to bear the brunt of such cuts, especially when a number of Ministers have run up interior decorating bills for their offices that are entirely unreasonable.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Government should inflict these program cuts on Canadians without giving them prior notice, and I fail to see what the Progressive Conservative Government has to lose by taking a conciliatory stance with the people who elected them on September 4 last year.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation a second
March 21, 1985

time. I am interested in debating it again because I feel it is important legislation and, if we can make our position sufficiently clear, the Government might reconsider the legislation. It is somewhat discouraging that a motion to terminate debate was moved this morning to bring the legislation to an immediate vote. That indicates that the Government is not listening to what is being said on this side of the House.
It is important for the Government to listen to the arguments of Opposition Members, because we represent our constituents and the views of Canadians. The Government promised to be sensitive to public opinion and the needs of people. The Government could demonstrate its capacity to be sensitive by listening and responding to this debate. But rather than doing that, it has chosen once again to limit debate. It is sad. The Conservative Party for many years has indicated its commitment to parliamentary democracy. One would think that a Party which is committed to parliamentary democracy would be interested in having open debate in this Chamber and using that debate to improve legislation rather than viewing debate as an obstacle to the objectives which it has unilaterally set. But, rather than having respect for the House of Commons and for serious debate, we are getting arrogance and an unbending attitude toward decisions which the Government has already taken, instead of thoughtful reconsideration of the positions which it has already established.
The Government may be encouraging inadvertently the kind of action which the Senate recently took with its second sober thought on legislation which the House had passed. I would not want to see that repeated. I am afraid that if the Government, by virtue of its deafness in regard to reasonable argument, proceeds with this legislation and does not listen to reason, we might be giving more ammunition to members in the other place. They could say that the House of Commons is not really doing its job, that the House has not considered all of the aspects of this legislation, and that they will be forced to take a second sober look at it. That would not be good for Parliament. It is not good government, and it is not good for the people of Canada.
The legislation which is before us today limits the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program. Both of those programs are valuable and have demonstrated their effectiveness. With COSP, targets were set for the conversion of heating systems in homes from oil to gas, solar or electricity. Those targets were being met. COSP uses the public dollar to encourage conservation and change in home heating systems. That program was working. One has to wonder why the Government chose to eliminate a program which was achieving its objectives. Those objectives were legitimate and served a worth-while public purpose.
Why would the Government cut that program and at the same time substantially increase funding for the Prime Minister's Office? Why does the Government want to spend more on bureaucrats in the PMO than on a program which is serving a worth-while public need? This program helped people to meet the ever-rising cost of heating their homes.
Oil Substitution Act
This is a Government, Mr. Speaker, which is moving to deregulate oil pricing in this country. It is seeking to take the ceiling off any future rises in oil costs, which means that Canadians will be subject to the whims of the international market when it comes to the cost of heating their own homes. It is not simply being subject to a free market which responds to the pressures of competition; it is being the victim of a market which is dominated by large mutinational corporations, by a cartel. It is hard to understand why this Government is moving, on the one hand, to remove regulations which seek to protect Canadians from the vagaries of the international oil prices and exposing us to the whims of international measures and, on the other hand, is removing the program which would help us to adjust to increasing oil prices. These are government actions which put the ordinary Canadian in a vice which squeezes him from both sides. This is a Government which allows oil prices to rise at the same time that it takes away the incentives for moving away from reliance upon oil.
When this Government was running for office, it projected an image as a humanitarian party, a party which was concerned about Canadians and which was going to help people. I would challenge Hon. Members on the Government side to rise and explain to Hon. Members on this side how cutting off these conservation programs helps ordinary Canadians. How does removing financial assistance to convert from oil to gas, solar or electricity help people? In what way does that make sense? The move on the part of the Government to cut the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program is part of an over-all strategy to cut public spending and, by cutting public spending, we will reduce the deficit and somehow, magically, the economy will be revived and everyone will be affluent. There are good reasons to question the cost-cutting strategy of the Government. I see I have one minute, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Nickerson:: No more than a minute.


Cyril Keeper: My colleague says I don't have any more than a minute so I ask him to take up the cause which I have raised in the House today, which is to assist ordinary Canadians who are seeking to cope with the ever-rising cost of oil and home heating. I would ask my Conservative colleague to rise in his place and explain how cutting off the conservation program by this legislation will help people to cope better with these ever-rising home heating costs. One thing that I find disturbing in this debate is the silence from the Government benches.


Dave Nickerson: We have spoken. It's all down there.


Cyril Keeper: It is not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, that the Government slaps Canadians in the face, but it is silent with regard to explaining why it is doing so.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, several years ago a very important, very famous article was written by a British scientist named Amory Lovins. He put forward a very striking thesis, which was that industrial

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
nations really have two choices in the development of energy resources. First there is the conventional way called the "hard path", which is the big megaprojects, the large-scale industrial energy projects and the massive capital expenditures into huge developments. He countered that by saying a far more effective use would be what is called the "soft path", which is to begin developing energy conservation techniques which could be localized, decentralized, could be applied with a flexibility to the local community and could be used to create jobs, major savings and to conserve against the undue reduction of our renewable resources.
That was a message and a thought which was well taken at the time. In this country, to our credit, we began some of the most extensive developments of alternate energy programs of any industrialized country in the world. We invested in the National Research Council. We established a new Crown Corporation, Canertech. We invested a lot of money in programs like the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the conversion program.
We recognized that we should not put all of our eggs into one basket, that we should not only try to substantially increase the conventional oil and gas reserves but we should also provide for a much broader, more flexible and diverse system for continuing Canada's self-sufficiency in the energy area. That approach proved to be accurate, Mr. Speaker, and from 1977 through to 1984 we found that across Canada in places like Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, the northern interior of British Columbia and western Canada, with respect to programs which are under debate today, small communities began developing their own individualized energy sources. New firms were started, small businesses emerged to provide for the application of these programs. People went to work.
Not only did these things happen in a conventional manner, but all kinds of innovative ways of converting energy were developed. We really started a new industry in this country. There was an opportunity for new entrepreneurship to emerge, not only in the big cities but in many small towns and communities in more remote regions.
This project was not just energy conservation. It also became the stimulus for the development of a new category of small businesses in Canada. In my own Province of Manitoba, for example, over 100,000 residential units were able to make use of these programs. Several hundred new businesses were started. People were trained in this area. But now the Government, again praying at the sacred font of its so-called cut-back philosophy, is going to wipe that out. It is going to do away with it.
There is no reason or rationale for that. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) do not give any reason for doing away with these programs. They just say that everyone has to share the pain equally. We all have to pay for the reduction in the deficit. But why cut this program? Why not cut some other area where we don't have small businesses being created, we don't have the very clear opportunity to provide for alternate energy production, we don't have development of new entrepreneurs across Canada in the small business area and where we don't have, in particular, the remote regions and the small towns being the major beneficiaries?
This is something we see time and time again, Mr. Speaker. This is a Government which is not interested in the average citizen of this country. It is not interested in the small community or in small businesses. Nor is the Government interested, really, in thinking in any kind of innovative way. I don't know who the Government listens to these days. We are told it is consulting but I think it is starting to chase its own tail. I think it is simply drinking its own bath water. Government is not listening to Canadians; if it was, it would not be doing away with this program. It would not be doing away with a program which saves our very precious energy resources.
Canada is using up its energy sources faster than any other country in the world. We have what you would call a mature energy-producing area in western Canada, but not many new fields are being discovered. We have exploratory fields in Hibernia and the Beaufort, but that is expensive energy and hard to get. So why would we be cutting back on programs which eliminate reliance on hard to get and expensive energy resources? Why would we be penalizing the Canadian consumer over the next few decades.
The only reason, and we keep coming back to it, is this curious, almost religious doctrinaire approach of cutting back government expenditures because the Government says that will be the cause of something miraculous. Yet we see this same Government spending $60 million or $70 million on new military uniforms. How can we justify that additional cost when it is compared with the possibility of developing alternate energy sources? One finds it hard to explain because there is no rationale. I am sure that the members of our Defence forces could have gotten along for a few more years with the same uniforms if it meant that Canadian consumers could have converted to a less expensive fuel and continued to reinsulate their homes and commercial buildings. It really defies logical and rational explanation.
This attitude is reflected in other areas as well, Mr. Speaker. What is perhaps most tragic is that the Government, through its cuts in funding for the NRC and other research organizations, has in one fell swoop destroyed Canada's leadership in developing alternate energy. This leadership would have provided us with the potential for new exports as well as the potential for developing new knowledge-intensive industries which would be unique in our country. The Government has taken us from a position of leadership in that field to the position of being a backwater.
It is hard to treat seriously in any way the comments of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) or the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), or other Members of the front benches who say they want Canada to be competitive. They say we will increase sales and have economic renewal at the same time that the very basis and foundation for development in those areas has been wiped
March 21, 1985

away. We had already established that leadership. Other countries came to Canada to look at the progress we were making, but now this Government has wiped that leadership out. It makes no sense for our future energy potential or our ability to create industrial and technological activity which would give us a distinctive place in world markets. It simply begs logical and rational explanation, and we cannot find anyone on the Government benches who has been able to justify this move. There was development going on in the area of conservation in companies in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and now in Ontario and Quebec. They were trying to develop that field and all of a sudden we have wiped them out and do not provide any explanation.
That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. This Government has no explanation because, frankly, it has no policies in these areas. It is blindly slashing away at vital ingredients of the industrial and energy make-up of this country in the hope that somehow the Government can justify this move under the blanket theology of the Minister of Finance and in the hope that Canadians will accept it without question. Well, we are here to question it.
What is perhaps most disturbing is that this Government does not even want Canadians to question it, so it brings in a closure motion to stop debate. That is the "big change" that was voted for on September 4. No debate, no discussion, no questioning; take us on faith. The Government does not want us to recognize that the stupidity of cutting a program like this should be examined by Canadians, and it certainly does not want us to examine other programs. The Government hopes we will simply go down a blind alley in blind hope; but we will ultimately stumble into the dark pit we are headed for. The only people who will pay the price will be Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys .. . Cape Breton-East Richmond, excuse me.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, you have to get the Richmond part of my riding correct. There are nine polls in Richmond county and they all went for me.


Dave Nickerson: They won't next time.


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps you would like to put a little wager on that and come down and campaign.
In any event, I rise to speak first to the motion and then to the substance of Bill C-24. In reading the motion, I find it to be a bit peculiar that the Conservative Party, who, when they were in Opposition, said repeatedly in this House that they ought not to be the guillotine, has put closure on debate in the House of Commons. What we have is just that, in effect. The guillotine has been used by the Conservative Party of Canada regarding debate on a subject matter which is important to all Canadians and of particular importance to those in Atlantic Canada.
Oil Substitution Act
I find it kind of distressing that Members opposite would allow themselves to be sucked in to a motion which has been, I say, conceived and put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). We have known for quite some time that this Minister's sensitivity, compassion and concern for other regions of the country has not been demonstrated to be meaningful. Members of the NDP have spoken in great numbers in this debate, and I might add with great quality, as have Members of this Party. However, I am a little bit annoyed and disappointed that the back-benchers of the Conservative Party have sat on their hands. Well, perhaps it is inevitable that they would do that. After all, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is issuing the orders. Therefore, there shall be no debate; there shall particularly be no debate which exceeds a reasonable period of time. But we have not even had a reasonable period of time to debate the substance of this motion.


Mr. McDermid:: Oh!


David Charles Dingwall: I know the Parliamentary Secretary does not like to hear that because the truth hurts. He can recall with great clarity the numerous occasions when he was in opposition and the Conservatives said you cannot put time limitation on the debating of matters which come before this House of Commons. The Government has transcended the time limitation and in effect put closure on the House of Commons with regard to Bill C-24.
I say to the Conservative Members of Parliament that they ought to be ashamed. Again, it is a clear example of breaching their election promises in terms of parliamentary reform. The Government has not kept any of its promises. It said one thing before the election and is now doing the complete opposite. So much for parliamentary reform.
With respect to Bill C-24, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) explained how a number of small businesses were established as a result of the imposition of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and Canadian Home Insulation Program. In my constituency where unemployment reached 55 per cent, small businesses began as a result of these programs. These businesses did not hire 1,500 or 2,500 people but they did employ between two and ten individuals who, as a result of this legislation, will be without work.
Moreover, we will be without that type of service. It bears repeating that these two programs assisted in lessening the energy costs of Canadians in Atlantic Canada, a region which has the highest energy costs in all of Canada. These programs benefited small business and stimulated research and development. Their termination will signal to those individuals who are creative and have attempted to be innovative within this sector of our economy that they are no longer wanted. That is what the Government is saying to that sector of the Canadian economy.
This Bill does not appear to Canadians to be fair. I emphasize the word "fair" in view of the fact that the Government is

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
spending up to $50 million for new uniforms for the Canadian Armed Forces. Where is the logic of the Government? It has no logic. The Government does not know what it is doing. It is operating without an agenda and blindly takes action on whatever program turns up on the wheel, without studying the effects of its actions.
If the Government had a concrete plan with regard to energy and its development, it would recognize the value of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program as a means for our nation to reduce its dependence on imported oil. I certainly would not want those regions of the country who are blessed with large surpluses of energy to be prevented from flourishing in that sector of our economy. However, it is equally important that those of us from regions of the country that are dependent on imported oil, through no fault of our own, demonstrate to the Government that we should not be singled out by not having these programs made readily available to us.
The Government says that it is terminating these programs under the auspices of restraint. Yet it has failed to produce the documents that our Party and the New Democratic Party have requested to show the effects of the November, 1984 economic statement on the various regions of this country. My analysis and that of my Party shows that the effect of that mini-budget is devastating to the poor regions of Canada. The gutting of these two programs will add to the misery of those Canadians who reside in the poorer regions of Canada.
In conclusion, I remind the Conservative Party of Canada that it is not sufficient to be led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) whose only concern is to make Canada a branch plant of the American economy. Members in the back-benches of the Conservative Party must stand up for the regions of this country and voice their concerns rather than sit on their hands and allow an insensitive and incompetent Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gut and devastate programs that are of particular benefit to those of us who live in the poorer regions of Canada.
I say shame on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and shame on the Conservative Party of Canada for once again breaching another election promise, both in regard to energy and parliamentary reform.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate because the programs which are being axed by the Government have been of tremendous importance and have helped thousands of home owners in Winnipeg improve their homes and use less energy. Furthermore, these programs have provided hundreds of jobs for people who otherwise would have been unemployed.
I am glad that the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) is here because he can confirm the fact that in my constituency, the constituency of the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) and the constituency of St. Boniface there are many homes that were built between 50 and 75 years ago that are very energy inefficient. They use great amounts of
fuel, whether it is gas, oil or electricity, due to the insufficient amount of insulation that was installed in those homes.
Despite the proven record of these successful programs, the Government is proposing their elimination. In recent years we have seen the cost of energy double and quadruple. This has had a drastic effect on jobs and the lifestyle of ordinary citizens. When these programs encourage energy conservation, surely any sensible government would encourage and even promote such programs.
The provisions of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program made financial assistance available in order to convert heating systems from oil to a non-oil-fired system. Since we are rapidly coming to the end of the supply of relatively cheap oil that was discovered before 1970, we will have to import oil, begin to produce oil which will be found off the Atlantic coast, in the Arctic or which will be produced by the tar sands. Surely every member of the Conservative Party must realize that when we have to start using that oil we are going to increase greatly the cost of heating our homes, as well as increase the cost of energy use in our plants and factories. Every Member of Parliament should be interested in promoting conservation.
These programs have been very successful. Why has the Government brought in legislation to end these programs? We have not had a single sensible explanation. The only explanation is that the Government wants to save money in the short run. What we will get is short-term gain for long-term pain.
It has been estimated that under these programs we should effect two million conversions of heating systems by 1990. This would mean a tremendous reduction in the use of oil for heating, especially in many of the older homes in our cities and rural areas. They are usually inhabited by people in the low and middle-income levels, people who can least afford the increased cost of heating which they have experienced in recent years and which they will experience again in the next few years, particularly if they cannot convert from oil to gas.
Almost one million units have already been converted. The program is only half completed yet the Government proposes to axe it. As a result of the program that was implemented, we have been saving over 50 million barrels of oil a year. That is oil which cannot be replaced except at tremendous cost to the country and to our people. New oil, which we will probably bring on stream from the tar sands, the Atlantic and the Arctic, will cost the Canadian consumer and Canadian industry users very much more than what it has cost up to now. It has been estimated that each home converted from oil saves the home owner or the renter about $600 a year in heating costs. Why stop a program which has been so successful?
It is interesting to look at the debate and how the Parties reacted to the proposal when the Bill was brought forward in 1981. There was virtually no debate. It lasted not much more than an hour or two and it received the unanimous support of all Parties.
Let me quote a few sentences from a speech made, I presume, on behalf of the then Official Opposition, the
March 21, 1985

Progressive Conservative Party, by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), a former Cabinet Minister in the Diefenbaker Government and one of the longest serving Members in this House. I quote from a speech the Hon. Member made on June 30, 1981, in discussing the Bill which this Government now proposes to end:
It is a good philosophy to get as many people in the low technology systems as possible to move away from the consumption of oil. It is particularly good if the alternative is cheaper not only than the present price of oil but the future price as well.
I could not have put it any better than the Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. It should be obvious to all Canadians that the program which this Government is now proposing to end was and is a common-sense program under which no one can lose, neither consumers nor governments. The only ones to gain are the oil companies which will be able to make bigger profits with much more expensive oil for which we will be paying in the very near future.
I see I have very little time left, but let me deal with one other aspect of the adverse effects that we will get when this program is ended. In converting, jobs were provided for hundreds and thousands of people who are not highly skilled, not expensively trained, people in the main who are unemployed. In converting homes and in insulating homes, hundreds of thousands of people in my city, in other cities and in many rural areas were able to find work and were employed rather than unemployed and drawing unemployment insurance. This program, when it is terminated, will end the jobs of at least hundreds and thousands of people who have been able to find work as a result of these programs.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Closure.


David Orlikow: We oppose ending the programs and we oppose closure, Mr. Speaker. We know that the program has brought benefits in employment and in the saving of millions of dollars to the people of Canada. We want these programs to continue rather than to end.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what is being proposed by the Government is a measure that is upsetting a lot of Canadians; and what must also be put on the table is that this proposal is also offensive to the environment. It is a measure that is neither progressive nor conservative. It is a silly measure and it is not helping in terms of conservation nor in terms of protection of the environment. For those Members who are moaning and groaning, I will have to devote a minute or two to explain why that is so.
The measure is in sharp contrast with statements and promises made by the Conservatives on the environment. It is also one that is not in the national interest. I will come to that in a moment. When you are encouraging a program whereby you increase the number of people who will use gas instead of oil, you are reducing nitrogen oxide emissions. This is why I suppose in 1981 the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) supported it, because he understands these things very well. We are decreasing, therefore, nitrogen oxide emissions into the atmosphere which in the
Oil Substitution Act
Canadian situation is as important, as damaging, as the emissions by cars and light vehicles into the environment for which we have now set a control measure for 1987. This measure, parallel to that, is very important. It has a profound environmental message.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the program was introduced in 1980 and was to expire by December 31, 1990. Up until now, I am told, we have some one million units that have been converted to gas. That is roughly a saving in imported oil of some 32,000 barrels per day up to today.


John Horton McDermid: Not only to gas.


Charles L. Caccia: It may not only be gas, but it was a considerable step forward. It was to continue as a program for another five years. Suddenly we see the boom being lowered and a number of Canadians being upset. The measure before us is an anti-environmental one and is really offensive.
The off-oil program is a central part or component of the program which will amount to a 25 per cent reduction in emissions between 1980 and 1990. Canada put that program into place as part of its commitment to reach a 50 per cent cut by 1994. In doing that, the Government is somehow weakening our commitment to that particular policy.
We should be rightfully proud of that policy because, as was indicated by the Hon. Member who spoke before me, it received the whole-hearted support of the House in 1981 for two reasons. First, it was good for individual homes; and second, it was good for the environment. The environmental aspect of this should not be underestimated.
When this measure is put into place, we will have a very unbalanced approach. We will continue with the Petroleum Incentives Program to explore further in the north for fossil fuels. We will continue with the Petroleum Import Compensation Program, which is meant to encourage the utilization and exploitation of fossil fuels that are harmful to the environment, as I hope we all know.
I see the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) holding his head. I suppose this is heavy stuff for him. He might as well absorb it in his own interest. We will lose a counterbalancing component by virtue of this decision. It is a regressive decision and an anti-conservative measure by a Party which calls itself "Progressive" and "Conservative". This does not make sense.
The November 8 cuts were deplored by everyone on this side of the House. It would be repetitive to deal with that theme once again, but I am deeply disturbed by the pattern which is emerging here in anti-environmental decisions, of which this is one. It follows the events in Quebec City over the weekend. Evidently, and unfortunately, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) chickened out of his grandiose commitment of last summer to reduce acid rain. He preferred to hide behind Messrs. Davis and Lewis and to let them pull the chestnuts out of the fire, so to speak, for him.

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
I do not know where this accumulation of measures will lead. We are receiving-and I am sure it is the same for Hon. Members opposite-letters from Canadians who are concerned about the effect of the cancellation of COSP. Colleagues have already spoken about the difficulties of completing the necessary work in order to carry out the switch. Evidently certain things cannot be done in the midst of winter.
I hate to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in charge of steering the Bill through the House, from his profound reading.


John Horton McDermid: I am listening.


Charles L. Caccia: We are asking him to reconsider this measure and to see the senselessness and insanity of it, because it is an important component of the over-all strategy. It is an important component of a policy which is in the long-term interests of Canadians.
We know we want to reduce our dependence on imported oil. We know we want to reduce our damage to the environment. As they say in court, "Here rests my case". There is not much one can add to this plea. However, I can see that I have not made a profound impression on the Parliamentary Secretary who continues to read his papers. Evidently he is not interested in the Canadian environment or in providing Canadians with an opportunity to switch. That is what it boils down to; otherwise he would pay attention to this plea.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is improper to refer to what Hon. Members are doing or are not doing in the House. In any event, I assure the Hon. Member that with the volume of his voice, everyone can hear him, no matter what they are doing. We are listening to him most attentively.


Charles L. Caccia: 1 am very assured by the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary.


John Horton McDermid: If you said something useful, maybe we would listen.


Charles L. Caccia: I am always accused of speaking too softly and of being too gentle in my approach. He finds me to be too forceful.


