1980-05-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of confirmation last evening that Winnipeg was used as the site of testing the most effective ways of distributing chemical and biological warfare agents, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Government of Canada make public all details relating to this case, paying special regard to who conducted the tests, how often the tests were conducted, what chemical agents were used, and what steps have been and are being taken to determine whether any health hazards exist due to the program.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. I received today alone, some 16 pieces of mail from a variety of government departments, including the Department of National Defence, the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of the Solicitor General, the Department of Supply and Services, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and the Department of Agriculture, all addressed to me as minister of state for federal-provincial relations.
In the absence of the appointment of such a minister by this government, I have felt compelled and, indeed, mandated to resume this responsibility. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That in the interests of equity, uniformity and particularly cabinet solidarity, all cabinet ministers receive the same salary, expenses and other allowances and benefits that I presently receive.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
With regard to the rising costs of operation inflicted upon the farmers of Canada this spring in machine costs, repair costs and fertilizers, making the total costs of operation the highest in the history of farming in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the government increase immediately the domestic price of grain consumed in Canada by at least $1 a bushel, in order to meet this crisis.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Chrysler Canada Limited announced a further lay-off of 1,400 employees just days after receiving a $200 million aid package from this government, thereby adding to the already swollen ranks of the unemployed within the industry, and because this government has shown to be completely ineffective, if not incompetent, in dealing with the massive lay-offs affecting not only Chrysler Canada but the industry as a whole, evidenced by the additional fact that the Canadian deficit in automobile trade with the United States rose to a

May 13, 1980
record $535.9 million in the first three months of this year, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees):
That this House bring the matter of the ailing automotive industry before the appropriate standing committee forthwith, in order that all parties concerned may have an opportunity to consider and deal with such suggestions as: temporarily removing the 9 per cent federal excise tax on North American-built vehicles, implementing quotas on foreign-built automobiles, and in general reviewing and improving the obsolete and inadequate auto pact.
IMadam Speaker: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Canada has been a free and independent nation for 113 years, and that it is long past the time when we should be acting accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That this House directs that July 1 shall henceforth be known officially as Canada Day, and that the government urgently consider the necessity of introducing a bill to give Canada Day legal as well as symbolic status prior to Canada Day of this year.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the federal government has prevented commuter vehicles from using the federally-owned, $23 million Arthur Laing Bridge between Richmond and Vancouver, B.C., even though airport-generated traffic amounts to only one-tenth of the bridge's capacity, and since the former Progressive Conservative minister of transport had expressed a willingness to negotiate transfer of this bridge to the province of British Columbia, which would be better able to work out a solution of the problem of shared-use by commuters, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to commence negotiations immediately with the province of British Columbia with the aim of transferring ownership of the Arthur Laing Bridge to the province, so that the bridge can be used in a more cost-effective way by the commuters of Richmond and Delta.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
*
* *


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought with Spanish Republican forces in the Spanish civil war between 1936 and 1939 be given the status of veterans under federal legislation and be made eligible for veterans pensions and benefits.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has chosen to go against the motion that this Parliament should act on its own to patriate the Canadian constitution, a motion that was moved by a fellow-Albertan of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), and received the unanimous approval of this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin):
That the right hon. Leader of the Opposition advise this House and the people of Canada who speaks for the Conservative party in this House, the leader or the members of his caucus who approved this motion.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

May 13, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRICATION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, concerning the forced implementation of metrication on the retail food sector in Canada as of January 1, 1981, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In light of the admission by the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) in this House on April 25 that no legislation on metrication has been passed by this House, and considering that several major food chains-including Loblaws, Dominion stores, IGA stores, Sunnybrook markets and Farmboy markets-have already announced their opposition to forced metrication, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That conversion to the metric system in the Canadian retail food sector not take place until such time as there has been a full parliamentary discussion involving all segments of the retail food industry and all interested Canadian consumers.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), I move:
That this House takes note of the continuing concern of veterans over the failure of the government to raise the basic rate of the war disability pension to the level of the formula agreed to in 1973, and calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to bring in the necessary legislation so that the said basic rate will be adjusted each year, without fail, to the average take-home pay of the five categories designated by Parliament in 1973, it being urgent that this be done without further delay.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


STEPS TO REDUCE SHIP-BRIDGE COLLISIONS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, lest there be any misunderstanding, the distinguished commoner for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) speaks for my party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Give him a star on his report card.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please read his motion, and only that.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, last week's very tragic accident in Tampa Bay, Florida, lends significant urgency to the need to reduce the possibility of further ship-bridge collisions. Given the large number of bridges in Canada which span busy national and international shipping lanes, and the high cost of minimizing the possibilities of potential further catastrophe in this area, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House direct the government to enter into detailed negotiations with the appropriate jurisdictions, with a view to devising an acceptable formula for the financing of pier-fendering and protection so that the risk of loss of life and prolonged traffic disruption, and other inconveniences, may be minimized and, hopefully, eliminated.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion may be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board, who will know that in recent weeks this government has indicated it does not have enough money for urban transit in Ontario, for full grain terminal development in Prince Rupert, rail relocation in Winnipeg, small craft harbours in Atlantic Canada, Sysco in Cape Breton, or for a variety of DREE projects across the country.
In light of that, could the minister inform the House the combined cost to the Government of Canada of relocating Eldorado Nuclear and Parks Canada, and of moving the DVA site in Charlottetown?

May 13, 1980
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure of the relevance of the first part of the question as it was asked. The main estimates will be before committee and the right hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity to question the ministers in charge of those departments in the areas he has raised.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 can inform the minister, who should have known, that the combined cost of those three moves will be in excess of $50 million. The question 1 should now like to pose to the minister is whether the Government of Canada is considering moving other federal facilities to ridings held by Liberal ministers. If so, will he tell the House which facilities are intended to be moved, and at what cost?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, perhaps the right hon. gentleman would give us the answer to that question as well. 1 presume that the right hon. gentleman is referring to a program of decentralization which was a program of the previous Liberal administration, and has been confirmed where it is cost-effective and in keeping with the over-all efficient management of government resources.


Charles Joseph Clark: What I am speaking of, Madam Speaker, is a program of Liberal patronage that so far has cost the taxpayers of Canada $50 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to know from the president of the pork-barrel; given a situation of high unemployment in this country, coupled with recent lay-offs at Sysco and with serious unemployment in the auto industry, will he assure the House that this practice of patronage-which has been evident with regard to Parks Canada, Eldorado and the movement of the DVA site within Charlottetown-by the Liberal Party of Canada will stop now and that, instead, priority will be given to helping people who are out of work in Sysco, helping people out of work in the auto industry and helping to get on with DREE projects across the country?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, in response to this charge of patronage, 1 would point out that one of the most significant announcements in recent weeks concerns the Vancouver trade centre. I am not aware that a Liberal represents that riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOCATION OF NEW ELDORADO NUCLEAR PLANT
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. Ontario economic region No. 52, the area in which until recently it was planned to build a new Eldorado plant in southern Ontario, has an unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent, second only, in Ontario, to the Windsor area with 12.3 per cent which the federal government has just recently greatly assisted by bailing out the Chrysler Corporation.
Would the Prime Minister and his government now give serious reconsideration to moving this plant from an area with such high unemployment which desperately needs the jobs which the building of this new plant would provide?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, of course, the unemployment rate in the hon. member's section of Ontario is one of concern to the government. He will recall that the Minister of Energy did comment on action taken in that area by local people, with the co-operation of the federal government, and said we would consider it. But the hon. member, in his fairness, would also realize that it does make sense to process natural resources in that part of the country where they are produced, when that is possible; and that northern Ontario particularly is a part of Ontario that needs to be developed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I think it is obvious that the economic arguments that have been attempted to be put up by the Prime Minister simply do not hold water. He knows that perfectly well. It is obvious that the answers given recently to the question-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be more obvious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We agree, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, from the answer that was just given to me and to the Leader of the Opposition, is it not obvious that with this Prime Minister and with this government the pork-barrel takes precedence over people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to point out that my argument was not only economic, it had to do with the whole philosophy of this government, that is, to help develop regions which are less developed. The hon. member knows that in Ontario most of the northerners feel they have not been given an opportunity to develop equal to that of people living along the Montreal-Toronto axis. It is on that basis that we took our decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, would the Prime Minister not agree that an area that has the second highest unemployment rate in Ontario-the one 1 have just mentioned-deserves more attention at this time than any other region except the greater Windsor area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I said in my first answer that, of course, an area where unemployment is high is the object of government policy such as Canada Works which attempts to bring employment to these various areas. But as a

**I
May 13, 1980

long-term concern of this government we have been for the last ten years attempting to encourage the development of areas of generally slow growth.
That is the whole purpose of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and it is on that basis that we have sought to bring to northern Ontario an industry which is based on the extraction of natural resources in northern Ontario.


