1976-11-01

NEW MEMBERS

["I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mrs. Jean Pigott, member for the electoral district of Ottawa-Carleton.\n1 also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of John C. Crosbie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of St. John's West."]
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mrs. Jean Pigott, member for the electoral district of Ottawa-Carleton.
1 also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of John C. Crosbie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of St. John's West.



[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Jean Pigott, member for the electoral district of Ottawa-Carleton, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
John C. Crosbie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of St. John's West, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. James McGrath.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, following upon reports that the Rhodesian government has recently sentenced Bishop Donald Lamont to ten years hard labour for failing to report the presence of guerillas in his diocese, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the government of Canada support the protest of the Anglican, United and Roman Catholic churches against the cruel and unjust punishment imposed on Bishop Lamont by Rhodesian authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80001-40y2


PROPOSAL THAT MEMBER FOR HIGH PARK-HUMBER VALLEY CONDUCT SEMINARS ON HANDLING CONSTITUENCY WORK-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of recent revelations regarding the constituency office in High Park-Humber Valley which is discreetly located somewhere in Toronto, and in view of the hon. member's and his riding secretary's very informative opinion on dealing with constituents, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the Commissioners of the Internal Economy of the House of Commons to immediately have all members of parliament remove all signs which indicate the nature of their offices, and that the savings incurred by this move be diverted into a fund for the member for High Park-Humber Valley, so that the member from High Park-Humber Valley may give seminars to members of parliament on the handling of constituents and constituents' case work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).



CUSTOMS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the discrimination being practised by the Department of National Revenue against the automotive replacement industry in Manitoba by refusing to allow entry into Manitoba of automotive parts at the import duty rates being allowed elsewhere in Canada and claiming up to 15 per cent additional import duties on shipments cleared in the Manitoba region and taking into consideration that this puts the automotive replacement industry in Manitoba at a disadvantage with similar businesses elsewhere in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House directs the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue to take immediate action to rectify the unjust and discriminatory import duties being levied against automotive parts coming into the Manitoba region.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can only be presented to the House with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 1, 1976
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER S GALLERY OF REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS LEGISLATURES

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the oral question period, may I take just a moment to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished group of people. I hope I will do them justice in attempting to single out one or two of my counterparts in the provinces. Perhaps the right thing to do would be to ask all of them to stand.
This week we are hosting, as we do every year under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Canadian Regional Parliamentary Seminar. We have invited one representative from the Caribbean Parliamentary Association which is represented in the person of the Speaker of the Barbados parliament, Mr. Speaker Hinds. Mr. Speaker Hinds might now stand up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In addition there are members of all provincial legislatures here, some of which are represented by their Speakers. 1 would ask them all to stand. I can say at a cursory glance that I know it includes Mr. Speaker Smith of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker Brockelbank of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker Ottenheimer from Newfoundland, Monsieur le president, M. Lavoie de la belle province de Quebec qui est bien occupe maintenant avec tous les autres collegues, and also Mr. Speaker Fox from Manitoba, Mr. Speaker Woodroffe from New Brunswick and Mr. Speaker designate Doucet from the province of Nova Scotia. May I ask them and others with them to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On October 25 the minister referred to an impending meeting between himself and the Chief Statistician of Canada. In view of continuing revelations in the Ottawa press about the extracurricular activities of Allan Jeffery Associates and, now, the assistant chief statistician, and the issue of whether or not there was tacit or implied consent for those activities by those in responsible positions, can the minister say whether or not the fact that no criminal prosecutions or major

disciplinary actions were taken reflects the feeling of the police or law officers of the Crown that it was precisely because there may have been such authorization, tacit or implied, no mens rea could exist in the criminal sense and it would have been difficult to secure a conviction?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I already answered this question. I believe the hon. member put 22 questions on the order paper. I hope to answer every one of them by next Wednesday.
About the other civil servant mentioned by name by the hon. member, this person acts as adviser to universities after his working hours without using in any way confidential information related to his position. This civil servant has already made a statement on this matter and I see nothing improper in that, but Dr. Kirkham informed me that new instructions had been issued on this matter and I hope that the integrity of Statistics Canada will be preserved.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I share the minister's wish and do not intend to reflect on the integrity of Statistics Canada. Is it true that the chief statistician has now ordered an audit of all contracts entered into by Statistics Canada with outsiders? Can the minister give some information as to who is in charge of such audit or investigation and when we can expect its completion. Would the minister be willing to table in the House the results of such an audit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have personally asked the chief statistician of Canada to carry out a full investigation on possible illegal or improper activities by government employees. His reply was that he was carrying out this investigation. I do not think that public interest would be served by any disclosure, as long as I am not advised that this investigation has been duly completed. However, from my conversations with Dr. Kirkham, I do not feel there is cause for concern about this for the time being, and I am sure that the integrity of Statistics Canada remains intact.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs? Can the minister indicate whether there were any transactions or offers of transactions between Allan Jeffery Associates or people connected with them and the National Capital Commission for the transmission of data for a price, and can the minister confirm that Statistics Canada employees provided information to United States consultants
November 1, 1976

on a commercial basis while, at the same time, denying information to the NCC?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check on this information. I have no knowledge of it.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. GALLANT CONCERNING ALLEGED OFFER BY STATISTICS CANADA EMPLOYEES TO SELL INFORMATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs particularly concerns his last answer. As the House knows from news reports, the then chairman of the National Capital Commission, a distinguished public servant, Mr. Gallant, raised this matter with a senior public servant. I would not think he would have written his letter and communicated as he was supposed to have done without some basis. I say this particularly since the communication, as was alleged in news reports, was such as to shock Dr. Ostry who was then in charge. In view of this communications having emanated from a public servant of the position, standing and prestige of Edgar Gallant, 1 wonder if the minister who since the news reports came out must have taken the time to examine Edgar Gallant can report to the House exactly what Mr. Gallant said- assuming that such an investigation took place. Also, is the minister in the position today-and if he is not in the position today will he put himself in the position-to table the correspondence which passed between the then chairman of the National Capital Commission, Mr. Gallant, and Mr. Gordon Robertson. Would he do that?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the situation. I do not know the circumstances. It is possible I was aware of it, but at this moment I am not sure and would like to refresh my memory.


Walter David Baker: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is based on the answer the minister gave me today and gave the hon. member for Central Nova. Is it the position of the minister that after all the newspaper reports which have been published about this matter, and the distinguished Mr. Gallant's involvement in it, that he, the minister, is not even in the position to answer the simple question I put to him relating to the facts of this case? Is that the position the minister is in today?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, it is Monday, and I had a very difficult weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that in the circumstances the minister realizes this is Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: I hope he understands the seriousness with which this affects not only Statistics Canada but the reputation of some distinguished public servants in the Public Service of Canada. It being Monday and the minister having been forewarned, will he check the record tonight and be prepared to answer my questions on Tuesday or on Wednesday? I would be satisfied with that.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was the essence of my answer to the hon. member for Central Nova, that I will look into it and have the information available to answer questions in the House tomorrow.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services, may I direct my question to the acting minister or the Prime Minister. In view of the fact it has come to light that the hon. member for Calgary South participated in and obtained contracts with the federal government through the Department of Supply and Services, the latest being in January, 1975, which the member says he personally helped to arrange, does the acting minister or Prime Minister know whether the officials of the Department of Supply and Services were aware of the implication of negotiating a contract involving federal funds with a member of parliament? If the officials were aware of that, did they bring that information to the attention of the minister? If so, what did the minister do about it? Now that the minister does know, if he did not know previously, what is he now going to do about it?


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member will accept a reply from the parliamentary secretary to the minister in view of the discussion on Friday. If so, I will take notice of the question. Second, I point out to him that the hon. member apparently discussed the matter with the Speaker and the parliamentary law counsel much, I may say, to his credit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: However, I will pursue the matter with the minister.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER FOR CALGARY SOUTH-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the government House leader, but I do not see him here. Possibly the Prime Minister can reply. In view of the fact the government must have all the facts concerning this case in their possession, and the hon. member

November 1, 1976
Oral Questions
for Calgary South has publicly implicated Your Honour by insinuating your blessing on the deal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: You can howl. It is alright for you to complain about conflict of interest on the other side of the House but when the shoe is on the other foot, you squeal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Will the Prime Minister consider sending this whole matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in order to determine whether the hon. member for Calgary South is in contravention of the House of Commons Act?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, the matter has just been brought to my attention. Like the hon. member, I have read the article relating to this issue. It is one that we take most seriously. I have read all the allegations in the article and can assure the hon. member that this will be looked at very seriously. I accept the proposition which the hon. member has presented. We will look at that seriously as well. I am sure all hon. members are very concerned about the implications in this particular article.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering the contradictory reports on the supply and storage of milk products in Canada, can the minister tell the House whether there are now large quantities of milk products such as butter and milk powder in storage or whether production is in a deficit position? I am asking this question to be able to inform milk producers for the future.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: These figures are made public. There is no shortfall. We have ample butter stocks in storage. We have more than ample skimmed milk powder in storage and if the hon. member knows of any possible sales, or of anybody in need, he should get in touch with the Canadian Dairy Commission.
[Translation\


DAIRYING-INQUIRY IF DAIRY COMMISSION HAS MADE PROJECTION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Considering the minister's answer, and in order to avoid giving wrong guidance to milk producers in Canada, is the minister in a position to tell the House whether the Canadian

Dairy Commission gave the projection for the next few months, to be able to move this production in the right direction?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is why the Dairy Commission is trying to develop programs which will provide milk for these companies which are producing specialty dairy products. If necessary, the Commission will be withdrawing the offer to purchase butter and skimmed milk powder so as to encourage companies to go into the manufacture of other products which may be in scarce supply before the dairy year is over, if they have not done so.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the acknowledgement today by the hon. gentleman to the effect that the assistant chief statistician in the statistical services field serving in the SX-3 rating with a salary of $43,000 a year is presently engaged in extracurricular activities related to his work within the department, can the minister now tell us whether he has been informed of any partnership this civil servant was engaged in with a senior research advisor, whether he is prepared to table the advertisements which were put out by this business and whether he has questioned the people involved as to whether they had permission either in writing or orally before getting into this business.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have looked into this situation and it is a very difficult one. I remember very well when I was a student in law at Laval University that some of the best teachers we had were civil servants coming in to give lessons at eight in the morning. I never felt that because they were getting up in the morning and offering their services to students they were in breach of conflict of interest guidelines. This particular civil servant is an expert in his field. He has helped some universities to develop programs. And, of course, because he was working outside his hours of work, for which he received remuneration, I am having some difficulty in feeling he was guilty of doing anything wrong. I feel we should not deprive the universities of Canada of some of the best brains we have around here when there is no conflict with public duty. I do not want to try to destroy this very good civil servant because he has been willing to help some university, accepting compensation, as long as I am satisfied he has not used any confidential information in the course of this work. If we are to make a ruling in this case, perhaps we shall have to decide that no civil servant can do anything else outside his employment, even be a policeman at the weekends to help in an arena or a stadium. Where is the line to be drawn?
November 1, 1976


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Certainly the problem here, as the minister has pointed out, is lack of clarity with respect to guidelines. I am sure they would be the first to want to know what the guidelines are. 1 ask the Prime Minister whether he has been made aware of these particular activities and whether he condones extra-curricular activities by senior civil servants-whether he would condone them if the material used, even if not confidential, was material obtained at public expense or perhaps in the course of regular employment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 had not known of these particular allegations until they were mentioned in the House today, but there are guidelines which exist. Whether they should be applied in this particular case in any particular way is a matter that the minister has considered and I abide by his judgment.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary question in connection with this particular matter to the Solicitor General. Would the Solicitor General inform the House whether the investigation by the RCMP in these particular instances was hindered or hampered in any way by the fact that the alleged improper activities by employees of Statistics Canada were reported first to Statistics Canada rather than the RCM Police?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information whatever that indicates that the RCMP would have been hindered or hampered in any manner in connection with this investigation.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO CORRECT IMBALANCE IN TRADE WITH UNITED STATES IN AUTOMOBILE PARTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the joint study by the Canadian and United States governments on the automotive industry shows that the Canadian deficit in automotive parts, which reached $2.4 billion in 1975, is already $100 million more than that amount in the first eight months of this year and well on the road to becoming a deficit of $4 billion by year's end, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to advise the
Oral Questions
House what his department intends to do to correct this very serious situation, particularly in view of the letter written by the Prime Minister to the Canadian auto parts industry just before he left for Japan, which stated that "there will probably be no immediate action to adjust tariffs to encourage foreign car makers to place more auto parts orders in Canada"?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the problem is extremely complex: generally speaking, relations between Canada and the United States with regard to the automotive agreement have been good. But the problem at this time is this: we have a deficit in the manufacturing of automotive parts. I must say to the hon. member that we have a large surplus of automobiles assembled in Canada and exported to the United States. The deficit is still considerable. I am now in the process of studying the problem but I must say to the hon. member that I have no magic solution. If the hon. member has one, I should very much like him to tell me about it because I would ask him for his help when possible.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to call on the minister and give him some ideas because he seems to be singularly lacking in them. He has not answered my question at all. With leadership like this, is it any wonder that the automotive parts industry is in the condition it is in today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Eglinton.


PROPOSAL TO TELEVISE PROCEEDINGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Go get 'em, Mitch.


Mitchell William Sharp: -this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing a question to my former colleagues. I would have addressed it to the House leader but since it concerns government policy in general I will address it either to the House leader or to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to reintroduce the motion to approve the broadcasting by television of the proceedings of this House and, if so, will the government call that motion for debate early enough so that, if approved, all necessary steps could be completed to enable our proceedings to be televised before the end of this parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can say that it is the intention of the House leader to proceed with this. He hopes to be successful well within the framework of time for which the hon. member asks. I do not know if he

November 1, 1976
Oral Questions
has yet had discussions with leaders on the other side of the Elouse and, if so, whether they have indicated a willingness to co-operate, but I hope that would be the case.


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As a distinguished member of the International Monetary Fund, having recently attended the meeting in Manila, I would ask the minister what is the attitude of Canada toward the application of the United Kingdom to the International Monetary Fund to secure some $3.9 billion by way of loan in order to tide the United Kingdom over the serious crisis that it now faces?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should tell the House and the right hon. gentleman that Canada has participated, along with other members of the fund, in standby assistance to the United Kingdom for the past several months by way of a central bank swap. The purpose would be to replace the terms of that swap with a longer term draw from the International Monetary Fund, and subject to the United Kingdom meeting the conditions set forth by the fund we would support that kind of financial assistance to the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the attitude of the government toward the application for this loan of $3.9 billion? The minister mentions that there would be certain requirements. Is the government of the United Kingdom justified in having the chancellor of the exchequer state that those requirements would place Britain in an impossible position and would not in any way meet the serious situation in which the pound now finds itself, which situation, unless action is taken, may well spread the crisis to other countries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot evaluate that at this point. The United Kingdom has been discussing with the staff of the fund the nature of the assistance and the conditions of such assistance. When the staff have completed these discussions it will be a matter of their reporting to the executive board of the fund, on which Canada is represented, to determine the manner in which this assistance would be provided. Then at that time it will be for the government to decide, along with the other executive directors, as to the appropriateness of the terms, given the situation of the United Kingdom.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence. Can he give the House an assurance that the $340,000 spent so far this year on a search and rescue base at Eagle River, Labrador, which incidentally happens to be one of the best salmon rivers in the area, was in fact used to train search and rescue personnel and not to provide salmon fishing for high ranking military brass?
Hon. Barney Danson (Acting Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member has raised a question that has been raised so many times before. I believe he well knows that this is a base for search and rescue operations. It is used about three to four weeks of the year by senior officers from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada who pay their own out-of-pocket expenses. It is a rather primitive base with two log cabins built, I believe, in the last century, and others are under canvas, so it is hardly a luxury resort. It is used for search and rescue and on occasion senior officers from the three countries do meet there for informal discussions and 1 hope they catch some fish.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister telling the House that, at a time when his predecessor was telling this House that it was not cost-effective to deploy helicopters to Newfoundland, two of these search and rescue helicopters were used over a period of 14 days, during which period they were in fact used to ferry in high ranking military brass for salmon fishing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member will check he will find that those operations take place anyway as part of the regular search and rescue training. I would refer the hon. member to the time when the question was raised before, when a reporter from the Globe and Mail of that great city of Toronto went to see the site for himself and to check out the operations. I have a three page article here written by this reporter. If the hon. member is interested in the facts and wants to judge the source, I would be very pleased to let him have it.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding the proposed third runway at Vancouver airport. A week ago the minister said that further studies of an environmental nature would seem to be necessary. On September 16, in view of this fact, a spokesman for the government at a symposium in
November 1, 1976

Vancouver said that an environmental panel had been selected but was no longer in existence. Would the minister tell the House exactly what environmental studies are taking place, and will the public be able to examine and comment on those studies after they have been completed, if they are in fact taking place?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Well, Mr. Speaker, i do not know what the reference would be to the panel that was and is not to be. My view is that the panel that is to be, is still to be and there will be an announcement on that in due course.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in September a member of the government said to a symposium in Vancouver that the environmental panel had been established but was no longer in existence, I should like to ask the minister if he will make specific inquiries concerning whether or not there is even in fact any work being done now, keeping in mind the fact that this all began three years ago?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have given the hon. member the facts as I have them. I think any reference may have been to previous work in connection with the public participation and the planning for the airport which is all well known to him. There was of course environmental work in that connection, but we have seen the need for some further work before anything further in the way of a final decision is taken. 1 will let him know where that stands as soon as 1 have further information.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the decision to discontinue the subsidy of Northland Navigation. That period ended yesterday and of course Northland Navigation has now laid off 150 employees. In view of the fact that the minister's officials have held discussions over the weekend, will the minister advise the House whether he has reconsidered the decision that was taken not to renew that subsidy? Is the decision final that the subsidy will not be renewed for Northland Navigation on the Pacific coast?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact arrangements to ensure that there is no diminution or change in the nature of the service in the area are still going on and I would not want to comment in detail upon them. We have looked at a variety of techniques to ensure there is service, including discussions with the provincial government. These I think likely will lead to a new arrangement with the province with regard to service. We are of course looking at the other carriers to make sure in one way or other that
Oral Questions
services adequate for the individuals who are involved in the various communities along the shore, up the north and on the Queen Charlotte Islands, are indeed provided.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, would the minister, in view of his answer to the effect that discussions are still going on, be prepared now to advise Northland Navigation not to lay off the 150 employees to whom they have given notice and to hold their decision in terms of their operations on the coast? Is that what the minister is advising the House; that in fact there is some hope now that Northland Navigation will be allowed to continue that service?


Otto Emil Lang: 1 am simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that discussions are going on. So far as the particular employees are concerned, Northland itself is quite aware of the state of the discussions and I need add nothing further by way of distant intervention in the discussions.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Defence. In a move to cover an obvious lack of responsibility in rescue capability which was pointed out last week by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, the minister has moved suddenly and callously Voyageur helicopters from Summerside to Newfoundland, has moved Voyageurs from Trenton Ontario to Summerside and has left Trenton covered only by the "Twin Hueys" which are woefully inadequate for the search work necessary. Accepting the fact that it was absolutely essential to send the equipment to Newfoundland, was it really necessary to disrupt the entire air-sea rescue structure in eastern Canada to accomplish this?
Hon. Barney Danson (Acting Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has the names of some of the helicopters mixed up. He has interesting sources of information. The point is that when we do feasibility studies we want to check the different movements of various types of aircraft. At least that is one of the reasons we are doing it. Certainly, there is adequate backup for Trenton both from Petawawa and Ottawa. There are other aircraft at Trenton. This is the whole purpose of the feasibility study, to see what the effect of different movement of aircraft is to our response capacity, right down the line.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I would love to challenge in a debate the minister's knowledge of this equipment. In any event, the result of this hurried and poorly thoughtout action will clearly result in the resignation of some senior people who are fed up with the lack of proper equipment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 1, 1976
Oral Questions


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, may I put this: Can the acting minister indicate whether these moves are permanent, whether new or at least satisfactory equipment is to be provided for the Great Lakes area or does he intend to replace everything and leave Canada'a east coast again unprotected?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the feasibility study is to find out what is feasible.


INDUSTRY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is supplementary to that raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo on Friday relative to some 30 job layoffs in the textile industry in his area. Given that more than 200 textile workers were laid off at Celanese Canada Limited, Millhaven, during the weekend and that other similar occurrences are imminent at other plants, has the minister made any assessment, in conjunction with industry, to determine how many textile jobs will be terminated in the next six months?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have no definitive answer to give in that regard. When I was appointed Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I started immediately to look into the matter because, in my own area, many people work for the textile industry; I immediately imposed certain quotas in an effort to limit the number of imports. But, Mr. Speaker, some time always elapses between the time when quotas are imposed and the time when the situation becomes normal. I believe there will be temporary layoffs for a few months, but I trust the imposition of quotas in the last few weeks will have expected results in the coming months. Still, 1 must admit that in coming weeks there will be layoffs in the textile industry. I trust, however, that the situation will go back to normal a little later on in the year.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary I should like to ask the minister just how many textile workers must be unemployed before the government takes more effective measures to deal with the deterioration in the industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vegreville.


HEAVY OIL-MEASURES TO STABILIZE INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has to do with the continuing difficulties experienced in the heavy oil industry, particularly in the Lloydminster area. I want to thank the minister for making the effort to visit the Lloydminster area and look at the situation firsthand. The fact of the matter is that there are now close to 1,000 wells closed. Can the minister advise the House whether any new policy initiatives are being actively considered so that they may be put in place in the immediate future. Further to the 25,000 barrels a day inside quota requirement for heavy oil, I ask if the minister is considering exempting the heavy oil from the quota restrictions or amending the export tax in an effort to stimulate and stabilize this very important industry and thereby avoid disruptions in the economy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very glad the hon. member has raised this question. I consider it to be a very important potential resource for Canada. I am very hopeful that some of the considerations that are presently being given to this problem both by my own department, by the industry and I hope by the National Energy Board will bring about a solution for this area. I think the 25,000-barrel a day tied quota the National Energy Board introduced for this current month is a step in the right direction. 1 very much hope that in their own wisdom as they consider the merits of the case-and as you know they are presently considering a number of proposals from the industry-they will consider other measures to help solve a very difficult problem in that part of the country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Am I to take it that we can expect an announcement in the next two or three months about further policy initiatives to be put into effect to alleviate the immediate difficulties which we are now facing because of the drop in demand for heavy oil in the off season period?


Alastair William Gillespie: Of course, parliament set up the National Energy Board to deal with these kinds of questions. Hon. members will realize that I have no authority to intervene in these proceedings. I hope that the representations which have been made to the National Energy Board, and the concern which has been expressed by members on both sides of the House on this question, will bear some fruit. I expect that their report might be in my hands in a matter of some weeks, certainly by the end of the year.
November 1, 1976


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence, and it is one of which I have given him notice. Mr. William Biggs, an employee of the Department of National Defence in Germany, was hailed into a German court by the Department of National Defence on two charges. During the investigation he was suspended from work and then dismissed from his employment. He was subsequently found innocent of all charges, but has not been reinstated in his employment. Will the minister undertake to have an inquiry into this matter conducted by an impartial body so that justice can be seen to be done in this case?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am looking into the case of Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs' solicitor has been in touch with the Assistant Judge Advocat General. The Judge Advocat General is quite prepared to meet with Mr. Biggs and his solicitor at this time, and I myself am looking into this case personally.