John Horton McDermid: Just noisy.


Charles L. Caccia: I find that very strange. I was trying to put across some ideas. Perhaps they have disturbed his sleep, I do not know. Somehow the basic ideas seem to escape him; otherwise he would have dealt with them in his speeches. He and members of his Party, so-called "Progressive" and so-called "Conservative", are ignoring elements of the off-oil program which are both conservative and progressive-it will reduce damage to the environment and it will permit Canadians to conserve and reduce their dependence upon imported fossil fuels. I submit that that is in our national interest.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to speak against this closure motion, this time allocation
motion. The motion intends, by whatever means, to cut off debate. It is quite unnecessary. The Government should be listening not just to the words but to the points which have been made on this side of the House. It should be showing a willingness to reconsider the mistake it made in introducing this Bill. The Government shows no interest in considering the points which have been made. It simply wants to use its majority to hammer this matter through within the time limits imposed in this motion.
Basically this is part of the mistake which the Government has been following for six months, the mistake of cutting back on money available to the large majority of Canadians with ordinary incomes, including those on low incomes, while increasing directly and indirectly the money available to large corporations, such as the oil companies in this case, and to large investors.
This is simply one element of the program followed by the Government which it claims will bring recovery. So far it has completely failed to show any serious result for ordinary Canadians. Unemployment is where it was, and there is no prospect of any serious improvement. The Government is failing to provide the basic necessary market for goods and services which Canadians could produce if economic institutions permitted them to do so.
With this Bill, the Government is cutting back money available for switching from oil to other forms of heating and cutting back the amount of money available for insulation, which would save oil. It is not proposing to cut back the money for exploration to discover new oil. It is proposing to cut back, through this legislation, the money that would be saved and the oil that would be saved by conservation. While they call themselves Conservatives, they are acting against the principle of conservation.
Many people in my riding have used this program and many more would like to use it. Both the off oil and CHIP programs have had good success so far. Many people have seen the value of them. They have seen what their neighbours have saved and they are interested in taking them up.
Not all these people could do that right away. There are some very low-income home owners in my riding who cannot always take advantage of a program instantly. This winter, with shortages of equipment, it has not been possible for everyone to take advantage. It is a great mistake for this Government to cut off this program. It is a mistake from the point of view of the majority of ordinary Canadians. It may not be a mistake from the point of view of the oil companies, but they do not act in the interest of this country. When the wealthiest sector of industry in this country, except for the banks, asks for bigger and bigger hand-outs, it is not serving the interest of this country. Instead, it is trying to hold this country to ransom.
When in opposition, Members opposite claimed to support the fact that a barrel of oil saved by the actions of small business people, those who do the conversion of the furnaces

March 21, 1985

and the insulation of the homes, is worth more than a barrel of oil to be found in the Beaufort Sea. It costs less to save a barrel of oil through conservation than it costs to take it out of the Beaufort Sea or out of the tar sands. Furthermore, it provides jobs where they are needed. Very few of Canada's two million unemployed are in the Beaufort or even in northern Alberta. The vast majority are in Canadian cities. That is where the conservation work is to be done, in the cities of Canada. That is where the jobs should be created. That is where there are hundreds of thousands of people willing and able to do this conservation work and save the oil reserves of this country.
It seems that this Government is afraid that there might be some oil left in the ground when it leaves office in a few years. It wants to dig it all, or as much as possible, out now. Some of us think a little farther ahead. Quite apart from who will be the Government, some of us have children and grandchildren. Others expect to have children and grandchildren.
I see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) smiling. He agrees with me. I do not know the details, but I am sure he is looking forward to an increase in his descendants. It would be good if we could have some oil for his descendants, for mine, for those of all others here and those whom we represent.
We do not have to be in such a mad rush to take all the oil and burn it. There are excellent conservation programs which, as I say, cost less than digging the oil. It would leave some of the oil in the ground. Perhaps in future it could be developed more cheaply. If it is not needed, let us leave it there. Let us not squander the oil. Then it would be too late to pay people to conserve it.
It has been argued that the Government should not be intervening in this way, that it should let the private home owners do it. For some private home owners, that is all right, they can pay. However, for many it is a borderline question. Without this assistance, they are not likely to do it.
There have been other cuts in the incomes of home owners. The $500 total of tax and other imposts was laid on the people this fall by this Government. That reduced the money available for a project like this. There have been wage cuts; that is, cuts compared to cost of living. A number of people have become unemployed since that time, especially poor home owners. It is those people who should have the continued benefit of this program of changing from oil to other forms of energy and insulating their houses in order to save oil.
What we are asking is simply that the Government withdraw the Bill or make some serious proposal for amendments to it before it leaves this House. We would like some assurance that the Government has listened, not only to the speakers on this side of the House, but to the letters that have come in from both home owners and small business people who believe that this is a good program. It is not only in the interest of the small businesses, their workers and the home owners, but in the interest of all the people of Canada to save that oil. It is also in the interest of all the people of Canada to save the oil
Oil Substitution Act
used in eastern Canada which has to be imported at a higher cost.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his colleagues weep daily over the deficit. They use the deficit as an excuse for all kinds of things they do which hurt the people of Canada, such as the budget cuts last fall. Here is a way to reduce the deficit without hurting the people of Canada. The Government can reduce the amount of money that has to be spent on offshore oil, but it does not want to do that.
Clearly anything that reduces the money that goes to the oil companies is not what the Prime Minister and his colleagues want. They want to fatten the oil companies and perhaps the banks as well. They do not care what it costs the people of Canada. They do not care whether we squander our oil so that our children and grandchildren will not have any. They will have to import it at a much higher price than that.
The motion to terminate the debate was a great mistake, but not a surprising one. It is completely in line with what this Government has been doing by way of spreading paper around the country, pretending consultation. However, when people actually have a point to make to the Government, it refuses to listen. It says: "Shut up, we will do whatever we want without regard to anything that you have said." That is the tone that we are getting from this Government. It is already a matter of great regret to people in Canada. This Government is going to feel that regret.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I want to share whole-heartedly the views that have just been expressed by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


An Hon. Member:: All of them?


B. Keith Penner: Yes, I want to share the views expressed by the Hon. Member without being selective. It is very wrong on the part of the Government to try to wind down this debate and prevent Parliament from making a decision which would be in the best interest of the Canadian people and the consumers of Canada.
What the Government is in danger of doing very early in its mandate, and I think Government supporters on the backbench will want to be cognizant of this, is abusing its majority. If the Government starts abusing its majority, as the Hon. Member for Spadina quite rightfully said, it will not be that long before it will regret it and regret it very deeply. The simple fact is that during the course of this debate it has become clear from the speeches given not only by members of the Opposition Parties but Government supporters as well that more time is needed. It has become clear that the Oil Substitution Program is being discontinued prematurely. It should be allowed to go on for another period of time and we can debate that issue. I would argue that it should run its full course to 1990. However, there are very good reasons for this Act to go on for at least another six or eight months. I will return to that subject in a moment.

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
If anyone were to take the time to look at the debates regarding Bill C-24, they would notice that almost without exception there has been nothing but praise for these two federal Government programs. Members have indicated how successful the programs have been. The oil substitution program has displaced some 32,000 barrels of oil or more. The home insulation program has also been successful in saving over 28,000 barrels of oil. The grand total of the two is a saving of about 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
Not only have these two programs saved a tremendous amount of oil but people for the first time have taken seriously the possibility of using alternate energy sources. We are finally moving out of the preaching stage when it comes to using alternate energy. These two programs have encouraged people to actually do it.
In the constituency which I represent there are a tremendous amount of wood products available, and people have converted from oil to woodburning furnaces. They have taken a local energy source that would otherwise be wasted and utilized it to save money. That is why this program has been very important to the average working family in Canada. It has been important to people who do not have high incomes and who are living in a region like northern Ontario where the winters are long and cold. Saving money on home heating is a very big issue there. It has been people with average incomes who have used the home insulation program and have conserved energy in their own homes. In addition to that, they have gone off oil, an expensive form of energy, to something like wood. Other people have been experimental and are using solar energy. In some places they have even been utilizing wind energy. However, the most important conversion program has been that of oil to natural gas.
The federal Government has had a program allowing natural gas companies to extend their systems with the use of a federal Government subsidy. That program is not being discontinued. The natural gas network system is still being expanded. In the area I represent, that program will be reactivated again this spring or early summer as soon as the frost is out of the ground. However, my constituents have said to me: "We cannot take advantage of that program any longer. The gas network system is being expanded but we are out in the cold just because we did not apply before last November. How did we know? We inquired of you about the program and you said that we could take advantage of it when we were able to afford it because we had until 1990". Now, following the election, these people have discovered that it is not 1990, it is next year. They are not going to have the opportunity.
That is why it is very wrong of the Government to throttle debate. Why can the House of Commons not also engage in what we sometimes call a little sober second thought that goes on in the other place? There has been some sober second thought going on right here in the House of Commons. Many people argue that we do not need another chamber for sober second thought. However, if we do not have sober second thought here, perhaps we are undercutting our arguments. If
we feel we should limit time for debate in the other place and if we limit time for debate here, how are we going to get people to look at these programs again and to perhaps change their minds?
My colleagues from northern Ontario whose constituents will not be able to have access to the natural gas system are all concerned. There are three Members from northern Ontario who sit on the Government side. There is the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais), the Minister from Sault Ste. Marie and the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall). They are receiving the same messages as I and northern Ontario Members who belong to the New Democratic Party are receiving. We are all receiving the message that we cannot cut this program off on March 31 and that the people who did not apply by the end of November will not get that little extension to the end of June.
The Parliamentary Secretary himself has admitted that the representations that have been made to him for an extension made good sense. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is a very influential Member. I have worked with him. Can he not use his influence and debating skills with the Minister and the Government? Can he not tell the Minister that it does not make good sense to cut this program off on March 31 or to give a handful of people an extension to the end of June? He should at least be fair and reasonable.
I know the Government wants to save money, but I think this is a silly place, however, in which to save money. The Hon. Member for Spadina pointed out very well that we help cut the deficit by keeping these programs going. The underlying rationale for cutting off the program does not even exist.
I would plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to use his persuasive powers. He should use the abilities that I know he has to tell the Government that it does not make good sense to end this program on March 31. The program should run at least to the end of the year in order to give those people one last chance and a little bit of pre-warning. I would be prepared to compromise that far, but I would like to see the program continue to the end of 1990 as it is such an excellent and outstanding program. However, we are in the Opposition and we cannot have everything.
Surely, with the big majority the Government has, it could yield a little. It should not cut off debate. If the Bill must go to committee, Government Members should rise and tell us that they are going to let it be amended in committee in a way that will extend it for another six or eight months.
My constituents right across northern Ontario are absolutely irritated. Is the Government not listening to its own northern Ontario Members? It did not have a seat in the north before but now it has three seats from the north. For goodness sake, the Government should listen to its northern Ontario Members. I am sure they are speaking very eloquently. They must be pleading with the Government not to cut this program on March 31. The Government should listen to them and yield a little bit. It should not abuse its majority. That is not the atmosphere it created during the election campaign.
March 21, 1985

The Government did not tell Canada that there would be no opportunity at all for citizens to have some input. I never heard the Government say at any time that it was not going to listen to Members who were in the Opposition. I had the idea that we were going to have a new kind of Parliament. I heard all of those wonderful speeches that were made when the Government was in opposition indicating that Parliament had to be more of a decision-making body and that everything would not be done by the executive branch. Here is the Government's chance to compromise.
Surely Parliament can have a little bit of influence on the Government when it tells it that we should not cut this program off from those people who have been planning on using it and who have been saving their money. Now, before these people have had an opportunity to make final arrangements, they read in their newspapers and they see on the television that they have no chance at all of using it. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take another look at this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, coming from a riding in northern Ontario, I can appreciate the comments which were made by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I want to pick up where he left off.
I recall the time when the Conservative Party was in opposition. I remember it well when that Party accused the Trudeau Government of arrogance, of trampling on the rights of Parliament, and of not being concerned about what the Opposition had to say. In other words, the Conservatives said that the Trudeau Government was not interested in consultation. After the dust cleared on September 4, 1984, this Government told us that a new era was upon us. In the Throne Speech the Government trumpeted consultation and consensus. Where was the consultation on this particular measure to eliminate COSP and CHIP?


Some Hon. Members:: None.


John R. Rodriguez: As Members say, there was absolutely none.
Opposition Members are attempting to consult with the Government. We are telling the Government that the situation is unfair to many communities, particularly those in the rural areas. I have put on the record, and I will do it again, a copy of a letter that was sent to me, which enunciated a motion which was passed by the Township of Hagar, which is a small community in the Nickel Belt riding. The motion was sent to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). It reads as follows:
Dear Madam:
The following resolution was passed by the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Hagar at their regular February 19, 1985 meeting:
"Moved by Councillor T. Beamish, seconded by Councillor R. Chartrand
that since Northern and Central Gas has proposed to serve the Villages of
Markstay and Hagar with natural gas in the fall of 1985, and the COSP is
scheduled to terminate on March 31st, 1985. Therefore the Township of
Oil Substitution Act
Hagar request the Honourable Patricia Carney to extend the COSP to enable our residents to avail themselves of the grant and that copies of this resolution be sent to our local MPs."
That is not a partisan or political appeal to the Government. They are ordinary Canadians, many of whom voted for the Government's candidate in the riding of Nickel Belt. By God, he came second and the Liberals came third!
Ordinary Canadians are saying that it is not fair. The rules were set for 1990. Plans were established for the extension of gas lines. It is the height of unfairness for the Government in the middle of the game to say that the ball game is over and that it is changing the rules. The Government did the same thing with the unemployment insurance program. It changed the rules. Government Members have the absolute effrontery to stand in this House and say that the Government cannot afford it and that is why these programs are being cut. Yet the Government is preparing to put the Armed Forces into new uniforms at a cost of over $30 million. Where is that money coming from? Are there not other priorities in this country? Is the priority of conservation and job creation not greater than parading our Armed Forces in uniforms which will be indistinguishable from our southern neighbours? Maybe that is the whole point, to integrate our Armed Forces.
It is a crying shame that this kind of unfairness can be brought to the House of Commons. The Government has even cut off the consultative period by introducing a motion which called for the question. It is a guillotine motion. The Government is not interested in listening to and consulting with Members on this side of the House. It should at least give us the credit for representing the views of ordinary Canadians.
Is there always going to be a blot on the escutcheon that there are Members on the Conservative side of the House who represent small communities and who receive the same message? In fact, there is a conspiracy of silence on that side of the House. Government Members are sitting as silently as a tomb. There is not even a whisper of participation in this debate.


Mr. Kilgour:: We are speaking up in committee.


John R. Rodriguez: Speaking up in Committee! I was in committee and I heard them speaking up. The silence was deafening! The House is where we participate in debate. One would hope that Government Members could persuade their Ministers to change their minds.
There is another unfairness in the legislation. There are not many wealthy people in my riding. Many of them work in the mines and have an average income of $25,000 a year-


David Orlikow: When they work.


John R. Rodriguez: When they work. Many of them decided to take advantage of the program and order the equipment which was necessary. However, if they did not order the furnace and sign a contract before November 8, they were out of luck. There was no pre-warning. Second, those who ordered the furnace before November 8 are having trouble getting the

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
equipment from the companies which manufacture the furnaces. Those companies are out of parts.


John Horton McDermid: They have an extension.


John R. Rodriguez: They have an extension! It is an unfair proposition. It is absolutely unfair to cut people off without giving them the opportunity to take advantage of a program which has been beneficial in conserving energy in Canada. All of the evaluation reports from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate, in terms of conserving oil, which is a finite resources, and in terms of the person-years of work which the program has provided, that the program has been a positive element in the over-all energy program of Canada.
Why is the Government doing this? In the 1970s Canadians became very conservation conscious. Four years ago the Conservative Party of Ontario ran a campaign on "Preserve it, conserve it". In the Ontario Hydro announcements and the rest of the advertisements we saw the words "Preserve it, conserve it". Canadians were convinced that we should conserve our energy resources.
Indeed, when the Conservatives were in opposition in 1981 there were less than three hours of debate before this program was approved. The Hon. Members for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), a man who is well-versed in energy conservation programs- "the biomass man"-recognized the importance of this program and the Conservatives agreed with him.
I have a suspicion that the Government is cutting this program because of its buddies in the oil patch who want Canadians once again to consume oil because it will bring profits to the oil companies. I think that is the thrust. Aye, there's the rub! Now we've got them. That is what the Government is doing. It is making Canadians contribute to the profits of the oil companies in Canada. It is sleazy and it is sneaky. If the Government had any courage it would cancel Bill C-24-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do not leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on November 8, 1984, the Conservative Government announced a new way to tax our agricultural producers. Using misguided logic, it has decided to tackle the deficit by collecting $32.3 million in service fees from farmers, feed mill operators, seed growers, slaughterhouse operators, and others. A small slaughterhouse operator must now pay a minimum call-out fee of $125 to have a few carcasses graded. It is not hard to imagine that this cost will amount to several thousands of dollars over the period of a year.
The potato farmer in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick with an average farm will pay $13,000 to $20,000 each year for grading services. With potato farmers receiving less than the cost of production this year for their crop, this is a most unfair charge.
Seed growers are very concerned that the quality of Canada's seed stock will be compromised as more growers are forced outside the regulatory system due to increased input costs for pedigree control.
If a farmer is worried about rabies, he should not stop worrying. New fees for rabies vaccination will no doubt reduce the over-all protection available to farm livestock and those who must pay for that service.
In every one of these cases our agricultural producers will suffer. Consumers, who are the main beneficiaires of grading and quality inspection services, will be hurt as well.


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



PETRO-CANADA ATTEMPT TO ACQUIRE CO-OP OUTLETS

Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 18, I advised this House of protests I received from boards of several Saskatchewan co-operatives against attempts by Petro-Canada, a federal Crown Corporation, to acquire or take over co-op petroleum outlets. I wanted to know why a Crown corporation is attempting to acquire the outlets of co-ops which represent a completely Canadian-owned segment of the industry.
The Federated Co-Operative Association at its annual meeting on March 7 unanimously condemned Petro-Canada's attempt to acquire co-op outlets. The Liberal Government's national energy policy in 1980 stated:
The Government of Canada believes that the oil and gas sector is a unique case and that special measures are needed to ensure Canadian control.
March 21, 1985

1 pose the following questions. Was it the intent of the previous administration for this Crown corporation to acquire a completely Canadian-owned segment of the industry? Has Petro-Canada lost sight of its original mandate? While our very capable Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) works in co-operation with the provinces to solve the injustices of the Liberal's destructive energy policy, it is evident that it will take time for our Government to get Crown corporations under control. I agree that Petro-Canada must learn to stand on its own feet, but not at the expense of the Canadian-owned co-operatives.



APARTHEID


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, police in South Africa today killed 14 people when they attempted to demonstrate in remembrance of the Sharpe-ville massacre of 25 years ago. On March 21, 1960, police opened fire on a crowd which was peacefully demonstrating against the pass laws. There were 69 people killed, including eight women and ten children, and 180 people wounded, including 31 women and 19 children. According to medical evidence, the police continued firing after the people began to flee, because while 30 shots had entered the wounded or dead from the front of their bodies, no less than 155 bullets had entered through their backs.
I ask all Hon. Members to reflect on the meaning of the Sharpeville massacre, the further slaughter of 14 people today, and the hundreds of people killed in the intervening 25 years. The same Government is in power and, in spite of minor changes, the same inhuman system of apartheid denies basic human rights to the black people of South Africa.
1 urge the Government, in conducting our foreign policy review, to remember that it was the Government of South Africa which initiated violence. I ask the Government to remember Sharpeville, to remember Nelson Mandela and others who were imprisoned for their people. I ask it to remember the 14 people who were gunned down by the police today.
Surely the time has come to take a strong stand and push for an international policy of disinvestment-


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



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: In a few hours, Mr. Speaker, Canadian men and women will be watching the
proceedings of the National Economic Conference to be held here in Ottawa.
One hundred and thirty-six participants-economic leaders from all Canadian circles-will review the economy, our heavy deficit burden and the employment situation. This economic summit is a ray of hope for the many Canadians now without jobs, without work. Time has come not to search for causes but rather to find alternate solutions and express a national consensus. Mr. Speaker, that is what Canadians expect. They want jobs, they want work, they want to live in dignity without having to ask for hand-outs from society. Such is the ultimate challenge of this weekend's conference.
There is not only one solution to all our woes, and the day-to-day reality calls for the implementation of a whole series of solutions. Canada's predicament will test our economic partners' willingness to co-operate. We must set our petty differences aside and approach the National Economic Conference with our attention riveted on the underprivileged in our society, on men, women and youths who are counting on us to find the jobs which will raise their hopes for the future.
Mr. Speaker, the 136 leaders who will get together this weekend deserve our full support in their quest for solutions.



CULTURAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, as you will remember, yesterday an important and large delegation of personalities who work in the field of arts and culture were here on the Hill to voice their grievances with regard to the drastic cuts which were imposed on them by the Government. Unfortunately, these well known artists had to head back home dissatisfied with the type of meeting they had here.
The Government, which is allegedly bent on consultation with all groups in the country, certainly acted in an odd fashion. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) snubbed the artists, refusing to meet with them, busy as he was celebrating his forty-sixth birthday. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), when asked a question in this House by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), refused the challenge to act as the champion of these people in the arts and cultural community. Further, when asked to increase his financial support for arts and culture, the Minister stated that he was not going to grant artists welfare. The artists of Canada are not asking for welfare, Mr. Speaker. All they are trying to achieve is to earn a living.