INTRODUCTION OF UPDATED TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS PROGRAM
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, we will see how broadly based the government's concern is with people. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister knows that over 5,000 Chrysler employees are now out of work. He also knows that there were an additional 650 lay-offs announced yesterday, and that an Ontario minister said late yesterday that 2,500 more are anticipated later this year.
Since the government has now come to the assistance of the Chrysler Corporation, and since the total number of workers directly affected by lay-offs now in the automotive industry is about 35,000, could the minister tell us, at long last, when the government is going to bring in an updated TAB program to provide assistance to the workers and their families?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, this matter is being actively worked on by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I should also like to inform the House that Chrysler announced yesterday that, while there were to be further lay-offs at Windsor, it was also adding a second shift to the van plant, providing a further 800 jobs on June 2, and at about that time a further 200 jobs at the car assembly plant.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that is about the fourth time the minister has told the House that the government is actively working on the problem, while some 35,000 Canadian workers are collecting unemployment insurance. Indeed, many of them do not have anything to collect at all. Can the minister give us a clear, definite date when the government is going to announce its assistance program for these workers who badly need it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I hope it will be possible for a final decision on this matter to be made soon. I regret I cannot yet announce a date for any such decision to be made public. However, I remind the House that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has used the authority he has under the existing law to trigger extended unemployment insurance benefits in the Windsor area, in particular.
This will enable those who were laid off, in large measure- although not all, I agree-to have benefits over a longer period of time than would otherwise have been the case. During this extended period, it will be easier for us to give due consider-
Oral Questions
ation and to make the right kind of decision on this whole issue of additional benefits.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I remind the minister that the workers laid off are also in the cities of Toronto, Oakville, St. Catharines, Oshawa, Brampton-other than Windsor. Windsor is important, but all the workers in this industry surely have to be taken into account.
Finally, can he explain to the House why the Government of Canada is providing proportionately more money in financial assistance to the Chrysler Corporation than is the government of the United States? Why was the government of the United States able to get a better deal for its taxpayers in coming to the assistance of that corporation than was the Government of Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I first want to remind the hon. member that we are not providing money to Chrysler Canada: we are undertaking, if certain commitments are made, to put in place loan guarantees starting only in 1982. While the amount of loan guarantees that we have agreed to is somewhat above strict proportionality, it is in recognition of the fact that Chrysler Canada has a much greater impact on the Canadian economy than the parent company does in the United States. Its failure in Canada would have a correspondingly greater adverse impact on the economy and on at least 40,000 Canadian workers.
I felt, and cabinet agreed, that to have slightly more than strict proportionality was in the interests of the Canadian economy and Canadian workers generally all across the country. 1 am sorry that my hon. friend, in spite of his earlier protestations about wanting to help the workers, does not agree with this obvious point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RELOCATION OF DVA SITE IN CHARLOTTETOWN
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the federal government has a binding legal agreement with the province of Prince Edward Island, through the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation, to locate the Department of Veterans Affairs at the Charlottetown waterfront, and in view of the fact that the federal government has unilaterally changed the site from the waterfront to the centre of the city without consulting the province of Prince Edward Island and without consulting even the city of Charlottetown, my question to the President of the Treasury Board is, does the federal government intend to impose its choice of site on the people of Prince Edward Island, and does it intend also simply to ignore its obligations under a binding legal agreement to the people of Prince Edward Island?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member undoubtedly knows, Treasury Board has very little to do with site selection.

May 13, 1980
Oral Questions
But I will take his representation into consideration and look into the matter on his behalf.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board, alias "the pork-barrel".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: The site in Charlottetown favoured by the federal government for the Department of Veterans Affairs would cost the treasury over half a million dollars more than the site favoured by the province of Prince Edward Island. The federal government's choice of site would cause huge traffic and parking problems in the city of Charlottetown, according to the mayor of that city.
Will the minister confirm that the real reason for the change of site was pressure from a small group of the city's businessmen who own much of the real estate near the proposed central core site, who are bagmen for the minister's party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: -and who therefore stand to gain from the change of site, in terms of real estate, against the public interest?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer that question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member now formulate a very short question?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Will the minister confirm to the House, and through this House to the people of Prince Edward Island, that the real reason for the change of site by the Department of Veterans Affairs from the waterfront in Charlottetown to the central core of the city was not cost or any other such consideration but, rather, favouritism toward bagmen of his own party on Prince Edward Island?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Another pork-barreller.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to advise you, the hon. member and all hon. members of the House that it was on the advice of my ministry's officials that the site selection, on the basis of cost implications and the total desirability of the site location, was made.
Indeed, it was the advice of my department's officials and my advice to the minister of the user department that those were the reasons-which are contrary to the conclusions, the information and allegations given to us by the hon. memberthe site was chosen. It was the least expensive site that was chosen, and it was a better site for the people in the area-


Some hon. Members:: That is not true.


Paul James Cosgrove: -and it is one that the officials say is better in view of all these qualifications.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact that it has now been confirmed that not only the citizens of Winnipeg, but also the citizens of the Stony Mountain area in Manitoba were the unwitting guinea-pigs for chemical and biological warfare testing in June of 1953, in light of the fact that civic officials in Winnipeg were misled concerning the purpose of aerosol testing and, further, in light of the fact that the chemical compound used in the testing is indeed harmful to health, will the Prime Minister assure the House that his government will establish a full-scale public inquiry into the nature and extent of chemical and biological warfare testing in Canada?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having raised this matter again, thus giving me a chance to assure him and all members of the House that the Department of National Defence, as promised, is indeed taking a careful and thorough look at this whole matter. However, I should like also to caution the hon. member and all members of the House against paying undue attention to sensational reporting, the effects of which can only cause needless and cruel fear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: 1 will try to direct my next question to the right hon. Prime Minister. The important issue here is not whether the chemical and biological warfare tests took place unbeknown to the public in 1953, but whether such tests are still being carried out in secret. 1 should like to repeat my question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Would the Prime Minister tell us when the last test took place, and when and where other such tests were carried out?


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, may I answer this question also? Far from being held in secret, it now appears that there were at least two reports of those tests at the same time, one of which was just to ask about the feasibility of the reports


May 13, 1980

and the other reporting a very angry letter from a member of the Canadian communist party at the time. Therefore, to imply that these tests were held in secret is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It appears from the answers of the parliamentary secretary today that the Department of National Defence is still conducting tests. How could she have said yesterday, when referring to this incident and speaking for the government, that these tests were not harmful to human life, if today the details are such that we do not know what the tests contained?
1 should like to ask the Prime Minister, as well, by whose request these tests were conducted: were they requested by Canadian authorities or by U.S. authorities, and who authorized these tests?


Ursula Appolloni: Because of the last few remarks of the hon. member, I am tempted to feel that there is some sexist bias in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: If that is the case, Madam Speaker, I should like to remind hon. members that another lady in history, a little before my time, made quite a splash in her national defence at the time of the Spanish armada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: By a strange coincidence, she also had red hair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: In answer to the hon. member for Provencher, 1 repeat what I said yesterday. Unfortunately, it appears that pharmacologists, perhaps just as much as economists, do not always agree with each other. The report that we have so far at the Department of National Defence is that, in effect, this substance was not harmful to human life. I repeat, studies are still under way, because my department is nothing if not thorough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate to the parliamentary secretary that I am trying to get information and I have no interest in sexist bias which she has charged. I should like to ask, further, whether the Government of Canada has responded to the telex from the minister of the environment for the province of Manitoba in which he asked for full details to be sent to him immediately they become known to the department.


An hon. Member:: That is what we always do.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are in the habit of talking to the provinces, though you might not be.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should like to ask whether the parliamentary secretary or officials of the department have responded to the minister of the environment for Manitoba. Further, can the parliamentary secretary tell us whether any other Canadian cities were used for tests? Finally, could she tell us when this information will be made available, in view of the requests she has had from the province of Manitoba?


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, instead of just speaking to the people of Winnipeg or any other part of Manitoba, I think we on this side prefer to assure them that there is no great danger, so as not to have them worried as they are.
The second point I should like to make, Madam Speaker, is that these tests took place some 27 years ago. Many of the people who were alive at that time have since retired or, unfortunately-


Some hon. Members:: Are dead.


An hon. Member:: Say it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: If the opposition really wants to get some facts, they have to listen; I am sorry. Many of the people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ursula Appolloni: -involved in the tests at that time have since retired or, unfortunately, for other reasons, have passed away.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: It is a sad commentary on life that we all have to go somehow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ursula Appolloni: Under all these circumstances, I think the fact that my department was able to respond so quickly yesterday was yet another proof of the tremendous vitality, speed and efficiency of the Department of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PARKS CANADA
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. If the cancellation

May 13, 1980
Oral Questions
of the transfer of the Parks Canada regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough is not crass politics and pork-barrelling, and if the shift of the office to the riding of a Liberal cabinet minister in Cornwall is not barnyard politics of the worst kind, would the minister please explain to this House why a former Liberal cabinet minister, the hon. member for London West, announced the move from Cornwall in 1975 and why the entire Liberal cabinet confirmed this transfer of Parks Canada in 1977?
Would he also advise this House why a former cabinet minister from Peterborough announced the move in 1978? Would the minister please advise this House what factors have changed the government's position and decision on the move of Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough, other than the fact that the Liberals lost the Peterborough riding?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the answer to the first three questions of the hon. member is simply no, it was none of those three things. 1 explained to him and to the House the basis on which we took that decision. It was his government which took the final deferral.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Moody) Roberts: It was the result of the consequences of that action on the interests and morale of the workers that I reassessed it and came to the conclusion that the interests of the workers of Parks Canada would be best served by rescinding the original decision which had been taken before his government came to deal with the problem.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


John (Moody) Roberts: We have gone over these matters in the House a multiple number of times. 1 have explained the situation clearly. The hon. gentleman can continue to rise and try to stir up emotions about a very difficult issue, but the facts underlying the decision have been presented to him. I wish he would have the good grace to acknowledge that the decision is taken, and understand the reasons for which it is presented.


An hon. Member:: Pork-barrel.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the reason I keep rising on the subject of Parks Canada is that the decision has been taken so many times. I would like to address my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board: it also deals with the Parks Canada move.
In view of the fact that the Government of Canada is going to pick up the tab to move the Parks Canada families back to Cornwall from Peterborough, as well as the costs incurred in the leasing arrangements for the downtown section of Peterborough on a five-year undertaking, would the President of the Treasury Board advise this House how much that costs the taxpayers of Canada?
Second, will he also advise this House what assistance the government intends to offer the evicted tenants from the downtown section of Peterborough as it lays waste 40,000 square feet of office space? The government evicted the tenants in order to make room for Parks Canada, which it has decided now to move to a Liberal cabinet minister's riding.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons Treasury Board supported leaving Parks Canada in Cornwall is that it is cheaper. It will cost the taxpayers less money to leave Parks Canada in Cornwall than to continue with the move to Peterborough which had been planned.
If I may, I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman, whose question is placed in a broader context, that I was delighted to learn that the Minister of State for Mines received a congratulatory letter from the Progressive Conservative riding association of Algoma for her efforts in ensuring that Eldorado is located at Blind River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Her efforts?


Donald James Johnston: So much. Madam Speaker, for the pork-barrel.


UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. As the minister is no doubt aware, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has just recommended that the federal government initiate an investigation of the anti-union practices of Canada's chartered banks. Can the minister confirm that this investigation will indeed take place and, if so, when it will begin and what will be its terms of reference?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He will, of course, be aware that I am not responsible for the status of women and that that responsibility falls under another minister.
In relation to unfair labour practices, if complaints are filed then, of course, my department will take cognizance of them and take the appropriate steps.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, that reply is not adequate. In light of the fact that three-quarters of the workers in Canada's banking industry are women, and this government has given lip-service to women's issues in the throne speech, will the minister state here and now when he intends to proceed with this investigation?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I deeply regret that my initial answer was not satisfactory to the hon. member. I shall strive
May 13, 1980

strenuously to give him answers which will satisfy him more fully in the future. However, I have not been contacted on the matter he brings to my attention.
In relation to the question of the organization of the banks, the hon. member will be aware of the fact that the Canada Labour Relations Board made a ruling which was very helpful to organization and which allowed each individual branch to be organized rather than having the necessity to organize the entire system. In that regard, extensive efforts toward organization have been undertaken. Some of them have been successful. In some instances there have been difficulties in achieving first agreements.
The hon. member will be aware that the question of six branches of the Royal Bank in the Saguenay area is at the present time before the Canada Labour Relations Board. There is an inquiry into the dispute under the legislation passed by the former progressive Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: That board has the power, if advisable, to settle the terms and conditions of first collective agreements. In that instance, the question is under consideration at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PARKS CANADA
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Just a moment ago the minister said the reason he had gone along with retaining Parks Canada in Cornwall was that it would cost less. I am sure the minister would not want to mislead this House intentionally.
Is that the information he received from the Department of the Environment, and Parks Canada itself? If it is, there was a sudden change in the information available to ministers between the time I made the decision last summer to move on economic grounds and the decision the President of the Treasury Board made the other day.


An hon. Member:: Get your act together.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, my act is very much together. I am relying on the information which I had developed for me by my officials with respect to the cost of cancelling the lease, relocating the employees back in Cornwall and ensuring that they will be well taken care of, as indicated by the Minister of the Environment in his press release of, I believe, two weeks ago.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Having followed with great interest the negotiations of the minister with Chrysler Canada, and being personally pleased with the decision he has taken to provide federal aid equivalent to an investment of $1 billion till 1985, is the minister in a position to tell the House or to make public the proposal or recommendations made by his Quebec counterparts about the purposes for which part of that $1 billion would be used before 1985?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that the hon. member for Joliette acknowledges the fact that we have concluded a satisfactory arrangement with Chrysler Corporation. Perhaps he knows quite well that the arrangement will enable them to maintain at least 6,000 jobs in Quebec. According to our information, the Quebec government wrote to former industry minister de Cotret stating that in its opinion it would be a good idea to have guaranteed loans and to restore jobs in circumstances such as those related to Chrysler Corporation in Canada.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I was well aware that the decision of the minister could save a number of jobs in Quebec as well as elsewhere in Canada. Now, with regard to that $1 billion investment I wanted to know whether the minister can tell the House if it will create a surplus number of jobs. In light of the answer of the minister, I understand that his cabinet or caucus colleagues did not make any recommendations; therefore, as a member from Quebec, and on behalf of all my hon. colleagues, may I be allowed to ask the minister to look seriously into the possibility of using part of that $1 billion in the province of Quebec, where it would be highly appreciated at this point in time?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, that $1 billion will be spent on new equipment for the Chrysler plants in Canada. That is exactly what the Quebec government suggested, that if the federal government gave any assistance to Chrysler it should be to renew its plant equipment. That is exactly what the agreement which we signed with Chrysler stipulates. Through that agreement, I want to repeat, we have saved at least 6,000 jobs in the province of Quebec.

May 13, 1980
Oral Questions


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In the context of the Quebec referendum debate that this House has been hearing so much about in the last few days, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a distinct sense of western alienation lies behind such western separatist political movements as the Saskatchewan Unionist Party, a party dedicated to the break-up of Canada just as surely as the Parti Quebecois is dedicated to the ending of confederation.
Is the minister aware that his government's transport policies are contributing greatly to western alienation? Would he give an undertaking to end branch line abandonment, as his government's positive, tangible gesture toward the strengthening of confederation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I was not aware of that. Indeed, I thought the happy solution of the Prince Rupert terminal question and the negotiations which took place in Vancouver last week on the subject of coal development would enhance the reputation of the Minister of Transport in these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect to branch line abandonment-not having made any particular decision yet-whatever conclusion has been reached would be, at the least, premature.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Could I ask the minister if he accepts the premise of several major farm organizations, including the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, that there be guaranteed rail service on any line which the elevator companies will agree to keep serving?
Will the minister demonstrate his government's willingness to act in the interests of efficiency and in accordance with the expressed wished of grain producers in the west by guaranteeing this service?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not know how 1 can answer this question in one sentence, but I will try.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Say "yes".


Jean-Luc Pepin: The subject of the rehabilitation of branch lines is one that is dear to everybody's heart. But in doing so, some priority has to be established, and I think everybody would agree to that. When the basic network system was established,
I think in 1975, about 60 of the branch lines were identified as being part of that system. We are now up, by a number of additions, to 82 per cent of the branch lines. So to my simple mind, as a thinker on these matters, if one identifies all branch lines to be retained, one abandons the priority system and destroys the very principle which is at stake.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. With respect to the announced move of the Eldorado refinery from Port Hope to northern Ontario, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether or not the government's policy is to compensate Eldorado with respect to the very substantial extra costs that are involved in this move, so that their balance-sheet will not reflect the additional increase and they will remain competitive in terms of international markets and, in fact, in their operations in the sale of uranium and uranium products.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I have no advice that anything will be done which would prejudice Eldorado in terms of its commercial liability, as the hon. member suggests.


An hon. Member:: It is costing money.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, therefore, can the minister advise the House whether or not, in his thorough investigation before giving his support and approval to these moves- which I am sure he must have done-he consulted with the board of directors of Eldorado, or whether they were left out in the cold and are now feeling very concerned because they have not been brought into this particular decision and it is, in fact, contrary to their recommendation?
Did the President of the Treasury Board, in the performance of his duties, in fact consult with the board of directors who were given the mandate to carry out the responsibility of policy with respect to that company?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that Eldorado reports to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and not to the President of the Treasury Board.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The minister stated in an interview in the Toronto Star on October 18, 1979, that the tax on capital gains has stifled investment in many sectors and frozen assets in others.
In view of the study that the Minister of Finance is allegedly having into capital gains, I wonder if the minister could indicate to this House what input he is having in that study.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is con-
May 13, 1980

ducting such a study, I will look forward very much to receiving the results.


Charles Joseph Clark: If?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is, of course, directed to the Minister of Finance. The "if'in-volved makes it interesting.
The Minister of Finance has said that he has a study on capital gains. Would he refer that study to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs? Will he allow the President of the Treasury Board, who wrote a book on "Fiscalamity", the disaster of capital gains, how it was hurting business, causing inflation, and so on-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -to appear before that committee?


George Harris Hees: With his book under his arm.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I can remove the "if' from the hon. member's question and advise him that there is a study under way on the subject of capital gains. As I recollect, it was begun by my predecessor and was, therefore, well-launched. When it is completed, I will consider whether to send it to the committee. It sounds like a good idea.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, 1 would address my question to the Minister of Public Works. In his reply to an earlier question, he indicated that the move in Charlottetown of the DVA proposed building from the waterfront to the downtown area would cost less money.
As that is contrary to information available to us, would the minister table in the House his figures to show why the move would save money? If he cannot do that, would he withdraw the statement and admit his error?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the decision was made on advice received by officials of the Department of Public Works.


An hon. Member:: Table it.


Paul James Cosgrove: Yes, I will table the information in order to make it available to the hon. member who asked the question, and to members of the House.
Privilege-Mr. Domm


PARKS CANADA
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and it centres on similar questions to that member of the cabinet earlier in the question period.
In response to a question, the President of the Treasury Board indicated that it was the Clark government which had decided not to defer the move to Peterborough of the Parks Canada office. Would the President of the Treasury Board confirm if that is correct and, if so, would he explain why that is inconsistent with what the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment said, that in effect it was our decision to defer the move? Who is correct?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I might refer the hon. member to Hansard of last night where he will see the answer to that question presented by the parliamentary secretary in response to a question on the "late show".


PRIVILEGE
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege respecting statements made last night in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons). The hon. member made a specific assertion about a statement I made on August 3, 1979, which is completely untrue in its description of that statement, and anyone in the House will verify that.
I should like to read the statement, and it was referred to just a moment ago by an hon. member on this side of the House. Last night in the House of Commons during the late show the parliamentary secretary to the minister stated:
-I am aware-
He was referring to myself.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think we will require a bit more silence in the House so we can hear what the hon. member has to say.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I can understand, Madam Speaker, why they prefer not to listen.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister stated:
-it was the administration of which he was a part-
He was referring to myself.
-which deferred the move for ten whole months-