[Translation)


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I know perfectly well, Mr. Speaker, that it is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has been appointed, on a purely personal basis, minister of state for the decentralization of departments.

But since, in the final analysis and as matters now stand, it is the President of the Treasury Board who is in charge of welfare and the working conditions of public servants, I will address my question to him. Is he prepared to state, with reference to the transfer of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown, whether there have been any discussions before this announcement was made either with the Public Service Alliance of Canada or with employees of the department, and whether he would be prepared to table the results of those discussions.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the other day, the responsibility for this program lies in the first place with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There were discussions before that decision was made and, according to my information, these discussions were in fact satisfactory.
Oral Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS


RELOCATION OF DEPARTMENT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ANY MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYEES
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
1 still think I would like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to ask him whether there has been any memorandum of understanding concluded with his department with regard to the fate of these particular members of his department on matters covering guarantees of employment, career security, transfer of homes, and such matters, and if he would be prepared to table such an agreement.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may 1 say in answer to the hon. member's question that this has been worked on by my department, by the Treasury Board and by the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for over a year. All the matters referred to were taken into consideration, such as guarantees of employment, etc. This policy has been proclaimed by the government for some time; it has been in operation, and I have no fears regarding the future employment of these people. They have an opportunity to take the jobs or to move out if they wish, and no great concern has been expressed by my department's employees. This will work out quite well.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of National Defence, who has left his seat for the moment, I see. Now that he is back, would he advise the House of the stage of his dealings with regard to the change in size, structure and location of military bases in Canada, and would he explain whether a decision is being arrived at within his department or is he at the stage of making recommendations to the cabinet, and will the decision be announced as a total package or will it come in dribs and drabs?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, 1 said to the hon. member last week, I think, that some response will be forthcoming sooner or later. I am familiarizing myself with the situation at this time. The response will be forthcoming in a logical way. If it means a blanket statement or one that is properly phased and staged, it will not be in dribs and drabs but it will be done in the appropriate way and in the best interest of the armed forces of the country and the personnel involved.

November 1, 1976
624________________
Oral Questions


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can he indicate whether the government will now renounce the practice of making borrowers from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation pick from a selective list of lawyers, in effect making a Crown corporation the only mortgage lender in Canada which picks the lawyers for its own borrowers?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1 wish it were Tuesday. 1 will be pleased to review this with the hon. member. I think he will find that the lawyers for the majority of loans and subsidies placed through CMHC are chosen by the borrowers themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: If hon. members are interested in facts rather than fiction, I will be pleased to indicate the number.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You don't believe that, Barney.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen opposite are not very interested in the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: In fact, the vast majority of loans today are the result of the activities of CMHC which are increasing at an astounding rate, with borrowers choosing their own lawyers. There are selected cases where it would be only appropriate that the lawyer act on their behalf.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a word of the answer. Perhaps I had better protect myself by saying ten o'clock and we will see what happens when I read the answer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence, supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East. Since the matter of money which was voted for search and rescue operations, possibly being used for providing holiday accommodation at the Canadian armed forces Eagle River camp in Labrador, has aroused a good deal of concern, and in view of the fact that the government certainly has done nothing to set that alarm at rest, I want to ask the acting minister if he would undertake to

table in the House the list of all persons who have stayed at the camp during the past year, other than those who are part of the search and rescue operations, and state the amount of money which they paid for the accommodation as well as the means of transportation which was used to get there.


An hon. Member:: A good question for ten o'clock on Tuesday.
Hon. Barney Danson (Acting Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, the list of people includes senior officers from the allied forces with whom we work and who have operations at Goose Bay. I do not know if it would be appropriate to list the names of visitors from other countries. The cost for the accommodation is $25 a day. The total cost of the operation is some $3,000 to $4,000 a year. The out-ofpocket expenses are paid by host officers or from their mess funds. The helicopters used to go in there fly on such operations at least twice a day, destined there or to other places, so there is no additional cost in that respect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister at least table the number of persons who used this accommodation during this past year? Will he tell us the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of providing this hospitality and whether or not any civilians made use of this fishing resort?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1 think it would be very difficult to differentiate between those who were on certain rescue operations and those who were guests of senior officers of the Canadian Armed Forces. I think that would be particularly difficult to do, and as far as any cost involved in the operation is concerned, I would be pleased to get that precise information, in addition to that which I have already given, and to make it available to the hon. member.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. I would like to ask the minister if any decision has been reached on having public hearings on the pay television proposal and what success she has had in discussions with the chairman of the CRTC.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, when I delivered a speech on pay television, I had precisely in mind to open a public debate on that matter. So I asked the CRTC chairman permission to receive submissions or briefs from various groups likely to be interested. We have received 91 reports. We are compiling and analyzing them. I do believe we must go on with discussions. As for me, I have
November 1, 1976

nothing against the CRTC holding public hearings about pay television but it is up to its chairman to make the decision.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for that answer, as far as it goes, but will the minister use the weight and good grace of her office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Careful, boy.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hope the minister will use grace or the moral suasion of her office, rather than weight, so that some assurance will be given that before this matter gets to cabinet and a recommendation and directive from cabinet is issued, the public, which will be fundamentally affected by this technology or development, will have some say in the deliberative process.


Jeanne Sauvé: While the hon. member decides whether I should use my weight or grace, I will tell him that 1 am discussing this with the president of the CRTC. There is no question that the cabinet will give consideration to proceeding with public hearings, but it is not improper-nor, indeed, excluded-for these discussions to occur between myself and the president of the CRTC.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. A moment ago the President of the Treasury Board said that it was his understanding that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was responsible for the first phase of the decentralization program. That admission of uncertainty by the minister concerned as to what he is responsible for adds further confusion to this whole matter, and I wonder if the Prime Minister could give us an undertaking that there will be a statement on motions by either himself, the minister responsible for phase one or the minister responsible for phase two as to just who in the ministry is responsible for all phases of the program dealing with decentralization, what procedures of consultation are in place regarding public servants affected, what departments are under consideration now for decentralization and what sites in the country are being considered now to receive decentralized departments.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to make a statement on the whole operation of decentralization. The reason the distinction of phase one has arisen is that it is an operation which was well under way and well defined at the time of the movement of ministers. For that
Oral Questions
reason alone we are talking about phase one. There is no phase two contemplated, but the certainty is-


Mr. Fairweather:: Then why say phase one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that I wanted to ensure that this operation, which was begun in the Treasury Board and which is an operation seen as a whole, will be continued by the minister who has been handling it so well and so effectively. When this is terminated, of course, the responsibility for one of the government's priorities, that of decentralization-which incidentally is something the Leader of the Opposition supports and campaigned for in his leadership campaign-


Walter David Baker: So did Mr. Stanfield.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -will then return to the new President of the Treasury Board, and whether he wants to contemplate any further action, which presumably would become phase two, is a matter which has not been envisaged, but which he will consider in due course.


MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Charles Joseph Clark: In that same spirit I wonder if the Prime Minister could enlighten the House as to which minister is now responsible for the present phase of CIDA, whether the principle the Prime Minister articulated is going to be carried out and that responsibility for CIDA will travel with the now reinstated President of the Privy Council, and if that is the case, whether it will rest with him or whether that responsibility will transfer back to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, because the present House leader had been such an effective co-chairman of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation in Paris, I asked him to continue to be chairman of that operation until the end of that conference.


An hon. Member:: Or he asked you.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If 1 were Andras or Jamieson, I would be mad.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question of CIDA was raised at the same time, and it had been the intention of the department and myself to consider naming a minister expressly for the purpose of CIDA.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That proposition has been under examination for several months now. The fact that the cabinet shuffle took place before the decision was actually made led me to discuss with both ministers the possibility of not having a junior minister for CIDA but using the present House leader to continue his excellent direction of CIDA, and that is a matter which is still under discussion between the House leader and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

November 1, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Bawden


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister had told us that he does not know which minister is responsible for CIDA-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and 1 think the House would like to know who is the minister responsible now for CIDA and whether that responsibility will rest with that minister, whoever it is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 assumed that the Leader of the Opposition would have drawn the conclusion from what I stated that there has been no announcement of any change of minister for CIDA; therefore, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is still responsible for CIDA. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been travelling somewhat, and the acting minister, who is also the House leader, has been answering in his stead.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, by reason of the manner in which a question was raised today by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), 1 think it is appropriate to clear the air and deal with this matter by way of a question of privilege in this House so that all hon. members will be aware of all the details and events and there will be no misunderstanding.
Early in 1975, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contacted Emden Limited, a company of which I am the sole shareholder, concerning the sale of its turbo Beaver aircraft with amphibious floats, skis and a number of spares and expressed a requirement in the exchange that an existing, older piston-engine Beaver aircraft with floats be accepted as a trade-in. At that time I sought legal advice, and after careful review of the Senate and House of Commons Act, I was advised that section 21(a) of that act provides that it does not extend to disqualify any person as a member of the House of Commons by reason of his being a shareholder in any company, except in the case of a company which undertakes a contract for the building of any public work.
It was my desire at that time to have the absolute authority rule on this matter, because two years earlier-in the spring of 1973-another company of mine, of which I am a substantial shareholder, Peter Bawden Drilling Services Limited, sold a twin-engine turbo-prop aircraft to the Ministry of Transport. At that time I acted on the same legal advice. It was my decision, however, to disclose these earlier transactions to Mr. Speaker and to advise him in writing of the sale of the turbo Beaver aircraft to the RCMP. I therefore wrote to the Speaker

on January 23. I took this letter to him personally at the meeting in the afternoon of that day. At that meeting, the Speaker advised me that the sale by a company in which a member owned shares would not contravene any of the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act.
I asked the Speaker at that time for a letter concerning the matter. He said this would necessitate a study of all the details; that it was a large task, and really unnecessary. He did, however, advise me that he would have Mr. Maingot, legal counsel of the House of Commons, speak to me in this regard. Two weeks ago, in view of the possibility that this matter might be raised, I had a further discussion with the Speaker of the House and 1 met with parliamentary counsel. At that time, with parliamentary counsel I went over each of the transactions; that is, the sale of the King Air aircraft and the sale of the Beaver aircraft. I also advised Mr. Maingot that Emden Ltd., the company of which I am the sole shareholder, owns a hangar at the Calgary international airport and thus has a lease with the Department of Transport. This lease was inherited from Trizec when Emden purchased the hangar, Trizec being the previous owner, and the lease was assigned entirely in its original form. I further discussed with the parliamentary counsel, at that time, Emden and its subsidiary company, Business Flights Ltd. which offers an aircraft charter service from Calgary and provides for those requesting it a fuelling service and hangarage to a number of tenants and transient aircraft.
I advised Mr. Maingot that from time to time government aircraft used this facility, and that the charter service of Business Flights Ltd. was available and must be available to all, by law, at public and approved tariffs. Mr. Maingot wrote to me on October 27, subsequent to the meeting I had with him when 1 discussed all of the activities I have just explained. 1 will quote what I believe to be the most significant paragraph of his letter as follows:
You asked my opinion whether there was any impediment in law to a member being the major shareholder of a limited company contracting with the government of Canada. The answer which 1 gave you then, and which I now repeat, is that as long as the contract is between the limited company and the government of Canada, the requirements of section 21 of the Senate and House of Commons Act are met. In such case, the limited company, and not the member, is contracting with the government.
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that the position of a member in opposition is entirely different from what it would be if one were sitting on the other side and in the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He said "cabinet".


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, the companies I have described offer their services on a competitive basis, and I expect that purchasing by anyone, including agencies of the Crown, on the basis that the quality of service and the price is at least equal to and probably better than can be found elsewhere. The same rights apply to oilwell drilling services which are almost always contracted on a competitive bid basis. If the low bid for
November 1, 1976

drilling the well was rejected, this would likely result in substantial additional cost to the Canadian taxpayer; that is, if a government oil company were involved in the circumstances I have described.
1 have been advised, further, that 1 could have placed the shareholdings of these companies in a blind trust. I have rejected this alternative because 1 think that it would serve no purpose. In fact, if anything, it would be a sham. It would change nothing, for many of the activities I have described are reported in trade magazines. In the case of small, privately-held companies such as these, no meaningful result is gained from a blind trust.
In view of the fact that this came up in the way it did, I would seek the consent of the House to move a substantive motion of privilege. I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the question of the rights, privileges and obligations of members of parliament granted and imposed by the House of Commons Act and other relevant federal statutes be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that the said committee report to this House on the parameters of such rights, privileges and obligations of members pursuant to such legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member rose on this question of privilege it was my intention to rise on a question related to the whole matter but one slightly different in emphasis. Some of the comments of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) make me feel that it is even more urgent that I raise the particular angle that bothers me.
When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blaker) answered a question put to him earlier today by my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), he said that, to his credit, the hon. member for Calgary South had consulted Your Honour. There may have been more in that sentence, but I think 1 am repeating faithfully what the parliamentary secretary said when he indicated there had been consultations between the hon. member for Calgary South and Your Honour as Speaker. I am not thinking about the fact that this statement seemed to take the hon. member off the hook. What really concerns me is that the word "consultation" implies advice or consent- maybe even a blessing. If it were true that Your Honour, as Speaker, gave consent or even advice to a member of this House in a matter like this, that in itself would be something very serious and ought to be investigated by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


John Allen Fraser: That is ridiculous. Where are you supposed to go?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends say there is nothing wrong with that; it is perfectly-
Privilege-Mr. Bawden


John Allen Fraser: I said, what is unreasonable about going to the Speaker of the House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. My hon. friend can speak if he wishes. It is one thing to go to the Speaker to inform him of something that is being done, and as far as I can sift through it, that is all that happened. If that is all that was done, there is nothing wrong; but it is the suggestion that the Speaker gave an opinion, gave advice or gave his blessing which I think is serious to this House. If there is one thing we have to count on in this House-and I say this to my friend, the hon. member from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and all the others-it is the impartiality of Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Calgary South made a statement just now, and I listened to it very carefully. I did not see in that statement a suggestion that he got a blessing or even advice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is true, then in the words that the parliamentary secretary used-no doubt innocently, but nevertheless the words that he used-saying that this was after consultation with Mr. Speaker, in itself casts a reflection upon Your Honour and your impartiality. If that is true, then it ought to be investigated.
I did not know, of course, that the hon. member for Calgary South was going to raise a question of privilege. In my own mind I was thinking that I would have to say this is a difficult question because it involves Your Honour, and that you might have to take it under consideration. I am still inclined to say that it involves a good deal and that Your Honour may well have to consider it.
As for the motion that the hon. member has asked leave to move, it seems to me that it is too broad and too general simply to ask the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections simply to interpret, in a vacuum, the provisions of an act. That is not what is called for in this situation. If anything has to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, it is the matter suggested by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, namely, the actual sale of certain equipment to the government by the hon. member for Calgary South or his companies.
The more this goes on, Mr. Speaker, the more it seems obvious to me that the matter ought to be investigated, but not in the broad and vague terms that the hon. member has proposed. I also feel that there is something more important than the fact that the hon. member made a sale, or that he is spokesman for his party on supply and services, and all that.
The thing which concerns me most is the impartiality of the Chair. I am quite satisfied, from the way Your Honour has operated, that you would not think for a moment of giving

November 1, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Bawden
your blessing or consent to a matter like this. If that is the case, the aspersion involved in the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services should be corrected.
Perhaps Your Elonour thinks that the question, involving yourself as it does, should be held over, or maybe Your Honour wishes to hear other members speak. But I hope the point about which I am concerned, the impartiality of the Chair, will not be lost in the bickering between the government and the opposition with respect to the particular sales that were made.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. As your Honour knows, there was tabled in this House a report relating to conflict of interest involving members of parliament. That report was presented because, among other things, it was recognized that there was no mechanism whereby advice could be sought and obtained on issues such as the one the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) presently faces. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), 1 am most concerned because Your Honour is placed in a difficult position.
Having read the statute, but not having analysed it completely, I am of the opinion that we face a legal question of serious import. It relates to the conduct of the hon. member for Calgary South; and I cast no aspersions: evidently the hon. member did quite a bit to neutralize any possible negative effects of this particular action. Nevertheless, we must remember that a section of the Senate and House of Commons Act prohibits members of the House of Commons dealing with the government or benefitting from any contractual dealings with the government. There is no question about it; that matter must be sorted out.
I now come to the hon. member's motion. With respect, I feel that it is altogether too wide. The effect of the motion will be to open up the whole debate which members of this House have faced as a result of the green paper on conflict of interest. I have no objection to the hon. member's motion being referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, but I think the hon. member ought to amend his motion so that it relates more closely to the facts of the situation. In that way, the question of the effect of section 16, in light of any other section or language contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, can be dealt with and disposed of expeditiously. To launch ourselves into a long debate on something which has already been before the House or the privileges and elections committee would not answer our purpose.


Mr. Nielsen:: But it was not decided.


Mr. Blais:: It was not decided, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has interjected. That is why the Senate report related to the green paper previously mentioned. This is a timely discussion and may well serve a useful purpose. I submit that the hon. member's motion referring this matter to the privileges and elections committee ought to be more narrow; it ought to deal with the specific circumstances affect-

ing the hon. member for Calgary South. Otherwise, we would waste valuable House time and drag this matter out in a way which would suit nobody's purpose, including that of private members of this House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed by the words of the NDP House leader. It seems to me that the tactic of that party is to make an accusation on the one hand and then to scurry away under cover of sanctimonious dishonesty on the other.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: 1 am surprised to note that the motion has the support of some on the government side, since the chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), has indicated that according to his experience the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) acted properly in doing what he did.
Now let me deal with the precise question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and alluded to by the deputy government whip, the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), namely, the breadth of the motion. It is not for the Postmaster General to say that the motion as worded would lead to a long, haranguing debate on conflict of interest, because, Mr. Speaker, that matter ground to a halt and was left to die in committee.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Come on, Walter.


Walter David Baker: The question was left to die in committee. It was not brought back to the House of Commons before the end of the last session. So when we hear a lot of verbiage, I can only conclude-


An hon. Member:: You are casting aspersions.


Walter David Baker: With respect, I am not casting aspersions. I say that the only matter before us is section 16 of the relevant statute mentioned. That question having been brought to the fore by the motion put by the hon. member for Calgary South, a motion which has to do with circumstances as they affect him, it is important that we engage ourselves in this debate. I say this because, as I look around the House of Commons, I note many members who are justifiably and honestly concerned about conflict of interest and how such conflicts may affect the carrying out of their duties. If we were not concerned about such conflicts, we would not be worthy of being members of this House. In that sense, I hope I speak for all hon. members when I congratulate the hon. member for Calgary South for facing the problems confronting him and asking us to do something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Next I raise the position of the Speaker of this House. What is the Speaker of the House
November 1, 1976

of Commons? Our Speaker in this Elouse represents a constituency, as does any other hon. member. He knows the difficulties of his own riding, and faces them. But he has been chosen by the members of this House to preside over their sittings and deliberations. He is still a member of parliament, in the full sense of the word, as we are. He is not superior to us except by virtue of the dignity of his office. Otherwise, he is a member of his House. What is more, he is a servant of the members of the House of Commons. If members of parliament who face a difficult situation cannot, in our parliamentary system, go to the Speaker for advice, I do not know to whom they could go; I do not know to whom they could speak in the House. Surely this is not the first time the Speaker has been approached by a member of parliament for advice. This is not to suggest lack of impartiality, discrimination or anything of that kind. It means that we look upon the Speaker as one whose judgment is trusted. I assume that is why the hon. member for Calgary South went to the Speaker.
I do not know what the investigation of this matter will show, but I am satisfied it will show that the hon. member was advised to talk to parliamentary counsel. That would not have been an unreasonable suggestion for the Speaker to make. The hon. member did this; he got advice from parliamentary counsel who is a servant of this House in its corporate sense. The hon. member acted on that advice. Like all hon. members who from time to time become involved in situations of this kind, the hon. member acted. I think he took the proper course. To put it bluntly, we ought not to nit-pick about terms of reference.
The motion that has been put forward allows this particular conflict of interest to be dealt with. If, in the course of dealing with this alleged conflict of interest, there is something broader with regard to the whole study of the matter, then the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections does not need to come back to this House to get further terms of reference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think that makes eminently good sense. I urge all of my colleagues-


An hon. Member:: What about members on this side?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member speaks of hon. members on the other side of the House. In my judgment, and for the purpose of my remarks, backbenchers on the other side of the House are in no different position from members on this side. There must be a difference in terms of the cabinet, but not in terms of backbenchers. 1 think that is what the hon. member for Calgary South said. I invite hon. members to check Hansard, where they will see that is what was said.
Given that set of circumstances, and given the importance of allowing this matter to go to the committee, we are not only doing a colleague in the House a disservice by arguing and debating the terms of reference in a narrow sense, but perhaps
Privilege-Mr. Bawden
we are doing this institution a disservice if we do not allow this motion to go now in the broad sense in which it is couched.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we go further with the discussion, there is a fundamental point of difficulty here. The matter has been raised by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). He has said, in the terms of the motion which he proposes to put before the House, that he will do so if he has the consent of the House to put the motion. In his motion the hon. member is dealing specifically with the question raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), which was the question alluded to at the start. The terms of the motion, obviously, deal only with the question which concerns the hon. member personally.
What the hon. member is endeavouring to do by the terms of his motion is, with the consent of the House, to have the House order an investigation into the general question of rights and privileges of members with regard to contracts with or sales to the Crown, bearing in mind the Senate and House of Commons Act. Therefore, what I have to decide at this point is whether the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the House. I allowed the question to go on in order to attempt to define itself. I also had some idea that others may be raising questions of privilege relating to the same subject. It is now getting into a general discussion as to whether the motion ought to be put, whether it should be referred to or put to the House for a vote.
The fact is that discussion is very much germane to a specific question of privilege by a member which requires the Chair to decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege which ought to stop the proceedings of the House and be put to the House for decision. The difficulty at this moment is that the Chair has not been asked to make that decision: it has not been asked to put a question to the House with regard to a question of privilege but, rather, has been asked to seek the unanimous consent of the House that this general matter be investigated.
The terms of the motion which I have before me reads in part:
I seek the consent of the House to move a substantive motion of privilege as follows:
That procedure is somewhat different from regular questions of privilege. 1 have difficulty in letting the discussion go on too long, because consent of the House has been sought. Rather than an extensive discussion on the merits of the motion or the merits that would ordinarily follow, if it were an ordinary question of privilege put forward with respect to a specific member's complaint, seeking within the bounds of a question of privilege that a decision be made by the Chair as to whether to put the question to the House, we would be in a different situation.
In view of the fact that I am really being asked to look for the consent of the House to refer this general matter, I feel I ought to ask whether the hon. member has the consent of the House which he seeks. The hon. member asks consent to put a

November 1, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Bawden
motion which is as follows: Moved by the hon. member for Calgary South, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the question of the rights, privileges and obligations of members of parliament granted and imposed by the House of Commons Act and other relevant statutes be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that the said committee report to this House on the parameters of such rights, privileges and obligations of members pursuant to such legislation.
Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to put that question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) was seeking the floor on a point of order. I did not hear the response to the question. Does the hon. member have the consent to put such a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 know that under the rules of the House it would be improper for me to refer to the decision just taken with respect to the question of privilege. However, I wish, under a point of order, to establish that the answer I gave was in some measure either misquoted or misunderstood. I shall be brief. I do not want to be a contributor to the issue, but because of the fact that I used certain wording in my response to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I wish to review it so that hon. members are "au courant", so to speak.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt asked whether the Department of Supply and Services, or the minister thereof, was aware of certain problems relating to a sale made by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). I gave a three-part answer. I would like to advise hon. members very clearly of the words that I used. I said, "I do not know if the hon. member will accept a reply from the parliamentary secretary, but if he will do so, I will take notice of the question. "Second, I pointed out to him that the hon. member apparently discussed the matter with the Speaker and parliamentary law counsel. That was the second part of the answer. As it happened, I did not use the word "consult" with regard to yourself, Mr. Speaker, or the parliamentary law counsel; I used the words "apparently discussed". The third and final comment I made in my reply was, "However", 1 will pursue the matter with the minister."
To the extent that my reply is in any way contributing to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or the hon. member for Calgary South, 1 want to say on this point of order that I used the words "apparently discussed".