March 21, 1985


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



NATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, an historic National Economic Conference is to be launched this evening. It is historic in that 136 participants were named on the recommendation of a private sector committee. It is historic in that the participants will come from every province and region. They will come from all walks of life and represent ordinary citizens, artistic groups, business, labour, the church, and volunteer organizations. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, these participants have an onerous job, but in the final analysis their mandate is to create jobs. They will do this by recommending policies which will create a climate of sustained economic renewal.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have shown great courage and faith in initiating such a conference, knowing that many wide-ranging, differing views would be expressed. Many Canadians will be watching this historic conference with the hope and prayer that it will help build a better Canada. Every Hon. Member of the House will know that a tremendous amount of consultation, conciliation, and co-operation will be required. I am sure that every Hon. Member looks forward to positive results from the conference.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, while the New Democratic Party welcomes Canadian participation in the advancement of space technology, we ask that Parliament consider the wide-ranging implications of the Government's decision to contribute $8.8 million to Phase B of the space station project. A number of weeks ago the Congressional Centre of Technology Assessment described the Reagan administration's objectives regarding the space station as "diffuse and imprecise". Other members of the scientific community say that the space station is not necessarily the most cost efficient method of obtaining new scientific information in space. Most important, there has been no firm guarantee yet offered by the Reagan administration that the space station will not merely become an extension of star wars. The U.S. military has been quoted as saying that it may be willing to board the platform at a later date.
Continued participation in the space station by Canada has long-term implications for the Government's commitment to budgetary restraints. We do not yet know whether money for
other forms of research and development will suffer as a result of Canada committing itself so completely to space research. Canadians should be concerned about the desire of the Reagan administration to promote the "commercialization of space", especially since no direct benefits are to include the rest of the international community.
Canada should consider setting conditions for our involvement in the space station project. Parliament should review this matter, and the Government should bring it before this House-


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of numerous hearings on farm tax issues in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, it has become very clear that any credit assistance program for farmers should be targeted primarily toward producers in financial distress. Some 15 per cent to 20 per cent of farmers in my home province of Manitoba, that is more than 600, are in serious financial circumstances. Therefore I strongly urge the Government to introduce a debt set-aside program in order to relieve targeted farmers of their oppressive debt load long enough for them to get back on their feet.
The Farm Credit Corporation estimates that a debt set-aside program could move more than 14,000 financially distressed Canadian farmers into a position, after five years, of having a reasonable chance of success.
I also wish to point out that more and more farmers are turning over their land to the FCC, then leasing 'it back in order to stay in business. Therefore I recommend the following: first, that these farmers be allowed to sign leases of more than one year in duration, perhaps three to five years; second, that these farmers retain the option of buying back their own land.
Canadian farmers do not want hand-outs. What they want and deserve is a little help over a very rough period.



HOUSING


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the housing situation for many people in Canada is becoming desperate. But what has been the response of the federal Minister responsible for housing? A cut-back of federal money where it is needed most. Five thousand units of social housing have been cut; 4,000 co-op units, and 1,000 from the rural and native housing program. There are waiting lists of people
March 21, 1985

needing affordable and decent housing in every major city in Canada.
First, we had a meeting of housing Ministers last November which produced no result. After a long, cold winter we get a consultation report. Now Erik Nielsen is working on a housing report. Nobody is in charge of housing for the Government, and nobody in the Conservative Government cares about the working poor, single parents, the homeless, or our senior citizens, who wait and wait on lists, while the Minister dithers and the Government delays. In the City of Ottawa there are
2,000	families waiting for social housing and the list grows by 200 per month. In Toronto there are over 11,000 families waiting.
The Ontario Government has shown, by its ill-conceived housing policies, that it does not want or deserve responsibility for social housing. We need leadership from the federal Government, not delay. We want action and financing now.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, at least nine families in Canada have found a way to cope with the cost of living. They control $9 billion worth of corporate assets, or 46 per cent of the TSE 300. According to the Canadian Bankers' Association, this poses serious dangers for our financial markets. I would like to identify just a few of those dangers. It means a concentration of wealth which works against competition, and therefore against the consuming public. It means diverting human and financial resources away from the creativity and innovation our economy needs. It means at least a potential for excessive economic power as well as excessive political power. The most serious feature of all is its exponential growth.
Most of this concentration has occurred in the past 15 years. If the trend continues, Canada may find itself under a new form of the old Family Compact. Its dangerous potential has been signalled by the Canadian Bankers' Association. It is time for Parliament to alert itself. This is not a matter of right or left, of mediocrity seeking revenge against success. It is a concern about preserving competition and keeping free enterprise free.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, tonight marks the beginning of the national economic summit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allmand:: They should wait until it is over to see what are the results.


Donald James Johnston: The sheep are still alive, Mr. Speaker. [English]
Obviously the Government would not have embarked upon this costly undertaking if it did not have a clear idea of what it wished to accomplish through this extraordinary costly enterprise of a national economic summit, drawing, as an Hon. Member said earlier, from all parts of the country.
In the absence of the Prime Minister who, I understand, is preparing for this evening's events, would the Minister of Finance please tell the House the three most important accomplishments he hopes to see emerge from the session which begins this evening?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I might say to the Hon. Member, when he talks about this very costly conference, that I understand the budget for this very costly conference in today's dollars is the same as it was for the conference he had a few years back in 1982 dollars. So we are being very thrifty in the way we are putting on a major economic event.
In response to the specific question the Hon. Member posed, we are looking for ways of creating jobs. We are looking for specific ideas and proposals on how we can get greater employment. Specifically, those elements of our society who have great difficulty in getting employment, being women's groups, native organizations, and youth, are represented at our conference and we expect we will get some very good ideas from them. As well, on Saturday afternoon there will be a major discussion on trade initiatives and the direction the country should be going regarding trade. So I think the Hon. Member will be very pleased with the results of this conference.


BUDGET PRESENTATION INQUIRY
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am pleased but I find it remarkable, after consultation with all these groups, that this kind of conference is needed to bring forth the ideas which are already in the possession of the Minister. That aside, I think what he is telling us, for those who did not catch it, is that this is the last in a series of political extravaganzas hosted by the grateful

March 21, 1985
Oral Questions
taxpayers, extravaganzas which are costing us millions of dollars.
That being said, let me ask the Minister of Finance this.


Mr. Oberle:: What did Donald Macdonald cost us?


Donald James Johnston: Yesterday he advised the press that some of the ideas would probably be incorporated into his Budget. More important, he is alleged to have hinted that on Saturday afternoon he might announce the date of the Budget, not here in the House where it is supposed to be announced, Mr. Speaker, but at an economic conference held in Ottawa. Will the Minister please assure everyone in this House that he will respect the privileges of Members and, if he knows the date, tell us the date now. Then he can announce it on Saturday afternoon?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should know by now that we believe we were elected on September 4 to consult with Canadians and discuss proposals with Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The conference this weekend will not be the last, but will be one of many examples of full consultation with Canadians. That has and will be the hallmark of the Mulroney Government.
With respect to the Member's question about the timing of the Budget, I said to the media yesterday that I expected that I would be announcing the timing of the Budget shortly.


Donald James Johnston: It was my understanding that she had hinted he would announce the budget date on Saturday afternoon. I hope that his statement todays mean that that will not take place.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO OFFICIALS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that some ideas from the conference would be incorporated into the Budget. Only yesterday the Prime Minister referred to it as an April Budget. The Minister's own officials have admitted that nothing coming out of this conference will be timely enough to be incorporated in the budgetary process.
What does the Minister say about the hyprocisy of the whole exercise of bringing these people at time and expense to Ottawa? Will he tell them that it is a sham, and stop trying to pull the wool over their eyes? Will he treat this conference for what it is, another exercise in public relations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear. I decide what is going to be in the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I said that the good ideas that I expect to come from this conference this weekend that I am able to incorporate into a Budget will be incorporated into a Budget. I would expect that the Hon. Member would be listening very carefully for those good ideas. I hope he will raise them in the House next week.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF BUDGETARY CUTBACKS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. Like most of my other colleagues on both sides of the House, I sincerely hope that this summit will be an unqualified success. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance indicated that new cuts were to be announced. In order to provide for more informed discussion at the summit, could the Minister of Finance inform this House as well as the summit participants about the extent of the cuts he has in mind and in which sector they will be felt most, so that summit participants can then make appropriate suggestions with some understanding of the Minister's game plan?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Hon. Member for his kind words about the success of this conference. I am sure that it will be a success.
I believe that the Hon. Member, in his question, is really asking what will be in the Budget. Obviously that is something I cannot say now and, as a former Minister of Finance in the Province of Quebec, he should understand that.
[ Translation]


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS-EFFECT OF BUDGETARY CUTBACKS
Raymond Garneau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Finance did not want to be asked this kind of question, he should have remained silent yesterday and refrained from giving any hints about the contents of his budget. My question is as follows:
Since there will be cutbacks-the Minister having said so- will these new cuts remove any hope Quebec and Manitoba may have had of seeing the present guarantee formula for establishing the equalization base maintained, the loss of which would mean that Manitoba would lose about $70 million and Quebec more than $250 million?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the press conference I was asked whether there would be further action on controlling or reducing the size of the deficit. I said yes, that we had set out the course in the November 8 statement, that we will manage the deficit to a much greater extent than had been the case with the previous Government, and that that will involve a further amount of
March 21, 1985

spending cuts and other means of saving on government spending.
I have answered the Hon. Member's question about equalization on a number of occasions. There will be a decision on that before the end of this month. People in the Province of Quebec and the Province of Manitoba will understand that as soon as I can come up with that decision.


EFFECT OF BUDGETARY CUTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He has just acknowledged what he and the Prime Minister have said outside the House, that there will be additional cuts in the forthcoming Budget.
One of the policy papers by Professor McCallum that was released for the upcoming conference states, with reference to such cuts: "This option leads to large increases in unemployment lasting for several years. There is a danger too that the policy would have long-run negative effects on economic growth."
The Government has already announced over $4 billion in cuts before Christmas and is now planning to make more cuts in the coming Budget. When all the evidence, whether it is Great Britain, British Columbia, or this paper for the conference itself, suggests that such cuts produce fewer jobs and not more, why is the Government doing this?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member is out of touch with the people of Canada. There are many Canadians who feel that this Government can be run with less money and be more effective if we manage the process more effectively. It is in that context that we propose to continue the process that we set out in November to get a greater degree of control over the finances of the country. As a result, his children, our children, and the children of all Canadians will not have this enormous burden of debt that is continually growing faster than the economy. They will not face a future where the flexibility of the Government is totally impaired by the size of the interest on the government debt. Today that interest uses up $1 out of every $3 in taxes that are paid.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister did not answer the question at all. He made reference to our children. I say to him that that is exactly what Bill Bennett said three years ago. As a result, all kinds of children are looking for jobs in British Columbia because he has already done what the Minister of Finance wants to do to Canada.


ECONOMIC CONFERENCE DISCUSSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the consultative process. The Minister is saying that this conference is something more than a public relations exercise. Considering that he already announced that there will be more cuts, no matter what
Oral Questions
happens at the conference and what people may say about the question of cuts, is the Minister not being totally cynical? Might he not just as well tell these people to stay at home because they are wasting their breath since the Government has already made up its mind?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Hon. Member could have read the agenda for the economic conference, because the extent of that agenda is far broader than what will or should be done about the question of the deficit. We will be talking about the problems of unemployment among different groups, as I indicated in a previous answer. We will be talking about the trade issue, and the whole question of competitiveness in a very tough competitive world today.
Let me return to the specific question the Hon. Member posed about whether we are closing out alternatives. We are not closing out alternatives. I am very interested in hearing the comments of people who are at the conference on how we should address the problem of the deficit, including how to get it under greater control, how fast we should move, and what areas we should address in getting control of the deficit.
A number of different proposals have been put forward in that respect, as has been indicated in other papers besides the one referred to by the Hon. Member.


TAX EXPENDITURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has asked for proposals, I will give him one. It concerns a subject that is not covered in any of the background papers. It is a subject that the Auditor General has referred to the Government and its predecessor a number of times. It is the $30 billion to $50 billion that go out each year in tax expenditures, mostly to corporations that have no accountability. Why is there not a paper discussing the tax expenditures, discussing the loopholes and the benefits that go to corporations without guaranteeing that we get jobs?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Have it all ways, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Why isn't the Government having a hard look at this loss of revenue instead of cutting back on social programs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the Hon. Member that I do propose to address that. I will be addressing that as part of the budget process this year. I would remind the Hon. Member-he puts the emphasis on these loopholes, as he calls them-that there are many so-called tax expenditures which are received by individuals with a wide range of income. I caution him to be very careful on how he addresses his question. Some of the people I am sure he would not want to attack are benefiting by some of these tax expenditures.


John Edward Broadbent: Bring in a minimum tax.

March 21, 1985
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We in this Party will be very very careful when we decide any changes in tax policy.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TALKS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.

As unbelievable as it sounds, three days after President Reagan appointed Mr. William Brock to be his personal representative in Canada-U.S. trade talks, the President yesterday promoted Mr. Brock to the post of Labour Secretary, putting these important trade talks on hold. I would like to know whether the Government was informed of this planned change in Quebec City, or was the announcement of these high level trade talks just another act in the public relations production?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that I was advised of the change prior to the public announcement being made.


INQUIRY WHETHER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE APPOINTED
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I know the Minister is supposed to be part of a team, but now it seems there is only one person on that team. Since the Minister is getting advance notice from the U.S. Government, I would like to know whether he is going to have a partner appointed to his negotiating team and when, in order to pursue these allegedly important negotiations he wants to conduct with the Americans.

The Minister does not know the answer.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour on the eve of the economic summit which, among other things, according to the rhetoric, is supposed to yield a new era of co-operation and cousultation. Does the Minister of Labour approve of Canadian National Railways laying off 400 people during a time when the unions and the company are in conciliation about a no-layoff clause? Does he regard that as part of the new era of labour management relations promised by the Prime Minister, namely, the laying off of 400 people when they are in conciliation about no layoffs?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not expect me to comment upon actions taken, during conciliation, as he has just conceded.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was not asking him to comment on actions taken during negotiations; I was asking him to comment on actions taken by a Crown corporation that affect 400 families across the country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, over 400 people were laid off with two weeks' notice, violating the spirit of the Canada Labour Code. This is the Minister of Labour. I want to know from him what he is going to do about that. Is the Government just giving us a lot of blarney about a new era of labour-management relations?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not have to raise my voice because the credibility of my argument will stand by itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member will understand that the Canada Labour Code provides protection for those workers, Mr. Speaker. If there has been a violation of the Labour Code, this Minister and this Government will operate under the statute.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that in due course my counterpart will be appointed by the American Government, and 1 am quite satisfied that he will be an excellent member of the new negotiating team.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How do you know it will be a he?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. 1 would like to bring to the attention of the Minister current practice by the Newfoundland Government which is antiwomen and anti-child, and, if not illegal, then certainly immoral. The Newfoundland Government has instituted a system whereby unemployed workers who need extra help with winter heating bills must sign a declaration to turn over all or
March 21, 1985

part of their child tax credit to the Government before any financial aid is provided. Will the Minister ask the Premier today to cease and desist this practice immediately?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for bringing this matter to my attention. This was not known to me. I will check into the matter right after the Question Period.


LOSS OF ELECTRICITY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister give some positive answers today, and I hope he will be able to, to Shirley Parsons, a 34-year-old single parent of two, whose earnings from her part-time K-Mart job and unemployment insurance total less than $500 a month, whose monthly heating bill from the Newfoundland Light and Power Company averages $250, who will today have her electricity cut off because she will not sign, and whose pleas have been ignored by the Premier of Newfoundland himself?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that I cannot comment on a specific case. I have given her the assurance that I will check into the matter, and that assurance stands.


UNITED STATES SUGAR QUOTAS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. Has the President of the United States taken steps since last weekend to revoke the global sugar quotas as they affect Canadian companies that would normally be importing or exporting, if you want, into the United States?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that discussions are continuing between the two countries, and particularly so in light of the President's pledge to give and render whatever help he can to Canada with respect to exemption from the worst effects of the legislation.


EFFECT OF QUOTAS ON CANADIAN WORKERS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that there are literally hundreds of workers in Canada who have been affected detrimentally by the unfair imposition of those quotas? Is the Minister prepared today to approach the President of the U.S. one more time in an effort to get the Americans to live up to the obligation which they themselves claim they represent, that being not to restrict access unfairly to their markets?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have advised the Hon. Member that we are
Oral Questions
well aware of the plight of the workers who are being laid off by this legislation. As I previously advised him, we are having discussions with the Americans to see what can be done to alleviate the situation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
The economic situation has been a series of ups and downs in recent years, and a good many farmers are trying to cope with inflation and long-term loans. Can the Minister tell the House whether his Department, through the Farm Credit Corporation, intends to introduce a new farm mortgage program, something along the lines of the Small Businesses Loans Act, with a view to ensuring stability and protection for our essential agricultural industry?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that this Government has introduced a number of measures to assist those in the agricultural industry. He will also know that this Government has introduced a number of specific measures directed to assist those farmers in financial difficulty.
The latest measure was the introduction of the shared risk mortgage plan which will go into effect on April 1. If interest rates increase by 5 per cent that will mean under the new plan the increase to the farmer would be shared on a 50-50 basis, to a maximum of 2.5 per cent. If it goes beyond that, then the federal Government assumes the additional cost.


PROPOSED EEC TARIFF ON BLUEBERRIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, and I gave him notice of it. As he is aware, the Canadian Government imposed a quota on beef imported from the European Economic Community. In retaliation, the EEC is intending to place, on April 15, 1985, a 25 per cent tariff on blueberries. Would the Minister indicate to the House what he and his Government intend to do in order to protect this very important industry in Nova Scotia?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very serious question. Indeed I share his concern. Of course action has been taken as a result
3248

March 21, 1985
Oral Questions
of the Government making a very responsible decision and invoking a meat import law. At the moment negotiations are continuing between Canadian negotiators and those on behalf of the EEC. I am hopeful that we will reach a decision which will leave us in a position where we would still assist the Canadian beef industry, but not at the expense of other producers.


EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT IN NOVA SCOTIA
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will not play one region off against another, or one industry off against another. I remind him that there are 800 full-time jobs in Nova Scotia.
Would the minister indicate to the House who are our negotiators in Brussels? What is the Cabinet directive which he has given them to complete the negotiations? Will he assure the House that the blueberry industry in Nova Scotia will not receive any economic sanctions as a result of allowing this 25 per cent tariff to take place, if in fact it does take place?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member to respect the fact that indeed negotiations are under way. They will continue, and we hope to reach a satisfactory decision. The Hon. Member can be assured that we will not play one region against another, because the Government of the country changed on September 4 last.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, the chief chopper of the Conservative Party. He will be aware that his committee has recommended the destruction of the Canadian Fishing Vessel Insurance Program. This program affects fishermen on both coasts. There are now 10 days remaining for fishermen to make a decision on whether to find private insurance or to learn whether they will have public insurance through the Government of Canada program. Many fishermen face the possibility of losing their vessels and 100 per cent increases. What will the Government do for those people who will lose their vessels or pay extremely high rates for private insurance, if the Government does not continue the program?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the Hon. Member's question is a dishonest portrayal of the actual facts. Where he gets the basis for citing a recommendation, I know not. I can tell him that the first report of the Task Force on Program Review is now in the Cabinet process and is being considered.


PROGRAM REVIEW
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that 1,500 Newfoundland fishermen and other fishermen in the country have been told by the Government of Canada that that public program is going down the drain. However, it will not confirm it, and we are now within 10 days of April 1. How can the Minister sit there and deny that the restraint program, which his committee is forcing upon other government Departments, includes the dropping of this program when there has already been a Government of Canada announcement that that is the intention?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the exercise which the Task Force on Program Review has under way is not a restraint program. It was decribed in the press release of September 18. If the Hon. Member would refer to that wording, he might bring himself up to date. It has been described by me in the House of Commons as an exercise to improve delivery of programs, over 1,000 of them, to client groups; to eliminate overlap; to eliminate duplication; to foster better relations with the provinces; and to improve efficiency. Now, much to their despair, it might result in some savings. However, if those savings result, all the better for the Government, it seems to me. What we are doing, in a word, is injecting management and order into the affairs of the Government of Canada.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I am sure he will recall, in the dying days of the last Parliament, that strong assurances were given by the Standing Committee on Transport to Canadian National pensioners that their problems, and indeed what they feel are injustices, would be dealt with quickly by Parliament. When might the reference be made to the standing committee to deal with this problem?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raises this question. It is true that it is a matter which preoccupies the Government, that is, the issue of CN pensions. For some time now the terms of reference for a referral to the standing committee have been in the hands of both opposition Parties. I understand the NDP has agreed. However, the Liberal Party seems to be stonewalling the issue. I wish it would make up its mind. At the present time its lack of concurrence is holding up the referral of this very important matter to the Standing Committee on Transport.
March 21, 1985


RAILWAYS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Before asking the question, I want to assure the House that the remarks he just made do not reflect the reality, if this issue can be resolved in parliamentary committee, and the Liberals are anxious to find a solution to the CN staff pension problem. My question has to do with CN workers laid off by this Government, not with retired CN employees. I would ask the Minister to explain why 474 CN workers have just been laid off, considering that in answer to a question I asked him on February 26, the Minister assured me and the House that negotiations between the company and the employees were ongoing and that CN workers did not have any reason to be concerned over job security. How come they have now been laid off?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the question, I hope 1 can take the Hon. Member's assurance as giving approval to the reference to the standing committee. It would be a signal which would allow the work of the standing committee to begin examining CN pensions. I hope he has the support of his colleagues, particularly that of his House Leader.
With respect to the second part of his question, it is not the Government which has laid off 474 workers; it is the management of CN. The reason the layoffs took place is simply because there has been a tremendous fall off in traffic-a 30 per cent decline in grain traffic, a 12 per cent decline in coal, and the prospects are not very promising. I do not think anyone is happy or pleased about the layoffs. I have asked the President of CN to ensure that all matters relating to labour adjustment, early retirement, and all such things will be taken into consideration so that the impact is not severe.
[ Translation]


TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CN EMPLOYEES TRANSFERABLE TO VIA RAIL
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister said in his answer that he had given guidelines to the CN. I am not sure if that is what he said but, in any case, the Crown corporation legislation provides that if the Minister issues guidelines he must table them in the House. I would therefore ask the Minister to explain how it is that, in the Montreal region alone, some 10,000 jobs in transport and aeronautics may be lost as a result of cutbacks announced by the Government.
With that in mind, is the Minister prepared to issue guidelines to Crown corporations, particularly the CN, so that there will be no lay-offs until the matter of transfer of responsibili-
Oral Questions
ties of CN employees who might go to VIA Rail has been settled? Second, is the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I heard one question.