May 13, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Domm
Continuing to quote the parliamentary secretary:
If the hon. member says it is not true, I would remind him of one other fact which he did not bother to tell his constituents in his convenient selection of truths; the announcement to defer made on August 3, 1979, was made by none other than the hon. member for Peterborough himself. The man who now wants to get on the side of right and justice is the man who announced the deferral last August.
In making my case for the question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I would cite three of the several statements by your predecessor which clearly establish that a member has a right to refute untrue statements made concerning him and which establish that privilege is involved if an hon. member has deliberately misled the House. I would cite the ruling of November 15, 1978, at page 1153 of Hansard. The Speaker at that time stated:
Order, please. I have given the hon. member the floor ... .The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) described the position of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to the House. If he has been inaccurate in describing that position, the hon. member for Rosedale has the opportunity to
say so-
Then on another question of privilege on the same day the Speaker at that time said, as reported at page 1159:
The procedural case is quite simple. Unless I am able to find a deliberate attempt to mislead, I cannot find a question of privilege.
I would like to point out unequivocally that this House has been intentionally or unintentionally misled by the government, both through remarks made last night during the "late show" debate and in this House during the question period today by the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), and by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). They stated two things: First, that it was cheaper to keep Parks Canada in Cornwall than in Peterborough, and that is untrue; and, secondly, that it was the member for Peterborough, that is myself, who cancelled the move, or deferred the move for ten months. 1 would remind members opposite that we were not in office for ten months so we could not have deferred it that long.
In reality, what happened was that this government was sworn in on June 4. We implemented this proposal with Treasury Board approval in August of the same year. We notified the employees shortly thereafter that the move was a reality, and they confirmed the receipt of that notification and acceptance of it overwhelmingly.
This lobbying has created one of the most blatant cases of pork-barrelling, the like of which I have never seen before. I am sure that hon. members tend to discredit my position as a member of Parliament representing my constituents of Peterborough with untruths, statements unfounded by fact, not in accordance with the position of their own party, yet the minister stood up in the House today to say in respect of the statements made by the hon. member for Peterborough that no, they are not true.
I would remind this House that it was the Hon. Hugh Faulkner, a former minister of the environment, who put Parks Canada in place in Peterborough. It was the Hon. Judd Buchanan who first recognized it, and it was the cabinet of the
Liberal government of the Thirtieth Parliament that enacted legislation and informed employees that every move of Parks Canada to Cornwall was temporary. That notice was on the wall when the employees accepted jobs in Cornwall, and they accepted their jobs on that basis.
In reality, what has happened here is that I have been discredited as a member of Parliament representing my constituents in Peterborough. There has been a complete disregard for parliamentary procedure. Questions have been ignored in the House and the members on this side of the House, whose duty it is to question the government on the decisions it makes, have been abandoned, ignored, given false answers and told untruths.
I expect that this House will give favourable consideration to the view of a backbencher who feels that he is accused of telling his constituents not all the truth, as stated in Hansard of last night by the parliamentary secretary, who said it is cheaper to keep Parks Canada in Cornwall, which is not true; as when the President of the Treasury Board stands up and says it was our decision to defer the question for that period of time, and when the parliamentary secretary to the minister says it was the hon. member for Peterborough who decided to defer the move.
In reality, it was their own government, their own ministers, their own cabinet, including the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment, who put it in place. All we did as the government, not to take credit, was to endorse their recommendation. If they continue to discredit backbenchers in the House, members of the opposition, as they are doing, then I suggest that our system of government is in serious likelihood of deteriorating to the point where the constituents of Canada will lose faith in our parliamentary process.
I would like to move:
That the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment during the adjournment debate on Monday, May 12, 1980, in which, knowingly or unknowingly, he made statements which were the reverse of the truth, namely, that the hon. member for Peterborough announced on August 3, 1979, that the Parks Canada move to Peterborough would be deferred, when in fact the announcement on that date confirmed that the move would take place, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, rising again to speak on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) regarding the move of Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough, I want to advise the House of this fact. The move was announced last summer by the Conservative government, by myself jointly with the hon. member for Peterborough. It was not a deferral, it was a decision which was made by a government of this country. The statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons) is made mischievously, or out of ignorance, or out of deceit. As he speaks for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) then I am sorry to say this, Madam Speaker, but the Minister of the Environment is, for one reason or another, clearly misleading this House.
May 13, 1980


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that he cannot use those words. They are considered to be unparliamentary, and I am sure that the hon. member can find other ways of saying what he has to say either to the minister or to his parliamentary secretary.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, what 1 said that you find obnoxious was that "for one reason or the other, the minister is misleading the House." Earlier I said that this was being done out of mischievousness or ignorance or deceit. If Madam Speaker decides that "for one reason or another" includes deceit then, of course, 1 will abide by the rules of this honourable House and withdraw them.
1 will say this, that what has been said by the parliamentary secretary and by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) this afternoon is just not the case. If that is not misleading the House, then I do not know what is. It may have been unintentional and I will give the hon. members the benefit of the doubt, which is more perhaps than the rest of the House will give them. But I want it very clearly understood by all hon. members, including those on the government side, that the move was contentious because the hon. member from Cornwall who is now the Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Lumley) did not want the move to go ahead. It has been well known for a long time, because during the life of the Liberal government before our Conservative government the hon. member from Cornwall made representations to the effect that he did not want the move to go ahead.
I must tell the House, through you, Madam Speaker, that on the information given to me as minister in the last Parliament it was clearly cost advantageous-


Mr. Harquail:: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: This is a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have the floor later, but for now I have given the floor to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


John Allen Fraser: I am telling the House, through you, Madam Speaker, that on the information that was given to me by my officials it was clearly cost advantageous to the public interest to make that move. I am also telling the House that hon. members opposite, who formed the Liberal government just prior to our government, ought to know very clearly that it was the same advice that was given to their minister. The information, if I can call it that, or the representations made last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, are clearly not true.
Let me repeat, Madam Speaker, that the decision to go ahead with the move was made last summer. There were
Privilege-Mr. Domm
representations brought to me and I listened to those representations. They were brought to me by the hon. member from Cornwall and by people from the town of Cornwall. After listening to these people, I made it clear to them at the turn of the year that I saw no need to change the decision which I had made last summer.
The suggestion that is being made here by the parliamentary secretary, speaking on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, is just not so. The decision was made and that decision was confirmed later, after I had received, as the then minister of the environment, certain representations from people of the town of Cornwall. These people were entitled to demand that I listen to what they had to say, but I made it clear at the meeting that anything they had to say was taken as representations, and I confirmed that I was not changing my mind.
The Minister of State for Trade has a copy of my letter which makes that point clear and which was made public at the time. The suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary about the hon. member for Peterborough is clearly not correct. No member of this House should have to take those kinds of statements made on behalf of the minister without your intervention, Madam Speaker.
I want to add one other thing. The President of the Treasury Board said a few minutes ago that his officials had advised him that there was a cost advantage in keeping Parks Canada in Cornwall. I repeat, if that is so, then there was a remarkable change in the advice given to me as the then minister of the environment by my officials as compared with the advice given to the President of the Treasury Board by his officials. I do not wish to trespass into the bounds of impropriety, but it is extraordinarily difficult for me to believe that there was such a sudden change in the cost assessment, a change that was brought about by the election of February 18.
I think that a question of privilege has clearly been raised, and the public of Canada has a right to accurate statements on events from the government of the day.


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order for clarification purposes. The House seems to be labouring under abuse of the rules or delaying tactics. You ruled, Madam Speaker, last week that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) was not a question of privilege but a matter of disagreement. We heard all these arguments last week and now, once again, we are taking up the time of the House to hear belaboured arguments. I would like to know from you, Madam Speaker, whether or not there is a question of privilege here.


Thomas Edward Siddon: We are talking about last night.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to respond

May 13, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Domm
very briefly to what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) had to say.


John Allen Fraser: Respond accurately; that is all that we ask.


Roger Simmons: I will make my speech my way, not in the undignified, low manner in which the hon. member for Vancouver South made his speech.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We are all interested in clearing up this question of privilege as rapidly as possible so that the House may resume its normal program of debate. Therefore, I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to make his remarks as briefly as possible.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I would like to come directly to the comments made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). As I was saying, what the hon. member for Vancouver South had to say should not be given a response because it would only dignify his remarks.
The hon. member for Peterborough has raised a matter with regard to what I said last night. He quotes me correctly. He makes long protestations about whether he has been discredited. Yes, he has, but by himself, not by me.


Mr. Kempling:: What arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: The hon. member quotes me correctly. It is my understanding, based on information that was given to me-I was not here at the time, as hon. members are aware.


Mr. Beatty:: You won't be here for long either.


Roger Simmons: Thank goodness that the hon. members who just spoke do not have a say in that matter, but some other people. I will be here and I will outlive most of those guys over there.


An hon. Member:: Watch your blood pressure.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I am attempting to respond directly to the gist of the matter which, I must say, is not the manner in which the hon. member for Vancouver South responded. He engaged in a full ranging debate which was extraneous to the matter under discussion, whether or not there is a question of privilege.
I am saying to the hon. member for Peterborough that he did quote me correctly. The hon. member reads Hansard well. The statements which I made last night were made on the basis of information with which I have been supplied. I would be pleased to make that information available to the hon. member and, in so far as I know at this moment in time, the information is correct. It was given to me by senior departmental officials, and until I have been shown otherwise I will stand by that information.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has just made a very important point; that is, that he was given that information by senior departmental officials and that he put that information on the House record. If that is the case, then I think there is an even stronger matter for a question of privilege.
What has happened is that the hon. member has not denied what he said in the House. He has, in fact, told the House that this was the information he was given. On the basis of the statement of the former minister of the environment, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), that information is false. Therefore, the hon. member who is the parliamentary secretary has said that there is a possibility that he has misled the House inadvertently.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Walter David Baker: A "possibility". He was just talking about that.


Maurice James Harquail: You said that.


Walter David Baker: Let us look at the real issue, Madam Speaker. The real issue is these statements. First, the parliamentary secretary said, as reported at page 995 of Hansard:
The move was first initiated by a Liberal administration. It was deferred by a Tory administration and it was rescinded by the present Liberal administration, the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts).
The second statement that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) takes objection to is that it was the administration of which he, the hon. member for Peterborough, was a part which, the parliamentary secretary said-
-deferred the move for ten whole months-ten painful months for the people of Canada. They had it in their hands to go ahead with the move but they did nothing about it. They only deferred it.
I want to quote from a letter which the former minister of the environment, the hon. member for Vancouver South, wrote to the member for Stormont-Dundas, the Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Lumley), dated December 31, 1979. This is the letter which the hon. member for Vancouver South alluded to in terms of the final decision. The letter is available to members of the House; there is nothing to hide, but in the interests of time I shall quote only part of it. Referring to the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas, he wrote:
You have consistently with both the former government and this government-
By "this government" he was referring to the Conservative government.
-opposed the move on economic arguments. You well know that the former minister, who represented Peterborough-
That was the Hon. Hugh Faulkner.
-was in favour of the move and only delayed because he did not want it to appear to be politically motivated. I understand this, but it should also be understood by yourself, the media, and the citizens of Cornwall. I was not persuaded, and am not now persuaded, that it is in the interest of Parks Canada or the public to delay the move any longer.