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to express my personal thanks, and 1 am sure 1 speak for the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) and all my colleagues, for the clarification that has just been given by the parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In view of that clarification, I wonder whether Your Honour would see fit, or whether the House would be agreeable to put again the question which was denied a few moments ago, to see whether there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary South sought the consent of the House. Consent was asked for; it was not forthcoming. Similar motions, although different, are not restricted in their scope and can be put at different times by different members. However, I do not see any procedure by which I can repeatedly put a question for the seeming consent of the House when, in fact, consent has been denied.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the first report of the examiner of petitions for private bills relating to a bill submitted by IAC Limited.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising out of similar circumstances. If any further consideration is being given with regard to sending to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections the reference in the terms made by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), I hope that the privilege being raised by me now might be taken into account. Hon. members might think that the only purpose to be served in reference to a standing committee would be the specific instance which was raised today concerning the hon. member for Calgary South.
Hon. members who were here at that time will remember that a reference with regard to my right as a member of parliament to purchase lands from the Crown was made to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections a few years ago because upon application I was refused that right by officers of the federal government on the basis that I was a member of parliament. The standing committee rectified that in short order by saying that rights of members of parliament in that regard placed them in no different position that any other Canadian. However, since that time I have seen, in
November 1, 1976

Crown-granted federal leases, a provision written right into the lease that no interest in that lease can be held by any member of parliament. The same is true with any agreement for sale or purchase of lands from the Crown. No interest in that agreement for sale can be had by any member of parliament. These are federal documents of which 1 am speaking.
I was once refused the right to participate as a member of parliament, because I was a member of parliament, in a Crown Assets disposal sale. I think I should have the same right as any other citizen to bid on the disposal of such assets.
I should have the same right to participate in a lease from the Crown or an agreement of sale from the Crown. I also wonder about the rights of members of parliament with regard to CMHC retainers.
The three examples I have given are those in which I have acted in my own personal circumstances. I was refused the right to participate in that kind of transaction. Using the Senate and House of Commons Act as prohibition against my so participating because 1 am a member of parliament is absolutely wrong. This applies to all members. They may not think so, but it does. I urge any member to try and take out a lease with the Crown where they are paying the Crown money; they cannot do it. Try to buy some land from the Crown under an agreement of sale; see if you succeed in that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members who say they are not interested, do not live in areas where there are substantial Crown lands and the only place you can buy land is from the Crown. These are matters of very real concern to all members. Questions such as these can only be determined by an inquiry into the general rights, privileges and obligations of members, not one specific member. Therefore, the reference that was attempted by the hon. member for Calgary South in moving his motion to get the whole question before the standing committee is one to which I look forward. It would clear up this kind of thing, the application of federal legislation toward members of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member sought the floor and has been recognized on a question of privilege. The question of privilege, if it does exist, would interrupt the proceedings and permit some question to be put which are out of the ordinary. While the hon. member may be developing a very interesting point, so far he has brought no immediacy to the question of privilege that he has in mind, and I would welcome his doing so.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought I was doing that. Your Honour must have missed the main thrust of my question of privilege. I am sure Your Honour remembers the reference made to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections respecting my right as a member of parliament to purchase Crown lands. This was ruled by the Chair a valid question of privilege and was referred to the standing committee, which
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
reported back to the House that a member of parliament had the same right as any other citizen to purchase federal lands.
My question of privilege today is that because I am a member of parliament I am refused participation in a lease of land with the Crown, which is the same question that was ruled on as being a valid question of privilege, as Your Honour will recall. Because 1 am a member of parliament, I am also refused participation in an agreement for sale with the Crown, which raises the same sort of question of privilege. That is the thrust of my privilege, and if I move a substantive motion which is based on the previous precedent in this House, the matter will go before the same committee.
Therefore, why should it not go before the committee as a general, broad question? The only reason that 1 do not move a substantive motion is that I believe the whole broad question should be referred to the standing committee, and I was looking forward to that motion being accepted by the House. When a similar motion goes forward, if it does, by the deputy House leader, 1 hope that it will be broad enough to include that kind of general inquiry into the rights, obligations and privileges of members of parliament under the Senate and House of Commons Act. It should not be specifically directed to the one question because there are other privileges of members involved here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we had better keep our proceedings on tracks. The hon. member for Calgary South sought the consent of the House. He did not get it. If other members wish to seek the floor to raise a question of privilege, surely they must be aware that if they wish to stop the proceedings, have the Chair put the question immediately and take precedence over every other piece of business before the House, there must be a motion related to the specific matter that asks the Chair to put the question. If there are other substantive motions of a general nature, they can be put to the House at any time in the normal way. There is no restriction on the scope of any motion that the House may want to put from either side, with the proper notice and within the normal terms of the Standing Orders.
The question that the Chair always has to decide is whether there is, in fact, a question of privilege which ought to stop the proceedings, take precedence and be put to the House for a decision. If other hon. members want to make a contribution at this time on a question of privilege, I will have to insist that there be some definition of a question of privilege in order to enable me to decide whether or not that ought to take place. If there is to be discussion of a general motion of some sort, that general motion will have to come before the House, however desirable it might be, in accordance with the general application of the Standing Orders.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to correct two impressions which have been left by hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presenting reports by standing and special committees.

November 1, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that I was one of the first members of the Eiouse to rise on this matter, and 1 think it only fair for me to get recognition on this particular point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The press gallery has gone home now.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The hon. member may make all the snide remarks he wants, but out of fairness I ask for recognition as a member of the Eiouse. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I was prepared to put a specific motion before the House exactly in accordance with Your Honour's warning that we were getting off the point and into a very general area. It seems to me worth while to have the House come back to the point, which concerns the delicate position in which we place the Speaker of this House when this kind of problem arises in the media. I want to deal with that aspect briefly and also put a specific motion to the House so as to get this matter back on track. Therefore, I wonder whether Your Honour would recognize me.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, it appears to me that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) may have a separate question of privilege altogether. That I do not know; I have not heard it. In any case, the reason I did not go on to recognize other hon. members is that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) had not put to the House a question of privilege in the ordinary sense but, rather, had sought the consent of the House. I therefore felt that we should not get into a discussion as to whether or not consent is forthcoming. When consent is sought, it is asked for; if it is turned down, the House goes on to some other aspect of its business.
As for the motion before the House, putting forward a potential question of privilege is quite a different situation. If that is what the hon. member for New Westminster is seeking the floor on now, I will be glad to see him.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not want the House to get back to the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This question comes about as a result of a report in the Ottawa Journal which simply said that the Commons Speaker denied that he sanctioned a business transaction, and then goes on to say that "Mr. Bawden said earlier this week the sale for $120,000 and the trading of an aircraft by Emden Limited, a company owned 100 per cent by the Bawden family, to the RCMP was cleared through Mr. Jerome".
I accept completely what the hon. member for Calgary South said today, but I think what we as House should do is to attempt to avoid this kind of conflict between Your Honour and any member being dealt with in this way, because it is very erosive of the kind of objectivity that must be in the House at all times if this House is to work. Therefore, it was for the purpose of protecting Your Honour that this matter was raised.
1 must say I was sorry that I did not hear the hon. member for Calgary South deal with that aspect of the news report. I

wish he had dealt with the question of what appears to be a conflict between reports in the press concerning what was done and what was not done with regard to the Speaker in the course of this transaction. I am sorry the House rejected the previous motion, but I should like to take another crack at it. Therefore, 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this specific matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report and that a report be made re-examining the role of the Speaker in these kind of problems so that a repetition of them will not occur.


Walter David Baker: I do not want to add to what has happened here today. This is, quite frankly, becoming just a bit of a comedy. But if the Chair needs any defence, I will rise to the defence of the Chair in terms of what happened in this particular matter, because I must say that if we have come to the position where we cannot, as members of parliament, talk over some personal difficulty with the first Commoner, we have fallen into a sorry state.
In any event, I doubt the propriety of the motion being put forward. Your Honour would, of course, have to ask for consent in this matter and, frankly, I am not inclined to give it. My hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has just drawn my attention to the significance of Standing Order 17(2) in the matter. I think it would perhaps be best if we all sat back and realized we are not talking about a narrow partisan issue, even if it did start out in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: We are talking about the privileges, not of one member of parliament but of all members of parliament, and I would hope that, given a period of grace such as might be provided by the rest of the afternoon and this evening, those who are opposed to us on the other side might change their views on the particular motion which is presented. As I tried to say-and I do not think this was lost on hon. members; certainly it was not lost on the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker)-once the committee got into a matter of this nature it would be coming back to the House to broaden its terms of reference anyway.
After the subject had been examined in the broadest way, members of parliament would have available to them a reasonable guide, something they do not have now, and I think it is important they should have a guide in the particular part of the twentieth century in which we live.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to repeat that the government is presently considering two reports, one from the House of Commons and the other from the Senate, relating to conflict of interest. One is the product of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The debate has taken place in the Committee on Privileges and Elections and in this House. That matter has been disposed of and there is no need now to have a general, wide survey or study of the matter. This seems to me to be self-evident.
November 1, 1976


Roderick Blaker: 1 want to make only a brief intervention on this subject. 1 would not have been content with the motion originally proposed by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). 1 do not know whether he wa's aware that the Committee on Privileges and Elections, of which 1 happen to be the chairman, has spent many months on the whole subject of conflict of interest. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was one of the members of that committee, and we worked to do the best job we could. I believe we did a fair job.
On the second matter, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The proposal by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) does not in my mind constitute a question of privilege, though it does seem to place Your Honour in the position of having to appear before a committee and go through all the details concerning the theory of privilege.
There is, however, a simple solution which I would propose. We on this side would have little hesitation about agreeing, should the hon. member for Calgary South wish to send the matter-not the general matter, but the specific matter he has raised and which is referred to in the Globe and Mail-to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. We on this side would certainly extend that courtesy to him so that he might be heard and so that he might redress any unfairness or injustice which he may feel has been done him. But these general motions get us nowhere at all, and I do not think 1 could support the one suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should say a few words on this motion of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) because I raised a question today in the question period for very good reason. At this time we hear all sorts of things outside the House about politicians and the way we go about doing our business. 1 am concerned when I see the Edmonton Journal and the Herald carrying all kinds of headlines. There is a feeling outside this place that the House of Commons is a club and that a member of the club can get all kinds of things out of the club if he behaves himself. This bothers me, as a relatively new member of the House; I am concerned about this.
I am also concerned about Your Honour's position. You are impartial. You have no voice to defend yourself when headlines scream. "Jerome denies sanctioning Bawden deal", and when a report goes on to say, "Bawden says he has received a very positive response from the Speaker about the situation." When these things start to run around in a community, I am concerned because they erode the confidence of the people in their leaders-and we need only look to the south to see what happens when confidence is eroded, especially with respect to those who are supposed to be impartial. I raised the matter in that spirit. I know it is said outside the House-although I do not necessarily think so-that the Conservative party is forever stirring up scandal in the House of Commons, and 1 thought this was a wonderful opportunity to put the matter before the Committee on Priviliges and Elections and let the word go forth throughout Canada that there was nothing unbecoming
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
or unseemly in the case of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden).
One report quotes the House of Commons Act and gives the impression to the people at large that a member who has shares in a company cannot deal with the government even through his company. The newspaper says clearly that there must be no direct or indirect contact with the government with respect to any deals involving members of the House of Commons. 1 know Your Honour would appreciate an opportunity to come before the committee and tell the committee your side of the story with respect to this situation. We heard the hon. member set out his own position this afternoon. He is an honourable gentleman, and I accept what he has said. But there is an impression left in the mind of the public, and I think that impression should be cleared up to the satisfaction of all concerned. That is the reason 1 support the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster. That is the committee set up by parliament, and that is the committee which ought to consider evidence from all those concerned and should make a decision one way or the other.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether or not it is an inviting opportunity for me or for any other member of the House of Commons to clarify this matter, the fact is that if this is to be done it will have to be done correctly. We have never accepted, as a prima facie question of privilege-if that is the proper term-a motion which describes anything in terms of saying "this matter be referred". That is a luxury of terminology which has never been allowed. "This matter" obviously has a different definition to individual members who use the words. If there is a specific matter which by its nature is such as to qualify as a question of privilege, and therefore deserving of being presented to the House for decision, then that matter will have to be clearly defined in terms of the motion.
1 must say that neither do I find it inviting to consider, as a question of privilege of an emergency nature, that an investigation ought to be made by a standing committee, no matter how inviting an opportunity that might give me to state my side of the interpretation of the conversations that have been alluded to by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). If that is to be done, surely it will not be done on an emergency basis by a standing committee to investigate the role of the Speaker vis-a-vis the members of the House of Commons.
If there is a desire, as there seems to be on all sides of the House, that this matter be referred to a committee, or that it be taken under consideration in some way, it seems to me that some reflection and some careful draftsmanship concerning the kind of motion to be undertaken by the House really will do the House a great deal of good, and in the circumstances I think the matter ought to rest there at this moment.

November 1, 1976
Order Paper Questions BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT ACT


AMENDMENT TO INCREASE SUBSCRIPTION TO INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for the Minister of Finance: for leave to introduce Bill C-18, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.


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

Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (for President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.


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

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for President of the Treasury Board: for leave to introduce Bill C-20, respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs) moved that Bill C-16, to provide for the protection of borrowers and depositors, to regulate interest on judgment debts, to repeal the Interest Act, the Pawnbrokers Act and the Small Loans Act and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is naturally a great privilege for a relatively new minister to introduce a bill in parliament, especially his first. The bill is of very great importance to an enormous and ever-growing number of Canadians who borrow and deposit money. The complex and novel approach of this bill is the product of considerable effort by the officials of my department. 1 am grateful to them for their dedication, as I am to those of my predecessors who as ministers advanced the cause to this point. Naturally, no bill such as this would be brought into being without exhaustive and careful discussions with officials of other departments. Needless to say, the Department of Finance played a particularly vital and important role in the discussions. I am most grateful for the co-operation of all the officials involved.
In placing this bill before the House, I would not wish to leave the impression that Canadians are ill-served by the overwhelming majority of their lending institutions. Our banks are rightly acknowledged as some of the largest and best run in the world. Other lending institutions serve effectively and honestly the credit needs of Canadians. If the impression has been created that the government believes otherwise, I would like to correct such an impression at the outset.
It gives me gratification that this bill is one that promises to be a considerable advance in social legislation, and it should appeal to and win support from all sides of this House and from Canadians generally. The legislation is long overdue.
Mr. Grafftey:: You can say that again.


Mr. Abbott:: The legislation is long overdue. The field of interest, under the British North America Act, falls within federal jurisdiction. The existing legislation dealing with this area is hopelessly out of date. The Interest Act was last amended in 1917. The Small Loans Act has not been amended for 20 years. In the last 30 years alone, total consumer debt- not including mortgage debt-has increased from less than $ 1 billion to more than $23 billion. More than 65 per cent of that increase has occurred since 1967. Today, excluding mortgages, consumer debt represents more than 22 per cent of our total disposable personal income. In the period from 1947 until 1975, non-mortgage debt has increased fully three times as quickly as income.
November 1, 1976

[Translation}
In light of that spiralling increase it is obvious that the government must take its responsibilities and examine the existing legislation to guarantee consumers feeling such a weight all the protection it is able to give them. This bill is not only the result of such an examination but also the result of a vast consultation with consumers, lenders, deposit institutions and provincial governments across Canada. It was not always possible to incorporate their ideas in our proposals but we considered all their suggestions carefully.

The bill has three main goals. The first is to impose uniformity in the practices used for the calculation, crediting and description of interest on all those who take deposits from or make loans to consumers in Canada, and to require a full, uniform and comprehensible disclosure system so that the consumer, before he enters into a deposit or borrowing transaction, will know all his rights and the obligations he will have to bear. The second goal is to faciliate the proper functioning of the market by encouraging more vigorous competition and providing the consumer both with protection and with the right of civil recourse. Thirdly, this bill will establish a clear and easily provable criminal offence to act as a strong deterrent to the cancer of loan sharking that has spread throughout this country.
May I speak first about deposit protection, since it is a clear demonstration of the purposes of this bill. At the present time in Canada there are many different formulas for the calculation of interest paid on deposits. For exactly the same amount of money deposited, a quoted 8 per cent rate, using one formula, will provide a much different interest payment than another quoted 8 per cent rate that is calculated differently. Both rates are arguably and legally 8 per cent. We do not believe that this kind of confusion serves the interests of the consumer. The bill, therefore, requires that a uniform formula for calculating and crediting interest on deposit accounts be used.
In practical terms, this will mean that for the first time, whenever two deposit-taking institutions both offer an interest rate of 8 per cent, the consumer will get a true 8 per cent return, no matter which institution he selects. This represents plain common sense. The cost of loans is also the subject of far-reaching reforms. The bill defines loans in such a way as to include, not merely formal cash loans negotiated from lending institutions but also other consumer credit vehicles such as department store credit cards. The first and most basic reform is that a statement of the cost of a loan will have to include the true total cost of that loan.
It is now possible for lenders to stack a variety of other charges on top of the quoted cost of borrowing. Insurance premiums, various administrative charges, legal costs, registration costs and the like are very often charged to the consumer and, in most cases, excluded from the calculation of the cost of borrowing. As a result, the consumer is not apprised of the real
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors interest burden that he actually has to carry. Let us take the following example: let us take a loan of $4,000, at the declared rate of 12 per cent per annum, received from four different lenders. The first lender makes no deductions. At the end of three years you will pay $4,782.96, which means an effective rate of 12.68 per cent per annum. The second lender deducts a total of $50 for insurance and registration. You get $3,950. the total you pay over three years is still $4,782.96, but the effective rate is 13.66 per cent per annum. The third lender deducts $250 for registration, insurance and legal fees. You now get only $3,750. The repayment total over three years is still $4,782.96, but the effective rate is now 17.86 per cent. Finally the fourth lender deducts $650 for life insurance, registration, legal fees, finders fee and bonus. You now get a mere $3,350. The repayment over three years is still $4,782.96, but the effective rate has climbed to 27.84 per cent per annum. Thus, Mr. Speaker, this relatively simple example demonstrates how a similar quotation of 12 per cent per annum, or 1 per cent per month, can vary considerably, depending on the kinds of charges that are folded into the transaction, amounting, in the last example, to more than double the rate the borrower is told that he will be paying.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hesitate to interrupt the minister, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if by the time he completes his explanation on this point he could tell me how he believes he can lump together charges under provincial legislation for the registration of chattel mortgages or other forms of incumbencies with interest charges that are to the benefit of the lender. Those are two different things. I should like to know how the minister believes he can lump together apples, oranges, cherries, bananas and other things in the same basket and come out with common interest charges and rates.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to attempt to answer that question because it opens the problems of provincial instruments, a matter which may not provide an easy explanation. So although I would like to answer my hon. friend because he is always very fair, I do not think I can do so at this point.
I should like to continue my remarks by saying that in order to remove this confusion, the bill requires that all costs related to a loan be included in the total credit charge and be clearly disclosed to the consumer in a uniform manner, regardless where he may reside and the kind of loan that he is undertaking. Once again, the practical effect of this requirement will be that where a consumer is dealing with different lending institutions quoting the same rate on their loans, the actual costs of the loans will be exactly the same, rather than merely appearing to be the same.
There is another aspect to disclosure with which we are concerned. I am sure that most of us are aware that very seldom do we see credit advertising that mentions in any clear or complete way the costs and other obligations that consumers will have to assume. If the advertisement succeeds in persuading them to use the credit offered, the objective of the lender is reached without, necessarily, any concern as to