André Ouellet: Second, is the Minister prepared to-


Mr. Speaker:: No, no! That is enough!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is really confused. I think it would take a Houdini to sort out his convoluted question. The fact of the matter is that he is mixing up the VIA Rail issue which, quite frankly, has nothing to do with the layoffs ordered by CN management relating to the fall off in traffic. I should remind the House that VIA will be hiring more people than the 225 laid off in the original instance, thanks to the restoration of rail passenger service.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Member talked about directives from the Minister to the management of CNR. Naturally the CNR advised me about their intention regarding the layoffs. I asked for assurance that they will take every necessary precaution to ensure that the impact will be minimal and that early retirement and all other avenues related to labour adjustment will be taken into consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Minister, fair is fair.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the matter of patronage. Earlier in Question Period today the Minister of Finance said that he believed that the Government could cut costs. Can the Minister of Agriculture explain how, by changing, name after name, lawyers working for the Farm Credit Corporation, and the fact that officials have said that this is disruptive to the process and that it is necessary to train these lawyers, will cut government costs?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the Hon. Member's mind at ease. He will find that indeed some of the changes that have taken place and will take place will result in extremely competent lawyers in the FCC. The lawyers that will be appointed or recommended will not require any training process '"hatsoever.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Unlike the NDP, they will have their degrees.

March 21, 1985
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my following question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, although I hear the quips of the Government House Leader. It is interesting to note that Hnatyshyn and Company is one of the new firms getting business.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Great lawyers.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Changing firm after firm of lawyers, whether it be CMHC or FCC, is costing Canadian taxpayers money. It is creating delays and creating loss. How can the Government keep doing that? When is the gravy train going to stop?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than to reiterate the response that was given by my colleague, and to assure the House that only the highest level of professional ability and skills will be retained to discharge the responsibilities in that regard which, I am sure, they will do far more efficiently and at much less cost.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. With respect to the negotiations between Air Canada and the Canadian Airline Employees Association, Air Canada demands layoff of fulltime passenger agents before part-time workers and unlimited hiring of part-time workers at a salary cut of 20 per cent and for a 12-hour week, leaving part-time workers ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Is this how the Minister plans to honour the Government's commitment to affirmative action?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as you know, there are negotiations that are currently under way on that issue. The point that has been made by the Hon. Member is somewhat inaccurate. I have asked Air Canada about this because it arose in an earlier question. They have assured me that such is not the case.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given that Crown corporations are part of the Government's employment equity proposals and that whatever Air Canada proposes, which is much closer to what I said, is a backward step affecting 2,700 workers, 66 per cent of whom are women, does the Minister accept this kind of a backward step? If not, can she give some idea how the Minister and her staff can stop this regressive step with regard to women and affirmative action?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member was in the House when we discussed this issue with regard to employment equity the other day. She knows that Crown corporations are being asked to have implementation plans ready by September of this year and that they will be required to do their first reporting within a year following that. I know that Crown corporations are going to take that mandate very responsibly and they are going to see that work that was not done, and what was not enforced by the previous regime, will now be carried out.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We were told that income tax returns are being processed earlier than ever. Almost a half million low-income Canadians get their income tax refunds cashed by the tax discounters. Given that this is being done so quickly, the 15 per cent rule will really give the discounters an interest rate of 200 per cent. They will earn about $90 million this year. Has the Minister yet completed the study that he promised, and when we will get some action to stop this kind of rip-off?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have previously indicated that we are now in the process of completing these consultations, that part of these involved the provinces, in view of the fact that it is at their request that the legislation had been introduced in the first place, and that as soon as these consultations are over, we would gladly introduce legislation to that effect.


PROTECTION OF LOW-INCOME MOTHERS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that those consultations will not help these people this year. Since federal legislation already prohibits the transference to third parties of family allowance, old age pension, and Canada Pension Plan cheques, so eliminating the tax discounters from profiting from any part of those benefits, will the Minister consider extending the same regulation at least to protect those low-income mothers whose entire tax refund comes from the child tax credit?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that we will be pleased to consider each and every possible way to improve this legislation.
March 21, 1985


FORESTRY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry. Millions of acres of northern Ontario forests are threatened by jack pine and spruce budworm infestation, involving hundreds of millions of forest products and tens of thousands of jobs. Is the Department now recommending that a control program be put in place?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the concern of the Hon. Member about the kind of devastation that follows an onslaught by spruce budworm or the pine budworm. We have been working with the Department of Natural Resources on that issue. A great deal of research has been done on it. We tried to help in the process of getting chemicals and BT re-registered. The decision, however, will rest with the provincial Government on whether to have a spray program. Naturally we have been working with that Government.
Business of the House


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be pleased to know that negotiations have proceeded extremely well as far as the ERDA agreement with British Columbia is concerned. I believe that an announcement will be made very shortly.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary question to ask the Minister of State for Forestry. I wonder if he could rise and tell the House whether or not British Columbia has now agreed to sign a five-year $300 million Canada-B.C. reforestation agreement. While he is on his feet-


Some Hon. Members:: Short.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, could he confirm that?


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect, I do not believe the Minister will get to his feet at all because that is not a supplementary question.
*
* *


USE OF BIOLOGICAL INSECTICIDE
Maurice Brydon Foster: The Department of Agriculture has already approved the BT biological insecticide and consultations have taken place throughout northern Ontario. Still the Ontario Government procrastinates on making a decision on whether to implement a program. Will the Minister contact the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and urge on him an immediate decision to go ahead with the control program, in view of the millions of acres of forests which are at stake and the hundreds of thousands of jobs involved in the whole matter?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can rest assured that we have been negotiating and discussing this matter with the Minister of Natural Resources. I again wish to reiterate that the decision will rest with that level of Government. Public hearings have been held on the use of that. Certainly we encourage that, if that is the wish of that Government.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Word is out the negotiations are not going too well with British Columbia. In fact the Minister is no longer going to sign the ERDA agreement for $650 million. The ball is rolling back the other way. Can the Minister give the House an update? Are we at $500 million, or $400 million? Where does ERDA now stand with British Columbia?


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, March 20, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to tell us what business he intends to call for the coming week. I would also like to have the Government House Leader confirm that neither he nor the Minister of Transport need the prior consent of the Liberal Party in order to present a motion to the House to refer to a committee the question of the CN pensioners. I would ask him when he will do that and take on his responsibilities.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition will know, I take my responsibilities with great seriousness. I try to consult with him in particular with respect to expeditious dealings regarding House business time. Indeed, he will know that I did give him a draft resolution with respect to the reference to committee of the CN pensioners motion for his approval in consultation with the very distinguished Party

March 21, 1985
Business of the House
critic. As the Hon. Member will recall, the purpose of that was to make sure that we could have the matter referred to the committee forthwith and not necessarily utilize the time of the House for debate on a motion which may not be to the satisfaction of the Official Opposition. It was purely from the point of view of trying to conduct affairs on a co-operative or consultative basis that I presented the draft to the Hon. House Leader some time ago.
I understood that I was to receive a response regarding the suitability of that motion. To this point in time I have not yet received a response. 1 believe the Party critic indicated today during Question Period that he is satisfied with having the matter go ahead by unanimous consent without debate when presented. I will try to make arrangements for a mutually satisfactory time to have the matter brought to the House.
With respect to the House business for the forthcoming week, I would like to take this opportunity to announce that Monday, March 25, will be the seventh and final allotted day in the current period of supply. There will therefore be votes on supply at the end of Monday.
With respect to the business for tomorrow and the rest of next week until the next House business statement is made, we will conlcude the consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act. Following Bill C-24, the House will begin debate at second reading on Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following Bill C-27, I will call Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada.
It is anticipated that the Small Businesses Loans Act, Bill C-23, will be reported back from committee in a few minutes' time. There continue to be discussions between the Parties with respect to the disposition of this Bill, and depending upon the outcome of those discussions, I may make a further announcement later this day with respect to the business for tomorrow. I believe the Official Opposition is satisfied with the arrangement that was discussed by the critics and we are waiting to see if the New Democratic Party agrees to the disposition of that Bill tomorrow.
As always, we will monitor the progress made with respect to the business that I just outlined, and if any changes are to be made, further announcements will be forthcoming.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the matter raised by the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition, the question of pensions, I would suggest that it would be to everyone's advantage, including the pensioners, for the Official Opposition to indicate its position now. If so, we could have the motion brought forward. We agreed some weeks ago to proceed with this matter and we anticipated that it would be proceeded with expeditiously, knowing that there are many pensioners who hope to benefit as a result of the changes that we hope will take place.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to clarify some of the things mentioned by the Hon. Government House Leader. With respect to the Government's intention to present a motion to refer the CN pension situation to committee, we would like to see that done. If a motion is presented, we will have it dealt with expeditiously. We believe there should be a limited period of time for debate, perhaps one or two speeches per Party, and I think that would be a way of having it move very quickly to committee. However, there are some points that we think should be put on the record of the House of Commons regarding this important matter.
Second, I would say to the Government House Leader with respect to Bill C-23, the Small Businesses Loans Act, that while our critic has told me that he has received suggestions from the Minister responsible, he has not yet recommended an agreement. We are continuing to consult and I will be in touch with my hon. friend in that regard in the course of the day.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any more time of the House except to say that I appreciate having the information with respect to the response of the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding the CN pensioners' matter. I certainly will give the matter some consideration. I had thought that there would be ample opportunity in a very high-profile committee setting for Members of the Official Opposition to make their position known abundantly. That was the very purpose of trying to facilitate the passage of that motion through the House without using time which could be utilized on other issues. That is why I made the suggestion that we do it without debate. I will discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), and with the House Leader for the New Democratic Party immediately. We will try to get some action on this on behalf of those many, many Canadians who are affected by this important study.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the second report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in the House this afternoon to make a statement regarding
March 21, 1985

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. As most Members know, today is the 18th anniversary of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which the United Nations called upon its member states to observe annually as of March 21, 1967. Canada is also supporting the second decade of action to combat racism and racial discrimination adopted by the United Nations last year.
Comparatively, Canadian society is fundamentally tolerant and accommodating of the cultural and racial diversity that has become an increasing part of our social landscape and has enriched our lives as Canadians. We should not, however, be lulled into complacency. Racial discrimination is still present in our society, as numerous studies, such as Equality Now and the Abella report on Equality in Employment, have testified. There is, therefore, a need to be ever vigilant.
Canadians are determined to eliminate this phenomenon from their midst. The coming into force of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on equality rights on April 17, and Section 27 on the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians, are major steps that will afford better protection to minorities, including cultural and racial minorities.
The Government is committed to creating a climate of mutual tolerance among Canadians so that all of us, irrespective of our racial or ethnic origins, can contribute to and participate fully and equally in the life of our country for the benefit of all of our society. This commitment is clearly demonstrated by the number of major initiatives which we have undertaken in response to both the Abella and Equality Now reports.
The Government's positive response to the Abella report is a major step toward eliminating racial discrimination in federally-regulated employment. For example, visible minorities will for the first time be a target group for employment equity in the federal sector. That is a major breakthrough, since employment is such a critical part of life in our society.
The current deliberations of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission in the report entitled A Proposal for an Ethnic Broadcasting Policy for Canada will certainly reinforce the multicultural fabric of our nation.
The Government will also work co-operatively with other jurisdictions to eliminate discrimination. The Government is sponsoring the first Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conference on Multiculturalism, which will he held this May. That conference will explore how this co-operation can best be achieved. We are also discussing with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities what new initiatives can be undertaken to address the issue of racial discrimination at the municipal level.
Last October, Multiculturalism Canada and the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs co-sponsored a successful national symposium on policing in multicultural-multiracial urban communities. As a result, the association is making this the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination theme of its next annual conference, which will be held later this year, as part of its follow-up commitment.
In addition, we will continue to develop further new initiatives in a number of social areas that will make Canadians and their institutions open and equitable for all citizens, irrespective of their racial, ethnic or cultural backgrounds.
Canadians are realizing that Canada has become a culturally and racially diverse nation, populated by talented and capable people from all parts of the world. The people of a nation are its most important resource. The richness of our diversity is certainly our greatest asset which, allowed to flourish to its fullest potential, can benefit us all.
Canada as a nation has an enviable reputation in the world of which we can all be proud. Let us all work together to make it better.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Minister for giving us an advance copy of his statement. He will know that a week ago I was critical of one of his colleagues because I did not receive that statement in advance. I want to give credit where credit is due. As the Minister knows, providing advance copies permits members of the Opposition to comment more constructively and with more meaning on these statements.
I would also like to thank the Minister for making this statement in the House. By doing that, he gives the House of Commons an opportunity to make pronouncements on very important matters and to state before the Canadian people that this House is against all kinds of discrimination, especially racial discrimination.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: It is very important for all of us to show leadership in this respect. As the Minister pointed out in his statement, although much progress has been made in this country, problems still exist. Last year in the City of Montreal there was a serious problem with respect to our black taxi drivers, and a commission was set up by the provincial Government to deal with that problem. I also raised in this House the problem of a young black man who was refused entrance to a cafe in the City of Montreal. Problems still exist, and we must be ever-vigilant in dealing with those problems.
There have been countries in which great progress has been made. However, during times of unemployment and other crises there is always the tendency for this ugly side of humanity to express itself, and consequently we must forever work on these matters.
Today the Minister has principally dealt with racial discrimination. However, there are many other kinds of discrimination which are just as odious-religious, ethnic, linguistic, sexual and the discrimination against the handicapped. Recently in Canada we saw the terrible experiences of the Zundel trial and the Keegstra case in the west in which

March 21, 1985
Elimination of Racial Discrimination
discrimination was expressed against our Jewish brothers. Together we must bring in amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to hate literature. Also, during the last election campaign I noticed a backlash against some of our immigrant groups in Canada, especially the Asian and black people. I am afraid that there are still issues of linguistic discrimination for minorities in the Province of Quebec, and francophone minorities in other parts of the country.
Those of us who have been at the hearings of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development over the last couple of weeks when it has been discussing Bill C-31 will know of the many sad stories which were put before that committee. It gives us a real education regarding the discrimination which exists against Indian and native people in the country. If there is one area where there is a major problem, it is in the discrimination which is practised against many of our Indian and native people. When we visit our large cities and see the ghettos in which Indian people live and the problems that they have with employment and many other matters, it is obvious that that is one of the principal areas in which we must take action, whether it be in housing, education or other areas.
The Equality Now report to which the Minister referred was a major report of the last Parliament. It was a unanimous report of all Parties of the House. It was tabled a year ago with 80 recommendations. I am pleased to see that we are now beginning to move ahead to implement those recommendations.
It is interesting to note that in the last Parliament there were several committees and commissions which dealt with discrimination. The Obstacles report dealt with problems of the handicapped and the Equality Now report dealt with problems of visible minorities. The Special Committee which I chaired on Employment Opportunities for the '80s dealt with the problems of minority groups. Chapter 11 of the report dealt with employment problems.
When the Government announced its response to the Abella report last week, I indicated that we were pleased with certain of the proposals which were definitely moves in the right direction. However, we were concerned by the lack of an enforcement agency and sanctions. We were also concerned that the contract compliance provisions would only apply to 100 out of approximately 30,000 businesses which deal with the Government. We were also concerned that the proposals would only apply to 800 out of approximately 4,500 federally-regulated firms. Nevertheless, these are moves in the right direction and we will watch closely to see what happens with respect to the measures which have been announced by the Government.
Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes into effect on April 17. That will be a landmark-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I am afraid that his time has expired, unless the House will grant its unanimous consent for him to continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say that Section 15 has great significance because it will apply to all federal and provincial legislation. It will override any provincial or federal law which contains discrimination with respect to the target groups, including the visible minorities, women, senior citizens and so on. In his statement the Minister said that he would take action to get the provinces to comply in these matters. That is very important, because the federal Government only covers a small area of the total field.
I want to assure the Minister that we in this Party will give our full support in moving ahead in the fight against racial discrimination. The Minister will find that we will be behind any legislation which he introduces in this regard.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in recognizing the statement which was made today. Although this statement deals only with discrimination as it exists in Canada, I think we must recognize that we in Canada have a responsibility regarding discrimination in other parts of the world. We have to be ever vigilant against the tendency among those who would discriminate to force their will on what are frequently the minorities in other countries. It is unfortunate that we continually have to raise the problem of discrimination. That discrimination is not dead either here in Canada or in other countries around the world. It continues to rear its ugly head. It is only by virtue of these problems being constantly raised and by virtue of discussions we have inside and outside of this Parliament about discrimination which is practised not only in Canada but in other parts of the world, that we are able to cause those who would discriminate to jactitation.
It is important that we make those who would discriminate very nervous about their tendency and proclivity to cause harm to others who are perhaps unable to speak for themselves. Just today, for example, my colleague raised the situation in South Africa where 14 people were shot to death on the anniversary not only of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination but on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre. These 14 people were shot to death because they stood up against discrimination.
I want to say that this Parliament has an obligation to make known to the Governments of those countries with which we do business and which rely on us in many ways for the continuance of their economic well-being, that we will not sit idly by and watch while they undertake the kinds of measures which caused those 14 deaths. That applies not only to South Africa but to many other parts of the world. It applies, as Hon. Members will know, to the Soviet Union where we frequently find there is a measure of discrimination taken against individuals, particularly because of their religious beliefs, but not always.
As we recognize the day, we must also recognize not only the marginal successes-and there have been some-but the terrible failures. Although we stand up and say that this is an important day, the real importance of it will be measured only
March 21, 1985

when we can look inside and outside our country and see that the ugly head of discrimination has finally vanished from the international scene.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in his comments the Minister reminded the House that racial discrimination still exists in Canada, and that we must try, with the co-operation of various agencies, to remove and extirpate this cancer from our society.
I would like to ask the Minister the following question. Since the previous Government had a program to help people who felt their rights had been infringed upon, a legal aid program that provided financial assistance to people who wanted to take legal action to defend their rights before the courts, could the Minister inform the House whether, when he says that we are determined to wipe out this phenomenon, and considering the fact that Section 15 of the Constitution comes into effect on April 17, and that this section is directly concerned with the subject, he is prepared to recommend to Cabinet that the legal aid program be expanded to cover racial discrimination?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It is certainly something which has been contemplated in the minds of many people in this country. I would think-and once again, I am not a lawyer-that given what most people expect to be an increased work load which will very likely be undertaken, some form of compensation or help will have to be looked at and considered by Parliament at some point in time.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, not only are there problems of discrimination and racism which we attempt to deal with in Canada, but there are problems beyond the borders of Canada. In fact, the way we act often times carries a much more impressive message than the way we talk. I wonder if the Minister is prepared to look at some of our relationships with particular countries which practise, as part of their Constitution, racism and discrimination? I am referring to South Africa. Is the Minister prepared to use his influence within the Cabinet to make sure, for example, that South African Krugerrand gold coins are not imported into Canada and sold through Canadian banks to Canadian entrepreneurs?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, that question, I suppose, stretches the jurisdiction in terms of our discussion this afternoon. Certainly, the Cabinet itself, the Government and the House of Commons will want to do everything in their power to make sure that we are not only viewed properly outside of our country-which means, of course, cleaning up our own act; people are watching us from that point of view-but that we also show the world that we mean business in our outside dealings. I feel certain that Canada is well regarded in this area. The Hon. Member's comments will be taken into consideration. It is something with which certainly the Government itself would have to deal. At the present time, however, there is no indication that that will take place.
Elimination of Racial Discrimination


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, this past week there was a story in the press about a hotel in Prince George where one of the people working in that hotel indicated there was a policy of refusing entrance to all of the Indian people from a certain Indian band in northern British Columbia. I understant that there has since been an official retraction but I suspect that this is really just the tip of the iceberg. This is a situation which pops up every now and again and we become aware of the kind of systemic discrimination which often takes place against Indian people in many communities across Canada.
Would the Minister undertake an investigation into the situation at Prince George in order to make sure that Indian people are not discriminated against when they try to get accommodation in that city?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the Hon. Member is an important one. It also, I suspect, falls somewhat within the provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we are concerned that there is discrimination in any part of Canada and anything we as a Government can do to help the minorities in this country who are discriminated against-and certainly Indian people fall right within that category-we will endeavour to do.
Our whole thrust in acting as quickly as we have on the Abella Commission report, which deals primarily with native groups, women's groups, the handicapped and visible minorities, is to ensure that when we go out to support a group of people which have suffered discrimination, we will have something there to talk about; that we as a Government in effect have cleaned up our act. Only then, in my opinion, can we go out and point the finger at various groups of people. We are very sensitive and concerned about the issue and 1 will endeavour to get as much information on it as I can.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I also want to join my colleagues in congratulating the Minister on his statement. I think his declaration in principle . . . We are all for virtue and motherhood, but on page 2 of his statement, he again refers to the coming into effect on April 17 of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would like to elaborate on what my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) said about legal recourse.
The House is aware that the coming into effect of this section of our new Constitution is very significant for the enforcement of certain kinds of legislation. We know that, usually, victims of discrimination belong to minorities that, unfortunately, have too little clout. And now that the coming into effect of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is imminent, could the Minister give the House the assurance that when Section 15 becomes effective, we will know whether he is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and ensure that, as he said earlier, the rights and freedoms of individuals are truly protected and that the legis-

March 21, 1985
Elimination of Racial Discrimination lation is not just a piece of paper but a living reality for those Canadians who need this kind of protection?
To get back to the question put by my hon. colleague, we do not want to know whether there will be a program in a month of Sundays. What we want to know is whether, when the Bill receives royal assent, the Minister is going to put his money where his mouth is and ensure that a properly financed legal aid program will put some teeth into Section 15 of the Charter.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, that question would have been better directed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) because he is going to be the man dealing with this particular area. As the Hon. Member knows, the Minister of Justice has set up a select committee to study the charter and its implications. Of course, that will be something this committee will be dealing with.
To get directly to the Hon. Member's question, it is not practical, shall we say. We can all imagine the work load, because of the coming into effect of the charter, through a buildup of many different types of cases. None of us can envisage that without some assistance at some point in time, and certainly the Government will be looking at that, as I hope the Opposition and the committee itself will do, and the recommendations we receive will be dealt with.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in 1979 the UN Assembly designated the week beginning March 21 as the week of solidarity with people struggling against racism and racial discrimination. Indeed, today is the day that the City of Ottawa declared as the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. So my question to the Minister is very specific and once again deals with our performance and something which gives us credibility not only in Canada but also outside Canada, that being the code of behaviour for Canadian companies operating in South Africa.
These companies are supposed to file an accountability report on their compliance with that code of behaviour. As far as 1 know, Alcan is the only company which has filed that annual report since it was instituted. Can the Minister promise this House that he will at least go back to Cabinet and demand that Canadian companies like Bata Shoe and Falconbridge comply with that minimum standard of behaviour for which we ask?


Ian Deans: Which is required.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, it is required.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, my Cabinet colleagues involved in this particular matter, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), for example, and others are aware of this. We are in the process of monitoring the companies based on the work they do and how they deal with the conditions within South Africa.