May 13, 1980

I am not persuaded by your economic arguments. I believe that the decision to move is the correct one from an administrative point of view, and will prove to be correct on economic grounds. The question of the move has been causing a good deal of uncertainty for a number of years. A decision had to be made, and I have made it, and, I believe, for sensible reasons.
The decision he made was to confirm the decision that had already been made by a predecessor minister and which had been deferred because of the understandable representations by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas. The important thing, Madam Speaker, is that this decision had been made, not by the government of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), but that the statement had been made by a former government. It had merely been carried out and confirmed by the then minister of the environment on the grounds which the letter sets forth.
It could be, as the parliamentary secretary has said, that he was put in the position of inadvertently leading the House because his statement, which he has just told us was based on information from officials, is completely the reverse. His statement is as follows:
The move was first initiated by a Liberal administration. It was deferred by a Tory administration-
That is absolutely wrong according to the statements that we have, so we have a conflict. He continued:
-and it was rescinded by the present Liberal administration-
I respectfully suggest, Madam Speaker, that if you read the complete statement made by the parliamentary secretary, you will see that there is an implication in it that somehow or other the hon. member for Peterborough was involved in a way in which he says he was not involved.
I think it is important that we find the facts, particularly in view of the final statement made by the parliamentary secretary about what officials may have told him and which may have given rise to the question of privilege in the first place.
On those grounds, Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that the matter can be settled, and if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) has information which is relevant, that he be brought to the committee. Also if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has information that is relevant, that too should be brought to the committee; and documents which are now with the Department of the Environment and which have been referred to by the parliamentary secretary to the present minister and by the former minister should be laid on the table so that we can get at the truth of what has occurred.
I suppose if questions of privilege mean anything at all with respect to members of the House, they mean searching for the truth when there is a difference of such an important dimension. I should like to commend to you with respect, Madam Speaker, that you consider that and that you look at the statement made by the parliamentary secretary last night, the questions answered by the minister today, and that you defer your decision with respect to this question of privilege.


Donald James Johnston: I rise on the same question of privilege, Madam
Privilege-Mr. Domm
Speaker. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) suggested that I was intentionally or unintentionally misleading the House with respect to my statement regarding the costs of cancelling the move from Cornwall to Peterborough. If I may, I will take a moment to clarify the statement I made to the hon. member as I intended to make it, and I undertake to the hon. gentleman to provide him with the information to which I was making reference. If I was wrong, I apologize, but these are the costs I was talking about and I thought I made it clear in my response.
I was talking about the costs of that move in terms of the lease cancellation in Peterborough, in terms of basically dealing with mortgages on homes, in terms of dealing with employees who had to be moved and relocated; in other words, the direct costs of that move. I thought my answer was clear on that point.
The hon. member says that his officials advised him that it was cost advantageous to the public, and so on, for Parks Canada to be situated in Peterborough. That, Madam Speaker, I did not intend to include in my response. That is a judgment that obviously his officials made and gave to him. I would presume that is prospective in terms of whatever advantages, in their view, might accrue to Parks Canada from being located in Peterborough.
My comment was limited to the cost of that move and its cancellation, Madam Speaker. The hon. member may wish to raise some doubt with respect to that statement and I would be happy to verify that that is my recollection of the numbers which I examined, and which I do not, unfortunately, have with me today.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, if I may also join in support of my colleague's question of privilege, I think it is most important when an allegation is made by a member of the government against a member on this side, or in fact against any member of the House, that is so obviously untrue, that the motion of my hon. friend be granted and that there be a proper referral to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I say this because I am most startled to hear a serious suggestion in this House that it was our administration that deferred the decision to move the Parks Canada office from Cornwall to Peterborough. Madam Speaker, it was our administration that agreed to the move, and up to the time that we left office that move was to go ahead, was to progress at a priority rate and was hopefully to be completed by September 1 of this year.
In support of what I am saying, I think it is perhaps wise to review the background of what led up to our decision last fall to approve the move from Cornwall to Peterborough. I would point out that, speaking historically, the proposed move of Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough was not, for example, part of our decentralization program. I think at the time there was some confusion on that, but this move was

May 13, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Domm
deliberately not referred to in my statement of July 27, 1979, at which time we reversed certain decentralization moves that the previous government had put in place.
The proposed move resulted from a Parks Canada administration decision that its Ontario regional operations would be more efficiently handled and its clients better served from a more centrally located regional office.
Prior to 1973, the Cornwall office served as regional office for the combined Ontario and Quebec regions, and as such it was centrally located. In 1973, however, a Quebec regional office was opened in Quebec City. As Cornwall was no longer centrally located, a study was undertaken and a cabinet document prepared in 1975 proposing that the Cornwall operation be relocated in Guelph. Cabinet approved that plan but postponed that actual move.
In 1977, in order to minimize the economic impact on Cornwall, the move was postponed until the new Transport Canada training facility became operational in Cornwall.
A second study was undertaken in 1978 in collaboration with the Ontario government which resulted in the suggestion that Peterborough should be the new location. The move, however, did not go ahead at that time, and I stress that. That was the former administration's decision, notwithstanding the recommendation from the province of Ontario that the move go ahead.
In August, 1979, the minister of the environment, and my colleague from Peterborough at that time, announced that the relocation would in fact go ahead on schedule, and that was to be completed by September 1, 1980.
As a former president of the treasury board I feel that I have a duty to this House to rise and state that there has been a totally untrue allegation made. There is misinformation before the House at the present time, and I hope, Madam Speaker, that in your wisdom you will have this matter referred to the appropriate committee so that my hon. friend's position can be clarified and substantiated. It was our decision to make the move to Peterborough. We did not defer that decision. It is the present government's decision to reverse that.
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, you are being presented with two versions. On the one hand, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and his colleagues claimed that there has been a sequence of events. On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary exposed his views; as a matter of fact, the opinions of both parties differ, and I respectfully submit that this issue should not be referred to a committee of the House and that there has been no abuse of privilege.
Madam Speaker, this is not the first time that the Progressive Conservative Party claims that it has not delayed anything, while in fact I could mention a whole series of projects which were delayed during the period that party was in power
a few months ago, and I feel that the remarks made today by the parliamentary secretary deserve consideration. What he suggested, Madam Speaker, is to verify again the previous denial. It is the hon. member for Peterborough himself who, on August 3, 1979, announced the intention of his government to postpone the move. He generously offered to check that allegation and even correct it should it turn out that the information was wrong.
I think that he is open-handed, that there is no question of privilege, that the House has enough work to do without wasting its time further and that owing to that difference of opinion, even if you could generally reject outright the question of privilege, it would perhaps be advisable to wait until tomorrow when the parliamentary secretary may provide further particulars about the matter.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) is obviously not satisfied with the several answers that he has received on the matter which has been brought up in this debate. He is not satisfied, and that is a legitimate complaint, of course. But I must remind him that it is a complaint.
The question which we are now debating under a question of privilege was raised originally as a question in the House and resulted in a question of privilege on which I have ruled. Then the hon. member brought the matter up in an adjournment debate of the House, and now again he has brought it up as a question of privilege.
The fact that many of the procedures used by the hon. member did not succeed in satisfying him in the answers that he has received, of course, does not automatically qualify the matter for a question of privilege. There have been several differences of opinion and attempts on both sides to try to clarify the facts, and perhaps these facts do need to be clarified further.
Members at this point have had quite a lengthy debate on the question, but it can be pursued. There are several other avenues where debate can take place in this House. The hon. member, if he is still not satisfied with the explanations that he has received, might, for instance, put a notice of motion on the order paper, he could use the supply procedure, or bring it up on one of the days which are reserved for the opposition.
There has been reference to some documents which might help to enlighten members on the question that has been debated. There are also procedures to obtain those documents, under certain conditions, of course. But if those conditions are met and the minister is capable of tabling those documents, I suppose that they could be obtained through the normal procedure.
I have already ruled, therefore, that there was no privilege in the circumstances, and unfortunately I have to rule again that there is no question of privilege at this time.
May 13, 1980


MR. RAE-LETTER CIRCULATED BY ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, earlier today I gave you notice and sent you a copy of a letter which, in the view of our party, raises a prima facie case of privilege on which 1 would like you to rule. In the event that you do so find that there is a prima facie case, I would then move a motion that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Some time last week the provincial office of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba received a photocopy of a letter under the signature of a Mr. D. H. Beattie, manager of consumer and commercial banking services for the Royal Bank of Canada. This letter was drawn to my attention. I have spoken with Mr. Beattie and he confirms that this is in fact an authentic copy of a letter which he sent out. It bears the date February 22, 1980, and is addressed to the managers of all Winnipeg branches. It concerns members of Parliament.
With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to read the letter into the record.
Last year, we, along with the other banks, were asked to provide information concerning close contacts which members of the banking industry had with members of Parliament. As a result of the February 18 election, the Canadian Bankers' Association is updating their information and have again solicited our support.
Accordingly, we should appreciate hearing whether you or, where applicable the assistant managers have any business or personal contact with the two newly elected federal members of Parliament for Manitoba, Messrs. Cyril Keeper and Laverne Lewycky.
In your reply, it would be appreciated if you could elaborate on the extent of the relationship, if any. In the event the manager of one of the other chartered banks in your area, in your opinion, has a better or closer relationship with the member involved, please so indicate. If you know where the MP in your area conducts his banking, this information would also be helpful.
A reply by March 10, 1980, is requested, if you have any information regarding these new members.
Yours truly,
D. H. Beattie Manager
Consumer/Commercial Banking Services
Earlier today I took the opportunity of giving copies of this letter to the House leaders of the other parties and I gave them notice of my intention to raise this as a matter of privilege. I do not intend to make a lengthy representation but I would just point out one or two things.
First of all, the categories of contempt or of privilege are not closed. While I have been unable to find a precedent in either Erskine May or Beauchesne which would make a prima facie case of privilege, I wish to quote from page 136 of May's where it reads:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
I would point out that under the provisions of the Bank Act-the one still in force, not the one which is yet to be
Privilege-Mr. Rae
born-section 68(2) which deals with the statutory rights of the Inspector General of Banks reads:
The inspector or any other person appointed or employed under section 64 or any person to whom any powers are delegated under subsection 65(4) shall not disclose to any other person, except the minister, the Deputy Minister of Finance or the governor of the Bank of Canada, or a representative of the latter if authorized by him in writing, any information regarding the business or affairs of a bank.
It would seem that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections would like to hear from the writer of this letter and indeed the Canadian Bankers' Association, which is apparently compiling information on members of Parliament. They would like to hear precisely what information they are compiling. Why do they need to know, for example, in which area or in which bank a member conducts his banking, and precisely what information on the financial relationships between a member of Parliament and his bank are now going to be subject to the lobbying activities of the Canadian Bankers' Association and its member organizations, fed into the computers and who knows where it will go?
It is obvious that systematic information on members of Parliament is being compiled. I do not think it is an exaggeration or an exaggerated extrapolation from this letter to question the extent of these lobbying activities and the way in which systematic information is being gathered, particularly at a time when matters of such importance to the people of Canada as well as to the banks of Canada are being discussed in this House.
Madam Speaker will know that our chartered banks have a long history of lobbying in this city. The Canadian Bankers' Association is a very old organization. It has been heavily involved in the lobbying behind each and every decennial review of the Bank Act. Indeed, at one time many observers thought it was the bankers themselves who were writing the legislation and not the members of Parliament.
Whether that be the case or not, I respectfully submit this does raise a prima facie case of privilege and, if you so find, Madam Speaker, I would then move:
That the subject matter of this letter and indeed the lobbying activities of the Canadian Bankers' Association and their compiling of information on members of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. To my knowledge, and I will have to defer to the record, when we were going through the Bank Act I do not believe anyone from the NDP attended any of the meetings. There were members of the Canadian Bankers' Association sitting in the audience. I do not know whether they were monitoring what was being said, but certainly any information they took down was available in the public record that was kept of those meetings. They certainly were not included in any of the meetings that were held in camera.
As far as the members of the banks gathering information on members of Parliament is concerned, I am sure anything they took down there was readily available in the public record and other records of information on members. In fact, if