November 1, 1976
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
whether the borrower is aware of the true cost of that credit. Typically, credit is advertised almost as an attribute of products-be they new cars, boats, or vacations-that the consumer may be induced to buy, whether he can afford to or not. Credit is promoted as a convenience for buying things, and the accompanying cost burdens are ignored.
The advertising regulations, pursuant to this bill, will require that all advertisements for any form of credit include clear statements of the cost of the credit being advertised, of all other obligations that the consumer will have to carry, and of any special lender policy or borrower qualification that will impose additional burdens on the borrower.
The only protection against excessive credit charges that the consumer enjoys today is found in the Small Loans Act. This act, however, applies only to loans of $1,500 or less, and it does not apply uniformly to all lenders. Vendor credit-the kind of credit you get at a department strore, and credit you get from banks which provide about 60 per cent of the total consumer credit used in Canada-is not covered by the Small Loans Act. There is no legal limit on credit charges for loans over $1,500 or on loans from lenders not covered by the act. The failure of the Small Loans Act adequately to protect the consumer has become more and more apparent. The fact is that loans between $1,000 and $1,500 are today rarely made. In 1966, for example, the total value of loans granted that would be defined as small loans under the act was $647 million. By 1974, that total had fallen to only $296 million. The overwhelming bulk of these is for amounts less than $300. That is why we propose the repeal of the Small Loans Act. In its stead we are proposing a strong and comprehensive set of protective devices applicable to all forms and levels of consumer credit so that consumers will be assured of access to loans bearing fair and reasonable credit charges.
The requirement that all costs associated with a loan be clearly disclosed in the credit charge is one such device. The second is the concept of the unwarranted rate. Where a rate appears to be excessive in view of the security involved, the risk characteristics of the particular consumer, and prevailing market conditions, the consumer will be able to apply to the court for a determination that the rate charged is unwarranted. To assure that this recourse will not be an involved or costly procedure for the consumer, the bill provides that the onus will be on the lender to establish that a rate is justified. While I do not expect a flood of litigation, we expect that lenders will be very careful to charge rates which are warranted under current market conditions and will not run the risk of incurring legal penalties and costs.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Who is going to decide?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I believe that this provision will encourage self-policing by lending institutions and will also act as a considerable incentive to lenders to see that a truly competitive situation is reflected in their credit charges. I should reiterate that it is not our intention to promote excessive litigation. Rather, we expect that the availability of these tools to bor-

rowers will exert a significant restraining force in the consumer loan market.
A primary purpose of this legislation is to protect the low income borrower. It is only too obvious that the existing rules do not do that effectively. Existing ceilings on small loans, rather than providing the low income borrower with money at a reasonable rate often provide him with no money at all. Legitimate lenders, finding that ceiling rates are too low, invest elsewhere, leaving the low income borrower with only one recourse, the loan shark. To overcome this we are, first of all, imposing heavy penalties on loan sharks. Second, through the disclosure provisions we are imposing strong financial incentives for lenders to make complete and open disclosure of the charges they impose. Low income borrowers will know at once, and before they borrow, just what kind of burden they are being asked to bear. For the first time they will be able to understand clearly what they have at stake and will be able to make an informed decision as to whether they ought to borrow at all.
Third, I remind the House of the prepayment privilege and the unwarranted rate provision. A low income borrower who is a good risk-and many of them are-is entitled to get a rate which takes that fact into account. His credit rating may be as good as and perhaps better than that of higher income people, but because he is ill-informed, timid, or a person alarmed by forms, he will tend to avoid institutions which will gladly deal with him. Now this borrower can go freely to any institution, obtain a loan at rates commensurate with his true credit risk, and prepay the higher rate loan he is carrying. This prepayment feature is another incentive for lenders to charge warranted rates so that they will not lose income because of turn-around costs.
Finally, our concern for the low income borrower does not stop with this bill. My department has instituted studies in the whole field of credit for low income borrowers. We are especially interested in such activities as community branch banks, the so-called storefront banks that some of the chartered banks have already begun to operate. Following passage of this bill, it will be our intention to mount a comprehensive program to assist low income borrowers in the marketplace.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: What about the regulations?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Wait for them. There is a third important market protective device in this bill. The bill bars any lender from charging any borrower a penalty for paying off a nonmortgage loan before the term of that loan has expired. Where a consumer discovers that he is being charged a higher credit charge on his loan than he need pay, by the simple expedient of finding that he can make the same loan more cheaply elsewhere, he need only borrow the money from the cheaper source at the lower rate and repay the first loan immediately and without penalty.
The only exceptions to this unlimited right of prepayment will be mortgage loans. However, before I get to mortgages I would like to explain that at the present time even where there is no formal penalty for prepayment of a loan, the most
November 1, 1976

common method employed by Canadian lending institutions in calculating interest due on a prepaid loan results in the levying of interest charges which are in excess of the true amount of interest which would be payable if interest was to be calculated accurately. This calculating method, called the rule of 78's, is used across Canada and is still another unnecessary burden to the borrower. The bill requires that interest rates be calculated to reflect precisely the rate quoted.
The particular nature of mortgage loans and of the mortgage loan market makes this kind of unlimited prepayment privilege unworkable with respect to mortgages. I do believe, however, the penalties currently in use in cases of prepayment of mortgages are often excessive and unnecessarily restrictive. Therefore, the bill provides limited prepayment privileges in the case of mortgages as well. This proposal extends the current NHA provisions to the whole of the mortgage market. The consumer will be permitted to prepay up to 10 per cent of the principal amount of a fixed rate mortgage on each of the first and second anniversaries of the effective date of the mortgage. After the third anniversary the borrower will enjoy a much more extensive right to prepay principal, and the maximum penalty the lender may charge will not exceed three months' interest on the amount prepaid at the agreed credit charge rate.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: That's what it is now.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: No, it is not now. The bill also deals with variable rate mortgages, limiting the frequency of rate increases and permitting the borrower to prepay after the first year. These proposals should enable wider use of this form of mortgage instrument and curtail certain practices now being used to achieve the same effect without adequate protection for borrowers.

Before getting into a description of the proposed provisions to punish and discourage loan sharks I would like to address the House more particularly on a widespread practice in Canada which consists in lending on social welfare cheques and anticipated income tax reimbursements.
Under that practice which could nearly be classified as a theft, a person or company buys an individual's anticipated income tax refund at a substantial discount. This can also be done by purchasing social welfare cheques before they are issued, once again at a substantial discount. Those so-called purchases are actually loans on which the interest is the difference between the amount lent and the one to be received by the lender.

The effective credit charges made by these operators are often so high that we have concluded they should be characterized as criminal. In cases where they are much above current lending rates, the unwarranted rate protection available to the consumer will apply to these "discounters" as much as to any other lender.
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
To give the House some impression of the growing problem of loan-sharking in Canada, I should like to mention just three facts. The first is that police estimate that loan-sharking has become a $3 billion per year business in Canada. The second is that police estimate that loan-sharking has become the second greatest source of income for organized crime, second only to the illicit drug traffic. The third, and perhaps most disquieting fact, is that in Canada today it is possible for a loan shark to make a loan-and most of these loans are made to the poor- and charge an interest rate higher than 1,000 per cent, yet be guilty of no criminal offence.
The legal sanctions now in force have proved entirely inadequate to stop or even to control the spread of loan-sharking. Neither the disclosure provisions in some provincial consumer protection acts, nor the Small Loans Act provide penalties sufficient to deter or even inconvenience loan sharks. Up to now threats or intimidation have been very difficult to prove, but the bill goes into considerable detail in defining harassment, coercion, threats and intimidation and imposes heavy penalties for their use. To deal with these problems I have introduced in this bill the concept of a criminal rate of credit charge. Any person who makes a loan in excess of this rate is subject to criminal prosecution.


An hon. Member:: What rate is it?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: It is proposed that the rate will be defined specifically in the regulations.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Why not put it in the bill?


Mr. Gilbert:: Are you going to consult the mafia?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The offence is complete once it is established that the rate charged is greater than the criminal rate.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: But you are not going to tell us about it.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I hope the hon. member will sit in the committee, where we will have the benefit of his advice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Violations can be dealt with either by summary conviction or upon indictment, and penalties go up to a maximum of $10,000 in fines and five years' imprisonment. Armed with this legislation, we believe that for the first time our police forces will be able to move effectively against loan-sharking and loan sharks. Finally, there are a number of other criminal offences dealt with in the bill: incorrect or inadequate disclosure, violations of advertising regulations, false or inexact statements of credit charges or interest rates, failure to maintain adequate records, and extortionate collection practices. These are punishable by fine and imprisonment. These are the essential features of the Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act.
638

November 1, 1976
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
I think this is a wise legislation that will permit us to improve our market system and competition in the important area of consumer credit.

I look forward to committee stage, when the bill has received approval in principle, because it will be an opportunity for hon. members to bring in valuable suggestions. I hope the committee will invite representations from outside groups. I stand ready to welcome constructive suggestions. We do not view this bill as the final word, the ultimate wisdom. We recognize there may be defects. It is a complex bill, and I can assure hon. members that we stand ready to view constructive suggestions warmly. I hope, and believe, that hon. members generally will regard this bill, whatever its defects, as a major step in a most important field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in rising to reply to the minister's opening statement in this debate, I can say that we on this side of the House are, naturally, adopting what I underline as broad and general support of some of the principles and objectives set out in it. I say, and I underline again, that we are in broad and general support; but I do not think I am hiding anything from the minister when I say that in committee and at other stages of this debate he can anticipate lively participation in a real spirit of trying to improve the legislation. As the minister himself said, the last word is not in, and there will probably be many amendments. Having debated this issue in our policy sessions on this side of the House for many years, we will have some useful, additional things to say about the bill.
Back in 1970, when I had the privilege of being chairman of this party's policy committee on consumer protection, we had the general clause that the consumer has a right to be protected against financial contracts which are not clearly spelled out, and that interest rates, legal conditions and other terms of finance and loan contracts should be clearly and honestly spelled out. This is a problem that has caused concern on this side of the House for many years.
As I understood the minister, in his speech he said there were three objectives in the bill, yet in press releases he said there were four. We are not quite sure which to believe or interpret, but that may or may not be splitting hairs. I understand the objective of the bill is, first, to protect Canadian borrowers against loan-sharking and all forms of excessive interest charges. Second, the minister stated, both inside and outside the House, that an objective of the bill is to provide the public with more and better information on all credit and deposit dealings. Third, an objective was to eliminate unnecessary complexities and confusion in the credit field and, finally, to define strict and uniform rules to protect all borrowers and depositors, and to rationalize federal credit legislation. It is

within the parameters of these objectives stated by the minister that we will debate this afternoon.
The minister made one interesting remark at the beginning of his speech in which I think he subconsciously revealed the attitude of the government. He said he was proud that he had discussed this matter with other departments of government- the Department of Finance, for instance. Taking him at his word, Mr. Speaker, he obviously discussed it with other departments and agencies, but if he went to sit in my office for more than three days he would be convinced he had not adequately consulted the parties affected by the bill. I know he will say he talked to them for a few minutes on the telephone or had a meeting in his office. On this side of the House, however, we know there will be a lot of trouble with this bill because, in typical government fashion, the minister did not consult the Canadians concerned. He should level with us. Did he really consult the financial institutions, for instance? On this side of the House we have a different definition of the word "consultation". If I might make a comparison, Mr. Speaker, when Polonius gave advice to his son who was going to college, he used an expression that we have heard on many occasions, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be".
Mr. Speaker, remarks from behind the curtain are not going to add anything to this debate. I know it is boring to be a supporter of this government.


John R. Rodriguez: Do not do what Hamlet did to Polonius through the curtain.


William Heward Grafftey: The Canadian consumer, although he might have heard the advice Polonius gave to his son, has not taken it seriously. In 1948, consumer credit outstanding was in the neighbourhood of $835 million; today it has been cited on many occasions, since the bill was given first reading, at somewhere around $24 billion-three times as much. Consumer credit is growing three times as fast as disposable income, Mr. Speaker, and that has very grave and obvious significance.
I will not outline in lecture form to individual members of the House the far-reaching social consequences, especially on low income Canadians, of lending and credit phenomena. I do not think I am getting on a soap-box or being demagogic when I say those of us who are constituency-minded members, whether we have a constituency office or visit individual electors in their homes, are often saddened at the plight of low income Canadians, as they are in many ways throttled by credit.

Let me add a few words. The other day I had the privilege to visit my very good friend, the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada (Mr. Caouette) at the Ottawa General Hospital. He is a sincere and dynamic man who dealt, both in the House of Commons and outside, with many questions relating to credit as it affects Canadians, especially the poor. I am sure that if the leader of the Social Credit Party were here, he would have some extremely important and profound things to say about the effects of our loan and credit system on Canadians. I am sure my colleagues in the House of Commons

will be in full agreement with me when 1 say that 1 hope he will be back with us in the near future.
I repeat-without getting into semantic dificulties-that we shall support most of the broad principles of the bill. Although the minister paid tribute to his predecessors in the portfolio, 1 would not be surprised if, after he hears what we on my side and interested parties inside and outside the committee have to say, he introduced amendments to the bill.
The minister said that this bill had been long delayed. It has been. 1 know that the question of credit which involves our financial institutions and consumers is one of considerable complexity. Yet when all is said and done, even though the minister admits the subject is complex. I say this legislation has been too long delayed. In typical government fashion, we have had study after study and committee after committee looking into this question. There has been no real consultation, let me add: Then, when it is too late, this bill is brought before the House. I know the popular adage, "Better late than never." I agree. But I suggest to the minister that the government, in delaying the introduction of this legislation, has done a real disservice to Canadians individually and collectively.


John Allen Fraser: In this case it is not better late than never; it is very late, and not much better.


William Heward Grafftey: The minister is concerned about loan-sharking. We are concerned. 1 agree with those who told me in private that they see nothing in this bill which will come to grips substantively with that problem. Surely the minister did not learn yesterday that loan-sharking is as bad as he now says it is. The problem has become worse because of this government's failure to introduce meaningful legislation on the subject. Therefore, I suggest, without being irresponsible in my remarks, that some of the blame for the sorry plight of many of our borrowers, especially those involved with loan sharks, rests on the government. Loan-sharking affects low income people more than others. I repeat, the difficulties of low income earners who becomed involved with loan sharks have been exacerbated over the years because the government has failed to act in this field.
No country in the western world studies problems to death more than we do. When historians write the history of the present government, they will write of commissions studying commissions, of study groups set up to study other study groups, and of this government's doing less than any other government in the free world. That can be said about the very matter we are considering.


John Gilbert: Yes, but let's hear what the Tories have to say about this bill.


Ralph Goodale: They have nothing to say about it.


John Gilbert: I want to hear what the Tories have to say.
An bon. Member: Let's ask Sine Stevens.
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors


Ralph Goodale: They are trying to think of something.


William Heward Grafftey: The minister said that he and his predecessors had consulted the provincial premiers. I share the concern of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert): Did they really consult the provincial premiers? We shall delineate some of the difficulties the bill will encounter. I suggest they might not have arisen if the government had consulted the provincial premiers. I know the minister is new in the portfolio, but deep down in his heart can he really say that he consulted consumers, consumer associations and financial institutions in this country? I say no, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to prepare draft legislation, to give it hasty first reading and to claim that the process constitutes consultation. As with so much of its legislation, the government is treating interested parties like fools.
The minister may think that some in this country, when discussing the subject, react like Pavlovian dogs, that is, assume that there is an automatic conflict between this country's financial institutions and consumer associations, etc. Perhaps the minister is saddened by such automatic reactions on the part of interested groups in this country. To some extent, the minister is the victim. That brings me to my point, Mr. Speaker: I am sick and tired of hearing conventional wisdom say that consumer and corporate interests are mutually exclusive.


An hon. Member:: Whose side are you on?


William Heward Grafftey: There you are; there is the Pavlovian dog reaction of our socialist friends. Socialists never solve problems; they just make them worse. Look at what happened in the United Kingdom. The socialists love the notion that there is an automatic confrontation between consumers and corporations. They have never been able to solve a problem-


John Gilbert: Whose side are you on?


John R. Rodriguez: What is your interest?


William Heward Grafftey: I am speaking for the general interest.


John R. Rodriguez: And what side is that?


William Heward Grafftey: If hon. members insist on prattling such nonsense-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: He is on the general interest side.


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members insist on taking sides. As long as they prattle the conventional wisdom, they will get nowhere.


John Allen Fraser: The government wants people to borrow money but not pay it back.


An hon. Member:: What do the Tories say?
80001-4 ty2

November 1, 1976
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors


William Heward Grafftey: Liberals and socialists say that there is automatically confrontation between the consumer and the corporate interest.


John R. Rodriguez: You are on the corporate side.


William Heward Grafftey: Previous ministers in charge of the department brought the department into disrepute because of that attitude. We on my side of the House say you will get nowhere with legislation like this unless you delineate, initially, the common interest of consumer and corporate entities.


John Gilbert: Let's hear Sine.


William Heward Grafftey: Progressive Convervatives do not accept the conventional wisdom which has been aided and abetted by government stupidity. It is not easy to put conventional wisdom aside. You must consult both sides.


John R. Rodriguez: And you are talking on behalf of one side.


William Heward Grafftey: I thought we set up the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the first place in order to bring about some degree of understanding, communication and co-operation between the consumer and corporate sectors and government. Only after such understanding, communication and co-operation had been achieved was there to be action. If the department failed to act in the areas of concern to consumers and corporations-and I hope the minister will rectify this-the reason is that the present government accepted the outdated conventional wisdom which has been prattled for years by socialists, to the effect that there is an automatic, built-in conflict between consumers and corporate entities.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Heward Grafftey: We do not believe in that.


John Gilbert: I think he is filibustering this bill.


William Heward Grafftey: We think that we can only have progressive consumer protection, or legislation protecting Canadian borrowers-and I know those to my left will not like this-if we truly conserve the constructive viability of our lending institutions.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


William Heward Grafftey: If I have to explain that to you, you are lost before you begin. Since the creation of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, this government has done an appalling job of demonstrating a mutual interest in producers, manufacturers and consumers. We on this side believe that while government must often be willing to take tough and unpopular decisions, we are going to get nowhere without a high degree of co-operation and communication between government, producers and consumers. Frankly, if this sounds like a motherhood truism, it is. I believe it has to be repeated and repeated and repeated-


An hon. Member:: And repeated.


William Heward Grafftey: -and repeated, because of the confrontation attitude of this government up to now with this department. The minister would privately admit to me that the record of the department has been pretty sad to date. The government's approach to this bill, in many ways laudable in intention, is horrendous in its execution. Why? Because of delay. It is the kind of thing that should have been brought in by any government worthy of calling itself a government, five years ago.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't your government bring it in?


William Heward Grafftey: That was 13 years ago. There has been lack of real consultation. Look at how this bill was introduced into the House. It was barely mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Nothing was ready. After a long, long recess we came to the floor of the House of Commons. Obviously, no significant legislation was ready. I can just see the cabinet meeting last week "Somebody produce something". The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) said he had something kind of ready. Therefore, last Thursday we were informed we would deal with second reading of a fairly important bill. It may turn out to be a paper tiger, but I will call it important at this stage. Our House leader was advised that it would be given second reading today.


An hon. Member:: Aren't you ready?


William Heward Grafftey: I am not like the socialists. We examine things a little more. We do not have this Pavlovian gut reaction to everything. This bill was presented to the House on the valid assumption and I sincerely think it was a valid assumption that the opposition really wanted to help in making this kind of legislation better and making a constructive contribution. I say to the minister, is this really the way to conduct government business?
To get into some of the specific interests of the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: The minister said that he consulted the provincial authorities. Has he ever heard of property and civil rights? With regard to some of the disclosure provisions, some of the unwarranted interest rate provisions, I really wonder if some of the officials or some of the members of the government have studied constitutional law at all. We on this side of the House hope that the pitfall has been avoided.
I listened with great interest to the question put by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am concerned about some of the constitutional provisions in the bill, certainly in the province of Quebec, which would involve property and civil rights. In other provinces there are other considerations. I ask the minister whether he has read the Saskatchewan brief on this whole matter. Frankly, from reading the bill and some of the provisions in it I doubt whether there has been real consultation with the provincial authorities vis-a-vis the constitutionality of it.
November 1, 1976

Maybe I am not up to date with respect to some of my legal principles, but I always thought that no matter what we said here in the House of Commons, it was a long-standing principle of law that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove his case. The minister will surely have to prove his case to us both in the House and in committee. No doubt the law is fraught with exceptions to the general rule, but I rather doubt that this is one of them.
I see all kinds of difficulties from a practical as well as from a legalistic point of view about asking the defendant to prove his case, as now seems to be proposed. 1 always thought it was a principle of law that innocence was presumed until the contrary was proved. Some of the thinking behind this provision is certainly foreign to me. I note the minister has expressed the hope that there will not be much litigation as a result of this bill. But where litigation does arise, it will come before courts under provincial jurisdiction whose judges will have the last say as to who is going to prove what, how and where. Seriously, I wonder to what extent the provinces have been consulted in relation to this bill. When we get into committee, and later on in the debate, the minister will certainly be called upon to allay our fears on this point.
The hon. gentleman has already stated that the first purpose of the bill is to protect Canadian borrowers-


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Agriculture- Beef-Request for restriction of imports; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Government administration-Possibility of moving part of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil)- Industry-Toho lead and zinc refinery.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.
Changes in Standing Orders


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Robert Jardine McCleave: That, this House do modify its Standing Orders and practices, to the end that it bring its affairs more closely into conformity with modern (that is, acceptable mid-20th century expectations), by
1.	Cutting by one-half the time limits for speeches where such time-limits are set forth in Standing Orders;
2.	Setting up a committee composed of members of all parties, and of members of the parliamentary press Gallery-each component to number seven-which shall supervise the rules to govern the recording by instruments capable of radio broadcasting and of telecasting of the proceedings of this House and of any committee or other recognized entity thereof, and the public use thereof;
3.	Providing that the rules for the so-called late show, or adjournment debate, be altered to provide for the participation of five instead of three, and that the Speaker have absolute discretion to extend the time for reply by up to three minutes;
4.	Providing that no member of this chamber shall have to wait for recognition by the Chair for longer than three oral question periods if that member has risen in each of such three consecutive question periods, such question and recognition by the occupant of the Chair to be recognized upon the request of such member at the conclusion of the third such period;
5.	Providing that the government through its House leader may designate up to six measures per session for consideration and disposition by legislation where such proposals reflect these principles:
(a)	an amendment to existing legislation which shall incorporate not more than one major change, the final opinion in any dispute to be that of Mr. Speaker;
(b)	the government does not propose to amend such legislation in any other manner in that calendar year without unanimous consent;
(c)	the speeches by the mover and the designated replier for each party shall not exceed fifteen minutes, and by subsequent spokesmen of not more than five minutes;
6.	Setting at five the number of those who may oppose unanimous consent to any motion made in this chamber.
He said: Mr. Speaker, these are six ideas, and any other member of the House could, I imagine, present six alternative ideas of equal validity for the reform of our practices and procedures. I framed my motion in such a way as to directly develop interest among hon. members. I think this afteroon we shall have the privilege of welcoming back an old friend into the debate, making his maiden speech as a backbencher. I refer to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will say simply that I hope when the committee on procedure is reconstituted he will be in his place at the head of the table. He has done a thoroughly excellent job in that committee.
Mr. Speaker, were this a gathering of physicians it would be inappropriate that somebody should die of a cold, and this being a gathering of parliamentarians I do not think it would be appropriate if I talked the motion to death and used up all the time allotted to me. I have 20 minutes, and I am going to try to make my contribution in ten, thus leading up to the very