John R. Rodriguez: They are not monitoring very well.


Jack Burnett Murta: As the Member knows, this is a very difficult situation.


John R. Rodriguez: How?


Jack Burnett Murta: Canadian companies-it is a difficult situation within South Africa.


John R. Rodriguez: For them to file?


Jack Burnett Murta: We are watching the situation and monitoring it.


John R. Rodriguez: People are watching you.


Jack Burnett Murta: I am sure that the Hon. Member will be satisfied with the outcome of the process which is taking place.
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: I must say I felt considerable concern when the Minister mentioned that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) had a committee that was dealing with the legal aid program. Since his Ministry comes under the Department of the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister ought to know that at least in the past, the Secretary of State has always been responsible for the legal aid program, and there was no screening by the Department of Justice with respect to this program. Did the Minister mean to say that authority over the legal aid program has been transferred from the Secretary of State, who is supposed to represent minorities in Cabinet, and relegated by the Minister, now that he has lost his authority over the program, to officials at the Department of Justice-is that what he is telling me?


Jack Burnett Murta: No, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I misinterpreted the hon. gentleman's earlier question. The heart and soul, as he says, of the protection of minorities in this country is now, always has been and always will be in the Secretary of State's Department. I can only tell the hon. gentleman that certainly if financial assistance is necessary-and we all expect it will be although only time will tell-the Government will deal with it in the most appropriate way possible in view of the fact that we are dealing with a very sensitive matter which involves minority rights and minorities across this country.


PETITIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by students of Laval University asking for a change in the government economic policy.
March 21, 1985


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 183.


Mr. Stackhouse: What are the current government expenditures in research and development on health care?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
In respect of the National Health Research and Development Program, $18,077,000 is being spent in the 1984-85 fiscal year on research and development and related scientific activities in the health care field.
In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned:
In the fiscal year 1984-85, $153,200,000 is being spent in research and development related to health care.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works; and the motion of Mr. Hockin (p. 3227).
Oil Substitution Act
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again in this debate. Yesterday 1 had an opportunity to urge the House to consider the possibility of allowing a six-month delay before Bill C-24 becomes law. Unfortunately, the way things are this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians have a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, and once again we must conclude that tyranny by the majority prevents us from properly debating this measure.
In view of their overwhelming majority, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite have decided once again to gag us, to impose closure on a Bill which is of vital importance to many Canadian families. Not only did they choose to drop a program which is very important in many localities in Canada- in mid-November to boot-but they also sprang this announcement on us without notice. They are now intent on preventing the House of Commons from giving due consideration to this Bill which concerns many families in all ridings.
Sure enough, the Government did not pay much attention to our speeches so far, and no amendment is forthcoming to make sure that the Canadian Oil Substitution Program will be extended until some time in September or October instead of ending on March 31. Mr. Speaker, when the Government is primarily concerned about the fact that March 31 marks the end of the fiscal year, we seriously wonder just why it announced in the middle of November that March 31 will be the end of a program which directly involves the construction industry as well as electrical and home heating contractors.
Mr. Speaker, you will certainly agree that if you were planning to replace your furnace, you would not do it in the middle of February. If you were planning to convert to natural gas, it is not at this time, when the ground is still frozen, that gas lines would be installed.
The people who are supposed to have all the answers therefore did not realize that, by cancelling a program in the middle of winter, they would prevent Canadian men and women who wished to use the oil conversion program to do so and would take away for all practical purposes, their opportunity to use the program.
During the debate, I heard many Members say that people have known of this deadline since November. I am pleased to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) among us since he is supposed to care about what happens to the poor in Canada. Since the grant did not cover 100 per cent of conversion costs, the Minister should realize that many families could not, in such a short time, put aside the money needed to undertake such a project. Many families could not afford to undertake immediately a project which could cost thousands of dollars. The word discrimination was mentioned a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-24 indeed discriminates against all those who were unable to save enough money between November and today to undertake conversion work in

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
their homes, and it is also discriminatory to provide so little time until the deadline, especially since the public was convinced that the program would be maintained until December 31, 1990. Because of this, I know of many people who had planned major renovations in their homes for next summer, but who were waiting until then to convert their heating system and stop being dependent on oil.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the situation is about the same in the Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins), and I am convinced that the situation is about the same in the Temiscamingue constituency. I can see the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins), and I am convinced that there are families with the same problems in his riding. It is quite cold in that region, and I am certain that very few people converted their heating system in February or March of this year. All these people will therefore be unable to apply under the oil substitution program.
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for concern since natural gas has just become available in certain regions. And we know how people are unwilling to accept changes. Those people who have just become users of natural gas-and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) who is in this House, will confirm that many areas of Canada and especially Quebec have just been connected with the natural gas system and that her department's interest in helping to finance the laying of natural gas branch lines was of course to have industrial conversions. But her department was certainly expecting several residential conversions. Instead of slashing the program, the Minister should realize that such conversions could not be carried out during the winter. She should know of course that the ground is frozen hard in most parts of Canada, except perhaps in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. But in all other regions, and certainly the Minister knows the situation in the Eastern Townships, for instance, because she herself has provided money for the installation of natural gas branch lines, she should realize that there was not enough time for people to make the conversion, that her announcement implied in the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) came too late, and that the entire construction industry, the electricians and the natural gas people, are asking that the program's termination date be changed.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons for requesting such an extension. By creating as she did an emergency situation, the Minister has actually caused what is called a shortage of equipment in many remote areas of Canada, where equipment can only be shipped by boat.


Miss Carney:: It is a money shortage.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Minister say it is a money shortage. She is a Member of Cabinet and she lets her colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) spend $56 million on army uniforms. The Minister should be ashamed of referring to a shortage of money. When she lets
the Minister of National Defence buy planes, at $10 million a piece, for her to travel around she should be ashamed! And if she has no power in Cabinet, if she does not have enough clout to save her department's money, she should not come in this House and try to insult Opposition Members who have concern for Canadians, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to see the Minister here, because we are going to tell her what the people in our constituencies think. Our constituents are saying that the Minister knows nothing about construction, that she does not know that a heating system is not to be converted during the winter, that she does not know that we have just been provided with natural gas. But this is what we want her to hear today. And I am pleased, because Hon. Members in her own party do not look as though they were going to tell her. Since I have been listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, very few Conservative Members have participated. They will not have me believe that the situation in their constituencies is any different from what it is in ours. They will not convince me for instance that the CHIP Program in their constituencies is having less success than elsewhere.
She is also talking about terminating the Canadian Home Insulation Program next year. A program that has met with an interesting success, for which her department had set a goal of 5 million homes. Now this program is halfway through, with 2.5 million homes that have been insulated. Does she intend to convince me that all of the other 2.5 million homes will be insulated in the coming year? I would like to believe that, Mr. Speaker, but I feel she is deluding herself. To that extent, it is amazing how far the Government will go in the way of cheese-paring. That program allowed thousands of Canadian home owners to conserve energy. Is there anything wrong with Canadian men and women conserving energy? It has helped us reduce our oil dependency. And it is an illusion to think that because there has been a slight decrease in the price of oil, this will last forever. I believe Canada cannot afford to depend too much on any form of energy. And the diversification effected by the program was precisely intended to reduce Canadian dependency on any one form, or a number of forms of energy. And in that sense ... I see that my friend from Champlain (Mr. Champagne) is arriving. I am sure that he will tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the negative effects his riding will get because this program is cut off. I am sure that he will refer to the electrical contractors, the plumbers and the people installing heating systems who tell him that it is senseless to cut it off in the middle of March because it is in the spring and in summer that construction is carried on in the constituency of Champlain. It is only in the constituency of the Minister that the work can be carried throughout the year, Mr. Speaker. This is the reason why she may not understand the ill effects of those cuts. Now the government has decided to muzzle the Members-
March 21, 1985

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me that the time allotted to me is unfortunately expired. I could have told you about the negative effects of the unilateral decision taken by the Minister but unfortunately due to the callousness of that government and because of closure, I am unable to continue my remarks on such an important issue.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly on Bill C-24. At the beginning of my remarks I would like to express a certain degree of frustration with the way in which things are going. On the one hand, there seems to be a great deal of publicity and media attention given to the Prime Minister's meeting with President Reagan which accomplished very little for the Canadian people. On the other hand, we are here debating cut-backs that are of basic importance to thousands of Canadians across the country and it seems that it is being done almost in a vacuum.
This Government seems very successful in one respect in that it is accomplishing media events. It does not seem to be directing its energy toward tackling the fundamental problems of our economy. When it does address the economy, it usually does so in a backward move.
We have to ask why the Government is taking such a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to the economy. The Government ostensibly gives the reason that it wants to cut back on the deficit and that is why the Government is cutting programs like this one which, as Members opposite acknowledge, have performed a useful function over the last few years. The Tories acknowledge they have been good programs and have helped Canadians. Yet the Tories cut these programs because they say they are concerned about the deficit. If they are so concerned about the deficit, Mr. Speaker, I wish they were a little more careful about the way they use government executive jets. It was reported in the news paper last week that some Cabinet Minister had to fly to Vancouver on a jet at a cost of $19,000. We have, on the one hand, this kind of extravagance and waste and, on the other hand, we are cutting back on programs that will affect the well-being of the ordinary people.
We can look at the issue that was brought up by one of my colleagues, the question of changing lawyers for the Farm Credit Corporation. In spite of the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) today, there will be a training period required, and this will be a further expense.
We see the Government cutting programs of demonstrated value. In addition to the two we are talking about today, I can cite such programs as the fishermen's insurance, which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) brought up today, or the cuts in the residential rehabilitation assistance program.
The programs we are talking about today covered by Bill C-24, involve oil substitution and the Canadian Home Insulation Program. These programs have been fundamentally
Oil Substitution Act
beneficial to Canadians and have helped the economy. I would like to suggest at least three ways in which these programs have been helpful.
First, they have reduced our consumption of oil. As we all should know, oil is a finite resource. The National Energy Board has estimated that by the year 2005 our production of conventional crude will be about 28 per cent of what it is today.
Second, these programs have provided jobs all across Canada. They have provided jobs for people involved in insulation and retrofitting.
Third, these programs have benefited the economy because they has enabled home owners to save on their heating bills.
It is important to stress that when the home owner is able to save a little bit of money and when money is tight in most households, that money will go into other sections of the economy. The money will keep circulating rather than going to the oil companies.
These programs are popular. The Canadian Oil Substitution Program is now halfway through its projected mandate. It was supposed to run to 1990. It is more or less on target in terms of its projection, but instead it will be terminated at the end of March. It is interesting that the gas contracting firms are complaining now about the haste with which COSP has been terminated and the waste this creates because a lot of people have been trying to get in under the deadline in order to take advantage of the program. People have made applications and the gas companies have been trying to put in lines in the middle of the winter, a most costly and wasteful approach. At the very least the Government could have given a little more notice. That was the substance of the motion we moved last week when we asked the Government to give the Bill an extra six-month consideration.
On Vancouver Island people suffer a double penalty. This has been pointed out before. People on Vancouver Island were not able to take advantage of the program until 1983 because there was a lot of thought that a natural gas pipeline would be built to the Island. When the program first came into effect, it was put on hold after a few weeks, and it was not until 1983 that people were able to take advantage of COSP when they went of oil to electricity or to wood stoves, or whatever.
It has been reported that by helping people to move off oil COSP has saved 15.3 million a barrels of oil a year, enough oil to heat 650,000 homes. Between 1981 and 1985 COSP provided 16,750 jobs. Now when we have 1.5 million people unemployed, perhaps the Government thinks that over 16,000 jobs is not very much and it can just forget about them. Every job is important.
The same is true for CHIP. Between 1977 and 1982 some
44,000	person-years of work were created by the program. The Oil Substitution Program was able to provide some 30.5 person-years for every $1 million invested. CHIP provided 53 person-years for every $1 million invested. The cost of a barrel of oil saved under this program amounted to something like $3

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
to $5. To bring in new energy sources it will be between $30 and $70 a barrel or its equivalent.
The Government is going ahead with these cuts, and we have to ask why. Before the election we never heard anything about this. The Government did not campaign on the platform that if it were elected it would cut the Oil Substitution Program and CHIP. The Tories promised jobs. Since the Government has been elected, we have not heard jobs, jobs, jobs, but cut-back, cut-back, cut-back. This last week we have heard just one word and that one word is "unde", Mr. Speaker. This Government seems to be operating by public relations rather than on the basis of what is really needed for Canadians. I urge it to take a second look.
[ Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, 1 trust the House realizes that the Official Opposition's decision to oppose Bill C-24 was not made because we enjoy this kind of debate. We have very serious reasons for opposing the Bill, because we believe that the Government's approach to this matter is entirely unreasonable. 1 would like to elaborate, for your benefit and for the benefit of Government Members present, on our three reasons for opposing the Bill. First of all, we think the Bill is absolutely unfair because it means changing the rules of the game while the players are still on the ice, to draw a parallel with the sports world. It is exactly that.
Second, there are large regions that have not been able to take advantage of the oil substitution and insulation programs. I am thinking, for instance, of the area around Quebec City and the towns of Charlesbourg and Beauport. I will get back to this later on.
Finally, my third reason for rising in the House today is the fact that this Government, for the second time in its short existence, a Government with a majority of 211 Members against 80, even less than 80 on the Opposition side, is using closure, is gagging debate.

Since the November announcement of the demise of COSP, many consumers have been scrambling to take advantage of it before the March 31, 1985 deadline. Using the example of Consumers Gas of Ontario, I will try to illustrate the fact that gas companies are faced with enormous problems because of increased demand and the short time between the time when they received notice and the deadline. For fiscal year October 1, 1983 to February 28, 1984, Consumers Gas received close to 5,000 applications for conversions to natural gas. In the period from October 1, 1984 to February 26, 1985, it received close to 18,000 applications, of which 9,000 were made in January and February. Faced with this amount of demand, the industry cannot possibly install these systems by the March 31 deadline. This means that on April Fool's Day, a tremendous number of consumers will be left holding the bag.
There are many reasons the industry is having problems serving home owners. One reason is weather. It is extremely difficult to install gas pipelines when trying to dig through snow-covered ground. The problem in northern Ontario is even worse. Northern and Central Gas Corporation Ltd. stopped taking applications in December because it could not break through the frost-covered ground. The Canadian Gas Association approached the Government asking for an extension, as has Consumers Gas and other interested parties, and was turned down. Many solutions were proposed. It volunteered to cut off program applications at the end of January, as long as the Government gave companies and the home owners time to install all systems, but that was also turned down.
The bottom line is that the Government wants to cut off the money, no matter how many people want to convert to gas. The industry does not really mind, and perhaps some people in Canada would accept the cut-off of this program, but they would like it to be done in a more normal way. A phase-out is absolutely essential.

Mr. Speaker, there are certainly problems in Northern Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, but nowhere are they felt as acutely as in the province of Quebec. And I refer to the situation which exists in Quebec City and within the Greater Quebec City area, since not a single hon. member from the Progressive Conservative Party seems to be concerned about it.
Last November, this government announced two decisions which have greatly affected in a negative way the Greater Quebec City area. First it announced that it had cancelled all plans for the then forthcoming construction of branch lines to the natural gas pipe-line, affecting negatively the cities of Charlesbourg and Beauport, and also the Lauzon area and especially the Lauzon Point which could eventually be used for the development of an industrial complex. But to return to this program, not only were the Beauport and Charlesbourg area deprived of investments which would have enabled the industrial park and the residents of these densely populated cities to have access to natural gas, but also the plans for the industrial development which the construction of these branch lines would have made possible were aborted.
I have met personally the spokesmen for the Metro-Quebec Chamber of Commerce and this is one of the problems that were brought to our attention, that have been under consideration and the disposition of which was overdue. I am referring for instance to the establishment of a separate board of directors for the airport and to the upgrading of the Quebec-Montreal railway lines.
But coming back to the matter now under consideration, these areas of Charlesbourg and Beauport and eventually Lauzon are being denied the opportunity to benefit from the program. This legislation is suddenly cutting out homeowners not only in the areas already served, but also in areas which could not make use of the program because natural gas had
March 21, 1985

not been available, and they are denied a program that has been used by a number of Canadians. In my view, that decision is seriously affecting citizens in the Metro-Quebec area, not to mention of course, as I said earlier, that the guillotine will fall on March 31. This means that many people, many families will not have an opportunity to avail themselves of the positive benefits of the program, the value of which has been recognized by all Hon. Members in this House.
The third reason why I am taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is the guillotine being imposed upon this House. It is beyond me that this Government, which has been boasting ever since September 4 that it wanted to consult and listen to everybody before taking decisions, is refusing to do it here in this House. And when the Opposition becomes insistant, there is a short period of patience and immediately the guillotine falls. Even though I was sitting in this House before, I often listened to the debates and watched them on television. An I remember how the Government Members of today used to behave when the previous Government used that procedure or talked of using it to end debate, at a time when the House of Commons was more evenly balanced between Government and Opposition parties. Today, using guillotine when there is a mere handful of Opposition members, when that same Government talks about wanting to consult, when it says it is ready to spend huge sums of money on economic summits-Hurray for economic summits! So much the better if they want to listen to people from across the border! But why will they not listen to Members in this House who are trying to have the Minister understand why it makes no sense to suddenly, without notice, without a warning period, terminate such a program, and on top of that to use the guillotine to deny the benefits of a program whose value for the people and for better use of energy in Canada has been recognized by everyone?
Mr. Speaker, I wish and I hope that after hearing the same arguments, even repeatedly, at some point somebody on the Government side will see the light and accept to bring in amendments to the legislation now before us.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Agriculture-Maritime	Farmers' Council's
request for emergency funding, b) Timing of decision; The
Oil Substitution Act
Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Air Transport- Request for details about closure of air safety office in Montreal. b) Effects of budgetary cuts on Montreal; The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Terrorism-Protection of Turkish Embassy, b) Security arrangements.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-234, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Work; and the motion of Mr. Hockin (p. 3227).
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear why I am rising to speak in this debate. 1 am rising to speak, recognizing that I had an opportunity and in fact took part in the debate yesterday. Under normal circumstances, I probably would have considered that participation to be sufficient. I confess, unashamedly, that we are attempting to stall the Bill. I say quite bluntly and openly that we are attempting to stall the Bill because we consider what we are asking for to be reasonable and in keeping with what the public of Canada would desire to see happen at this point.
We are not asking for an unlimited extension. We are not asking that the law be extended ad infinitum. We are suggesting that because of the timing of the Government's move to limit access to this program, it has made it impossible for a significantly large number of Canadians, who otherwise would have taken advantage of the opportunity to be assisted in the financing of what most believe is worth-while work, both from the point of view of employment and from the point of view of energy savings, to access this program.


Pat Carney: We would have to borrow the money.


Ian Deans: The Minister says to me quietly across the floor that the Government would have to borrow the money. I can well appreciate that that would be a view that the Cabinet would put forward. This shows that, as a priority matter, this falls considerably far down the list of priorities of the Government. This is a statement that I find, although understandably coming from the Conservative administration, unacceptable from the point of view of what will be best in the over-all for the country as a whole.
Let me suggest to the Minister that many of those people who will not now be able to access this program have had their

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
tax dollars used to allow others to take advantage of it. Because of the way this has been terminated and the time of the year-and I am trying truthfully to look at it-the termination date makes it virtually impossible for a large number of Canadians to be able to take advantage of what was intended to be available to all.
I suggest to the Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that one need not be a genius-I do not pretend to be and, 1 am sure, neither does the Minister-to see that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for work to be done in some areas of the country over the winter. During the months from November through until the end of March, which was the period for winding down or winding up, depending on your choice, the program that we are now debating, it was absolutely impossible, with all of the best intentions in the world, for many people to get into the program and take advantage of it. There is clear evidence to show that there are a large number of people who would still like to use it.
I have to say that at first I was somewhat puzzled by the Government's attitude. This is a Government that, as I said the other day, has elevated simony to an art form. It has redefined it in the political context. Again today we were able to see further examples of how this Government can find jobs for its friends, regardless of where those friends are, all of those jobs to be paid for out of the public purse, and yet the Government cannot seem to find the will to reapportion some resources to allow citizens of Canada access to a program that not only benefits them personally, but benefits many who are unemployed in the country. It will benefit the country in the longer run in terms of our judicious use of our energy resources.
What we are saying, quite bluntly, is that from our point of view, it would be better if the Government were to be less generous in a partisan hack way with the resources of the country and somewhat more understanding of the benefits that could be derived from the continuation of this program for a short period of time. As I said yesterday, that period of time could be until the middle of the fall. That would allow for proper planning. It would allow people to make arrangements for whatever additional funding they require. It would enable the companies involved to plan for employment during a period when there will be a number of people unemployed due to the termination of the program. It would give time for the Government's new economic program which it is going to unveil some time between now and June to take effect. It would afford many an opportunity to access the new employment program that the Government continues to tell us it is prepared to make available.
In the over-all, the request that we make is a reasonable and fair request. We are not asking that the program be extended forever. We are asking that the program be extended into the summer months in order to allow those who would want to take advantage of it to be able to complete what they believe they would be able to complete if it were not for the weather.
Let us not base our judgment solely on what can be done in southern Ontario. I come from southern Ontario, but southern
Ontario is not all of Canada. There are many parts of Canada where the work we are talking about could not have been undertaken between the months of November and April.
I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest something like that. Those people have been asked to contribute out of their tax dollars to provide the benefits and the savings to others in the country. We should ensure that they too are given a chance to take advantage of that program, given the chance to do so with an understanding that the program will in fact come to an end, but it will come to an end at such a time as to guarantee that they could, if they wished, access the program for their own benefit and for the benefit of others who might work in the program.
It is no wonder, as I look across the floor of the House, that I feel a sort of sense of twitchiness on the government backbenches and the evidence of jactitation on the government benches. Quite clearly, the government Members recognize the merit of the position that we are putting forward. I can see evidence among the few that are here that they would like to see the Government undertake to provide the extension that we are asking for.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: They have been around long enough.