May 13, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Rae
someone would like to consult the committee records, I had occasion during consideration of the Bank Act to comment on the fact that members of the Canadian Bankers' Association were sitting in the audience when we considered a certain part of the Bank Act.
When 1 went home on the weekend, 1 received a call from my friendly banker who informed me that I was wrong on some comments I had made in the committee. When I came back, I commented on this at the next meeting of the banking committee. Therefore, I do not see that there is a matter of privilege in so far as members of the Canadian Bankers' Association being at the meeting and taking down information that is readily available in the public record is concerned.


An hon. Member:: You missed the whole point.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, as one of the members specifically mentioned in this letter, I rise on the same question of privilege. This is a rather lamentable and questionable practice that seems to have been in existence, according to this letter, since at least 1979. It appears there is a file on ail members of Parliament and systematic surveillance of all MPs. I feel this matter should be examined by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that representatives from the Canadian Bankers' Association and the banks can appear before that committee.
What we need to know is why there is such a list. What is the purpose of its compilation? What is its intended use and why was it originally initiated? What letters have been written by the Canadian Bankers' Association, to which financial institutions, what other kinds of dossiers are being kept on members of Parliament, and what is their intended use?
I am somewhat concerned that attempts might be made by the Canadian Bankers' Association to influence members through such dossiers. Perhaps we might want to consider whether consideration of the Bank Act should be held up until this question is reviewed and cleared up. I consider this a serious matter of privilege. I hope it receives the appropriate serious consideration from you, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on the same question of privilege. I too was mentioned in the letter. The part that concerns me most is the reference to "where the MP in your area conducts his banking." I suggest at one level my concern might be more by way of potential embarrassment. Perhaps I may not have the assets or sufficient liabilities to qualify for the new high status I now have and for the new interest in my financial affairs.
On a more serious note, clearly it is important to know just how much information is being asked for. A lot can be read into this letter. What we really need to know is whether the fears that can be read into this letter are justified. There is no way we should sweep this under the carpet and not take a serious look at it.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I did read a few minutes ago the letter addressed by Mr. Beattie to all managers of Royal Bank of Canada Winnipeg branches. There are two things to be considered. First, the letter indicates that the banks are gathering information, in this case on two members of Parliament. So we are in a situation where we know that some banks are collecting and sharing information about hon. members. I suggest this in itself is not enough to justify the question of privilege. However, there is still a second question to be raised, and that is what do banks use this information for, or what did they use it for in the case of the two hon. members concerned in the letter.
Of course, this second aspect of the matter could be clarified by a committee, but 1 must admit the decision Your Honour will have to make is not an easy one. The situation in which you find yourself, from a procedural point of view, is not to decide whether or not there is a matter of privilege, as you are well aware, but rather to decide whether there is a prima facie question of privilege, and then it is up to the House to decide whether privilege is involved or not.
Is there a prima facie case of privilege here or not? in the fifth edition of Beauchesne, in citation 18 on pages 11 and 23, we find a rather precise though brief definition of what constitutes violation of a member's privilege, and we see that there is violation of this privilege when certain matters "involve a member's capacity to serve the people who have chosen him as their representative" and when something is "contrary to the usage" and "derogatory to the dignity of the House of Commons."
Just before this in Beauchesne, it is said that:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament.
It is also said that:
As Parliament has never delimited the extent of privilege, considerable confusion surrounds the area.
This does not make matters any clearer, Madam Speaker. The author then adds:
Recourse must therefore be taken, not only to the practice of the Canadian House, but also to the vast tradition of the United Kingdom House of Commons.
In this case, the hon. member who raised the question of privilege admitted with his usual honesty that there was no precedent. I do not know whether after my comments he will be able to say that there is a precedent or not, but I must repeat for your information, Madam Speaker, that we are discussing a letter circulating among banks. It is, therefore, not a letter which is being distributed among the public, at least according to present evidence. What we have to determine is whether this internal distribution constitutes or not a prima facie case of privilege. On this point, I consider that there is no violation of the members' privileges.
May 13, 1980

However, there is the second point that I have mentioned. This letter makes us wonder about the use that banks make of this information. A committee investigation could throw some light on this matter, but are we going to order investigations in all areas where there is a fear that there might be a violation of members' privileges without the House having at least serious grounds for believing that there has been a specific violation of a member's privileges or that this information now circulating among banks has been misused?
It seems to me that according to the facts which have been stated until now, there is no indication, not even a slight one, that the rights of the hon. member have been infringed upon by the internal circulation of this information. But whatever the case may be, I am very liberal when it comes to interpreting the privileges of members of Parliament. I believe that these privileges are of major importance. Your decision will not be easy to make, Madam Speaker. However, I wanted to make these few comments to show what principle Beauchesne suggests we should follow in such a matter.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment. I think the essence of the question is whether the information has been used to intimidate members of Parliament. If that is the case, then definitely it is a question of privilege; if not, there is no case at this time.
I understand that the Bank Act will shortly be going to committee where, I am sure, the hon. member can pursue this matter and there will be ample opportunity for it to be ventilated appropriately to ascertain the facts.
You may wish to defer your decision, Madam Speaker. It is a wonderful thing sometimes to defer decisions on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege; it is a power that the Chair has. You may want to defer your decision until there is evidence brought out before the committee, at which time it might be appropriate to raise it again. However, although there is concern, 1 do not see a question of privilege at this time. It could very well be that we are not under surveillance, as one hon. member indicated we are. It could be that we would be subject to a marvellous lobby. All of us are subject to lobbies from time to time. I have been lobbied by the Canadian Consumers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Other members have been lobbied by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Anglican Church and the Kiwanis Club. If it is that, it is innocent. But if there is other evidence which should come out before the committee, then it is not innocent and I think it might be appropriate if your Honour deferred your decision until the case develops.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I should like to lend my voice for whatever assistance it might bring in considering this question of privilege. I suspect from the context of this letter that the two members who are
Privilege-Mr. Rae
mentioned are not the only ones who have been scrutinized by the Canadian Bankers' Association. It is indicated in the letter that this practice has gone on for a period of time. I suggest that the letter presents a threat to members of Parliament in carrying out their duty, and therefore constitutes a breach of privilege.
What concerns me more than anything else is that information which I have discussed with my banker concerning my financial past and future may be available to those who lobby me and to other members of the House. This is dangerous. It has gone one step beyond what other members have suggested is a simple lobby. The fact that my banker might be privy to discussions with other members of the banking community about the advisability of my contributions in the House is of concern to me. I would see this as an attempt to coerce, for lack of a better term, the outcome. I consider this to be a very serious matter.
In my opinion it is fairly significant that this letter comes from the Royal Bank of Canada. I happened to be glancing through a record put out by a Philip Agee concerning the Central Intelligence Agency and I find that in the record he suggests that the Royal Bank of Canada was a funding agent for that organization. So I think we should all be vitally concerned about what happens to information given in trust to bankers regarding the activities of members of Parliament.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, 1 would have to dissociate myself in this instance from the government House leader. It seems to me-and this has been conceded-that in all probability this is not a question of privilege. However, it is certainly a matter of serious concern, and when the Bank Act is discussed in committee obviously this question will be raised. I think it is incumbent upon the government not to wait for a question of privilege to arise. 1 think the government is in a position to make an order of reference to the committee to have this specific matter considered exclusive of the Bank Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The question is indeed a difficult one, nobody doubts that, but it is also very important because it could affect, it seems, the privileged communications and conversations that members can and should have with their constituents or other people, besides their constituents, who may have to provide them with information on certain issues. Since this question is not an easy one but rather a complicated one, because of prevailing trends in modern countries whereby information of this nature circulates rather freely and generally, we must, in light of these new facts, examine whether or not this constitutes a breach of members' privileges. This is, therefore, an important question and I thank the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) for raising it and especially for providing a copy of this letter to the leaders of the other parties who were thus able to provide me with informative arguments on the matter. But I will not rule today on