November 1, 1976
Changes in Standing Orders
first point that I make, to cut by one half the time limit for speeches in this chamber, the exception being the "late show".
I don't know how you can make do with much less than four minutes in presenting a case, with three minutes for reply, but everything else I would chop in two. As for supplementaries during the question period, what I would do to those who ask them goes beyond anything I should like to state to the Elouse now.
The first point, then, is an obvious one. I do not regard it as a major cure for procedural ills, though. I think that means restoring debate in committee of the whole. However, that is rather too large an idea to put forward in a motion such as I am presenting this afternoon. The second point calls for a committee composed of members of all parties and of members of the parliamentary press gallery to solve the problems of broadcasting and telecasting. Perhaps this is not generally known, but our sound system is such that all the radio correspondents we have in the gallery-there aren't any there now, I guess; we have the usual lone minion from Canadian Press, God bless him-could, at the start of the day, if they were given the authority, plug into our sound system and questions and answers could be sent forth immediately to a waiting public.
It would not take very much to bring that about. What it would take is unanimous agreement by everyone in this chamber. I do not intend to scout the idea at any greater length, except to say that I can see disputes ahead. I can see misuse in certain quarters of facilities for broadcasting the proceedings of the House. I know there is some suspicion on the floor of this chamber as to what might happen if broadcasts from the chamber were left, without any check or balance whatsoever, to the mercy of some people who pass for journalists in this country. So this is a way of giving some protection at least to members.
A week ago I was listening to a program called "Here Today" out of my own CBC station in Halifax. In this one-hour program, this is what I was fed as an innocent bystander. First, a speech by Mr. Mitchell of the Liberal cabinet in Halifax. Then a speech by none other than the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia. Then a speech by somebody from the other place-but, again, a Liberal. The fourth one- and here we get to the national scene-was the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). Next was the Prime Minister of the country (Mr. Trudeau). That was Liberal number five. He was followed by the parliamentary secretary to the minister who speaks on urban affairs every day except Monday. He got in there as number six. Finally, the prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, got in there: That made seven Liberals.
The leavening of political virginity in this one-hour program came in the form of the Premier of Saskatchewan who happens to belong to the NDP. No other political party need have applied. From the party to my far left and my own particular party there was not one person who said anything that day which could find a place on that program in Halifax. It was an almost incredible turn of events. Eight voice clips, and not one

of them from the official opposition, not one of them from the Creditiste party. It was a most shameful abuse by a handful of people posturing as trying to present an objective picture of the news. The only honourable exception I would make is that the weather forecast had no political slant and I thought the sports program was rather well presented.
When something like that is happening, you know as a member of parliament that if you allow a very large machine such as a television camera to come into this place, there must be some mechanism by means of which a member of parliament can voice his displeasure at the way in which the editors are using their material if he feels he is being mistreated.
I turn, now, to point number three, concerning the "late show". I think the "late show" is the best thing to have happened in this parliament for ten years by way of reform. I would simply extend the three units to five, so that anybody who has a grievance would not be obliged to wait around for a long time but could be heard quickly.
The fourth point concerns the problem of recognition by the Chair during the question period. This is something which often bothers members. It may surprise my listeners on the government side, but there are a number of us on this side of the House who do have this difficulty. In my own case, I think I am as tall as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and we weigh about the same, but I can remember one occasion when he was recognized four times running in the course of a single question period, and I was not recognized at all. I do not think this was because I failed to catch the eye of the Speaker, but I think the hon. member for Calgary North was perhaps a little more adept at catching the Speaker's ear. My proposal is that anybody who is persistent for three consecutive days should have his moment in the sun at least at the end of the third question period.
My fifth point is one which I consider to be important. I share the concern of many about the pace, or lack of pace, at which business is done in this chamber. What I am suggesting is a method of dealing with what I call good housekeeping legislation, much of which arises out of decisions of courts which seems to be at variance with what we in parliament thought we had done when we passed certain legislation. My proposal would offer a quick way, for example, of amending the divorce legislation without holding up every aspect of it, whether relevant or not, for debate in this chamber.
Some day we shall have to adopt my suggestion, or a suggestion of a similar nature, if the necessary amount of legislation is to pass through this chamber. I suggest that if we fail to take such measures, the device of taking action by way of order in council, regulations and the like will increasingly become standard procedure, which again removes us one step further from parliamentary control. I therefore suggest that whether this be the formula or something else be the formula, some thought has to be given to good housekeeping procedure, so I have set it forth. My final point is that if unanimous consent is required, it can be resisted but it would take five people to do so. This would end the present abuse of one or two members who would stand together until hell freezes over,
November 1, 1976

resisting anything sensible which was being suggested in the House about prolonging debate or doing something when unanimous consent was required.
May I say, finally, Mr. Speaker, how much I appreciate the fact that as a result of the draw I had the opportunity to make this subject number one on the list of private members' motions. I am sure it will not be the last dealing with procedure in our chamber. I anxiously await the speeches which will be made on the subject this afternoon, including that of the newly-discovered backbencher, the hon. member for Eglinton.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a day of beginnings for me. Today I asked my first question of the ministry, in the House of Commons and now I am making my first speech as a backbencher. I find both these duties quite congenial and I intend to continue to harass the government and participate in debate.
I begin by commending the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for his initiative in sponsoring this motion. The hon. member has a well-earned reputation in this House for impartiality and fairness. His work as the co-chairman of the joint committee on statutory instruments is well known and quite outstanding. Personally, 1 appeared before that committee on a number of occasions in my previous ministerial capacity as president of the privy council and have always been greatly stimulated by the cross-examination to which I was subjected. I look forward particularly to the conclusions of that committee, and hope that the co-chairman will urge his co-members to bring in a report as soon as possible on that vexed question of access to documents. I am sure the government will be waiting anxiously to see what advice the committee offers.
The hon. member is also a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and has participated in the debates there. The motion before the House is, therefore, more than normally significant because it is being put forward by a leading and respe'cted member of the opposition. He is a man of long experience, of outstanding ability and with a well-earned reputation for objectivity. No one can accuse him of having any ulterior motive in putting forward this motion, and particularly no one can accuse him of wanting to help the government by the reform of the rules that he is advocating.
My views on this question are very similar to those of the hon. member. The procedures of this House are outdated. They have become obsolete. Our proceedings should be televised, because this is a modern and effective method of communication which was not available to the previous generation and which we should make use of now since it is available. Just as at one time Hansard was introduced as a modern method, strongly resisted, it has now become accepted as a logical way of communicating to the public the words uttered in this House.
This House of Commons is the heart and centre of our democratic institutions, and it is not an exaggeration to say
Changes in Standing Orders
that the people of Canada judge the health of our democracy by the functioning of this parliament, and particularly of the House of Commons. I think it almost goes without saying that our procedures do need reform. Surely no one who looks at the way we use our time is satisfied that we use it profitably. Surely the time has come when we should face up to the necessity for modernizing our procedures.
I was particularly happy to see in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants that he linked together changes or reforms of the rules and procedures with the televising of the proceedings of this House. I think the question that ought to be addressed to those who would resist procedural reform is whether they would be satisfied to see the House proceedings being televised according to the rules that now prevail. I ask them, for example, if it were technically possible-and 1 think shortly it will be-to have a continuous live broadcast of the proceedings of this House, how long people would be content to look at the televising of our proceedings if members made 40-minute speeches? 1 am quite sure that after one or two, people would shut off the television and say, "I have heard it all before. This is just repetition and a quite unnecessary way of debating the affairs of the country".
So why do we continue to make 40-minute speeches if they cannot stand the light of day, or shall I say the light of television? Is it because members are trying to persuade one another to change their point of view? I do not think so. I think it might be necessary-I am sure the hon. member will agree with me-for the leaders of the parties or the principal spokesmen on these subjects, to be permitted to speak for 40 minutes, or even longer if necessary, in order to put forward the respective views of their parties or the school of thought they represent. But I have observed this House now for 13 years and, as I see it, most of the speeches that are made by ordinary backbenchers and not by the leading spokesmen for the parties are intended to be for the record, whether for reference later or in order to distribute them to constituents.
If we were to televise our proceedings there would be great urgency to revise our procedures, to shorten our speeches, to be able to forecast with some certainty what we were going to be debating within the next few days. We would want to show the public that we were focusing our attention upon the issues that were of concern to them, upon the leading issues of our time. Television would certainly affect parliament. I have heard the criticism that parliament would change if television were introduced. Of course it would change-and for the better, just as it changed when we brought into our proceedings the idea of writing down with an independent hand the words that are uttered in this House. That did change the House of Commons. It changed it for the better. In my judgment, televising the House would also change it, and for the better. It would be as if all the people of Canada were watching us.
When it is televised, in my judgment the House of Commons will once again become the focus of debate on public affairs. What seems to be more important today is not what goes on in the House of Commons but what goes on outside

November 1, 1976
Changes in Standing Orders
the House of Commons, in the interviews of members of parliament by the press who meet us downstairs in the "scrum" and say, "What is that you said in the House of Commons. Did you really mean it?" Or they put to a member of parliament another question that was not asked in the House of Commons at all.
Surely the time has come when we members of parliament should see that what goes on here is accurately reported to the people of the country so they can judge for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not now possible. I do not blame the media for the distortion that goes on, I blame ourselves. The media dominates us because we do not use it to televise our proceedings. That is the problem. People criticize the media- I do occasionally-for the distortion that takes place, but the remedy lies in our hands. We can have our proceedings made known to the public at large through television; we do not have to depend upon the media.
It is possible, of course, that the television stations that relay shots of our proceedings will distort by selection. That is possible, and I am sure it can and will happen when we do have television in this House. But if televising is carried out under the control of the Speaker, as I gather is the view of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, and as was the intent of the motion that was on the order paper in the last session, then distortion is minimized. At least the television cameras are not going to distort what is going on in the House of Commons, because those television cameras will be under our control, under the control of our president, the Speaker, and I would hope of the members of the House as proposed by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. At least the public will see their elected representatives in action in the House of Commons.
What a difference there is, for example, in the cross-fire here between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cross-examination by the press of either of these gentlemen. This is the place where this debate should be seen, and not as distorted inevitably by the media who have an interest which differs from that of the members of the House of Commons.
Moreover, it seems to me that if we did televise our proceedings, then the media could perform its function much more effectively. Then the commentators could comment on what went on in the House of Commons, the public having had a look at it. The press, in their interviews, and so on, would have what went on in the House of Commons as the basis for their reports. Now they can only refer to what went on in the House of Commons, and no one except a few people who happened to visit or to be in Ottawa and in the gallery would have seen it.
Television would make it possible for the whole of the country to see what we are doing at any time. During the debate on the budget I took the occasion to deal with the televising of the budget debate. At that time I pointed out the

advantages which would follow if there were a live broadcast of the minister of finance delivering his budget address, and of the spokesman for the opposition delivering his rebuttal. How much better that would be than the hocus-pocus we go through now of hiding people away in a locked room where they learn what is contained in the budget while the rest of us are ignorant until the minister of finance gets up in the House and delivers his speech.
One could have gone out into the lobbies during the last budget debate and heard the minister of finance giving his comments in advance in the locked room. That is practical. Moreover, if the budget debate were televised, then there is no need for any problems about anticipation. The budget speech could come on earlier and everybody in the world would hear the minister of finance simultaneously. This we are denying ourselves by refusing to allow cameras, under the control of the Speaker, to be brought into this House.
It may be that we are closer than we think to technological advances that will enable live continuous broadcasting of our proceedings. I had occasion, when I was president of the privy council, when I had some responsibility for these matters, to look into these possibilities. It would appear, because of the large number of channels now available to cablevision, to have either simultaneous or soon-after broadcasting of the proceedings of this House. That is perfectly possible. We should be thinking in these terms, and not only in terms of televising the proceedings of this House that is not live or from which excerpts will be taken. That is one possibility, and the most likely one immediately.
I think, however, that it will be possible for parliament to have its own channel, and not too expensively. Think, then, of the advantage of that available broadcast. It is true that most people would not want to take the time to watch continuously the televised proceedings of parliament. But think of the farmers, for instance, who would have an opportunity to hear what the minister of agriculture and his principal critics are saying about dairy policy, and so on. They could hear it. They could turn on the television set and hear it themselves, rather than having to depend on the media. It would not be wasteful to have that material broadcast continuously. I think this is the way in which we should be thinking. We should be thinking about the possibilities which exist now for this House to have its proceedings televised for the general advantage.
In respect of the particular proposals made by the hon. member for revisions of the rules, I shall not comment on them particularly except to say that I rather favour their direction. The standing committee has considered a number of proposals along the same lines, some of which do not go quite as far, and others which go much further than the hon. member has proposed in his motion. These are all to be found, as members of the House know, in the report of the Committee on Procedure and Organization of last session, dated September 30, 1976. As an addendum to those minutes, there are a number of proposals made by subcommittees which are now before caucuses for their consideration. I urge all members of the House carefully to study those proposals. I urge them to look at them
November 1, 1976

not as supporters of the government or as members in opposition, but from the viewpoint of the functioning of this House.
I repeat again that I think the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has performed a notable service by giving all of us an example of objectivity and non-partisanship. He speaks as a parliamentarian who is concerned, as we all should be, that this institution not lose its credibility. That is the danger we now face. It is not something we can do or not do. Our own reputation and the reputation of this institution is at stake. I cannot agree more with what the hon. member said when he talked about the urgent necessity of modernizing the rules of this House so that they have some relationship to the nature of the problems we now face.
Finally, let me express my general views in summing up. This House spends too much time on unimportant matters, and too little time on important matters. It sits for too many hours a week. It sits for too many days a year. Its agenda is too uncertain. The rules create unnecessary difficulties for members in looking after their constituents. These rules were not made for modern days; they were made for some situations, sometime ago, when there was less business to do and less urgency in getting it done. The sooner we wake up to this and get down to a serious look at our rules, the better it will be for all of us.
I know that reform of the rules will not turn this House into an ideal forum. That depends on the nature and characteristics of members of this House. What it could do is enable both the government and opposition to perform their role more effectively-and it is urgent, in the words of the motion before us, that we get down to business immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if, as I hope will be the case, the media reports the debate of this hour, I imagine there will be emphasis on the discussion that is taking place with regard to the broadcasting by radio and television of the proceedings of this House. That being the case, I should like to join the two distinguished members who have already spoken in making it unanimous, and I hope that by the time the hour is over that unanimity will still stand.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has put quite a bit in his motion. There are some details with which I might quarrel, and there are certain other rule changes he has not included which I might think should be in such a motion; but rather than detract from the unanimity in which I should like to join, I prefer to leave those details alone and concentrate my few remarks on the matter the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) spoke about just now'.
I agree with both of the preceding speakers that it does not make sense at all in the latter part of the twentieth century, when everything else that happens is heard on radio or seen on television by our people, for this institution not be heard or seen by them directly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Changes in Standing Orders


Stanley Howard Knowles: As others have pointed out, not only today but on other occasions, sometimes I think it is even worse than that because of the false impression that is given of this place by the interviews that take place downstairs. They do not do this institution justice.
I recognize that there would be problems. If cameras were in here this afternoon, they would have had a great time panning over empty seats. Hon. members will have to do something about their attendance. Also, we will have to do something about the length of speeches. We will have to do something so that when there is conflict, it is audible. There were times today when modern electronics at its best would not be able to report what was happening.
I can foresee problems associated with members wanting to get the floor. There are about 258 or 259 prima donnas in this place. I am trying to count everybody but myself to recall how many we now have. I believe there are 259 with the two who came in today.
Notwithstanding the problems, this is something with which we should proceed without further delay. As I have already said, I can see some problems with the changes that may be required in terms of the rules, but the hon. member for Eglinton is perfectly right that, if we are going to have our proceedings broadcast, we will have to make some changes. So I welcome the fact that this afternoon his first question as a backbench member-it is an interesting phrase, a backbench member sitting in the front bench-to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was about broadcasting of the proceedings of this House. I hope it will come along very soon.
I said I would be brief. I will leave it at that. That is three of us who favour broadcasting the proceedings of this House by radio or television. I hope that whatever happens to the motion, that will still be the unanimous position by the time this hour of debate is over.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend whole-heartedly the mover of the motion which is now before us, as it is a very important motion dealing with procedure in this House. It aims at determining the best way to proceed to administer this country as well as possible. I listened with great interest to the mover's words and I am convinced that they will pave the way for a review of the Standing Orders of the House.
Like hon. members who spoke before me, I believe we should be able to go through more legislation in a shorter time therefore I am not opposed to-and I have even said before that I would support-a modification of Standing Orders to cut the time limits for speeches. I agree with the mover that the modern languages we know lend themselves to a more succinct expression. All we have to do is investigate the matter deeply; in this way we would enact legislation which would be clearer and the voters would have a better opportunity to judge the efficiency of Parliament.
Another point which has caught my attention and about which I have already personally introduced motions to try to
646

November 1, 1976
Changes in Standing Orders
correct situations I sometimes consider as something farcical, dealt with Standing Order 43. We have witnessed one of those situations last week when a very important motion was introduced which seemed to meet with general acceptance in the House. But unfortunately the Chair, with much hesitancy, did not accept the fact that there was unanimous consent. I have discussed this fact with Mr. Speaker who told me that a "no" had been heard. Everybody from every corner of the House was wondering whether someone had actually said "no".
The mover of the motion said earlier that on the unanimous consent requirement, the Standing Orders should be amended so that it would take five members to have a motion rejected when unanimous consent is required. And I would add that those five members should be identified and their names printed in Hansard. Some Canadians and people specially interested in the work of the House have asked me time and again how is it that when someone moves a motion one member alone can stand up against 200 others and we do not know who he is or what is his name? 1 think that if we would bring forward such an amendment to the rules, it would be a significant improvement.
We are now talking about televising the debates. Obviously it is a matter of a very high importance. It might prove very effective to shed more light on the Canadian Parliament but it could give rise to some disadvantages like those mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he spoke of seats which are so often empty and of the numerous questions that Canadians would ask themselves when viewing that on the screen.
Mr. Speaker, this leads me to make a suggestion about how to attain this goal and I think we are capable of doing it. Given the considerable number of House committees and since their work terminates in this very place, we can conclude that they play a leading role.
Well, I feel that days should be designated for committees to sit, and others for the House to sit, but on one condition: that hon. members must be very punctual, both in committees and in the House. However, hon. members should not think: This is not the week when my committee is sitting, or neither the committee nor the House is sitting on Monday, Tuesday and Friday of this week, which means that there will be only two working days this week. I think this would be an abuse of our Standing Orders I agree that more hon. members should be freed from their personal duties to devote more time to the good operation of Parliament and the good administration of our country.
I hope therefore that the Committee on Procedure and Organization has already looked into this, but it should intensify its study and not let this issue drag on. If this is something which will be good in two or five years, it ought to be good also this year, and it should be possible to adopt this regulation without delay.
Before the proceedings of the House can be televised, I have a suggestion to make. I think it could interest the public. Each day the House is sitting-10.30 p. m. would probably be the best time-one member of each party who took part in the

debate, as the one on Bill C-16, would be requested to go on the air to inform the Canadian people about the position of his or her party. Thus the public would be informed of the legislator's intent, without the help of the commentators who are well intentioned but who do not always respect the legislator's true intent.
If a member is requested to go on television each evening at 10.30 or 10.45 p.m. to repeat before the whole Canadian population what he said on such or such bill and why he said so, he will think twice in the House because he will have to "report immediately, on the same day, what he said and what was his position on a very important matter. All issues are important, but more so Bill C-16 because it concerns all comsumers.
I make that suggestion and trust that, in the not too distant future, a way will be found to give the people more information. I have always noticed, Mr. Speaker, that a well informed people is a people who cooperates and is easier to govern.
For many years I worked for a municipality. Though the law did not oblige me to do so, through news releases I informed the public of the decisions made by the members of the council, so that they might know about the administration. In the light of that experience, I found out that we could get far more cooperation. The work of the mayor, the councillors and the secretary treasurer was made that much easier. People did not disturb them uselessly because they had received the news releases.
T should like to deal very briefly with the calendar of the business lined up for a given session. On that motion last week, everyone seemed to agree that the government should have to draw up the work program for the various sessions. This is the second session of this Parliament. When the session opens, we should be advised of its duration, keeping in mind, as much as possible, the breaks for Christmas, for Easter, and for the summer holiday at the end of the school year, to allow parliamentarians to have some family life while the children are on holidays. Parliamentarians should also have some holidays, and know ahead of time when these will come. It is always annoying not to know what is coming up.
At Christmas time, we wonder whether the House will adjourn on December 20, 22, 23, 24 or 25; nobody knows and everybody is nervous; our wives are nervous and our children say: Daddy will not be here. This situation becomes depressing and if we are unable to adjust ourselves and work as everybody else, we do not prove to be very intelligent.
We should also insist so that this change be final. When I know beforehand how many days I have to do a given work, I take the necessary arrangements to be able to complete that work. I am convinced that our proposals, whatever they may be, would match those of the government so that our legislation is not passed in a hurry but rather in an intelligent manner, in order to give our country a healthy administration but within a specific time limit. We might get used to work in such a spirit and I am convinced we would manage to do
November 1, 1976

something wonderful. We would really safeguard the function of this institution which is called Parliament, the highest authority in this country. At the same time, we would show the people that we are serious, aware of our responsibilities, and we would show them an example of good management rather than looking like people who are hesitating, who do not know where they are heading to.
These are, Mr. Speaker, the few comments I wanted to make and before concluding my remarks, I would like to say the following: In the House, some ideas are communicated through members of Parliament who represent many people. One day I heard the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say something which I liked and I enjoy repeating it to the people. He said it during the debate on an election funds bill. At that time, of course, everybody thought the same thing: what difference could it make, how could we help make electoral funds more democratic? And the Prime Minister said that all political parties have the same obligation to communicate the views of the people they represent.
Even though everybody does not share the government's view, whether they are Liberal or Progressive Conservative, people with different opinions are nevertheless as good Canadians as others; but they do not share the same view. At that time, it was said that the people are entitled to be well represented and to have their views communicated to the House. We tried to make electoral funds more democratic to give equal opportunity to all these opinions. This is democracy. This is how I understand it and I am pleased that this is the way it was accepted.
If it has been possible to reform that matter, it should also be possible to do so in the area of procedure, a reform that would receive the approval of all members and of those who will follow us. Such a reform would allow the House to be more efficient, to pass better legislation, because there would be improved drafting; instead of being tiring for members, it would take the best of them and give them the opportunity to do something better. I apologize for taking more than five minutes, but in any event I assure you that if the House does modify its Standing Orders, regardless of the time limits for speeches, I shall abide by it.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the need for rule changes in this parliament. To some degree I can accept a call for greater efficiency, although a chill goes up and down my spine whenever I hear that word used in relation to the democratic process. Democracy is notoriously inefficient, but it is far better than some of the alternatives we have seen in the world which could lay a great claim to efficiency.
While I could support many aspects of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), I do not at all see that we should confuse the issue of reforming the rules of this House with the far different idea of broadcasting or televising directly the proceedings of this Chamber. I do not at all mind destroying the unanimous
Changes in Standing Orders
agreement to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) so fondly referred.
I do not at all mind being flatly contradictory to many of the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), who I know has been attached to the dream of televising this Chamber for a long, long time. Since he has been relieved of higher responsibilities it seems that he is about to devote himself to a drive to achieve that particular aim. Throughout all the speeches, particularly those of the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we find this absolutely naive faith in the powers of television somehow to improve the functioning of this Chamber. I cannot understand how people as sophisticated as these two hon. members in so many fields of endeavour can remain so totally innocent of the effect television has on the institutions it touches. I am altogether unable to comprehend that.
One would assume that the world has been improved in every way in the years since television became widespread in North America, but we can look around us and see what seems to be the opposite. Sport is not better because it is televised. The Olympics, in a sense, are not better events because they are televised. All kind of things creep into the sports world because of television.
Crime is rampant in North America. One could assume that if television could improve a situation then by televising police stories and so on we would have developed a more peaceful and pleasant society. But that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Yet we are asked to believe that somehow televising this institution would have a salutary effect, not only on it, but that democracy would be enhanced in this land. I would say that is utter illusion; worse, it is folly, and beyond that it is dangerous to democracy itself.
One of the things at stake is the representative nature of our democratic system. I know there are people who hark back to dream of direct democracy and feel that somehow democracy which started in some small city state in Greece, where everyone could be present, was the epitome of democratic government and that everything we have had subsequently, because of larger areas and greater populations, has been a poor substitute. I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker. I believe the representative system of democracy that has been developed, particularly through the British tradition of a constitutional monarchy, is the best guarantee of democracy that the world has ever seen. This would be endangered by televising this Chamber, and it would be altered by televising this Chamber in a way that the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre cannot predict.
I would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants of a television panel on which 1 sat some eight years ago when I was first a member of this House. This was broadcast over an Ottawa station. I would ask them to cast their minds back to it. One thing it showed was that you could not predict in advance just how television is going to work.
80001-421/2