Ian Deans: The Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) sits smiling as he does in that beguilding way and says that they have been around long enough. That might well be the view of a number of people in the country four years from now.
The one thing the Government has demonstrated in the last six months is its ability to be unfair. It has been unfair in the way in which it made cuts in its November economic statement, cuts which detrimentally affected so many people and were made without consultation. It has been unfair in the way in which it went about setting up an economic conference after it made decisions about what would be contained in the Budget. It has been unfair about its presentation of the unfortunate incidents that occurred in Ottawa just one week ago. Some day the Government must recognize that, in a representative system, it is imperative that the Government show complete fairness.
Fairness is not simply exemplified by appointing friends to high offices at high costs. Fairness is exemplified by treating Canadians in such a way that they feel they are being considered. They are not being considered by the termination of this program. I would simply suggest that we give it another six months or even five months. We should give it a little more time in order to give people a chance to do what they would otherwise do to help the economic stability for which we are all looking.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise as other members who have preceded me, to speak on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act.
March 21, 1985

However, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what we have heard so far, from both sides of the House, it would seem that the two programs I mentioned earlier and which are dealt with in Bill C-24, are viewed as satisfactory by almost everyone. And rightly so, Mr. Speaker! The reason for this is quite simple. If we look at a map, we can see that Canada is a country located in the Northern part of America. Our country is quite cold, and as people often say, there are two seasons in Canada, the month of July and winter. Naturally, to make our houses and work places comfortable, it is essential to have adequate heating.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that Canada has suffered a lot, especially since the energy world crisis of the 70's which caused great economic upheaval in industrialized countries because of the rapid increase in the price of oil, but the worst is now over.
Our problems have many causes. First of all, in the past, Canadian houses were built with two by fours or two by sixes with sawdust between the walls as insulation. This did not make the houses very warm. There was much more humidity and cold than anything else. In addition, it was very costly. However, since oil then cost between 11 and 15 cents a gallon, people still had no reason to complain or to find the cost excessive. But after the crisis of the 70's, we had to review our position. We had to develop programs so that Canadians would have comfortable well-heated houses because, as I said earlier, we have two seasons, winter and the month of July. Programs were therefore developed to conserve as much energy as possible so that Canadians would be warm and able to work and live comfortably and decently in spite of our northern climate.
I heard the Minister say in a recent speech that energy conservation was like a new energy source. She was right. I agree wholeheartedly with her because this is an inexhaustible source of energy. Thanks to the programs which have been implemented over the last few years, it is estimated that we have been able to save 82,000 barrels of oil a day. It is also estimated that about 2.5 million housing units have been insulated through CHIPS. Of course, this program must disappear eventually, but in my opinion, the Government acted somewhat irresponsibly when it announced last November 8 that all work would have to be completed by March 31. I do not want to repeat once more that it is rather difficult to change or convert a heating system-


John Horton McDermid: CHIP goes another year.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Yes, but the other one does not.


John Horton McDermid: You are talking about CHIP.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: No, I was referring to CHIP, but then I changed to the other one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.
Oil Substitution Act


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: What I mean to say is that this energy conservation is a renewable resource. I think that she was right, and if there was as much as 17 per cent in energy conservation, it will result in major dollar savings for Canadians.
Of course, we will have eventually to put an end to these subsidies, but we should consider extending this program for six more months, and even six months would not be enough. We might implement a new program, although some say it may cost as much as $35 million ... If we extended it until June, so that those who are first time home purchasers, not new houses because most new houses now have the necessary equipment to prevent heat losses, but an older house . . . those who are getting married for the first time, who are first time purchasers of older houses not fitted with proper insulation and the necessary equipment for proper heating, I feel that we should make it possible for them to benefit from this program. Eventually, when all the tests have been completed for projects such as the R-2,000 model house built by Mortgage and Housing Canada, I think then perhaps these programs could be reduced.
As long as there are home owners who have not availed themselves of these programs, Mr. Speaker, we should maintain them, for they play a major role in conserving energy. I know there are other means but it is one of those which will help achieve energy self-sufficiency for Canada. Because Canadians live in a part of the North American continent where winters can be very cold and with a nearly Arctic climate, the Government should make cuts where they are not likely to jeopardize the health and comfort of Canadians.
Cuts have to be made, Mr. Speaker, but not necessarily where savings ... at least not in the building industry, for the jobs of many electricians and heating technicians are at stake. Because such an action would create much unemployment, 1 do not think this is the way the government should go about it. I know that because we have this new government, people have changed. We should do things differently. I think it would be responsible also to make cuts where they are likely to improve the government's lot.
I am surprised that, practically overnight, the Government announced the abolition of those programs which all Canadians found very useful. More signficant still, they went a long way towards making Canada self-sufficient by giving us means to conserve energy and find new sources, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) so aptly put it.
Those are the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I wish the program could be extended much later than March 31, much later than in the fall, really. However, if it has to be done this way, let us find ways to exempt or retain the program for those who need it most, low-income families that cannot at this time take advantage of benefits offered to other Canadians. All Canadians should be able to enjoy the same

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
comfort and benefit from the energy conservation measures which our country adopted a few years ago.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-24, which is an effort by the Government to save money. I would like to spend some time talking about the choices which have been made and the direction in which this Government seems to be going.
In an effort to save tax dollars, the Government has chosen to cut COSP, which was to have existed for ten years, until 1990. The program was designed to encourage Canadians to save on their expenditures for energy. That cost-saving measure is now being abandoned. The program also had larger energy conservation connotations, which I believe are extremely important.
In particular, COSP was designed to shift Canadian home owners from oil to other modes of energy, and in particular natural gas. It has been determined by the National Energy Board that there is a surplus of natural gas, but there is not a surplus of oil, particularly the kind of oil which is used in making diesel and fuel oil. The lighter kinds of crude are expected to produce only about 28 per cent of the current levels by the year 2005. In only 20 years we will be producing just over one-quarter of the amount of oil which we produce now. It is extremely important for us to eliminate that dependency, not only for cost reasons, but because oil is a finite resource. We must ensure that it will be there for our grandchildren's and children's use.
Three or four years ago this program was agreed to by all Parties. It was unanimously agreed that the program was a good means by which to encourage people to switch from oil to natural gas, wood or another means of heat. The program has run quite well. At its half-way point it has converted half of the targeted homes from their reliance on oil. The program has met its targets and has not been terribly expensive, considering the savings which have been realized.
The program is now saving approximately 42,000 barrels of oil per day, or 15.3 million barrels of oil per year as a result of COSP. Since we consume approximately 1.45 million barrels of oil per day for all energy uses-homes, industry and transportation-it means a net energy saving of about 2.8 per cent. That saving is directly attributable to this program. In fact, the oil which is saved through COSP is enough to heat about
650,000	Canadian homes per year. On average, the homes which have converted have saved about 13.8 barrels of oil per year, which amounts to a saving of $634.80 annually. Therefore, a home owner who converts to oil can expect a return on his investment within three years. However, there are certain circumstances in which that will take longer and it will become more expensive.
Canadians in large numbers were switching from oil to other forms of energy. However, suddenly the new Government made a rapid decision to discontinue the program. What has that done to the spirit of optimism and the expectation of
better things to come for small business people in the business of installing gas lines, furnaces and other forms of heat-producing devices? It has left them in a real quandry. They have been scrambling around since November 8-and they only have until the end of the month-to meet the enormous number of calls for business.
Some of those businesses may have been enticed into hiring more people, but as the program will end on March 31, most of the installers know that hiring more people to meet the rush in an attempt to meet the deadline will not be sustained because it will require them to buy extra service vehicles and tools. Therefore, most of those businesses have not panicked and expanded.
Not only has the termination of this program been disruptive to small business, it has been unfair to home owners. Some home owners prepare their budgets over several years, and many decided to convert toward the end of the program-in the late 1980s-because their furnaces were still working well or they did not immediately have the money to make the switch. Therefore, they decided to delay taking advantage of the program. Those home owners will now have to pay an extra $800 to convert.
In addition, there is a tremendous number of individuals in smaller communities who have not, to this point in time, had gas available to them. They know that the lines have been proposed and are projected, and that in a year or two gas will be in their communities or it will run past their house. But for the moment they do not have the option of switching to gas because they are no gas lines. Those people who were awaiting the gas line to be installed in their communities are now faced with the prospect of not only having to wait longer than most Canadians to switch to the cheaper form of heat, but they are now ineligible for the subsidy of $800 and will have to pay the full cost. That is unfair, Mr. Speaker, particularly when that is a program which was doing so much to shift people away from a depleting resource, namely, light oil. In spite of spending billions an billions of dollars, we have not been able to find replacements for it. Many billions of dollars have been spent in government funds to subsidize and assist with write-off and tax deferrals. We have assisted sometimes to the point of paying in excess of 90 per cent of ail the drilling costs for the search for oil in the Arctic. We have not been terribly successful. We have not come up with answers to the hard fact that we will only be producing 28 per cent of our current output of those kinds of oils in a mere 20 years.
Our only prudent choice would be to find ways of using the limited energy we have-which is becoming more limited as time goes on-in a better way. We should be doing more in the way of insulating our homes. The CHIP program, which will be in effect for a few more months, has assisted in that way.
I will conclude by saying that I believe it is very unfortunate that the Government has chosen to attempt to save a few dollars in the short term by totally closing its eyes to the problems which face us in the production and pricing of
March 21, 1985

energy. This is a very sloppy way of going about producing economy.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on a motion earlier with respect to this matter and I had hoped at the end that Hon. Members would agree to extend my time so that I could continue to make a few additional remarks. I am happy now to have the opportunity in effect to conclude the thoughts I wanted to put to Hon. Members in an attempt to get the Government to reconsider its decision to cancel these two very important programs.
I would like to agree with the Hon. Member who spoke earlier. He made the point that we are, frankly, wanting to ensure that this Bill takes enough time to get through the House so that the Canadian people can find out what it is that this Government is trying to do to them. What is interesting is that this is a Government which appears to be dedicated to cutting the deficit, and I would like to come back to that theme in a moment. It is a Government as well which is very responsive to angry voters. Two of the "hits" which it has tried to make on existing programs have resulted in very effective reactions which I hope will lead the Government to reconsider. The first is its plan to cut back medical research by something like 20 per cent a year. The medical research community responded by effectively and intelligently demonstrating to the Government and to the Canadian people that the changes which the Government had in mind would lead to researchers moving to the United States because of the effective reduction and eventual elimination of cancer research in our country. This is especially so because the Conservative Government of Ontario is also withdrawing its support for medical research, and the Conservative Government of Alberta, which had been a big sponsor of cancer research, announced that it was going to cut its support for cancer research.
Important scientific breakthroughs have been made in cancer research in our country. There is no doubt that the work which was going on was valid and should be continued. Apart from the research aspect, as these skilled researchers begin to leave our country, we are going to find-


Claudy Mailly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Acting Whip (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder about the relevance of the Hon. Member's remarks.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to try to illustrate the budget-cutting philosophy of this Government in order to make an argument that this measure should not be discontinued. The reason I was referring to medical research was that there we have an example of a cut where the group affected can effectively stand up and defend themselves and, more important, can bring to the attention of all Canadians the importance of that measure. I would like to give a second
Oil Substitution Act
example of a government cut and make a point from there. Then I want to come back to this cut and show how all three are related.
The second cut which this Government tried to make- although I believe it is going to reconsider-is in its support for the arts. As soon as it announced that cut, the arts community mobilized and were ready to stand up not only on behalf of themselves as people who would no longer be receiving support for the work which was their livelihood and which was an important cornerstone of our country, but on behalf of all Canadians who would benefit from having government support for culture. People in the field of the arts used to say 15 years ago that if one wanted to get anywhere in the arts, one had to go to the United States. Over the last 15 years, the arts have not become the best paid profession in Canada-far from it. I believe it is the second lowest paid profession in Canada-but there was a general recognition by artists-and I mean all kinds of artists-that one could make it in Canada. This Government killed that hope when it announced its substantial cuts in the field of the arts and when an insensitive Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced yesterday, "You ain't seen nothing yet. There's going to be more cuts".


Claudy Mailly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I insist, and I am still waiting to hear the relevance of the Hon. Member's remarks. I appreciate that he is trying to make a point, but he is wandering far and wide.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has explained the relevance of his remarks and the fact that he will be coming to the point. May I suggest to him that he come to the point more rapidly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I certainly will.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rossi:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is the point of order I want to raise. I hope the time allotted to the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) will not be shortened by the amount of time used up by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I hope this does not come out of my time.
Cuts to the arts and medical research by this Government affected specific groups which were able to stand up on their own behalf and on behalf of all Canadians and let it be known that medical research will deteriorate, support for the arts will deteriorate and artists will have to look to the United States and to other countries if they want to have a successful career, all because of what this Government has done.
Unfortunately, in the case of these two programs, COSP and CHIP, there is no particular group in our society which is in the first line of fire in the round of ammunition being shot by this Government. The group which is affected here are

March 21, 1985
Oil Substitution Act
consumers. The applications of half the people who are eligible for the benefits of these programs are still in the works. Their applications are under consideration. The other half are not getting the word that they are about to lose a very important program of significant national interest.
That is why we must extend this debate as long as we can. We have to try to mobilize the same kind of attention to the damage which this Government is doing in its deficit-cutting rhetoric which was attracted to the other two cuts which I used in my example.
What about cutting the deficit? I want to make a prediction that when the Budget is brought forward, we are going to find that this Government is not so committed to deficit-cutting after all. Its philosophy is to take the patient, cut off both of his arms, then when it gives him one arm back, he is going to say thank you.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In your case, the people were dying.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member ways that in our case the patient was dying. The economic statistics which came out about the year 1984, after we were out of office, showed that the Budget governing 1984 was not such a bad one. There were increases in jobs and economic growth.
So the Government is going to give back to medical research one of its arms, and maybe it will give the arts back one of its arms, but what I am afraid of is that if the Government can get away with slipping this Bill through before the Budget comes down, it will not go back to the Canadian people and invite them to insulate their homes and go off oil. By then the Bill will be through and the damage will be done.
I think the Opposition has the very important role of keeping these programs alive as long as we can until the Government abandons its deficit-cutting rhetoric. The signs are already there that the Conservatives do not believe in cutting the deficit. For example, in the first round they cut over $200 million of programs for student summer employment. And what do you know, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced with great joy that students were getting one of their arms back for this summer and the Government was re-instating nearly all of the programs planned by the former Liberal Government, which had been cut by this Government. The Conservatives will have the same good news for the doctors and researchers; they will not have to go to the United States because they are going to be getting one of their arms back.
Perhaps I am beginning to have some effect on the Government. I am starting to make them realize that there is an important job to be done here by the Opposition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -in making sure-let me give an example, and I would like to hear their reaction, about so-called deficit cutting. I would like to hear Members opposite deny that the
Prime Minister increased his office budget by over 50 per cent. I would like to hear them deny that Ministers have increased their office staff budgets by over 50 per cent, by almost 100 per cent, as a matter of fact. They are quiet now and the reason they are quiet is because I came up with an example that even they cannot deny is a straw in the wind of so-called deficit cutting. I think they are pussy cats when it comes to the tough job of cutting the deficit.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What about the Minister of Transport in the Liberal Government?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We must make sure that we in this House, in this debate, can make the Canadian people aware that these programs will be spared if they can only be kept on the road until the Budget. This is why we introduced a six-month hoist motion, why we should introduce a three-month hoist motion, and why, as my final point because I see you are getting a bit restless, Mr. Speaker-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, just tired.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My final point regards their unbelievable gesture yesterday in depriving the Opposition of the opportunity of bringing forward any further amendments which might have the effect of hoisting this Bill for another three, six or 12 months, or until the Government brings forward its Budget so that Canadians will have an opportunity to argue and fight, as they did for medical research, as the students did for their summer programs, and as the arts communities did for theirs, to get this Government to recognize the importance of energy conservation and off-oil programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I forgot to seek at least unanimous consent-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -to continue my remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Save your breath.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not know why the House would not allow the Hon. Member to continue his speech; he was just getting warmed up.


David Kilgour: Where were you?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: He was doing extremely well. It seems to be the order of the day for the Government to be cutting off not only Bills but speakers.


Carlo Rossi: They do not want to hear the truth.
March 21, 1985


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Parliamentary Secretary, in one of his cameo appearances in the House, said there had been 80 speeches so far on this Bill. I think we can be very proud that there are that many people of Parliament on the opposition side who are concerned-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You don't have 80 guys there, Russ.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: -who were concerned enough about doing away with this valuable program to stand in the House and speak against doing away with COSP at the end of this month.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It is nothing you said, I just have to leave.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) just cannot stand to hear about the problems of ordinary Canadians and is leaving at the present time. I think that is unfortunate. There are too many Ministers in that Government who are squeamish about hearing about unemployment and the needs of Canadians. I think that is going to be a very serious problem for the Government in years to come.
It is very unfortunate that COSP is not being extended for six months. There are so many Canadians who want to use this program. They did not apply before November 8 because they had every reason to believe this program was going to continue, as was the intention in the legislation. But on November 8 the Government terminated the program as of March 31 this year. With the number of people who have applied after November 8, it will not be possible for them to be off oil by the end of March. That is very unfortunate.
Both I and others have talked about the fact that this is just not the best time of year to be converting to electricity or gas because of the weather and because the manufacturers are producing not furnaces but air conditioners for the summer. But there is another very real point which the Government has missed. You are dealing with those Canadians who are unemployed or on fixed incomes-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Minister of Labour is leaving again.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: -who do not have the money to cover the amount required in excess of $800 to convert off oil, and the winter is the most difficult time to try to find money to do this. I am pleased to see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) here for the finale this afternoon. I just hope that she will reconsider. I say that in a non-partisan way because I think it is very important. No one is saying that this program has to go on forever. Oh, she is leaving again.


David Charles Dingwall: She doesn't care.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: No program has to go on forever. But you have to be able to look at the needs of Canadians and anticipate how much good this program will do.
From October 1, 1983, to the end of February 1984, there were only between 4,000 and 5,000 people who had applied for conversion from oil to natural gas. In the period between October 1, 1984 to the end of February, 1985 there were almost 18,000 people on that list. So there is still a need there.
South Africa
Conservation and conversion of oil is the best value for the energy dollar. The Government is forgetting that very important fact. Canadians anticipated they would be allowed to convert off oil, but they are not.
It is not accurate to say, as some Members on the government side have said, that people have had plenty of time to convert. They have not had plenty of time to convert.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Order.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent to proceed to Item No. 87?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



John R. Rodriguez: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should disallow further Canadian investment in South Africa, outlaw the importation of South African Krugerrand gold coins into Canada and outlaw Canadian bank loans to South Africa.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that the motion is before the House this afternoon because today the Mayor of Ottawa, Marian Dewar, has declared Thursday, March 21, 1985, International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
It is also important to realize that the General Assembly of the United Nations, in 1979, designated the week beginning March 21 as the week of solidarity with people struggling racism and racial discrimination. That was resolution 3424 of November 15, 1979.
It is important to realize that the Minister responsible for multiculturalism got up in his place in the House today and made a statement proclaiming today International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
It is also significant to note that today is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre where white police in South Africa opened fire on a crowd of black people who were peacefully demonstrating against the pass law of South Africa. Sixty-nine people were killed, including eight women and ten

March 21, 1985
South Africa
children. There were 186 wounded, including 31 women and 19 children.
It is also significant to note that the CBC news announced just this morning from South Africa that 14 people were killed today by South African white police because those people were demonstrating to commemorate the Sharpeville massacre.
Therefore, it is appropriate that we keep that in mind as a background when discussing this particular motion. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) and all Canadians can say many nice things. However, not only do our fellow citizens judge this Parliament and the Government by its actions, the international community also judges Canada by the kind of tough, principled positions that we are prepared to take.
Just last week, for the first time, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution condemning South Africa for the deaths of scores of black demonstrators and the arrest of black opposition leaders on treason charges. It was the first time during the Reagan administration that the United States has voted in favour of a resolution in the Security Council condemning the white South African minority Government for its domestic policies. All 15 Security Council members voted in favour of the resolution that strongly condemned the killing of defenceless protesters and the arrest of 16 leaders of the United Democratic Front and other organizations opposed to South Africa's policy of apartheid, which is basically racial discrimination at its worst.
The Security Council also called on South Africa to withdraw the charges of high treason against the leaders of the Front. The very word "apartheid" conveys its meaning-apart. In fact, it is a word that means strict racial segregation. It was imposed in 1958 by the white minority in South Africa.
In 1960 the Bantustans or homelands, as they are now called, were set up. The black people would be relegated to reserves, or homelands and would be allowed to work in the white urban community and be given pass cards. When they were not working they would then return to their homelands. It was in opposition to that in 1960 when we saw the demonstration that resulted in the Sharpeville massacre.
Today there are some 10 of these Bantustans or homelands. They were set up by South Africa, and no other country in the world recognizes them as independent states except South Africa. Five of them are recognized by South Africa as independent. In fact, the black man then, as now, is held as an indentured slave in his own land, to work in domestic corporations for white South African ownership or indentured to work for foreign-owned corporations. Some of those foreign-owned corporations are Canadian, which I will speak about later on. Indeed, the South African black works in the mines that produce the gold which makes the krugerrands which the following banks sell here in Canada: the Bank of Montreal, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Commerce and the Toronto Dominion Bank. They sell this kruggerrand valued at $507 Canadian or $337 U.S.
That we should be a market for coins which are made at the expense of the freedom and dignity of people should not be allowed. We do have a replacement coin which we should be promoting. We have the Maple Feaf gold coin which can be used as a substitute for those who want to invest as entrepreneurs in gold coins. Therefore, we really do not need to allow the sale of krugerrands in this country.
It seems to me that by forbidding the sale of krugerrands in Canada we would send a clear message that we are not prepared to be a silent participator in the oppression of black people in South Africa. In fact, the South African Government has enshrined apartheid in its constitution. It clearly says in its constitution that a black man and a white man are not equal. It says a white man is superior to a black man. Of course, the South African Government uses all sorts of biblical quotations to back up that position. It went on from there to establish all sorts of laws that affect relationships between the races in South Africa and it was used to deny the black man the right to vote.
In our society it seems that we have come a long way. There was a time when we did not allow women to vote. We have gone beyond that, and we in this country recognize that in a democratic free society it has to be one man, one vote.
South Africa refuses to recognize that men are all created equal in the eyes of God. It seems to me just on the one question of allowing the krugerrands to be imported that we are winking, closing and turning a blind eye to our brothers and sisters in South Africa who have been enslaved.
The question of the South African Parliament is rather interesting. To try and give an impression of change, the white South African Government created three changes. It has a white chamber, a chamber for coloureds, and a chamber for Indians or Asians. Again, the black man is denied the right to vote and the right to participate in his own country. When we consider the blacks in South Africa comprise approximately 16 million of the population and the whites 4.5 million, the coloureds 3 million, and the Asians about 1 million, what we have in South Africa is really the oppression of the minority. Every single penny which we repatriate to South Africa as a result of selling krugerrands continues, allows, the white South African Government to entrench itself and to buy the latest and most powerful forms of weaponry, not only to enslave its own black population but to act as a policeman in the southern part of the African continent, to create a climate of disturbance among its black neighbours in southern Africa.
The other area I wanted to turn to was the area of trade. It is significant to note that Canada's second most important trading partner in Africa is South Africa, Algeria is first, South Africa is second. In 1984 Canada imported $201 million worth of goods from South Africa. We exported to South Africa $201 million. They call that balanced trade.
What did we export to South Africa? We exported sulphur, wood pulp, railway rolling stock, machines and motor vehicles. What did we import from South Africa? Iron, steel, sugar,
March 21, 1985