May 13, 1980
Chrysler Canada
whether or not there has been a prima facie breach of privilege. I will instead take the matter under advisement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform this House in a formal way of the agreement reached between the federal government, Chrysler Canada and the Chrysler Corporation following extensive negotiations.
Chrysler Canada has presented to the federal government its corporate financing and investment plan for the years 1980 to 1985. This plan calls for an investment of approximately SI billion to convert and expand certain of its existing Canadian facilities. This investment will enable employment in Canada to return to historic levels. The average annual employment levels included in this plan are 9,800 in 1981, 10,100 in 1982, 11,300 in 1983 and I 5,900 in each of 1984, 1985 and 1986.
The government recognizes the difficulty of projecting with absolute precision employment levels that are in large part dependent on economic and market conditions, particularly in the automotive industry. As a result, one condition insisted on by the federal government is that Canadian employment will be maintained at no less than the historical average of 11 per cent, expressed as a ratio to United States employment, for the years 1982 through 1986. During 1980 and 1981, recognizing that Chrysler is now in a restructuring process, the figure shall be maintained at no less than an average of 9 per cent.
Deviation from the investment, financing, facilities or products outlined in the plan or from the proportional employment commitments will occur only with the consent of the minister.
In return for these investment and employment guarantees, the Government of Canada will guarantee loans to an amount of S200 million by financial institutions in support of Chrysler Canada's investment of about $1 billion in its operations. These loan guarantees will not begin to come into effect until 1982.
The government's offer to Chrysler Canada is also conditional on the successful achievement of the over-all financial package now being sought in the United States by the parent company, Chrysler Corporation.
Before elaborating on additional conditions and safeguards that the federal government has attached to its assistance, I wish to outline the background and considerations that were taken into account.
Chrysler Canada's difficulties arise primarily from the plight of its parent, which has been well publicized. Chrysler Corporation, until recently the tenth largest company in the United States, has suffered proportionately more than any other auto company as a result of the dramatic switch of consumer preference to smaller cars.
In 1979 Chrysler Corporation approached the United States government for help to meet the very large program of investment necessary to convert its plants to smaller car production and to meet engineering and design costs of these new products. These costs will amount to about $9 billion in the period 1980-85.
The United States government's response was to pass the Chrysler loan guarantee act, which will make available to Chrysler Corporation up to $1.5 billion in United States loan guarantees, provided comparable amounts of credit can be raised by others with a stake in the future of the corporation. These others include banks, suppliers, dealers and state, local and other governments.
Chrysler Canada approached the Canadian government last year for assistance. Although not in as serious a financial situation as its parent, Chrysler Canada sells about 80 per cent of what it produces in the United States market. It is thus unable to finance by itself the necessary investment to modernize its facilities to take part in building the next generation of vehicles needed to re-establish itself in the market.
In weighing the Chrysler request, the government had a number of considerations in mind. First, a refusal by the government to assist Chrysler Canada would have had an adverse effect on the ability of the United States parent to achieve the over-all financial package it requires. Chrysler Canada is integrated so closely to its parent's activities that demise of the parent would inevitably lead to termination of Chrysler activities in Canada.
Chrysler Canada is our country's seventh largest company of any kind. The impact of its failure on Chrysler dealers, suppliers and their employees as well as on the entire economy would be such that the government cannot ignore the implications for the country. Estimates of direct jobs at risk if Chrysler were to fail run as high as 40,000 across Canada. These include 14,000 jobs in Windsor, Ajax and Mississauga prior to recent lay-offs, close to 10,000 parts supplier jobs nationally, and some 16,000 jobs in more than 600 dealerships across the country. For example, more than 4,000 people are employed by the 160 Chrysler dealers in Quebec. There are 1,700 such jobs at stake in Alberta, 600 in Nova Scotia and some 1,200 in British Columbia. The costs of these direct job losses in terms of taxes forgone and unemployment insurance payments alone would be considerable.
These are the direct jobs at stake. Also, if a company having
40,000	employees directly depending on it should fail, the impact on indirect jobs and the economy generally would be equally substantial.
Arriving at the $200 million level of guarantees for third party loans is the result of an extensive period of negotiating
May 13, 1980

with Chrysler Canada and the parent corporation. Their original request was much higher.
In addressing the question of how much assistance is appropriate, the government had specific objectives in mind. We, the federal government, wanted our contribution to ensure that Chrysler would make investments in Canada so that a new product line competitive in the market of the eighties and beyond in terms of size and fuel efficiency would be built. We wished to restore employment over time to a level comparable to that before the recent lay-offs. We felt that the federal government assistance should not be out of proportion with that being offered by the United States government. Also, we wanted Chrysler's commitments to cover its entire operations in Canada. Our objectives have been met.
In considering the form of our assistance, the government did not feel that the solution would rest in taking an equity position in Chrysler Canada. It is not a stand-alone company and is dependent on its parent and the United States dealer network for its survival. Equity participation also implies other obligations which, as a government, we do not consider appropriate to take on.
The Government of Canada will, however, receive warrants to acquire shares of Chrysler Corporation common stock in the same proportion to those received by the United States government, on the same terms and conditions. In this way, Canada will have the opportunity of sharing in the future success of the corporation whose Canadian subsidiary it is assisting.
The federal government decided against making a grant. Our assistance will, therefore, only be in the form of loan guarantees.
The money will come in the form of loans to Chrysler Canada from the private sector and not the government, but the government will insure those loans to make them possible. Obviously, some risk is involved or guarantees would not be required. However, the government has minimized its risk in the following ways.
First, the guarantees will not be drawn down until January I, 1982, at the earliest, and thus the government is not at risk during the early stages of Chrysler's recovery. Second, the guarantees are tied to investment in Canada only. Third, conditions involving the company's entire operations in Canada, including appropriate security, have been obtained.
Repayment of the insured loan by Chrysler will be over a five-year period in equal quarterly instalments commencing six months after the launch of the van-wagon, which I will describe in a moment, but not earlier than June 30, 1984.
A specific project to which the loan guarantees will be tied is the production in Canada of an all-new, small, fuel-efficient vehicle. The vehicle is the T-115 van-wagon aimed at the market now supplied by large passenger cars, station wagons and lighter compact vans. Chrysler Corporation has granted Chrysler Canada, until the insured loan is repaid in full, an exclusive worldwide mandate to produce this vehicle. The agreement provides that, where practicable, research and de-
Chrysler Canada
velopment activities, including engineering support for the production of the T-115, will be conducted in Canada.
Upgrading and expanding the existing van facility in Windsor will require some $400 millions of the total of some $1 billion in investment. The Government of Canada's $200 million of loan guarantees in 1982 are to make this investment possible, but our loan guarantees are conditional on Chrysler's proceeding with its full $1 billion investment program for Canada.
In addition to the investment for the van-wagon, Chrysler Canada will spend about $250 million to improve its existing facilities for car production and to build one of the new lines of small, front wheel drive cars to be introduced in 1983. Also more than $300 million will be invested to expand and improve several existing assembly and manufacturing operations, including the Etobicoke aluminum casting plant.
The government, as a condition of assistance, has required that Chrysler Corporation restructure its operations so that Chrysler Canada operations are in large measure autonomous with respect to purchasing, marketing and production while remaining cost-effective with its competitors. This would help carry out another condition agreed to, and that is that Chrysler Canada will make every reasonable effort to source materials and components in Canada. Of course, Canadian suppliers will have to meet normal competitive requirements.
Also we have required in the agreement that Chrysler Corporation transfer pricing practices will not work to the detriment of Chrysler Canada. Under the agreement the minister has the right to appoint a director to the board of directors of Chrysler Canada Ltd. In addition, the Government of Canada will be supplied with the same reports that Chrysler Corporation has to provide to the United States Chrysler Corporation loan guarantee board.
The details of these and certain other financial conditions will be set out in formal documents. As I informed the House yesterday, I will be tabling these documents following their signing, and I will be tabling in the House the Chrysler Canada financial and operating plan, to which I referred previously in my remarks, at that time. During the negotiations the views of the Canadian director of the United Automobile Workers were obtained on certain matters relating to the agreement.
Finally, I should like to emphasize three important aspects of this agreement. We have as a government for the first time, as far as I am aware, insisted on a condition that none of the facilities of Chrysler Canada can be closed permanently without obtaining the approval of the minister. Also we have insisted, again, as I understand it, for the first time, upon a condition that employment levels in Canada will be maintained at levels at least proportional to those in the United States. Third, the Chrysler Corporation has agreed to review with the minister, once the van-wagon plant is in operation, the concept of moving the relationship between employment in

May 13, 1980
Chrysler Canada
Canada and the United States closer to the relationship between sales in Canada and the United States.
In addition to the federal package I have just outlined, the Ontario government has obtained the agreement of Chrysler Canada to establish a research and development facility related to aluminum and plastic applications. This facility will represent an investment of $20 million, of which Ontario will provide $10 million in the form of a grant.

In short, Madam Speaker, the federal government's decision to grant Chrysler loan guarantees of $200 million in return for investments of about $1 billion before 1985 will help save
40.000	jobs distributed across Canada. For example, at least
4.000	people are employed by Chrysler dealers in Quebec only, not counting the employees of Chrysler parts suppliers in that province. This decision fits into a national industrial policy which emerged recently in the electronic and aeronautical sectors and of which one of the main objectives is to ensure balanced development of all areas of Canada.
Although some risk remains I believe that on the whole the result of our negotiations with Chrysler is an equitable arrangement for Canadian workers and for the economy of the whole country.

I want to repeat that, while an element of risk continues to exist and while there are serious problems of adjustment in the entire North American automotive industry, I believe our negotiations have resulted in a fair deal and, therefore, a good deal for Canada's economy and Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, the minister has just taken 15 minutes to read into the record a press release that was made last Saturday. I wonder, other than wasting the time of the House, why he did this.


Mr. Laniel:: So that you would have all the facts.


William James Kempling: The facts were available in the minister's statement on Saturday. They were covered in the Saturday, Monday and Tuesday newspapers. I am quite amazed that the minister would rise today and make the statement he did. In fact, we did not get a copy. We were not made aware that he would make a statement in the House until question period had begun. Usually it is courteous to inform members in other parties ahead of time that a statement will be made.
What the minister reviewed in his statement to the House is the sad state of the automotive industry in Canada. He said to the House in fact that the difficulties at Chrysler resulted from the difficulties of its parent in the United States. But the fact is that there are difficulties in the Ford Motor Company, and General Motors have difficulties this year as well. The minister knows those facts as well as I do.
We are the only country I know in the western world that produces automobiles which does not have an annual report on
its automotive industry. In fact, we get most of our information on the Canadian automotive industry from the report produced by the secretary of commerce of the United States for the President of the United States. I recall this matter was discussed in 1974 in the House of Commons with the minister of industry, trade and commerce of the day. He told us that a committee of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and American automotive officials were getting together to try to rationalize the figures, because each year when the report was produced for the President there was a rhubarb in the House of Commons because of a difference in the figures that were presented.
Indeed, when one looks at how this information is gathered, one finds some very strange things. For instance, one finds that automotive parts are produced and brought into Canada in bulk. They are then broken down at the Fivingston company facilities in southwestern and central Ontario. Those parts that are required for production in Canada are sent to the respective automotive plants, and those that are not required are exported out of the country. Those exports are shown on the figures from Statistics Canada as the export of an automobile when in fact they are not. In fact, the figures shown in Statistics Canada for exports and production of automobiles in Canada are quite false. Of course, this has not been attended to. We know of other instances where cars produced in the United States have been brought into Canada, the wheels are removed from them, they have been crated, exported out of Canada and are shown as a vehicle produced in Canada. We know that that is wrong.
The point I am getting to is. Had the government in 1974 put together a means of gathering the information on the automotive industry in Canada, perhaps we would not be in this position today. Perhaps the trend to which the minister referred of the Canadian consumer moving to a smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicle would have become apparent long before now. We know-everyone in the country knows-that the difficulties the Chrysler Corporation in the United States ran into were just bad management decisions. I do not have too much sympathy for bad management decisions.
I appreciate the fact that we cannot allow the number of workers involved to be thrown out on the streets, which is what would happen if Chrysler went bankrupt. I respect the fact that we have to take some move to help alleviate this situation. But the reality is that there has been talk and talk and talk for eight years about the auto pact, about the automotive parts industry, about straightening out the figures and the numbers, but virtually nothing has been done as far as I can find out.
We know, for instance, that 75 per cent of the operations of automotive parts manufacturers in Canada are American owned, yet I do not see anything in the statement made by the minister that indicates we are going to move in any way to see that the new van and the new fuel-efficient car Chrysler is going to produce will have some sort of North American
May 13, 1980