November 1, 1976
Changes in Standing Orders
I am not the only person who suggests this. People who know the medium well, such as Malcolm Muggeridge, that long time television personality, agree. Tie has said that the media enormously distort life.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Howard Earl Johnston: He says that people are given a surface picture which they come to believe-the legend made visible, the word become television. He contends that it promotes complete conformism, and that words like "population explosion" are bandied about as if they meant something.
Blaik Kirby, writing in the Globe and Mail and speaking of Muggeridge's series "A Third Testament", said something that could be applied to this subject when he said that nothing can be done really well on television that is not properly adapted to the visual medium, and that mere illustrations and background music do not make a program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Earl Johnston: I hope those hon. members who are applauding will really let that sink in because I am afraid it is only on the surface as yet. We come here to debate and to legislate; that is the onus on us as representatives no matter how far we have come. Once we begin televising this institution the demand will change, however, and it will not be for better debate and certainly not for better legislation, but for better television.
As one listens to hon. members one would think it was not this country that produced the prophetic figure of Marshall McLuhan who said, and was so much misunderstood, "The medium is the message". It is the medium itself that intervenes, alters, and ultimately destroys. We must approach it with extreme caution.
I find nothing in the remarks of hon. members to suggest that we have reached the point of control over that technology where we can safely televise this institution without endangering democracy itself.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in the few moments left that the House of Commons has reached a point in its development in Canada where it will have to make some difficult choices in the direction it wants to take. The hon. member who has just taken his place said that the media distorts. I would submit that any medium of communication distorts. The dilemma facing us in the House of Commons is that we exist in a vast chamber very seldom heavily populated, and our words of wisdom are filtered out through the medium of print.
If we look at statistics of how people obtain their news in our society, unfortunately for those in the written press who sit up and smile down at us, it is television from which most people obtain their understanding of the world. What do we do as politicians who seek to communicate with as many people as we can? We sit here and say that that medium which is declining in influence, the written press, is the medium we

choose to communicate with the Canadian people. That is obviously a foolish proposition.
The idea of having television in the House of Commons is to try to reach the community we seek to represent in a way which is important and meaningful. I recall in the good old days when all we had were our lungs to reach an audience, and great speakers were developed with tremendous voices that could carry over thousands of acres. But radio came along and a different kind of voice was required. The great orator of the nineteenth century disappeared and a new kind of voice, such as that developed by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), emerged.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott that Bill C-16, to provide for the protection of borrowers and depositors, to regulate interest on judgment debts, to repeal the Interest Act, the Pawnbrokers Act and the Small Loans Act and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, before being interrupted at five o'clock I had been talking about the aims of the bill. I asked, will it protect Canadian borrowers from loan sharking and all forms of excessive interest? We hope that the bill will prove a step forward in this regard. As the minister said, information received from our police authorities shows that loan sharking at present is a $3 billion annual industry which feeds on the abject misery of low income earners especially. I know we shall want to examine critically those aspects of the bill in committee, to make sure that we are making progress in this field.
I repeat that I do not lay all the blame for what has happened on the minister's shoulders; yet we, on my side of the House, feel that the delay in introducing this kind of legislation is somewhat, although not totally, responsible for the amount of loan sharking which has grown up in this country
November 1, 1976

over the years. We do not say that loan sharking does not take place in other countries, in the western hemisphere especially. The point is that we are concerned about what happens in this country.
Some talk of usury, as it was called in biblical times; some call it loan sharking; others, the charging of excessive rates of interest. Whatever one may call it, the point is that the rectifying of such problems should be one of the central thrusts of this legislation. Having said that 1 add that we, on my side of the House, are not convinced that the measures as outlined in this bill will by themselves rectify the problem of loan sharking.
The minister has already outlined some of the approaches he will take vis-a-vis criminal sanctions. It is our hope that, apart from anything this bill may attempt in the near future in relation to loan sharking, clear and explicit proposals will be brought forward for amending the Criminal Code, to include loan sharking. We say that such provisions should be added to the Criminal Code.
I now mention the recommendations made by the province of Saskatchewan in this regard. It is the opinion of that province that the question of loan sharking has not been dealt with to any great depth in this proposed legislation. Further, the appropriate body in that province has expressed the opinion that loan sharking cannot be prevented, and can be effectively dealt with only by specific legislation aimed at the practice. Loan sharking should be an offence under the Criminal Code, and attempts to deal with it within an act intended to regulate legitimate lenders only reduce the ability of the act to deal with legitimate lenders. Similar language is to be found in other briefs, whether emanating from consumers' associations in Canada, provinces, or other interest groups.
Having said that let me add that we, on this side of the House, intend to make sure, by introducing amendments if necessary, that the loan sharking provisions have teeth in them. I want the minister to listen to us. We are in favour of clear sanctions against loan sharking being included specifically in the Criminal Code.
What can one say about the minister's stated goals relating to protection against excessive interest charges? I will not be definitive. Members on my side have listened to the representations of interested parties; frankly, although we have not made up our minds, we remain unconvinced about the effectiveness of some parts of the bill. We feel that loan ceilings and rate limits ought to be included in the bill. Perhaps as we consider this bill further the minister will tell us more about his concept of the unwarranted rate.
I refer once more to the Saskatchewan brief.


John Gilbert: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: It says that the customers of this country's finance companies will only benefit from a borrowers protection act if that legislation includes provisions for loan ceilings and rate limits. I believe the Consumers Association of Canada also says something pretty pointed about this. The
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors brief goes on to say that without such provisions the improvements made will be minor compared to the cost to the consumer, and the legislation may well prove to be a paper tiger which works to the detriment of the consumers it intended to help. As the brief says:
The elimination of loan ceilings and rate limits may eventually only lead to demands for the re-introduction of same, in much the same way as the repeal of the usury laws led to demands for the re-introduction of similar legislation.
The minister, as the bill proceeds through its various stages, will have to come clean with the opposition and reveal exactly what he means by unwarranted rates. He will have to come clean with the Consumers Association of Canada with regard to the proposed abolition of fixed interest rates for small loans. I question it. I know that the traditional stance from critics of the opposition will be, "Make up your minds".
We do not think that the last word is in here. I say to the minister that it will be a very important aspect of the legislation when we hear the various representations before committees and otherwise. I simply repeat, with the Consumers Association of Canada, that we seriously question the proposed abolition of fixed interest rates for small loans, whether we intend to define in the bill or in the regulations what constitutes a small loan.
In relation to the minister's approach to the unwarranted rate, he has already stated that he does not expect much litigation to arise front this aspect of the bill. I agree with him. Historically speaking, it has been proven over the years, certainly in the past 50 years, that low income borrowers, and that is essentially who we are talking about, are not very litigious in this regard. Therefore it will not be through litigation that we will solve this. At least the minister does not expect much litigation.


John Gilbert: Low income people cannot afford litigation.


William Heward Grafftey: They cannot afford it. That is quite true. At any rate that is another reason why we on this side want to hear a lot more about the basic philosophy and the practical application of the unwarranted rate as it affects consumer borrowers in general and low income people in particular.
I intend to read from the Consumers Association of Canada report. I am not just going to quote it. I will make quite sure as I put these thoughts on record that I am speaking for myself and, I hope, this side of the House. I quote:
The CAC's most severe reservation concerns the government's proposal to eliminate the limits on interest rates for small loans. Until now these have been regulated under the Small Loans Act.
The minister mentioned that in his opening remarks this afternoon.
-government officials may believe that the free market is the best mechanism for ensuring that interest rates are reasonable.
I speak for myself in this regard and, I think, for many members in this House who have met with low income credit consumers who were in an awful bind. I believe that the free

November 1, 1976
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors market is not necessarily the best mechanism for ensuring that interest rates are reasonable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: It further states:
Most people are not very sophisticated money shoppers,-
This does not necessarily just refer to the low income shopper. When people really want credit, maybe they are not always sophisticated shoppers.
-and they do need the protection that realistic interest ceilings afford to prevent price-gouging by relatively powerful lenders.
I say to the minister, let's not dream, let's not kid ourselves. Basically I am a free enterpriser. However, if we are going to be serious about legislation like this, we should pay very close attention to those remarks.
Overburdening high-risk people with loans at say 48 per cent or 55 per cent will not do much to help them deal with the everyday problems of being poor ... low-income people will be much better off if government decides to help them directly-through ... community debt counselling facilities and other programs implicitly designed to meet the needs of the poor.
It further states:
A major objection relates to the decision to drop federal licensing of small loans companies.
In my view that could be a very major objection. The evidence is not all in, but possibly we will have a major objection relating to that decision.
As well, the bill allows consumers only limited means to obtain restitution for losses incurred as a result of illicit lending practices.
We then come to another question put by the minister in terms of his goals for this bill. Will the bill provide the public with more and better information on all credit and deposit dealings?
Obviously the minister is starting out by making progress in this regard. However, if one looks at the Senate and joint hearings of the past, the various commission recommendations, and at what has been said by previous ministers, we on this side cannot be blamed for being just slightly confused by what the government has said to date in this regard.
Webster defines interest as "the price paid for borrowing money". I am not too shy to admit in this technical area of these considerations, whatever that means, that how we define interest affects the notion relating to the minister's stated principle of eliminating unnecessary complexities and confusion in the credit field. We do not think the last word is in this part of the bill about full and complete disclosure, be it interest rates or ancillary costs which the minister talked about in his opening remarks.
I have had consultations with many financial institutions, consumers, and consumer bodies. It seems to me that we can ensure that the individual consumer can do realistic comparative shopping from one institution to another if we make sure in this legislation that the interest rates and ancillary charges are clearly delineated and spelled out.
Let us not rush into this proposal. I rather think the minister is contemplating a few amendments to the legislation in front

of us. I know that in spite of Webster's definition that interest is the price paid for borrowing money. We can get into the concepts of money rent and that sort of thing.
We would be very negligent if in our approach to this part of the legislation we forgot entirely about common usage over the past years. Interest is interest, and with regard to these ancillary charges of on-loan contracts, whether they are insurance or administrative, as the minister so ably delineated and made comparisons about in his opening remarks, we have to be very careful in this part of the legislation. The minister is on the right track, and that is very laudable, in making sure that the individual borrower, and borrowers collectively, can really do comparative shopping and get the best deal. We have to ensure that part of the legislation spells out clearly interest plus the ancillary charges. Whether we want to lump them all together in one rate is another matter. I warn the minister that we may have lively meetings in committee unless some minds are changed in this regard. I believe we must approach this part of the bill with great care. I know that economists can be very confusing in this regard. They talk about "retaining flexibility, then money rent will be a working definition of interest."
We can listen to economists until the cows come home, but it is possible that what we have to do in this legislation is make sure we spell out to the consumer the real cost he is paying on one hand and separate the charges on the other. If, in some ancillary part of the information given to the consumer, we want to calculate the real interest rate he will be paying, as the minister did so ably in his remarks, well and good. But I am a little leery of accepting the computation of interest rates by lumping them in holus bolus with ancillary services because, if you carry that principle over to transactions outside the field we are discussing, we could end up in some degree of confusion. The minister's argument in this regard appears at first glance to be inconsistent with the recommendations on consumer credit made by the Joint House and Senate Committee on Consumer Credit and the Cost of Living.
We hear time and time again that the interest rates and ancilliary costs must be properly presented. That goes without saying. The first recommendation of the committee, dealing with truth in lending, says that every person or financial institution extending consumer creditshall be required by law to disclose to the consumer the total cost of that credit, expressed both as a lump sum and in terms of simple annual interest.
There is no mention here of potential income forgone, not of an "effective" rate of interest. I am taking a fair amount of time to deal with this important aspect of the bill because it is one which must be handled with care to make sure we have drafted the best clause possible.
The committee, in its report, expressed a desire to ensure that the consumer was aware of both the dollar cost of credit and of this cost expressed as a percent per annum of the amount borrowed. It took the view that since the role of both the minister and the committee was to ensure cost of credit
November 1, 1976

disclosure so that the consumer could make a reasoned decision about using credit and obtain credit from the most economical source, the apparent disagreement among the minister, the committee, and the Canadian Consumer Loan Association is one based upon methods rather than goals. We recognize this, but again 1 have to ask the minister: did his department really consult the Consumers Association and the financial institutions with regard to the method of disclosure, comparative shopping, rate shopping? We shall have more to say in this regard.
The final goal, as stated by the minister, was to define strict and uniform rules to protect all borrowers and depositors and to rationalize federal credit legislation. It is a worthy objective, but will it be achieved? We have to move into this legislation with the greatest of care because, as a result of delay on the part of the federal authority, the provinces have naturally moved to a greater extent in this field. This is one reason for suggesting that we move forward into this aspect of the legislation with great care, though not necessarily slowly.
I should like to terminate by addressing my remarks to those aspects of the bill which particularly affect people with low incomes. I believe that if each and every member of parliament could get up in the House and recount his or her experiences of credit problems involving low income people, some tragic stories would be put on record. I share the view of the Consumers Association of Canada that part of the answer to low income credit problems lies in society assuming responsibility for providing an adequate level of basic support so that credit is not needed. This is why it is very wise that the bill before us should be given to the committee on social welfare.
Moreover, since the unwise use of credit is often cited as one of the major sources of personal bankruptcy, public counselling under the sponsorship of credit institutions and government should be vastly extended. Whether we can amend this particular bill in such a way as to make provision in this regard is yet to be seen. The feasibility of providing low cost credit in certain circumstances should also be explored. In any case the vulnerability of the low income population with credit difficulties is now well known and should therefore be a priority target. The minister is making a beginning with this bill. Maybe through detailed and meaningful hearings at committee stage we can do more in this regard, and if the minister decides to take such a course he will find us, on this side of the House, most co-operative. We wish to say, in fairness to the minister, that we too favour the retention of licensing requirements for regulated lenders subject to exemption of lenders already governed by federal or provincial licensing requirements.
Along with the Consumers Association I am worried about the special hardship which could be associated with the use of people's homes as security for consumer loans. This is another aspect we should be very careful about as we proceed.
Both the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) and the joint committee recommended that a mech-
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors anism be established to supply credit at reasonable interest rates to those on low incomes. A low income does not necessarily render credit infeasible or unwise-the minister has already alluded to that-and credit supplied to those in need may well assist them in breaking out of the poverty circle.
In his opening remarks the minister said that very often a low income borrower does not in itself necessarily mean a high risk borrower. Past ministers have referred to experiments undertaken by the Royal Bank in a low income district of Montreal. There credit is granted to low income workers and welfare recipients at low rates of interest. Assisted by credit counselling from bank officers, the repayment record of those granted credit in this experiment has been excellent.
The joint committee recommended a federally controlled extension to the banking system to grant credit that "would be repayable over an extended period . . . would bear a low rate of interest" and "would be made only for provident and productive purposes related to the preservation of home and family". With the addition of financial counselling services, a low income credit scheme would be a practical mechanism. I am not suggesting, of course, that we delineate a vast low income scheme in this bill, but I would hope that with the provisions contained in the bill we can make some progress in this regard.
We must also consider the establishment of a low income credit scheme. Credit education is a must. There are so many things that fall within the purview of the minister in the area of consumerism, whether it be motor vehicle safety, drugs, food or what you will. We can work, and work, sincerely, across the floor of this House for the benefit of consumers, but unless they are properly informed as a result of our actions in this House or elsewhere, and by education at the grass roots level, if you will, we will not make much headway. Therefore it is my hope that provincial education systems will consider adding a compulsory personal money management course to their curricula. Perhaps this would have been impractical in a bygone age, Mr. Speaker, but in this day and age we should encourage our provincial counterparts to take this step so as to complement what we are trying to do on the floor of this House. In the view of those on this side of the House, this is a classical problem that involves government, the consumer, and the corporate entity.
I congratulate the minister for much that he said today. I do not doubt his sincerity, and again I say that we are in accord with most of the basic principles of his approach. We will work hard with the minister to produce a better law, but in spite of the ruckus when I said this before the dinner hour I am certain that unless we can delineate a common interest between the corporate sector, the consumer sector, and government in its general interest role, we will get nowhere.
I have been told time and time again that the consumer and marketing boards, for example, are mutually exclusive, that you will either be before the consumer or before marketing boards. I do not accept that. I accept that you must have viable producers before you begin to protect the consumer; but that does not mean to say that often the government does not

November 1, 1976
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors have to take tough and unpopular decisions. After all, you cannot please everyone all the time.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, let us all on both sides of the House resolve to help the minister draft a good law. By consultation and by opening up communications we can show both the corporate sector and the consumer that their interests are enhanced; we must demonstrate to each where their mutual interest and common ground lies. Again 1 congratulate the minister for his major thrust in this House. We on this side of the House will be here through all stages of the debate and in committee so as to make sure that this is the best possible law.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the previous speaker dealing with the free market and the provision of credit to low income borrowers I think he advanced light years for both himself and his party in saying that he recognized that the free enterprise system is not necessarily the best way of ensuring credit to low income earners.
I would be less than honest if I did not say that the minister knows that there was a great deal of trepidation when it was announced that he was going to be the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs since many people in this country saw him as the representative of corporate interests. I think he had to deal with that in the early weeks of his appointment, and I sympathize with him in his dilemma. I think this is why this particular bill has been brought forward. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) is being resurrected as the defender of the consumers of Canada. At least that is what appears on the surface. But when you examine the bill very closely, Mr. Speaker, you will see that this is the biggest con job ever perpetrated on the consumers of Canada.
As for the few positive aspects of the bill, finally the government has realized that in a progressive society legislation respecting consumer credit protection and a declaration of interest rates ought to have been in the federal statute books a long time ago. Indeed many of the proposed changes in this bill have already been accepted by the provinces, many have legislated many of the items being regurgitated in this bill. Indeed all the industrialized countries of the western world have much more progressive credit legislation for consumers and consumer protection as they grovel and jostle for credit in the market.
The prime purpose of the bill appears to be an attempt to meet the credit needs of low income borrowers. As I have just said, it is meeting a need for law that has not been previously enacted by federal legislation. For example, I might point out how dated some of these provisions are. The Interest Act has not been amended since 1917. In effect the minister is finally coming into the twentieth century with some kind of legislative progressivity.
There is no doubt that some of the provisions in the bill will go some way toward providing protection for consumers. Our concern is that we feel there are fundamental changes outlined

in this bill which, contrary to what the minister said in his back-up paper, and in the House when he spoke earlier today, in some instances will do a disservice rather than a service to the low income borrower.
One of the greatest problems has to be, as pointed out by the Consumers Association of Canada, the lack of research concerning the credit needs of low income people. I tried to obtain some of that information from the minister's department. I told them they must have some research in respect of incomes of low income earners from which they could furnish me some of the background papers and research done in respect of this bill. There certainly is a lack of any kind of research concerning the credit needs of low income people.
Fortunately I happen to know a consumer researcher who has done some research in this field, Michael Decter, presently of Manitoba. He points out the following in his paper:
.. . generally speaking, those who borrow from finance companies are in financial difficulties of some sort, and have been enable to obtain credit elsewhere .. . statistics show that finance company clients are lower middle income wage earners who work at skilled or semi-skilled or clerical jobs. Middle income and lower middle income people, who are primarily wage earners, form the bulk of the finance companies' clientele, while the poor are ill-served by the industry. About half of all applicants for credit are turned away by the finance companies.. .
These I suspect are in the wage bracket of less than $5,000 a year.
Those who are not turned away are using the money primarily for necessities. The major purpose of loans is to consolidate debts, usually as a sign of financial difficulty.
These loans by low or middle income people are being made at rates of 24 per cent to 33 per cent. The industry blames the high cost of loans on the risk it faces. I shall quote the industry. It is stated that loss ratios for consumer loan companies range from \'A per cent to l3A per cent of outstanding receivables, and for sales finance companies about half of one per cent of receivables. These losses are higher than those of the banks but certainly are not unmanageable. The concept of risk is very important because in Clause 8 of the bill one of the factors to be determined in calculating the cost of the loan is the degree of risk assumed by the lender on the lending transaction. There is also the matter of collateral, the age, the capacity, the financial position, and the mental and physical health of the borrower to be considered.
The bill claims to protect that one half of the people who are turned away by the finance companies because of high risk and low income. These were the people whom Captain Henri Marchessault found in a two-year study to be likely to use the services of loan sharks. He found that of 7,000 clients only 20 per cent had criminal backgrounds, which incidentally might explain their inability to get other credit, while the remainder were low income earners with nowhere else to go. From this we see that the people who take advantage of the present high rates of finance companies do so out of necessity. Those who go to loan sharks, because of their very low incomes, probably require money for their necessities as well, but they obviously cannot get it from the lending institutions.
November 1, 1976

The government appears to have looked at this situation and decided to attack loan sharking, while at the same time opening up lines of credit for those whose earnings are less than $5,000 by eliminating interest ceilings on small loans. While this may have some effect on legal loan sharking its other effect will be to make an already profitable business more profitable. Considering that most of these loans are taken out to meet necessities it will also mean that young people with low incomes will go into perpetual poverty through debt to pay for their necessities, at rates of interest as high as 60 per cent or 70 per cent. It should also be noted that these higher interest rates undoubtedly will also apply to many of those people presently receiving loans at 33 per cent.
Moreover, since the bill allows a person's age to be taken into consideration, then because of risk-and this is in Clause 8-it also means that young persons starting out in life will be starting out with very heavy burdens even to buy their furniture. This all seems very unfair, considering the low rate of non-payment of the finance companies and presumably among loan sharks as well.
The elimination of the ceiling on interest rates is one of the two fundamental changes in the bill which will hurt the position of low income borrowers. The other change is the one which forces the borrower to take legal action to have any wrongs redressed. The Consumers Association rejected this and it was pointed out that low income earners, the ones whom this bill is purportedly aimed at, are the very ones least likely to use or to know how to use the courts.
The government suggests that competition in the market place will be the device which prevents interest rates from rising unreasonably for low income earners. We can reject that argument without discussion at this point. In other words, what the bill does is send the low income earners from the loan sharks to the finance companies which have no limit on their interest rates. As my colleague points out, the lawyers also probably will be involved in this.
There are other solutions. The least radical of the solutions would be one put forward by the government in the 1974 election. At that time the government promised a loan insurance scheme for people establishing credit. This is another promise the government has not kept. This would eliminate the risk for the finance companies and, given the low rate of loan defaults among low and middle income earners, would probably necessitate only a minimal increase in interest rates. This is the one part of the bill we on this side of the House could never accept.
The government has said that the rationale, the main purpose in introducing this bill is to get people away from the loan sharks. To do this it will provide and ensure that the low income worker can obtain a loan from the lending institutions. Of course in order for it to be profitable for the private sector, the finance companies and the banks, to go into this business there has to be some assurance, a minimization of the risk, because the low income earners are poor risks. It has to be made worth their while. The interest rate will be one which, as
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors set out in Clause 3, "may provide for any rate of interest that is agreed upon." Well, that is very broad.
I say to the minister that in effect a person who would come to borrow money from a person with money to lend is prepared to accept anything close to what the minister calls the criminal rate. I say he wisely calls it that. In effect the criminal rate could be 60 per cent. Here we have a person who has no credit rating at all coming to borrow money and entering into an agreement for a rate of interest that is agreed upon. The interest rate could very well be 50 per cent. The minister might say it is better for the low income borrower to pay a rate of 50 per cent than a rate of 1,500 per cent to the loan shark. Both instances are totally unacceptable. They are totally unacceptable for the low income earner. I think the minister will agree with that.
This clause setting the interest rate agreed upon between the borrower and the lender is supposed to be in keeping with the minister's statement that this bill underlines his determination to help police forces fight the ever increasing crime of loan sharking. Where I come from in the Carribean we have a fish which is even more dangerous than the shark, and that is the barracuda. It seems to me that we will take these people away from loan sharks and leave them at the mercy of barracudas for whom it will be quite legal to charge 50 per cent interest, or as close to that rate as possible. It seems to me that this is not the solution for low income earners. The government set out the problem very well. It wants to get these people away from loan sharks and into legitimate institutions. I wonder if it is not rather like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.