metal ores, concentrates, scrap and manufactured goods. There is nothing among those items that we do not produce in Canada. We do not need to import iron and steel from South Africa. We have iron mines closing in Canada because we do not have steel mill capacity to accept it. We are closing iron ore mines in northwestern Ontario and in Newfoundland, while at the same time we import iron ore from South Africa. Even on a question of domestic economic activity, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
There are 28 Canadian companies in South Africa. Canada decided that we should have some code of behaviour for Canadian companies operating in South Africa, but it was never legislated. It is just a recommendation that these companies must file on an annual basis a code of conduct. That has been in effect since 1978. Only one of the 28 companies has lived up to filing a code of behaviour, filing an accountability for behaviour. That company is Alcan. Only one, Mr. Speaker, out of 28.
It seems to me that there are very few, comparatively speaking, black South Africans who work in Canadian companies operating in South Africa. In fact, to sever trade with South Africa would not in any way create any economic hardship. Indeed, in my conversations with the African National Congress it was indicated to me that this was the route it would like Canada to go. The African National Congress would approve of Canada severing trade relationship with South Africa. As long as we continue to trade with the racist white South African Government, we are participating in the oppression of the black man in South Africa. We fought a war over that to prove that all men are equal in the eyes of God. We fought over that, yet here we are slipping along with the flow.
Our predecessors in this House have given us a start. They have given us an example. It was two former Prime Ministers who took positions which at that time were quite tough. I have the Hansard reference here for April 27, 1960, in this House when the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, at the time Leader of the Opposition, moved an emergency resolution. This was prior to the Prime Minister, the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, going to the Commonwealth Conference that year. Mr. Pearson moved a resolution to let the Prime Minister know how Members of Parliament felt about South Africa and its participation in the British Commonwealth. In the debate, the Hon. Mr. Chevrier said, talking about apartheid policy:
It is a policy that must cease if normal relations are to be restored in that country of the British commonwealth of nations. Peace, order, and security cannot exist without due respect for the individual.
Peace, order, and security cannot exist, I repeat, without any respect for the individual.
I think it is well that we cast back to what former Leaders and Members in this House said. Mr. Diefenbaker replied:
Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of this discussion today, to reinforce me as the representative of this nation, having held these views throughout the years, with the conscience, thought and deliberation of the Canadian House of Com-
South Africa
mons in order to air the views which have been expressed on matters which arc of particular moment at this time.
As a matter of fact, it was at that Commonwealth Conference that South Africa was put out of the Commonwealth.
I think we have to carry the torch, the torch which was handed us by former Leaders in this House. The path on which Mr. Pearson and Mr. Diefenbaker put us back in 1960 must be continued. The three particular actions which I am recommending are very important because they will send a message to the rest of the international community, the community of nations, that in fact Canada is prepared to stand up and be counted.
Thank God we have a living example of the kind of courage which cries out to us. It is the courage of Nelson Mandela, the founder of the African National Congress. In 1960, he was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment on Robin Island for treason. He is still there, 25 years later. The white racist Government of South Africa recently offered him an amnesty provided he revoked his advocacy of violent revolution in South Africa. He refused to do so. His courage in the face of being confined for 25 years, perhaps seeing his wife and family from time to time, cries out to us, white brothers, that we cannot let him down. In fact, we have to bring this thing to a head. We cannot have a minority oppressing a large majority. We cannot have a nation founded on a principle that the white man is superior to the black man. We cannot want for ourselves what we do not want for others.
The heritage of freedom which we enjoy as Canadians, we should want for all peoples of the world. We should be prepared to put our action where our mouth is. I call upon the House to let this motion come to a vote. Let the Government know. It can program in-and it does not have to be done tomorrow-all three specific actions which I have recommended in my motion. I hope it will begin the dawn of a new day, with Canada leading the way.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to begin by thanking the Hon. Member. I listened very attentively to his comments, and I commend him on them. Throughout my experience-and it is a rather recent one-he has always been concerned about the rights of ethnics, not only abroad but at home. He has made valuable contributions to the House.
When he speaks about the 25 years since Pearson and Diefenbaker, the 25 years Mr. Mandela has been in prison, it has has also been 25 years when another Government has been in place, another Government which had many opportunities to look at these things. Since September we have continued the policy but promised a review.
Recently I had the pleasure of meeting a delegation of the Quebec task force on immigrant women. It is a group with which I have considerable contact and its social justice committee in Montreal. We discussed many of the same concerns. The response to many of these issues which the group indicated in its bulletin appears positive. Of course the task force will

March 21, 1985
South Africa
be continuing to help me in my work as a part of the Government.
One issue which I brought to a head on February 5 appears under the heading "South Africa" and reads as follows: "Mr. Weiner indicated that South Africa was an area that would be re-examined by the Government". With a green paper about to be deposited and a task force constituted for a review of our foreign policy, we are very hopeful that they will be examining our relationship with South Africa and certainly its over-all effect on the despicable apartheid situation.
It is coincidental, but symbolic, that today's debate is taking place on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre in which 69 people died at the hands of the South African police. March 21 has been fittingly designated by the United Nations as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Canadian representatives at United Nations headquarters in New York and Vienna are attending commemoration ceremonies while other Canadians have demonstrated outside the South African Embassy in Ottawa to show their opposition to apartheid. I understand that there has been a tragic incident even today in South Africa in which a number of people have died. Before debating the motion at hand, it would be appropriate for the House to remember those who, over the years, have suffered and in some cases given their lives in the struggle for justice in their own country.
Sharpeville represented a turning point in South Africa's history. Following the unrest, the African National Congress was banned and subsequently turned to violent methods. Some observers believe that South Africa's Government is again facing choices which will have profound consequences for their country's history. It is the responsibility of the Canadian Government to encourage those men, whom Canada's Ambassador to the UN has called a "beleaguered oligarchy", to listen to the voices of moderated among their own population. Further delay in implementing basic reforms will only reduce the chances of peaceful change.
The Canadian Government also faces difficult choices. The concern of the Canadian Government is first and foremost the fate of those we are trying to help, the victims of the apartheid system. It is in light of this criterion, which I am sure Hon. Members on the other side shares, that we must examine seriously the measures proposed by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
Among other elements, this motion calls on the Government of Canada to disallow further Canadian investment in South Africa. Such a proposal reflects the view that investment by multinational enterprises based in Western countries is necessarily supportive of apartheid and does not hasten its dissolution. This hypothesis is open to question and certainly requires careful study. Many opponents of apartheid hold the contrary view. It is important for us to weigh the consequences of our actions. Let us examine the facts.
Multinational corporations have played an important role in South Africa's economic development. According to UN sources, at the end of 1981 there were over $15 billion U.S. of foreign direct investment in South Africa, much of it concentrated in manufacturing and mining and more advanced sectors such as computers and chemicals. In 1982, the U.K. and the U.S.A. were the two largest investors in South Africa with about $2.5 billion. Germany was third with some 799 million Deutschmarks. It is estimated that some 400 U.S. companies have subsidiaries in South Africa and some 600 firms based in the U.K. have operations in South Africa.
According to the latest figures available, which are for 1982, Canadian companies have about $200 million invested, a small percentage of total foreign investment in South Africa. The rate of increase of investments by all foreign companies has slowed in South Africa; the stock of Canadian investment has hardly increased for a number of years. Not only is Canadian investment in South Africa not increasing, some disinvestment is now occurring. There are about 30 Canadian companies with operations in South Africa. Over half of these have minority positions with little or no management control. This suggests that unilateral action by Canada might, in any event, be a hollow gesture without practical effect.
In the Canadian case, the Government's approach to investment in South Africa is based on a number of elements. First and foremost, our opposition to the practice of apartheid has led to an end to the official promotion of commercial and investment relations with the Republic of South Africa.
In the case of trade, restrictive measures date back to 1963. At that time, Canada voluntarily imposed an embargo on sales of arms and military equipment to South Africa. That was extended, in 1970, to include spare parts. In 1977, Canada, then a member of the Security Council, supported the application of a mandatory arms embargo on South Africa.
In addition, in 1977, the Canadian Government decided to end the active promotion of trade and investment in South Africa. The Canadian trade commissioners previously assigned to South Africa were withdrawn and the Consulate-General in Johannesberg was closed. The use of the Export Development Corporation's government account for financing and insuring trade with South Africa was suspended and the facilities which had been available for the insurance of Canadian investments in South Africa were also withdrawn. These measures were further extended when the use of the EDC's corporate account for South Africa was also suspended.
The Canada-South Africa trade agreement, which accorded South African exports preferential tariff access to the Canadian market, has been terminated. Private Canadian companies remain free to trade in peaceful goods with South Africa and to invest there, according to their own judgment.
Second, while it does not encourage trade and investment activity, the Government of Canada is opposed to mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa, including those relating to investment. Such measures would not promote the peaceful and positive change in South Africa which we support; they might, rather, foster violence. They would also seriously harm the disadvantaged black majority in South Africa and the neighbouring states. Those in South Africa are
March 21, 1985

already denied basic political and civil rights: they would surely suffer further economic privation.
The operations of the foreign companies in South Africa have, in many instances, had a positive effect in creating greater wealth among non-whites and in encouraging social change. These companies employ a relatively small percentage of the South African labour force, but when they adopt progressive practices, they set an example to be followed by local investors or establish a benchmark for worker demands throughout the labour force.
Canada has taken some steps to see that this is the case for Canadian companies operating in South Africa. Recognizing that the laws and policies of the South African Government specifically disadvantage non-white workers, Canada's present Code of Conduct makes detailed recommendations with respect to general working conditions, collective bargaining, wages, fringe benefits, training and promotion and race relations. Under the Code of Conduct, companies are invited to make annual public reports in sufficient detail to permit assessment of their progress in realizing the objectives of the code. The code appears to have had some positive effects, but the range of reporting has been limited and could be improved. Consideration is being given to new initiatives designed to make the code a more useful instrument.
In that direction, we may want to have a look at the Proxmire Bill that is now before Congress. Obviously when only one company out of 30 has complied with the voluntary reporting to Parliament, we have to make sure that we look at other options.
There are clear legal limits to the influence that the Canadian Government, and other home Governments, may claim with respect to the activities in South Africa of companies with head offices in their jurisdictions. These companies are subject to the jurisdiction of South Africa with respect to their operations in that country. Canada rejects the extraterritorial assertion of the laws of other countries that inter alia seek to direct the activities of foreign companies operating in Canada in a way that displaces Canadian law and policy. Such practice would be contrary to international law and an infringement on Canadian sovereignty. Canada as a home country, therefore, cannot purport to extend its own law to South African activities of South African companies controlled by Canadian nationals or residents in a way that directly displaces South African law and policy, no matter how objectionable the latter may be. Therefore, we could not enforce any ban on new investments in South Africa based on retained earnings or local borrowing by South African affiliates of Canadian companies. Neither can we, as a country, compel Canadian-controlled companies operating in South Africa to break South African law.
For the same reason, we would be constrained from applying any investment ban to jurisdictions outside Canada where subsidiaries of Canadian companies are operating in order to contain any circumvention by these companies through subsidiaries in countries without such a ban. This could make any ban on Canadian investment in South Africa difficult to
South Africa
enforce and cause concern in friendly countries with a different policy approach about the extraterritorial application of Canadian laws.
On balance, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Government is not convinced that the banning of new investment to South Africa by Canadian companies is the proper way to register our objection to apartheid. We do, however, feel that Canadian companies that choose to operate in South Africa should do all they can to counter the destructive and dehumanizing effects of apartheid. They can, by this means, contribute to the process of peaceful change in South Africa-to the removal of institutionalized racial discrimination, and the full realization of human rights.
We also have reservations about proposals to ban the sale of kruggerand gold coins in Canada. This issue must be considered in the context of Canadian policy on trade with South Africa and our more general international trade obligations. While the Canadian Government does not as a matter of policy promote trade with South Africa, it does not prevent or restrict trade in peaceful goods and services. The only exceptions are where such activities would contravene sanctions imposed by the Security Council, for example, the mandatory arms embargo adopted in 1977.
In the absence of any international agreement among South Africa's trading partners, such unilateral action might also be considered to be contrary to Canada's obligation under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This would open the way for legal claims for compensation or retaliating action. As far as can be determined, no Western country has adopted such legislation. For these reasons we do not believe that the institution of a measure restricting peaceful trade would be a constructive or legitimate step to take at this time.
The final measure proposed would outlaw Canadian bank loans to South Africa. I would remind the House that the Canadian Government itself does not lend funds to South Africa. The government account facilities of the Export Development Corporation have been withheld from public sector and private sector buyers in South Africa since December 1977. In 1981, corporate account facilities available to South African buyers were also withdrawn.
A number of Canadian banks have evidently decided on their own-in the context of a dialogue with their shareholders-to suspend loans to the South African Government or coporate borrowers. That is their right, and their risk as private lending institutions in an open economy such as ours. Such action is a prime example of the operation of free and responsible action by independent Canadians exercising their own judgment. That is the kind of open debate which is a credit to the Canadian people and which this Government wishes to encourage. Free public debate and decisions taken by autonomous institutions are obviously preferable to coercive legislation.
I would also note that the rules of international law limit the authority of a state to control or direct conduct in the territory of another state. They make it illegitimate to attempt to

March 21, 1985
South Africa
prohibit lending to South African borrowers in South Africa. The difficulties in enforcing such action are obvious.
I believe it is clear that Canada has already done a good deal to encourage reform in South Africa. In addition to the measures already cited, I would mention the boycott on contacts between nationally representative sporting teams and athletes. This action, taken in conjunction with our Commonwealth partners, has brought home to the ordinary white South African the depth of Canadian and international opposition to apartheid.
One more thing that the Government and Canadians in general can do is to provide support to various groups working with the black community of South Africa. These include some major Canadian churches and non-governmental organizations, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the World University Service of Canada. Self-help projects in rural communities, leadership training and providing scholarships are concrete ways in which we as Canadians can play a constructive part. Our role must be to support those groups inside South Africa which are working to promote peaceful change. We must avoid empty moral gestures or actions which are inconsistent with our international obligations.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would stress that though much has already been done, we mean to continue and to do more. To borrow a phrase from Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations, what is required is unrelenting pressure. That is our policy. This Government has already consulted such prominent South Africans as Bishop Desmond Tutu and Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. We shall continue to look at these questions and to consult with interested parties including Canadians. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) announced to the House on February 15, the Government is reviewing its relations with South Africa. We shall, in that context, take account of the views expressed in this House today.
The Government has promised in the Throne Speech a thorough review of Canada's international relations and that this would involve public consultations. We want to hear Canadians' views on future direction for our foreign policy, including the best approach to the problem of human rights in South Africa. This process will shortly be engaged by a special parliamentary group. Adoption of the current proposals would tend to prejudge the outcome of the review and close off avenues of public debate. That is hardly the right way to proceed.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress that the Government's opposition to apartheid is second to none. I would recall that it was a Progressive Conservative Government that sided with the African states in the Commonwealth in preventing South Africa's continued membership in 1961. In 1979 it was a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister who joined other Commonwealth leaders in adopting the Lusaka Declaration on Racism and Racial Discrimination. That was the strongest and clearest affirmation ever adopted by the Commonwealth on this issue.
Our policy is based on the moral issues involved, and on our desire to take effective steps. Apartheid has been described as a stench in the nostrils of the world by one Afrikaner writer. Our sense of the injustices is as keen as that of the Members of the Opposition. I accept no lessons in morality from them in this regard. We all, I trust, seek peaceful change and not destructive violence. Apartheid, however, will not be weakened by empty gestures that make us feel self-satisfied. We want to look at the issues in a realistic manner and will do so as we review the options. Although we do not support the proposed motion, we share the Hon. Member's repugnance of apartheid and his desire to see quicker progress to peaceful change. That, too, is our objective.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members will recall, the resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should disallow further Canadian investment in South Africa, outlaw the importation of South African Krugerrand gold coins into Canada and outlaw Canadian bank loans to South Africa.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on a sincere and obviously deeply felt speech. I think he believed each and every word that he said. I wish it could be said that all of us believed all of the things we say in this House all of the time. I believe he was completely sincere in what he said and I salute him for the passion and conviction with which he offered his speech.
Second, Sir, I would make reference to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Weiner). I would remind the House that it is well known that as Mayor of Dollard, the Hon. Member was particularly active in a Montreal area committee which was trying to ensure that visible minorities have a better chance to be hired by the Montreal and District Police Force. It is well known that one of the reasons he was elected to the House against a majority of something in the order of 35,000 was that he was recognized as being a person who stands for the rights of all Canadians, whatever their colour, race, background or creed, to have equal rights with every other Canadian. He is a person who, like the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, believes in action more than in talk in this sphere as in many others.
One of the best reasons apartheid is despicable is that it equates inferiority with an irremovable natural quality, pigmentation, and persists in the goal of white supremacy even in circumstances which make the attainment of that goal impossible without evil means such as torture. As well, apartheid is a stench in the nostrils of humanity, as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. That is why it is despicable. Each and every Member of the House, I would think, despises it as much as the Hon. Member fo Nickel Belt, the Hon. Member for Dollard, and I.
I recently spent time in three African countries, Gabon, Zaire and Ethiopia, and I have spent a great deal of time lately reading about Africa in an attempt to know it better than I did before. South Africa is anathema to southern Africa for the very reasons that have been mentioned by both previ-
March 21, 1985

ous speakers. Any self-respecting person of any colour despises a system which gives preference to one race and discriminates against another race.
As the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt knows, one of the problems the West has with South Africa is that by being perceived to be in favour of an abhorrent regime in South Africa, we are seen as being on the wrong side of an issue vitally important to about 600 million people who live in the continent of Africa. That is a very major obstacle, quite aside from its implications in terms of the people who are jailed like Joseph Mandela or many other South Africans who have suffered as well.
I do not think it was mentioned that this Party has a long and honourable tradition on this issue. I would remind the Hon. Member that it was the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker who saw to it that South Africa was driven out of the Commonwealth in 1961. With very few exceptions, we have made it clear from the beginning where we stand on this issue and it is very close to the position of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.
When Archbishop Trevor Huddleston was here a few months ago, and later on his godson, Bishop Tutu, it was an honour and a privilege for me to spend several hours with both of them and to learn more clearly of their insights into this problem. Bishop Tutu tells us that South Africans, when they finally overcome this cancer, will look to see who sided with them and who sided against them and they will know who their friends are and who their friends are not. That sort of a remark touches the hearts of all of us.
1 would remind the Hon. Member that even Bishop Tutu has said that he will give the Government 18 months in which to do something. The Hon. Member may say that that is because he will go to jail if he says otherwise, but Bishop Tutu has said that if nothing is done in 18 months, he will call for disinvestment from South Africa. If he is prepared to give South Africa a little more time, although the Hon. Member may ask how much time is enough, perhaps that is something that Canadians should consider as well.


John R. Rodriguez: They had 25 years.


David Kilgour: I know. You're absolutely right.
The Hon. Member is speaking about outlawing bank loans to South Africa. I am told that Canadian Schedule A banks have $180 billion in outstanding loans in all countries around the world. While I do not have a specific figure for South Africa, it is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of that total amount. It is a drop in the bucket.


John R. Rodriguez: Still too much.


David Kilgour: The Hon. Member says that it is still too much. Can we outlaw a loan to, for example, XYZ company, a company in South Africa that employs black people? Would that help the cause of black men, women and children in South Africa? How does that help the people at the bottom of the economic heap? Obtaining a loan from Canada might make
South Africa
the difference between the business continuing or not. How does it help to tell the company it can no longer obtain loans from Canada?


John R. Rodriguez: Are you kidding me? The United States forbade American banks to lend money to Cuba.


David Kilgour: The Hon. Member already had a chance to speak. I do not mind the occasional heckling, but 1 would ask him not to do it every four seconds. If he does, I will be doing nothing but answering his questions.


John R. Rodriguez: You're running out my time anyway so what does it matter?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


David Kilgour: If we cut off bank loans, would that do anything for the people whom we are trying to help, which is the people at the bottom?


John R. Rodriguez: Yes.


David Kilgour: The Hon. Member said "yes". I guess this Government says no.


John R. Rodriguez: We know whose friend you are.


David Kilgour: I would remind the Hon. Member that Ambassador Stephen Lewis and I spent a week together in law school, back when he was smart enough to get out of law school. On November 20, Ambassador Lewis, said in the United Nations, on behalf of the Government, that the Canadian Government rejects the concept that total isolation of South Africa would somehow promote fundamental reform in that country. It would not happen. Racist mentalities feeds on isolation. Isolation breeds the kind of defiance which further fans the flames of oppression and hatred. If the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt accepts that reasoning-and I hope he does as I believe that most Members of the House accept that reasoning-then how can we help the cause by cutting off all connections with South Africa?


John R. Rodriguez: Right.


David Kilgour: The Hon. Member said "right", but do we do the same thing with Cuba? What about Nicaragua?


John R. Rodriguez: The Americans did.


David Kilgour: That is the point. The Americans did. But, I always thought that it was the policy of all Members of the House that wherever possible we wanted to keep our contacts with Governments with which we profoundly disagree.
Do we say to the Government of Haiti-where, as he knows, human rights are probably breached more than anywhere else-that we will no longer have anything to do with it?


John R. Rodriguez: Next on the list.


David Kilgour: By that, we will help the Haitians-

March 21, 1985
South Africa


John R. Rodriguez: I think we would send a message to the Government of Haiti and it would be an effective message.


An Hon. Member:: That is not realistic.


David Kilgour: One Member said that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is unrealistic. I think it is the Canadian tradition, which is shared by all Parties, that we try wherever possible to keep our contacts and to keep the flow of communications open with as many countries as we can. I repeat, racist mentalities feed on isolation. Isolation breeds the kind of defiance which further fans the flames of oppression and hatred.
The second part of the resolution asks us to outlaw the importation of South African krugerrand gold coins to Canada. My understanding-and perhaps the Hon. Member can correct me-is that the gold coins are 100 p. cent gold. If that is the case, there is nothing easier on the face of the earth than to melt the coins down and simply bring in the gold in its natural metal form. I do not know how the second part of his resolution will-


John R. Rodriguez: Ban the importation of it.


David Kilgour: We cannot ban the importation of gold.


John R. Rodriguez: From South Africa.


David Kilgour: If the Hon. Member believes that gold coming from South Africa should be banned-and I believe that South Africa produces something like 20 per cent of the world's gold supply-then we can simply say that no Canadian will buy gold if it had its origin in South Africa.


John R. Rodriguez: We have gold mines in Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


David Kilgour: The third question is to disallow further Canadian investment in South Africa. I have indicated as clearly as I can that with investment in South Africa, as the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, if the companies are required to provide equal access to facilities for white and black people, then that is helping the people about whom we are concerned.
I do not want to be accused of talking this motion out. I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs said and I agree with large chunks of what the the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt said.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it is I who will be forced to talk this motion out this afternoon. I do not think that it is something that the Government of Canada can accept, for the reasons which were expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary.
In particular, on this side of the House, we have to give deep consideration to the various ramifications that a policy such as that proposed by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would have. When I read his motion, it occurred to me that it was some kind of a knee-jerk reaction to something
which he does not like any more than does the vast majority of Canadians. But I fail to see how in doing this we would have any influence whatsoever on the policies of a foreign and sovereign Government.
It would seem that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has perceived the problem and wants to turn his back on it. If he does not see it any more, and if there are no relations between Canada and South Africa, then he thinks it will go away. But I do not think that will happen.
If Canada and other Western countries decided to turn their backs completely on South Africa, things would continue very much the same as they are now. There would not be a general improvement in the situation, which has happened to some extent. By all accounts, there is a general improvement which has happened from time to time. Sure, there is a long way to
go-


John R. Rodriguez: Tell us about the improvements.


Dave Nickerson: The Hon. Member asked me to tell him about the improvements. I would ask him to contrast the fate of some of the people for which he is so concerned in South Africa to those in other countries. We know what is going on in Ethiopia and Uganda. I believe that a lot of people in Ethiopia would much prefer to live in South Africa, despite the fact that political rights would not be available to them. At least they could eat, get a fairly good job and have a roof over their heads.


John R. Rodriguez: Are you serious?


Dave Nickerson: Of course I am serious. I would suggest that the Hon. Member, too, should be serious. Perhaps he is not concerned with the plight of people in Ethiopia. Perhaps he is not concerned with what happened in Uganda. We do not want a revolution, bloodshed and that type of thing. We do not want to force that on people. We want an improvement in the situation.
I would like to take a look at some of the proposals which have been made. We do not want any more Canadian investment in South Africa. We do not want people to go there and develop factories or anything of that nature. But if we really looked at what has been happening, we would see that it is in the foreign-owned factories and the foreign-owned industrial establishments that most of the improvements have been made.


John R. Rodriguez: Like the Bata Shoe Company?


Dave Nickerson: For example, we could look at some of the oil refinery companies in South Africa. A number of those operations have conducted their affairs in a way which shows that there can be racial harmony in South Africa. If one plant can do that, then the people in the next plant will not be frightened and will adopt the same way of operating. Gradually, over a period of time, more plants will adopt that kind of operation.
March 21, 1985

Some of the industrialists in South Africa have been at the forefront of the movement against apartheid. Particularly in the mining industry, people such as Harry Oppenheimer were against it. I know the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt would not approve of a capitalist-industrialist who invests money and creates jobs to allow things to flourish and provide employment for all people of all colours and all races.


John R. Rodriguez: Exploiting the black man.


Dave Nickerson: That is the very area from which the maximum opposition to apartheid within South Africa has come. It has come from the industrial sector rather than the agricultural sector.
The Hon. Member wants to outlaw the importation of South African gold coins to Canada. The previous speaker gave objections to that proposal and explained how it would be ineffective. He wants to outlaw Canadian bank loans to South Africa. I cannot see any sense to that idea whatsoever. 1 would imagine the most use we would get out of that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I make my comments as a result of a question I posed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on March 14 regarding the Maritime Farmers Council. I wish to point out to the House that I have raised this matter on previous occasions, as has my colleague, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson).
I raised the matter on February 14 expressing concern that the Maritime Farmers Council is in need of emergency funding which has not been forthcoming by the Government. I also posed a question to the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board on March 8, 1985, and again an answer was not forthcoming. Consequently, I rise with respect to my most recent question on March 14 when I asked the Minister of Agriculture for emergency funding for the Maritime Farmers Council.
By way of background, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members of both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party met here in Ottawa in February with representatives of the Maritime
Adjournment Debate
Farmers Council which made its presentation regarding the situation in which it presently finds itself. I believe there was a consensus reached by Hon. Members of both the Liberal and the Conservative Parties who were in attendance that we would all attempt to work for the betterment of the maritime farmers. To date there have been no positive answers forthcoming to those questions. I alluded to the fact that the indefinite delay by the Minister of Agriculture is the equivalent of a "no" in terms of an answer.
For the benefit of Hon. Members of the House who are here, what is the crisis? The crisis is that at least half of our maritime pork industry will disappear before the end of 1986 unless preventive measures are taken immediately. In Nova Scotia, for instance, at least 25 per cent of our pork producers are already technically bankrupt. The total of their loans and mortgages is greater than the current market value of their assets. A similar situation prevails in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
A 50 per cent reduction in our pork production will seriously threaten the continued viability of one or more of our three major meat packing plants as well as the proposed new plant on Prince Edward Island. Allowing the situation to continue will threaten an industry which currently provides 6500 on-farm jobs with an annual farm gate value of $375 million. If one applies a multiplier effect of three, our maritime livestock industry generates more than $1 billion in annual economic activity within the region. A large portion of this activity is under imminent danger of extinction.
What is the cause of this crisis, Mr. Speaker? I believe there are two causes. In the case of pork, part of the cause is the extended current low market price for pork throughout the North American market. Second, there is a great disparity in feed costs between the Maritimes and the rest of Canada, particularly Ontario. I wish to give a few examples.
On February 1, 1985, according to information provided by the Livestock Feed Board of Canada, the average cost of hog grower ration in Ontario was $207 per tonne, compared with $254 in the Maritimes. That is a difference of $47 per tonne. In the case of dairy cattle, the spread in the cost of dairy ration between the Maritimes and Ontario as of February 1, 1985, was $58 per tonne. This translates to an average increase of 2.9 cents per litre in the production cost of milk in the Maritimes as compared with Ontario. For milk sold for manufacturing purposes, producers in both areas receive essentially the same price. In the fresh fluid market higher prices simply discourage consumption.
What about the case of broilers? The price spread there is the cost of feed. The difference between the Maritimes and Ontario is $53 per tonne, causing a production cost difference of six cents per kilogram.
What about eggs? The price disparity in the cost of laying mash between the Maritimes and Ontario is now $31 per tonne. This means an increased cost of production equivalent to six cents per dozen in the Maritimes over Ontario. The

March 21, 1985
Adjournment Debate
market price for eggs in the Maritimes is less than five cents higher than the Ontario price.
The way to resolve this dilemma, and I believe this is the long-term solution, is to grow all of our feed grains and concentrates. This process has already started. Between 1976 and 1984 our grain acreage has increased from 280,562 to 295,500. Our acreage of protein crops has increased over the same period from practically nothing to approximately 5,000. If we can return to our 1941 acreage of more than 500,000, producing above average yields of barley, wheat, grain corn and soya beans, we could be almost self-sufficient.
However, in order to ensure the survival of our livestock and poultry industries until we do reach self-sufficiency we require an immediate emergency program consisting of the following two items. We have to restore feed grain assistance to the 1975-76 level of funding to cover over 60 per cent of the cost of transportation of feed grains and protein concentrates imported into the Maritimes from central and western Canada. Secondly, we have to extend the same level of assistance to the feed grains and proteins grown within the Maritime region in order to stimulate local production.
In conclusion, Canadians in the Atlantic provinces are not resentful of the huge payouts made to western farmers, whether under the western grain stabilization legislation or others. What we are resentful of is that it is taking so long for the Minister of Agriculture to give an affirmative answer to the request agreed to by both the Conservative and Liberal Parties when we met with the Maritime Farmers' Council. They need an additional $13.5 million of emergency funding. I believe it is high time the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary give an affirmative response to this request in the best interests of the Maritime farmers. I plead for the assistance to be forthcoming now. It this continues to drag on it will amount to saying no to a request which is in the best interests of our region. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an affirmative reply forthwith.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed to see the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) so eager to applaud his colleague from Cape Breton-Richmond East (Mr. Dingwall). He seemed less inclined to do so when the previous Government adopted all the measures that plunged this country into an accumulated deficit of $200 billion, and an annual deficit of $35 billion we are trying very hard to reduce. He was not applauding last year. Spending was easy at the time. Spending is always easy. Acting responsibly before the Canadian people is something else.
The federal Government did not turn down the request made by the Maritime Farmers' Council. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) had a meeting with the Ministers of Agriculture from the Maritimes, and he met with them again this week to discuss various problems confronting the agricultural industry, both in the Maritimes and in Western Canada.
The Minister has designated an official departmental representative who will work together with the Maritime Provinces and the Maritime Farmers' Council on formulating proposals for dealing with their problems.
When we talk about consensus and discussion and reaching a settlement... of course, our Opposition friends do not even know the meaning of the word "consensus". The word was forgotten for 20 years. Provinces, farmers, everyone was forgotten. This Government has now reopened discussions with the farmers and the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot settle everything in a matter of weeks, because of our tremendous financial problems, as I mentioned before.
The Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) has started a review of the Government's feed grains policy. All organizations concerned have been contacted, and each one has been asked to state its position on our policy. The Minister has also offered to meet with as many organizations as possible before undertaking any policy review. That is how this Government operates, not by governing and making decisions and checking afterwards whether people agree. We have said goodbye and good riddance to that approach. This Government has started consulting with people and working together with Canadians. Of course it takes people by surprise. They are not used to it. There are people alive today who never have seen the like of it since their childhood. It just did not exist before. But it is going to exist. People are starting to realize that in Canada we can discuss problems and talk things over. And despite our tremendous problems and our limited financial resources, we have already taken a number of measures that will benefit farm producers in the Maritimes and across Canada.
Federal Government expenditures on agriculture in the Maritimes were estimated at $90 million in 1982 and 1983, out of a total of $1.9 billion. Expenditures for the Maritimes alone, Mr. Speaker, represented 14 per cent of the Government's gross revenue, while it was 9 per cent for Quebec and 4 per cent for Ontario. When the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Richmond East (Mr. Dingwall) says that we are not doing anything for the Maritimes, that is a lot of nonsense. It is just not true. We are going to work for the Maritimes just as we are going to work for the entire country, Mr. Speaker.


AIR TRANSPORT-REQUEST FOR DETAILS ABOUT CLOSURE OF AIR SAFETY OFFICE IN MONTREAL. (B) EFFECTS OF BUDGETARY CUTS ON MONTREAL
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this time to debate the closure of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board office, because our colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Blais), who just answered a question from my colleague from the Maritimes, tried to hide behind the smokescreen of consultation to reply to my colleague and
March 21, 1985

explain the Government's inaction. The issue I want to raise has to do, first, with a decision made by the Conservative Government without any consultation, second, with a broken election promise.
As it happens, the Member for Bellechasse just said that there will be consultation in future. Well, I am saying that when the Conservative Government closed the Canadian Aviation Safety Board office in Montreal, it did not keep its promise to consult the parties involved. For the record, here is the telegram sent to the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Bouchard) on November 6, 1984:
We have just learned that you have decided to move the Montreal head office of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
We would like to know the reasons for such a decision which you made without any consultation with the interested people in the region.
Your Government promised that it would promote dialogue and consultation concerning any decision likely to affect our region.
We are wondering why the consultation process has not been respected as promised.
The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) was referring only a few seconds ago to the consultation process so dear to the Tory Government. Well, in this case there has been no consultation.
And that letter is signed by the Mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, the Chairman of the Montreal Urban Community, Mr. Pierre DesMarais II, the President of the Montreal Commerce Bureau, Mr. Stephen Cheasley, the President of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Philip O'Brien, and the Minister in the Quebec Provincial Government, Mr. Guy Tardif, Minister of Housing and Consumer Protection and Senior Minister from the Greater Montreal area that is affected by this unilateral action taken by the Tory Government, with a loss of some 110 jobs in Metro-Montreal.
In my view, that decision was made for the sole purpose of gratifying a few employees, a few civil servants, a few employees in the Department of Transport, the Transport Commission and the Pilots Association. It is a bad decision and it should never have been made by this Government. It hurts Montreal, and not only does it fly in the face of that consultation commitment but also it goes against the promise made by the Tory Leader when he was in Place Ville-Marie in August telling Montrealers that he would give back to Montreal its status as a metropolis. Well, since he made that commitment to give back to Montreal its status as a metropolis, decision after decision after decision has been made by those ministers to discourage and jeopardize employment in Metro-Montreal.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the present context, some 10,000 jobs in the transport and aeronautic areas are in jeopardy as a result of those ruthless decisions taken by the Progressive Conservative government, those budget cuts imposed on departments and Crown corporations with headquarters in Montreal.
Adjournment Debate
I urge the member from Quebec who will answer my question to have enough courage to uphold the interests of Quebec and to say to the Progressive Conservative ministers who, one after the other, take administrative decisions having adverse effects on employment in Montreal that this has been going on long enough and that things must change. If it goes on like this, jobs will be lost at Via Rail, at the CN, at Air Canada, at Canadair, at Teleglobe and in the port of Montreal as a result of budgetary reductions made by the Conservative government. This cannot go on. May I remind the House that the headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization are in Montreal and that the ICAO has acquired a worldwide reputation in the aeronautic as well as in the aerospace areas during the past years. This fact greatly contributes to make Montreal an important city and that is why the previous Liberal government chose that city for the Canadian Air Safety Office. Now I am asking the government to reconsider its decision and to move back to Montreal that important Air Safety Office to make it independent of the Department of Transport and federal officials. It is not only by accident that we have decided to set up that office far from the Canadian capital because there must be a so-called arm's length relation between such an organization and the Department of Transport. I think that the government has underestimated the importance of protecting the independence of that office from the Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission. Consequently, I hope that the government will reconsider its decision and will try to create jobs rather than unemployment as it is now doing in Montreal.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we have heard once again the Official Opposition trying to alarm Canadian people by saying that 10,000 jobs are being threatened. In fact, it is the 20 million, or rather 25 million Canadians who were being threatened until September 4 by disastrous economic policies which resulted in an incredible deficit, but the Members opposite do not like us to talk about it. They always say that we are trying to rewrite history, when we mention it.
Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase my colleague from Frontenac, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), I replied to the first question of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) by rising. As for courage, it indeed takes some courage to take over the economic situation and the country in the state where you left it, but we have that courage and we shall have it for a long time. You can be sure of that.
First, let us put certain things in context, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board was created following the recommendations of the Dubin Report on air safety. This is not an economic, industrial or commercial organization, but a board with near judiciary powers. As concerns the investigation of accidents and incidents involving civil airplanes in Canada, the staff of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board were

March 21, 1985
Adjournment Debate
formerly part of Transport Canada. By its nature, the Board must include a technical section supported by its own laboratory, as well as ground testing and checking facilities.
I am convinced that the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is aware of this. He was a member of the Government long enough to know it. It is impossible that he should not be aware of it. The laboratory and facilities are already located in Ottawa. There was never any question about moving them to Montreal. They are already located in Ottawa. We see no operational advantage in moving these facilities to Montreal.
In relation to the International Civil Aviation Organization, I can say that the Board already has computer access to its data bank, and in any case, there would be very few contacts between the two agencies. As for establishing the independence and the credibility of the Board, we believe that its performance and not its location will be the determining factor. What is important is not the location, but the effectiveness of the Board. This is obvious. The majority of those with whom the Board has dealings are located in the Ottawa-Hull region. These are the Air Transport Association, the Air Traffic Controllers' Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Owners' and Pilots' Association, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, the Canadian Transport Commission, Transport Canada and the Department of National Defence. All these agencies are located in the Ottawa-Hull region. Why scare people by saying that another monster has taken away a business from Montreal? A figure of 10,000 jobs was mentioned. The Members opposite are making mountains out of molehills.
Yesterday, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) spoke about having G.I. Joes sitting in cockpits 24 hours a day on Baffin Island. The Members opposite always try to make mountains out of molehills. That is what is wrong. The new Government must go slowly and take things in stride instead of scaring people over nothing, Mr. Speaker.


TERRORISM-PROTECTION OF TURKISH EMBASSY. (B) SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I take part in the late show because yesterday Hon. Members of the House and I were given totally unacceptable answers to questions relating to the Turkish Embassy incident, the tragedy which occurred last week when a Canadian security guard was killed. The Government claimed through two of its Ministers that security had been increased about a month before, either in late February or early March, in response to some requests by the Turkish Government, and that the Turkish Government was satisfied with the increase in security. For example, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Neilsen) said, as reported at page 2969 of Hansard, that increased security was provided as recently as last month. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) gave similar assurances to the House.
It is important whether or not they were increased because the Government is obliged under treaty to provide adequate protection to the Turkish Embassy, and because someone died; the family of the victim is entitled to know that the Government did what it could to try to protect that embassy. The Government has claimed that it did. It is important that those claims be validated.
What do we have on the other side? The claims that there was increased security are contradicted by Inspector Paradis of the RCMP, the inspector in charge of VIP security in the whole Ottawa region. The claims of these two Ministers are contradicted by Pinkerton's, and then are contradicted by the Turkish Government which continued to agitate and even sought a meeting with the Minister, but were fobbed off, I believe, on to his Parliamentary Secretary for a discussion. We have these contradictions of the two assertions by the Ministers.
I put it to the Ministers, that their credibility requires that they give some details of the increase in security, what was actually done. We are prepared to believe what was done, but tell us what was done. What did the Minister say? He could not tell me because, first, to do so would compromise national security. If I were asking what the current security arrangements are and the Minister gave that information that would compromise national security. Any interested potential terrorist would know what he is confronted with, but I am not asking about current security arrangements. I am asking about past security arrangements.
I would like to know how giving the details of past security arrangements, not what increases were provided by this Government, would do anything but enhance national security and bring a great deal of relief to the family of the victims, who would then know that something had been done to try to improve the security at the Turkish Embassy. It would also provide a basis for defending our honour as a country with Turkey, the country whose embassy was violated by the terrorist act of last week.
The Minister said that when there appears to be a discrepancy involving the word of an Hon. Member, the word of the Hon. Member is accepted. In other words, the RCMP are liars, the Pinkerton's people are liars and the Turkish Government are liars because they differ with me, says the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and his word has to be accepted.
I suppose if the Secretary of State for External Affairs came into the House and said that today was Sunday, we would have to take his word for that. In these circumstances, the Minister and the Government have no alternative and no reason for not standing up and telling us what increase in security they claim to have provided at the Turkish Embassy.
I want to refer them to a statement the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) made to Canadian Press on March 13, that after many years of almost uninterrupted power they, meaning the Liberals, left us a pretty sorry legacy in security matters. I do not agree with that. However, if that is what the Govern-
March 21, 1985

ment thought in September when they took over, why did they not do something about it? If they thought they had been left a sorry legacy in security matters, why did they sit on an RCMP report requesting additional money for increased security, and not take it to Cabinet?
As recently as last week the Solicitor General said that that report, which I commissioned, had not been taken to Cabinet yet for approval. It flies in the face of reason that this Government can be taking security seriously, as it says it is.
The Parliamentary Secretary is here today. He knows the story. He had a meeting with the Turkish ambassador. I wonder if he might tell us whether he had that meeting because the Minister was too busy or was unwilling to see the Turkish ambassador and what in effect this Government did to to increase the security at the Turkish Embassy, as the Deputy Prime Minister said they did in late February or early March.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commenting specifically on the statement of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on my meeting with the ambassador. I take my duties and role as Parliamentary Secretary very seriously. The jobs and initiatives that I have been assigned and taken on I do with the utmost of diligence, not because they are flogged on me or because the Minister happens to be busy.
I happen to play a role of liaison to the diplomatic community. This means that each and every ambassador and high commissioner when coming to this country is afforded the opportunity of being able to meet with me to begin a line of communication, which we will continue, and the opportunity of discussing our bilateral relations and our areas of concern. We do this through the forum of meetings in my office, or we may have lunches that are planned with groups of ambassadors or high commissioners, or through any such opportunities I may have to speak to groups.
The meeting held on February 27 between Ambassador Kerdja and myself was very much in keeping with that policy. I had already met a dozen ambassadors of foreign missions. I made it very clear to the Minister, because I gave him a copy of the minutes of that meeting, that there was no discussion of the security or the lack of security at that embassy. We discussed our bilateral relations. We discussed the relationship
Adjournment Debate
between the two countries as it relates to trade potential, the need for increasing trade and our relationship with Turkey as a NATO ally.
I would like to confirm for my hon. friend that when I am involved in these meetings I take them very seriously, as I did my meeting today with the U.N. ambassador from the central African republic. I will continue to play that role as long as the Government and the Secretary of State provide me with that opportunity. That is one of many roles which I have been afforded.
To return to the Hon. Member's question, the investigation ordered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on March 15 about possible approaches to the Government since February 13 by officials of the Turkish Embassy regarding the security of their mission was rapidly carried out and the Secretary of State for External Affairs reported its findings to the House on March 20. As the Minister told the House in his statement on Tuesday, there were two further contacts between Turkish and Canadian officials after mid-February. Although Ministers were not involved with these contracts, the RCMP were. In both cases, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police acted immediately to increase their vigilance, although no new information had been added by the Turkish Embassy to that made available in mid-February.
Although naturally we understand the Hon. Member's concern about this tragic situation, I do not see the relevance of the Hon. Member's reiterated questioning on this aspect. As for getting into the details of security arrangements, past, present and future, I must ask Hon. Members to understand that neither this House nor any public forum is an appropriate place for such discussions. The effectiveness of security measures is not served by allowing to become known information as to what is involved in routine or standard security arrangements, or as to what modifications are made to them when there is cause for increased vigilance. If we were to make that information available, we would run the risk of jeopardizing the safety of those we seek to protect.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 22, 1985