John Allen Fraser: Where would you go if not to a legitimate institution?


John R. Rodriguez: How does the minister expect these low income earners to get some measure of justice if they think that somehow or other they are getting taken? The onus is now in the low income earner to take the institution to court. I can just see a person making $5,200 a year in Nickel Belt taking IAC, AVCO, or the Royal Bank to court because he thinks he is paying too much interest. The minister probably would say that under the bill he can stop making payments on his loan and then the institution will take him through the court process. But low income earners are threatened by and are leery of the court system and of the whole process.
The minister hopes the system will work with enlightened people, when by and large the low income group are afraid of the whole system, and certainly they are not aware of their rights. We know, all of us who have riding offices in prominent locations, of the problems that our constituents bring to us; we know the kind of help they need as they go through the maze of bureaucratic red tape, and I think the minister also is well aware of that.
We have suggested an alternative. We think that the present system of loan ceilings should be retained. It eliminates risks, and it seems to us that that is the crux of the problem and why

November 1, 1976
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
the so-called private sector people, banks and finance compa-nines, will not lend money to low income earners. It seems that risk is the problem.


An hon. Member:: What happened to free enterprise?


John R. Rodriguez: Even in that system we think there is a solution. Certainly the government can guarantee the loans, and this is not a unique idea. We do it for student loans, we do it for loans for farmers and for fishermen; we do it right down the line. We do it through EDC. Imagine a bank guaranteeing INCO a loan at small interest rates. Study after study carried out by committees of this House and of the other place have pointed out that people in this sector of society are locked into poverty, and we have not done a thing to change that pattern. We have tinkered with the income tax structure, but they are still locked in. Here is the minister bringing in a bill trying to use what he thinks is the free enterprise system to solve the problem.
We think that one possible solution to eliminate the risk is to guarantee the loan, so if perchance a person falls short on a loan the lender will not lose as a result of it. It seems to us on this side of the House that this would be a better approach to the problem.
We also think that the ceiling ought to be maintained, otherwise how is the interest rate going to be determined? According to the bill the interest rate would be determined on the basis of the applicant's background, his age, his financial stability in terms of his job, his physical health, his mental health, etc. But here is the crux of the problem, even with that simple approach.
When a person goes to borrow money from the bank or from the finance company, if this bill is passed the way it is the lender could ask to see the interest rate he is being charged. How generous that is! But does he have the right under the bill to ask how his interest rate is determined, what factors were used to determine it? Is he allowed to say he does not agree with those factors and to ask where they got them, whether they got them from his neighbour? He has no control over information regarding his personal life. He cannot even ask to see it. That is a fundamental shortcoming in the bill. It is even more ridiculous. If he wants to find out about the institution with which he is doing business, such as information on how many times it was brought to court for an infraction of this act, he has to go to the administrator and pay a fee. Imagine, he has to pay a fee for information about the institution with which he is doing business!
This puts another burden on low income earners to get the necessary information on which to make decisions within their ability to decide. I do not think that is fair. Furthermore we surround this administrator with secrecy. He cannot reveal anything about the operation which he may be investigating. He cannot reveal that information to the person who may come to him and, for a fee, ask pertinent questions. We think that a change in this regard should seriously be considered.
We also think that there should be a credit ombudsman under this legislation so that if a low income earner thinks he

is being taken to the cleaners with respect to the interest he is being charged, or with respect to any other item under the bill, he could apply to the ombudsman. The ombudsman could then investigate the matter and, if in his opinion there was an infraction of the act, he could take the matter to the administrator who would lay a charge against the lending institution. The state would pay the cost to take the case through the courts of the land. It seems to us that this would prove to be far more fair and would provide protection for the low income earner who tries to obtain credit in the market. We do not think the onus should be placed on the low income earner, on the borrower, to take the institutions to court. What we are proposing, we think, is a very viable solution to the problem.
We also have positive suggestions for the government on a matter which was touched upon earlier. We certainly think that one of the problems of our society is the improper use of credit. We do not think we have really done our utmost in this area or that we have done everything possible to provide funds for credit counselling. Certainly the minister put out press releases about the $300,00 granted to the Consumers Association and $100,000 elsewhere. That just scratches the surface. We have to make an effort to educate our people to the use of credit, not the abuse of credit. That goes not just for low income earners but for middle income earners as well.
We are discovering that we should be spending more money on teaching French in our elementary schools, and everybody is beating his breast saying that is what should be done, but in this area as well money should be spent to teach young people the wise use of credit. It seems to me we can do that through the school systems, community colleges, the Consumers Association of Canada, and community oriented groups which operate in every community across this land. We could spend all kinds of funds. There was a $3 million surplus as a result of tickets left over after the Olympic lottery. Surely that should be put into a fund for these kinds of community programs. There are funds available, and we should set the right priorities.
As I have said before, we think that the administrator should have more power than he is given under this bill. As we see it, the role of the administrator is simply to collect data and information, and for a fee he can dispense part of that information to an applicant. Under a previous consumer bill a couple of sessions ago, Bill C-2, the competition bill, the administrator had considerable power to decide cases, and those cases can be taken to the courts. We say that the administrator in this particular instance ought to have that same kind of power.
We think also that there ought to be some changes made with respect to the whole question of discounting tax and social security payments. This bill proposes to get rid of the worst aspects of this particular practice by defining this operation as a lending transaction. We think that leaves a lot to be desired, and that it just exposes the low income earner to a

mutually agreed upon interest rate. That particular clause ought to be changed and made more effective.
Clause 37 ought to be changed as well. It defines offences and punishments for such offences. Clause 37 outlines offences with respect to interest rates, and we think it should be beefed up considerably. It has been argued in this Elouse that the stronger the punishment, the greater the deterrent. I have heard that for the last year. Many Conservative members have argued that in this House.


An hon. Member:: Hang them.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member wants to get back to hanging. Following the logic of members of the Conservative party, we should tighten the bill up. We do not think that for gouging poor people a $10,000 fine is enough. We would like to see a $250,000 fine or 10 years in jail, or both on summary conviction. It seems to me that with respect to offences and punishment clause 37 could be tightened up considerably.
With respect to advertising, the bill ought to contain some provision with regard to our free and easy way of advertising credit. That is contrary to the very thing we talked about earlier, credit counselling. We are all acquainted with this little gimmick: "After you have decided on leather, paper or wood, and after you have decided on yellow, green or brown, isn't it nice to be asked, 'Will that be cash or whatever?' " It seems to me that that does not teach people the wise use of credit.
Whenever we can create a need, we can go out and buy something, and all we need is a little plastic card. The minister says that all the bill proposes to do about that is to make sure that advertising includes the rate of interest. Again that does not get at the crux of the problem. We would like to see that kind of advertising abolished altogether. We do not need that kind of free and easy approach to advertising credit, and in our opinion putting in the interest rate is not in line with proper consumer education with respect to the use of credit.
The main thrust of the bill is the question of ensuring that low income earners do get credit. We cannot agree with the government, and with the minister in particular, that the bill will ensure protection for low income earners and that they will get credit. We think the scales are tipped against the low income earner but that they can be evened up.
This bill could be much fairer, and in committee we are going to try-as we have with the last two consumer bills-to put forward amendments which will provide some protection for consumers. The minister will have a chance to prove himself to be a friend of the consumer. We will judge his performance by his willingness to accept amendments, and we hope the amendments we put forward will make the bill much fairer for low income earners. We will try to be as constructive as we can, but we must tell the minister quite frankly that the crux of the bill is the area I have just delineated, and we must make some changes. Our support for the bill will depend upon what changes are made at the committee stage, and at report stage when the bill comes back to the House.
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
[DOT] <2110)


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, first of all,
I must thank the minister and the government for bringing forward Bill C-16, which gives us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject, namely the very wise use of one's credit to ensure one's future and to protect one's dependants.
As a matter of fact, it is a very important subject and in the release, dated October 27 which was distributed to us by the minister, I find the following in the second paragraph:
This bill on credit has several goals:
1)	to protect Canadian borrowers from loan sharking and excessive interest rates.
We have been in favour of this objective for a long time, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, I think we said it often enough in this House to convince every Canadian.
2)	to increase the quatity and the quality of information on credit available to the public, thus eliminating unjustified complications and causes of confusion in this area,
3)	to establish strict and consistent regulations in order to protect all borrowers and depositors
4)	to rationalize federal legislation on credit.
I say that all these goals are highly commendable, Mr. Speaker, and that is way the day after the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, there were big headlines in the newspapers: Measures to protect consumers and borrowers from loan sharking.
Then a deep sigh of relief was breathed by those whom the bill is designed to protect. They told themselves: at last, the government is going to protect the little people, the underprivileged. Yet, it must be remembered that here, in this very House, bills as commendable as this one have been introduced and passed, bills which are now in our statute books but have failed to bring the expected results. It does not mean that the law is not good. It is because it is not being strictly enforced. Laws are applied slackly to the big interests, to those who control our economy and our credit.
It has often happened that legal proceedings were taken against monopolies and then the case dragged on before the courts, and finally, after a hearing was held, those companies were imposed fines with as much impact as a quarter for ordinary people. A fine of $25,000 for corporations which have earned millions and millions of dollars of excess profits looks good in the eyes of the public, but it is not what one might call a very effective law.
That is why, as far as this bill is concerned, I consider that those sanctions provided here are not severe enough. We will still witness circumstances allowing people who are used to live as hangers-on at the expense of the low-income earners to make tremendous profits by circumventing the law. If by any chance some organizations are sued, the poor judge who on the bench convicts those organizations or individuals must abide by the law and enforce the maximum penalty, which I think is far too weak.

November 1, 1976
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
Mr. Speaker, rates of interest are the basis for the major issue in our country-inflation. And in the communique as well as in the bill, we see that interests will now be cataloged. There will be interests that will be called legal interests. There will also be what will be called usury interests. Some others will be called unwarranted interests and criminal interests. But who will determine what interest rate the consumer, the borrower is dealing with. Ele will have to complain, to appear before agencies, even to take legal action in order to establish that the law gives him no protection, even if it says: The lender has to establish that the interest rate is warranted. There are two sides to every question. If the complainant wants to show his side of the story, he will have to pay, Mr. Speaker, in order to establish that he is really penalized by an interest rate which is exorbitant, unwarranted or even criminal.
Then, in such circumstances, I think it would advisable, when the bill is before the committee, to bring forward an amendment in order to clarify the situation and to determine once for all what should be a normal interest rate, a specified rate, and never mind the rest. I believe that all other rates are usurious, either unwarranted or criminal, it is loan sharking. And the government itself must presently suffer the consequences of such loans at exorbitant interest rates; that is inflation.
The same thing occurs in industry, trade, business, everywhere unduly high interest rates. That is why prices are rising. That is why many businesses are in a difficult position. That is why we have inflation and also unemployment. All these things go hand in hand.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the release reads as follows:
Consumer credit has shown a tremendous increase since the last war. In 1948, the outstanding consumer credit totalled $835 million. By 1967, it had spiralled to $8.6 billion and, finally, to almost $24 billion by 1975.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to believe that private individuals go into debt in a thoughtless and excessive way, but are the governments setting a good example in this connection? Are the governments not going too far? Are the governments speaking the voice of reason in this matter?
Whether it is the central government, the provinces or the municipalities, let us examine the statistics. Let us compare them with statistics on personal indebtedness and we will discover that our governments have really not set a good example in that regard. We are drawn by an example. When the example is good, so much the better; when it is bad, so much the worse. But just the same we are imitators.
Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of factors inciting the small wage earner to spend hastily. How many ads are shown on television? We know, Mr. Speaker, how costly is the use of television whether for advertising or for political information to the public. It is exceedingly costly. Throughout the day we have TV programs inviting people to spend. All the fine points of such and such a product are shown, even when it is beyond one's means, today there is the advantage of credit cards for ladies and gentlemen. Spend, mortgage your future. That is

done under the complacent eyes of governments, members of Parliament, like us. And little is done, not by members of Parliament because quite often they are too busy, but in any event we all know this is going on almost if not 24 hours a day.
Just look at the pages of your papers, particularly those dealing with credit. Look at the enticing ads inviting people to spend, and in the other page: Madam, order your Master Charge, Chargex, or any other credit cards. Yet we know that the use of credit cards requires moderation. It is very useful to travel. It is excellent. But one has to know how to use it. When there is exagerated advertising like that it is not surprising that at a certain moment individuals should be in debts over their heads for years and years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I remember Commander Desjardins, the founder of the caisses populates, who was an officer in this House when he was younger, an exemplary man, a man who practiced what he said. It is a lot, Mr. Speaker, to practice what one says. To tell others is nice but to practice it is better because the example, as I suggested earlier, is much better than words-acting.
What did Commander Desjardins do? He realized that the little French Canadian people in our community had possibilities but that our money was not being used as it should. While I was still very young I attended a meeting with my father in a school room-not like the nice ones they have today but with little tilt-over seats. Everybody tried to fit in-it was fine for the smaller ones but the taller ones had problems. And for the first time I heard someone say that thrift is a virtue, and since it is a virtue it must be practiced. We were shown that if we wanted to cooperate, if we wanted to put our pennies, our dollars together it was possible to use them in our community to prepare the future of our children. I understood the lesson, I took note of it, and several people my age noted the idea. We understood that thrift is a virtue. We have tried to put it in practice. It has therefore become the practice to think before spending, to earn first and spend later. Today, with the advantages of the credit system which is made available to them, people are led to believe that the best way to live is to spend today what they will earn in five, ten or twenty years if the Good Lord keeps them healthy. It is not surprising that figures show that people are in debt and that they have mortgaged all their credit.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should also take action in this bill to limit this exaggerated publicity, this invitation to spend, thinking that there will be no end. We should be careful, Mr. Speaker! Here is an example of this: Suppose there is a refrigerator full of food in the house. Because it is full, everyone has the right to take from it, but no one has to replenish it. Will it become empty? Of course, it will, and very soon! In our country, we are living somewhat in this way. We have the impression that we are entitled to everything and that we have no obligations. This is why there are so many people who do nothing and who produce nothing. This is why the economic situation of our country is going down and this is why our country is in a slump.
November 1, 1976

I have just dropped my glass. This is not a great loss. If there were only one glass lost in the administration of the government, I think we could show a surplus at the end of the year.
Mr. Speaker, we are asking people to make sacrifices and to tighten their belts. Let us look at what happened at the Olympic Games. We were supposed to have modest Games. We were told the Games would not be too expensive. I too like beautiful games! Recently I got a French a deck of cards and I found it very beautiful. That is fine, but we must restrain ourselves.
We also had a lottery and this is a modern or ancient way to finance the public sector. People were urged to buy tickets in order to win a million dollars. I have known poor people who needed a higher income so as to pay their debts, but they took chances because there was a catch behind the ticket.
What happened during the Olympic Games? In order to go and see foreigners run for 15 days, we have mortgaged the Canadian people for 20 or 25 years. Children yet to be born will have to pay taxes for such wastefulness. The same amount could have been spent on more profitable projects. If homes had been built for low or middle income families, the same number of jobs would have been created and we would have something to show for it. Now we are caught as well as the mayor of Montreal and also Mr. Bourassa who is having a hard time in the province of Quebec precisely because of the positions he took on those issues.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be considered as a member of Parliament, a Quebecer who is against those organizations. Indeed not. But I want to prove that they really went too far. Today we are asking Canadians: Tighten your belts, you must absolutely practice restraint and economy.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains other good provisions and gives some advantages to small earners who sometimes will have to take legal action. The loan aspect has been looked after to prevent unwarranted rates and the credit rating must be taken into account, but we do nothing about the true rate which is charged and which is responsible for small interest rates. I said several times in this House that I am not an expert but it does not matter, we have eyes to see and ears to hear. Interest rates are controlled by chartered banks. The minister says in his statement and I quote:
Banking institutions issue a large part of consumer credit and are exclusively under federal jurisdiction.
It means that banking institutions are our chartered banks and that we should have a provision in this bill about the power that should be given to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a very special provision to ensure that interest rates be somewhat reduced so that they will not increase excessively. And if we exceed the ceiling provided in this bill, we must have the guts to take legal action, even against the big institutions that create 95 per cent of the money supply in our country. Mr. Speaker, this is the main source of credit.
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
I know that individual credit is controled, that the credit to small enterprises is controlled, but we should control the credit of the community and stop getting money from institutions that charge unwarranted rates, and it should be provided in this bill.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I know that during the debate on this bill, in committee, at the report stage and on third reading, we shall have the opportunity to study the question further. At that time we should study many other clauses. We should say frankly what we think about them and I encourage all my colleagues in this House to study the matter further before they pass the bill with which I agree in principle, but some details should be adjusted. I ask that we study this bill very carefully and, when it will be passed, that the minister and his senior advisers make it work efficiently so that it will not be a mere joke.
M. Speaker, those are the comments I wished to make at the second reading stage. I shall take the floor again a little later.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on second reading of Bill C-16 which we are beginning to consider today. It is certainly one of the most important bills introduced in this session of Parliament. Also, there is the fact that we have been longing for this day when the federal government would take its responsibility under the constitution in this area of interest rates.
Obviously this bill covers all aspects of the cost of loans, which could give rise to the issue of constitutionality, since it covers all financial institutions and does not make any distinction between the various kinds of loans. For instance this legislation covers both the amount owing a seller and the loan obtained from a bank. Clearly the latter case has always been a federal matter, but the former is much less evident. I hope at the committee stage the minister will clear that constitutional matter for all aspects of this bill. I take pleasure in stating this, because we have here in the gallery a distinguished visitor, the Minister of Equipment of the province of Quebec, and a former Minister of Financial Institutions and Co-operatives in the Quebec government, the hon. William Tetley.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, because this bill meets a number of problems concerning trade practices, and interest rates, an area where there has been an obvious lack of consumer protection. Let me give you two examples only. There is nothing in our statutes to protect consumers against loan sharks, whose interest charges are as high as 1,000 or 2,000 percent, and there is no current provision either under which depositors or borrowers could know precisely the yield on their savings or their borrowing costs. Such is the sad fact in our country today, and this bill will certainly meet all such problems faced by consumers. Of course, the legislation covers a number of other problems also. For instance, if no interest rate is specified in the contract, the applicable rate is the prime rate. If information is not disclosed in the manner specified in the act, no credit charge is payable. A borrower may choose at any time to terminate a non-mortgage loan simply by repaying the principal and interests, without incurring any penalty.

November 1, 1976
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
If a borrower feels he is charged an unwarranted rate, because he finds another lender offering the same kind of loans under similar circumstances but at a significantly lower rate, he may elect either to change his loan to get a similar rate, or to enter into a new loan with the other lender at a lower rate, and repay his first loan without incurring any penalty.
I see the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) does not take seriously this last mentioned feature. He is critical that the legislation does not provide an interest rate ceiling. I will speak on that later on, to show that the ceiling so much talked abolit by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is a false protection. It was tried in the United States in a number of states, and also in Britain where the socialist government dropped it last year, because there is no way that such methods can attract savings, since they cause distortions in the market by ignoring current yields. Money will go where the yield is higher.
Finally, but without limiting the list of subjects covered by the bill, I would remind that if a borrower feels he is being charged an unwarranted rate, he may make an application to the court, and the latter will determine whether the rate is warranted or not, or wait for the lender himself to take the initiative, and then the burden will be on the latter to prove that such rate was warranted.
Finally the borrower will be able to take legal action if, in his view, he has been charged too high an interest rate, notwithstanding any settlement or payment he may have made. Moreover the legislation provides for stiff penalties for loan sharking such as fines of at least $1,000 and up and five years' imprisonment.
I mentioned a few aspects of this bill and a few of the problems it aims at solving but its impact is far greater. I commend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) for bringing it forward but regret it was so long overdue, since the federal government has not dealt much with interest rate matters since 1956. So much so that most provinces took the issue into their own hands, which resulted in the motley and even inconsistent legislation that we have in Canada today.
The banks, which granted about 30 per cent of all personal loans in Canada hardly ten years ago, now account for 60 to 70 per cent of all loans. This shows how this bill was necessary because, of course, banking operations do not fall within provincial jurisdiction.
Evidently, the first thing that strikes us is that in our country, up until today, it was almost impossible for a consumer to know what was the cost of his loan or the yield of his deposit. This is the first problem with which this bill comes to grips. Now, all institutions will have to calculate in the same way the yield on deposits and on loans. For example, as far as deposits are concerned, in the case of savings accounts, there will have to be monthly balances instead of a quarterly, half-yearly or yearly balances. This represents for thousands of depositors fairly important aggregates. Up until today, it was

impossible for the consumer to know the real cost of his loan not only because each lending company or each institution which granted credit, such as the stores or the retail houses, calculated the changes differently but because each could have additional costs, the so-called service costs, bonuses, life insurance costs, withdrawals on the capital that was lent. Because of this situation, there was a lack of uniformity in the way of calculating and of indicating the costs and interests as far as borrowing and saving was concerned. Of course, this situation was particularly unfair to the consumers.
In the case of mortgages especially, there is a serious lack of uniformity and of fairness in the disclosure and in the computation of interest on bonuses, discounts and commissions. Consequently, it is not easy to compare between the various credit institutions or even between the different possibilities of credit or of saving offered by the same institution. The notion according to which the cost of a loan depends on the risk that the lender is taking is of course rather artificial since a person who goes to a bank and uses different plans of that bank is going to borrow money at different rates. If he uses his credit card, Chargex or Master Charge, the interest rate is about 18 per cent and, in the case of a term deposit, in general, the interest rate will be about 14 per cent and if he chooses a negotiated loan, today the rate is about 12 per cent.
If somebody borrows from the same institution under three different systems, the rate is of course much higher with the credit card. 1 am quoting only this example but if we make a further comparison between many banking institutions, which apparently makes no difference for the borrower, it will be even more obvious that all methods of computation always manage to go against the consumer's interest.
I am concerned by two other aspects of the bill, Mr. Speaker. Today, in spite of all the studies which have been made, we still have no specific information in this field, which represents nevertheless 22 per cent of Canadians' available income. This bill will finally enable full and precise disclosure of all terms concerning credit transactions, at every stage of loans, from the request prior to the contract to its expiration. Banking institutions will have to maintain a register of all their transactions and submit it to the administrator who will be responsible for the enforcement of this legislation.
Second, this legislation is proposing measures designed to standardize basic concepts used in credit and deposit activities. They will include in particular various forms of charges and costs related to a lending transaction, which will all have to be lumped together in one credit charges rate, the method of calculating rates, both on loans and deposits, and the way and frequency in which payments on loans or yields on deposits will have to be credited.
As for the point raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) concerning the reduction of the effect of unwarranted credit charge rates, I am convinced that this goal will be pursued both directly and indirectly. Indirectly through more competition resulting first of all from increased and improved disclosure of information related to credit and,
November 1, 1976

secondly, from the standardization of the credit notion into basic concepts used in credit matters.
First of all, in the case of an unwarranted credit charge, in any dispute the onus to justify the credit charge lies upon the lender according to the risks that the borrower represents and according to the capital cost and the operating expenses. The purpose of this provision is to establish ceilings on the credit rates by requiring lenders to take into account the risk which a given borrower may represent. It eliminates the obligation to establish a ceiling on the explicit rates, fixed at a constant value, which were not efficient enough as I said before, as a means of control on the credit charges and for the allocation of credit.
Secondly, and especially in order to control loan shark practices, including its latest forms, which several members of Parliament have denounced these last few years, and 1 will give you just a few examples of these such as loans on the anticipated reimbursement of taxes or on the anticipated welfare allowances. The provision concerning the ceiling of credit charge rates will punish with fines and imprisonment those who lend money at a rate in excess of the designated illegal rate. One has to note that people who loan money on anticipated tax refunds and loan sharks now lend money at annual rates varying between 300 per cent and 2,000 per cent. Loan sharking represents the second major source of income for organized crime, second only to drug traffic. The heavy penalties provided in the bill will at last give police the means to fight efficiently against those offering such criminal rates.
The other objective is to rationalize the federal legislation and establish high standards for the protection of the Canadian borrower. Today, as the minister indicated, the federal legislation is scattered over the Small Loans Act, the Pawnbrokers Act and the Interest Act. These three acts are incorporated into Bill C-16, so that we may now find some sort of consistency and standardization in the federal legislation.
A while ago I was also referring to the lack of information in this area. This bill will finally provide for the creation of a Canadian data bank on the granting and use of consumer credit, which will provide the government and those who are interested in protecting consumers' interests with exact data on the nature and extent of the indebtedness within the various strata of the Canadian public, the availability of credit and its accessibility to the various categories of borrowers-including the terms of loans-the need for and use of credit.
The fact that it is now incumbent upon the lender to prove that his rates of interest are justified, that severe sanctions are now provided for plus a competent application of the act should help interest rates to fluctuate with the market and related transactions to be both fair and equitable.
One of the most important concepts in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that requiring a single global cost of the loan. Credit costs will include all expenses, costs and fees which the borrower must pay to make a loan, other than registration costs and similar costs. Present practice has it that additional costs are added to the official rate of interest thereby hiding from the borrower the real cost of his loan.
Protection of Borrowers and Depositors
By prescribing that all costs be included in the cost of credit and be calculated in the same way by all lenders, the act will at long last give a true idea of the real cost of a loan and enable accurate comparison of various conditions offered by lenders.
Again with regard to the point brought up by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I would remind him, as I said in my opening remarks, that the experience was made in England where it proved conclusively that interest rates imposed upon the borrowers represent a high risk, that they tend to be set just below the criterion rate and that borrowers very seldom contest them before the courts. On the other hand, the burden of the proof falling to the lender, as Bill-16 stipulates, this will encourage lenders to regulate themselves.
The borrower who feels that the interest rate is either unjustified or illegal can stop his payments, wait till the lender sues him before the courts, and the lender will have the onus of the proof, in that he will have to prove that his rate of interest is justifiable in view of the risks taken.


John R. Rodriguez: And he won't be able to get any more credit!


Mr. De Band:: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, for lack of rational arguments to support his point of view, resorts to insults and foul language which, to my mind, is the most obvious proof that he has absolutely no argument to refute the position taken by the government.
What the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) does not tell us is that although he would impose an interest ceiling, he cannot say by what mysterious alchemy he will force savers to go to such or such a sector if the rates imposed are not in line with the risks they will face. The best way to prove it is to consider the evolution of loans granted by loan companies since 1968, in this margin up to $1,500, with a regulated interest rate. We thus realize today that merely 20 per cent of the loans are granted in this sector and that, in spite of that, loan companies are losing money. So that explains why this financing source is dried up and people representing high risks are now at the mercy of loan sharks.
Another item which is highly important in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and which was detrimental to borrowers, is the possibility, if we except the mortgage which is another matter, for them to prepay their loans, without paying any penalties beside the normal interest and also that the penalty for late payment will not be over 1 per cent. In my opinion, this is very important and all active lawyers know to what extent some lenders will go to force borrowers to borrow for rather long terms with no possibility of prepayments.
The bill also includes the illegal interest rate which is different from the unwarranted interest rate. The illegal interest rate means a rate highly superior to the current rate, so much that it becomes completely unwarranted and it will obviously be necessary to penalize and discourage unacceptable practices such as loan sharking, loans with excessive rates on tax refunds and on various government allowances. Police authorities maintain that loan sharking is now the second

November 1, 1976
Business of the House
revenue source of organized crime in Canada, after drug traffic. It yields at least $3 billion a year.
Till now, no federal or provincial legislation could fight efficiently against such practices as loans on income tax refunds, old age security or welfare cheques mainly because the penalties provided for in the legislation were ridiculous compared to profits realized.
Finally, with regard to the removal of interest rates ceiling on which 1 would like to insist, I want to point out that if the ceiling is set above the rate essential to the lender to operate in a certain sector of the market, the market rates will prevail and the rate ceiling will become useless. On the other hand, if the set rate is below the rate essential to the lender, he will withdraw his money from the regulated sector. In fact, the lenders will reduce the loss risks until the profits with element of risk in the regulated sector balance with those on the market generally.
In the United States, a good many states have set ceilings on interest rates. Experience has shown that when ceilings are higher than the set rates on the market, there is no real difference between rates asked for in regulated sectors and others. However, in the states with ceilings below the set rates on the market, the rates tend to get close to the ceilings.
Mr. Speaker, 1 call it ten o'clock, and 1 hope 1 will be allowed to go on with my remarks at the next sitting of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of today's sitting I wonder whether 1 might ask the deputy House leader on the government side whether he would let us know what the business of the House will be for tomorrow, and for any additional days he cares to comment upon.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am always ready to provide the hon. gentleman with as much information as I possess. In this instance I would indicate to him that tomorrow we will be proceeding with the bill presently under study. In the unlikely event that we will complete that business, we will proceed to order No. 5, the bill to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, and subsequent to that we will undoubtedly have further consultations.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in this adjournment debate this evening are in response to my question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on October 15 relating to offshore imports of beef from Australia and New Zealand. I was deeply concerned that although the minister had announced his individual permit requirements before any beef imports would be permitted into Canada-that was after October 17-he had not indicated that he intended to use this device actually to restrict beef imports.
Later on October 19 the joint statement of the Department of Agriculture and Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce did announce Canadian beef import quotas of 17.5 million pounds to apply to all countries importing into Canada as from October 18 to the end of the year, and notably to Australia, New Zealand and the United States.
I acknowledge that this long delayed action will limit beef imports for the remaining two months of this year. But surely as every cattleman in Canada knows, the damage already has been done. The fact remains clear that until this announcement of October 19 Canada was the only country in the world to permit unrestricted access to our beef markets.
In spite of our small human population Canada now ranks as the fourth largest importer of beef in the world. Actually in 1976 Canada is first on the basis of per capita consumption. This is the situation even in the face of our record high domestic production of cattle and beef, especially steers and cows. In spite of the repeated statements by the Minister of Agriculture that these offshore beef imports did not depress our own domestic beef and cattle markets, there is ample evidence to show this is not true and that these massive beef imports, starting after August 12, 1975, have seriously depressed and continue to depress our fed cattle markets and our cow and feeder markets.
In June, 1974, the Montreal Beef Wholesalers Association made available data that clearly support this statement. In addition a comparison of price spreads in Canada and the U.S.A., between hind and front quarters and between all grades of cows, shows up this depressing element in Canada which of course is directly related to the price discounts permitted by Canada on these offshore imports compared to the same imports into the U.S.A. If more evidence is needed on this issue there is an economic paper by Freebairn and Rausser in the November, 1975, issue of the "American

November 1, 1976

Journal of Agricultural Economics" dealing directly with price changes due to beef imports.
There can be no doubt now, three weeks after the U.S.A. triggered its meat import law, that Canada's level of beef exports was the final action that brought on President Ford's October 9 action to control the level of imports into his country. That action was reflected in every cattle and beef market in Canada. Even at Walsh on that same day, which is in my market area, where we had 1,500 feeder yearlings, including my own, there was a drop of about $2 per hundred weight in response to this U.S. action.
Widespread concern by all Canadian cattle producers is now most apparent. Public meetings are being held in every cattle producing region. Very little advance publicity is necessary to get a crowd of cattlemen to discuss this cattle crisis. Three weeks ago in Lethbridge 300 feeders and cow-calf operators turned out with only two days' notice to let off steam, if you like, and draft an appropriate resolution to the minister. 1 was there and spoke to them. Then on October 22 in Stettler 800 concerned cattlemen held another somewhat similar meeting. The Minister of Agriculture will be hearing more about that.
Perhaps the most unique evidence of this national cattlemen's concern is the class action legal suit brought by three Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, ranchers for $52 million against the Minister of Agriculture for failing to take adequate action to curtail Oceanic beef imports. That represents $1 million a .week for a 12-month period which, in their opinion, represents only a nominal loss to the Canadian beef producers. This class action suit is for real and has been properly served by lawyers acting for the Maple Creek ranchers on behalf of all Canadian cattlemen. Those of us who are old enough to remember Canada's flourishing sheep industry under range conditions, especially in western Canada, cannot help but speculate somewhat fearfully that Canada's cattle industry could go down the drain with another big push from these Australian and New Zealand imports, just as was the case in respect of lamb, mutton and wool imports from the same countries 30 years ago.
The answer, of course, is some specific policy direction to control offshore imports to reasonable historical levels and to establish further fair bilateral trade policies in beef and cattle with the U.S.A. I do not mean a supply-management policy promoted by the Minister of Agriculture. His description of the U.S. cattle industry as supply-management oriented because of its meat import law with power to impose import quotas is sheer nonsense.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a couple of things on the record. We have asked for positive evidence to be presented to us regarding the importation of Australian and New Zealand beef affecting the price of finished beef which, as the hon. member knows, is based on Omaha prices. We have always stayed ahead of Omaha prices. U.S. prices have always been under ours, which is the normal pattern. When our prices climb much higher than theirs, they ship meat from the United States.
Adjournment Debate
When the hon. member refers to controls, I say he must have a very short memory because the government had controls on U.S. meat. Let us not forget that there were times during our weeks of slaughtering when the U.S. took over 68 per cent of the slaughtering in this country. That was when people asked me to put on controls. I did so, 1 put on quotas, but I did not hear any American say that the President of the U.S. was protecting American prices when he triggered his program, not only with respect to Canada but with respect to the 24 countries that ship meat into the United States. To insinuate that this market belongs to the American producers is quite wrong because the American price on finished beef in Canada and the United States is still based on the Omaha price, and it has stayed constant. The U.S. was bringing in Australian meat at the same time at between 65 cents and 70 cents a pound.
On October 15, and again on October 27, the hon. member asked for clarification of the steps which have been taken to protect Canadian beef producers as the result of the implementation of quotas by the United States. I trust that the following explanation will adequately serve this purpose because of the action we took when the President of the United States put his supply-management system into force. That is what it is, no matter what anybody says. He was trying to run it through voluntary quotas. It did not work, so he triggered his meat import law and he hopes that will work. Nevertheless it is a supply-management system. He says, "That portion of the market belongs to you, that belongs to you, and that one to someone else." If that is not supply-management, 1 would like to know what in heaven's name it is, because he is using his law for that.
In a press release dated October 13, 1976, I announced that the government was acting to protect our beef markets from any disruption due to the U.S. action, thus clearly conveying the intention to restrict Australian and New Zealand imports if they threaten to disrupt Canadian markets. This statement is quite contrary to the comment made by the hon. member in his question of October 15, which was to the effect that nowhere does the statement indicate the intention to restrict or reduce Australian and New Zealand imports. This is quite false.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION-POSSIBILITY OF MOVING PART OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on October 22 I inquired of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) concerning the move of a segment of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island. He indicated that his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), was responsible for such matters. On Thursday it was their colleague, the Minister of

November 1, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), who made the announcement in Charlottetown.
As I indicated in my original question, the date of November 8 is significant. On that day four provincial by-elections are being held in Prince Edward Island and it is generally conceded that the Progressive Conservative party under the leadership of a former member of this House, the Hon. Angus MacLean, is heading for strong gains in these contests. One is loath to suggest partisan motives, but I would have been very much surprised had the announcement been made on November 9.
I am slightly embarrassed that anyone should consider for a moment that the judgment of the P.E.I. voters will be influenced next Monday in four by-elections by a promise on something to commence four years hence. I can assure the House that the electors involved will come to their own intelligent verdict on November 8 and will not be misled by anything extraneous to their desire to elect the best possible candidates in the four by-elections.
In any case, as a long time advocate of decentralization, I welcome this move. I shall certainly extend a hearty welcome to those public servants who will be moving to my constituency. Prince Edward Island is a good place in which to live, and those who leave Ottawa will find a good and warm reception in the beautiful island province.
While welcoming this move, I must ask some questions. One concerns the number of Prince Edward Island people who will find new job opportunities as a result of this move. Ours is a high unemployment area. Statistics month after month and year after year show Prince Edward Island as being at or near the top in this unwelcome area. It is not a very good league in which to attain a leading status.
While agreeing with the principle of decentralization as I do, and while welcoming this particular aspect of it as I do, it is still incumbent upon me to ask some specific questions.
I take it from the minister's press release in Charlottetown that nothing will happen, there will be no transfers of personnel nor will there be any new job offerings before four years have elapsed. This is now the estimated time for completion of the new federal building in Charlottetown. We all know that not all buildings are completed on schedule.
If nothing is to happen for four years, one again wonders about the great urge to make the announcement. I did not have to be a major or a minor prophet to forecast, as I did last week, that the announcement was to be made before November 8. The Minister went to Charlottetown on October 28, 1976, to announce a move that will begin, not end, in 1980.
Speaking of the art of prophecy, the air over Parliament Hill was filled with rumors that the announcement would not be made until after the Ottawa-Carleton by-election, but would be announced before the November 8 provincial by-election contests. It was therefore not too hard to make a fairly accurate prediction, and this I was glad to do to help out my
[Mr. Macquarrie.)
hon. friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, by getting him a little extra advance publicity.
If members of the staff of DVA feel that they were not fully consulted, these important political dates will suffice as substantial explanation. Never has there been such a long period of time between the publication of the bans and the actual wedding ceremony. Even the most confident marriage partners might exhibit a little anxiety over such a protracted waiting period. I would like to know what is being done during the four years between the sounding of the bugle and the beginning of the advance.
We are told there will be new jobs for island people. What provisions are to be made for training? It is unlikely that new personnel would assume their offices immediately upon the opening of the building in 1980 or perhaps later. Therefore I would like to know something about what will take place in the four intervening years.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member commenced by saying that he hopes the people of the island which he represents will exercise their good sense and good judgment in the by-elections on November 8. My understanding is that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), who is responsible for decentralization, did not have this in mind when the announcement was made on his behalf in Charlottetown last week by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). If I may express a personal view, as the hon. member did a moment ago, I really do not think the premier of that province, Alex Campbell, the good Liberal he is, really needs much help other than that which he is already getting in the province.
As the hon. member knows, the program of decentralization has been strongly supported, and indeed advocated by the leader of his party and by earlier leaders of his party. The hon. member says he supports that principle too.
How are the people of this good city going to be trained for these jobs over the next few years? I submit, if the hon. members does not know, that they have the capability of learning this most important work and doing It for the people of Canada from Charlottetown. It is very important that those who will be moving from the Ottawa area to Charlottetown have sufficient time to make arrangements to go to what the hon. member calls a most glorious part of Canada. Others who wish to be relocated here may also have the opportunity to do so.
May I say that the bulk of those to be transferred are generally in the clerical classifications. The number involved in this and other transfers has been calculated at about 5,500 permanent employees and 6,100 temporary employees in the total decentralization program, according to the information I have.
The Department of National Revenue has transferred some branches-to Surrey, British Columbia, a Conservative riding; to Winnipeg, a Liberal and New Democratic Party riding; to Shawinigan South, a Liberal riding; to St. John's, Newfound-
November 1, 1976

land, a Conservative riding; to Jonquiere, a Liberal riding; and the superannuation division to Moncton, and the cheque redemption centre to Matane, also a Liberal riding. As 1 go over this list 1 do not think politics is involved, but rather it is an attempt to provide the people of Canada with the opportunity to be served.


INDUSTRY-TOHO LEAD AND ZINC REFINERY-POSSIBILITY OF CLOSURE AND RESULTANT LOSS OF EXPORT TRADE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to the report that the Toho Lead and Zinc Refinery in Japan was considering the possibility of closing down as a result of the strike at the Cyprus-Anvil Mine in the Yukon or, alternatively, was looking to Australia and the United States for supplies. I asked the Prime Minister if Canada was likely to lose this export trade, and his answer was a flat no. I followed this by asking if he would intervene in order that a more realistic settlement might be arrived at so that the miners could go back to work. The Prime Minister responded as reported at page 579 of Hansard:
I find it a little extraordinary that the hon. member should be suggesting to me that the ruling of the AIB and the Administrator should not be upheld
Earlier in the week I presented a motion under Standing Order 43 requesting that the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) take immediate steps toward consultation with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and representatives of the Yukon legislative assembly to resolve the problem of the strike. This was given a resounding "no" by members on the other side of the House, and by members of the New Democratic Party to my left.
The Cyprus-Anvil Mine is the largest mine in the Yukon and when it is in full operation it mills some 10,000 pounds of lead zinc ore per day. The strike has carried on for some three months and at least 100 of the 410 employees have resigned or left. This means that not only 100 employees but also their wives and families are leaving with them. .
Early this evening I spoke to a representative of the White Pass and Yukon Railway, the largest transportation company in the Yukon. I was advised that some 250 of their employees have been laid off. These employees are in Whitehorse, Skag-way, and Vancouver. Of these 250, there are some 100 truck drivers, 70 maintenance personnel, and the balance are railway employees. In addition I understand that the shipping schedule out of the Port of Vancouver that was to carry this ore has been cut by approximately 50 per cent.
If you total the 410 employees out of work at the Cyprus-Anvil Mine and add the 250 employees of the White Pass and Yukon Railway that makes over 600 employees not working because of the strike. The total work force of the Yukon is approximately 10,000 people, so at the moment between 6 per cent and 7 per cent of that work force is unemployed because of one strike.
Adjournment Debate
The Assistant Commissioner of the Territories is quoted as saying that because of the strike and its effect on the trucking industry the territorial government of the Yukon has lost over half a million dollars in fuel taxes. The Northern Canada Power Corporation, the Crown corporation which produces power in the Yukon and is the largest customer of the Cyprus-Anvil Mine is losing some $200,000 a month as a result of the shutdown. This will have a tremendous effect on the rates of that company which recently during the course of the summer raised some of its commercial rates by 80 per cent.
Talks are continuing between the company and the union; both are anxious to resolve the problem and get back to work. Frankly I was appalled by the answers and attitude of the Prime Minister who does not seem to care about the possible loss of our exports of lead and zinc to Japan. I am particularly appalled at his callous attitude to the critical economic situation in the Yukon.
I understand that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be in the Yukon tomorrow for the opening of the Yukon legislative assembly. While I am not suggesting that he should interfere with the powers of the Yukon assembly, I hope, while he is there, that he will apprise himself of the economic situation and seek advice as to how this strike may be settled. We are well aware how the minister conducted himself in his previous portfolio, particularly with respect to the penitentiary question. If the minister hopes to be successful in his new portfolio it will be necessary for him to impress on his cabinet colleagues, particularly the Prime Minister, the critical nature of the problems in the Yukon and the need for an immediate settlement to resolve the situation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should intervene in the industrial dispute at Cyprus-Anvil Mine-


Erik Nielsen: He did not.


Mr. Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: -with the aim of getting that mine into production again.


Erik Nielsen: That is a new version of the twist.


George Baker: The second part of the hon. gentleman's question to the Prime Minister suggested exactly that, that the Prime Minister intervene. He said, as reported at page 579 of Hansard:
. .. would the Prime Minister intervene in order that a more realistic settlement might be arrived at. . .
Therefore the hon, gentleman said what I suggested.
The implication is that if the Prime Minister were to intervene, to permit these workers to obtain more than the law allows, the workers would return to production. Given the strike record of that mine, where only the latest strike was related to the anti-inflation program, that is a questionable assumption.

November 1, 1976
Adjournment Debate


George Baker: Is the hon. member asking that special treatment be accorded to these workers? If so, what would be the reaction of thousands of Canadian workers whose negotiated wage levels have been rolled back by the AIB and who accepted those rollbacks, albeit with no enthusiasm, and continued working? Intervention in this case would clearly be unfair to them. The anti-inflation guidelines on the basis of which the Administrator's order was drawn up apply uniformly to all cases referred to his office. Bear in mind that, in this instance, it was the union leadership who requested that this referral be made.
This is the point, Mr. Speaker-if I may say so without going into figures and facts behind the Anti-Inflation Board and the duties of the Administrator: The AIB does not have to follow the letter of the guidelines. It has been given certain discretionary power to take other factors into consideration. The AIB therefore was able to award the workers of Cyprus-Anvil more than a strict application of the guidelines would permit.


Erik Nielsen: Eight per cent.


George Baker: But according to the act, the Administrator must follow the letter of the guidelines. I repeat that the case was referred to the Administrator by the union leadership. It is open to either party in the case to refer the matter to the Anti-Inflation Appeal Tribunal, where the Administrator would be required to justify in a legal hearing the rationale for his order.


Erik Nielsen: Just compare this case with the one at Thompson last week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 2, 1976