content, so the aid package for Chrysler is totally North American. We do not know, for instance, whether Chrysler in its decisions will find that it can buy certain component parts cheaper outside of North America, and then come back to the government saying that is the fact of life. In fact, that is more or less confirmed in the minister's statement when he says that, of course, Canadian suppliers will have to be competitive, which we expect they will.
Looking at the employment side, the minister has tied his guarantee of employment here to a percentage of the employment in the United States, and the numbers beyond that are ' not too firm. The key element or key operating point is the fact that we are going to tie the employment of Chrysler Canada to a percentage of what it is in the United States.
Reading through the press release and articles that have been written about this matter, we notice that when the United States president of Chrysler and Mr. Iacocca announced that they could not guarantee job levels in Canada as Ottawa, Ontario and Chrysler officials had previously understood, they sat down on May 1 and federal officials assured Chrysler that guarantees were needed, that Ottawa would not unreasonably withhold ministerial approval if Chrysler could not approve the jobs because of the general downturn in the automotive industry. I do not think that is really a guarantee at all.
The minister has given us some numbers. He has thrown some percentages at us. In fact, what he has done here is say that we are really not going to give Chrysler anything until 1982. I assume that when the contract comes out it will indicate the terms, but in fact this world marketing facility we will have in respect of the van-wagon will end, as I understand from the statement, when the loan is repaid. I suppose we will find out, when the contract is tabled, what that term in fact will be.
The minister did not say in his statement whether the financial institutions that are to be guaranteed by the Government of Canada will in fact be Canadian institutions, institutions in the United States, in Japan or elsewhere.
We believe that some action had to be taken. In spite of the fact that my remarks have been somewhat critical, more of the way the automotive industry has been kicked around by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for a number of years, I think probably this was about the least that could be done, and in all probability exposes Canada to the least possible risk.
I do not think the guarantees that have been put forth as far as employment is concerned are really worth very much in the final analysis. We hope, of course, that Chrysler with this assistance and the assistance that will be given by the government of the United States and the province of Ontario, which is giving a sizeable $10 million grant rather than more loan guarantees, will help Chrysler find its way back into the marketplace.
The world automotive industry is in a very serious competitive position. We find that most European manufacturers are getting together and talking about using a common engine and
Chrysler Canada
common components. In fact, the projections in the industry indicate that in the next decade we will see about five major manufacturers of automobiles in the world. We will have to wait to see whether Chrysler will be one of those. I certainly hope that Ford, Chrysler, General Motors and American Motors will form part of that complex.
The fact is that they are all moving toward world cars or a world car design. If you consider the Chevette today, the components in that vehicle are supplied by 32 different countries in the world. The same applies to the Fiesta being made by the Ford Motor Company. In other words, the automotive industry is moving toward a car that can have components supplied by several countries. The companies go to those countries and get a duty remission, and if the market is large enough to support an assembly plant they will put one in there for this type of world car.
This is something we will have to address ourselves to when we look at the automotive parts industry, because that industry should be moving toward supplying that world market. We should not fetter that prospect in any way. We should allow them to develop and encourage them to go after the world market for some of the offshore manufacturing of automobiles in order to assure ourselves that we will have a fair share of the world market down the road.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying I am sorry that the minister chose to do things in this way. We had this statement last Saturday. I gather that what he is trying to do is get two or three kicks at the cat. Probably when the contract is made public in due course, he will make another statement and get a third kick at the cat, and in that way get the maximum publicity.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to clear up an obvious misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling). I asked the minister if he would make a statement in the House and he said he would. I asked him because I thought it was appropriate that, on a matter of importance such as this, he should put on the record of the House of Commons the position of the government with regard to the expenditure, in one way or another, of considerable sums of money. This is a matter that has significant impact on a very large part of the Ontario economy, if not the economy of the whole country. I thank the minister for making this statement. I think this is a much more appropriate way to deal with this matter, and I am pleased to have it.
I also want to say something to the minister lest he misunderstands. I do not for a moment downgrade or depreciate the problem that he must have had in trying to get a settlement of this matter. I do not envy him a bit, in fact, for having to deal with Chrysler. Chrysler is not one of my favourites to begin with because its record over the years has left a lot to be desired. I do not think it was an easy task for the minister. I make that point because I also do not think that what we got was very good, and that poses a problem for me.
1022

May 13, 1980
Chrysler Canada
Let me say to the minister that on a matter of principle I am becoming increasingly more concerned about the tendencies that are developing in North America whereby major corporations who, up until this point in time, have been telling us that they knew how to run everything, that if left to their own devices they would manage just fine, telling the government to keep its nose out of their affairs year after year, are now standing in line, nose to the trough, trying to get at the taxpayers' money. It concerns me, frankly. It is a very bad state of affairs.
I hope at some point we will be able to rationalize all of this, and that what we are now doing is not just simply laying the groundwork for further raids on the public treasury. The people of Canada cannot afford either to underwrite or to give by way of gift or loan to the major corporations from their tax dollars. Those tax dollars just do not go far enough. The very people who are standing in line asking for the money are the same people who were, not many months ago, screaming very loudly about the size of the deficit in the Canadian economy and about government spending. I suggest that there is an inconsistency in the way the corporate sector views its responsibility to the communities of Canada and to the people of Canada, and in the way the government views its responsibility to develop an over-all industrial strategy dealing with a major industry.
I do not like giving to one company in this way. 1 do not like this isolated, piecemeal approach. I did not like it in the case of Michelin, and I do not like it in the case of Chrysler. I do not think that this is how a government should be run. Having set up this loan guarantee operation based on a number of factors, the government has now established, I am sure, in the mind of Ford what it will have to do when it comes to get its share.
At some point the people of Canada will suddenly wake up and realize that they are paying not only for the product when they buy it, but also to finance the company when it is being developed, and that they get nothing from either one because these companies up and leave when there is a downturn in the market.
The minister said some two or three months ago that the three major items which he wanted to see in any agreement were an increased R and D component, that parts manufacturing should take place in Canada, and that employment levels should be guaranteed.
With regard to employment. I wish that simultaneous with the tabling of this document the minister could have tabled a document which set out quite clearly how this government intends to live up to its obligations to the many thousands of workers who are presently laid off in the auto industry and who are likely running out of unemployment insurance benefits.
I am not at all impressed with the proposal made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) that his department will shorten the work period in order that
a person may requalify for unemployment insurance. There is no point telling someone in a community which has something close to 20 per cent of its work force unemployed that all they have to do is to find a job for a few weeks and they will be able to go back to unemployment insurance. The fact of the matter is that with an employment rate of 20 per cent they are not able to find a job at all and, therefore, that program is of very little consequence and does nothing to help people who must be helped.
It is also interesting to note that discussion is taking place in the United States at the moment with regard to assistance to workers who are laid off during this transitional period. Again, I would have hoped that the minister could have made, as he often did during the election, a statement about the need for a TAB program like the one which was in place some years ago, that he might have seen such a program as one of his priorities and made sure that it was in place at the same time as the contract was being negotiated for aid to the Chrysler Corporation. That did not happen and it disappoints me.
I have some questions, Madam Speaker. I think the easiest way to deal with them would be if the minister were perhaps to note them, and then he could respond to them. The statement which the minister tabled today and which I have had for two or three days raises more questions than it provides answers. It may well be that the answers to the questions asked in these documents will ultimately be tabled, but I hope that we can get a handle on them between now and that time so that we may better understand the document.
The minister has indicated that he is happy that some of the R and D will be done in this country. I do not read the document in the same way the minister reads it. I do not know what emphasis one puts on the words "where practicable", but I have read them so many times in so many documents, and I am not at all sure who it is who will determine what is practicable. I suspect that it will be Chrysler. If that be the case, then the term "where practicable research and development activities, including engineering, will be conducted in Canada", is not really of any major benefit to us unless we are sure that we can enforce that term.
Initially, I would like to know how the minister intends to enforce this clause. My experience in dealing with the auto pact tells me that the companies provide no more than is absolutely required and, in most instances, considerably less. If we do not have clearly set out exactly what it is that we propose should be done in Canada-for example, where it should be done and how we will monitor what is being done- then I can almost assure the minister, as I stand here now, that "where practicable" will become the operative phrase and will prove never to be practicable.
I am bitterly disappointed that we did not get a share of the K car for Canada. I have some serious questions, which I have expressed before, about the saleability of this van-wagon affair that they are talking about building. Incidentally, this promise is very much like the promise that Chrysler made to the United Kingdom in 1975 when it was looking for loan guarantees and grants from the British government. They promised to
May 13, 1980

build a van then, and Britain is still waiting for it. I suspect that we might be waiting a while too. I would rather have had as significant share of the manufacturing of the K car with a mandate to move out into the world to sell that car, to source the parts for the manufacturing of that car and to tie the research and development of that car, rather than to saddle us with something that may or may not sell.
In addition to that, I notice that the front wheel drive operation offered by Chrysler Canada, as I understand it, is to be something called a down-sized Cordoba. I see the minister is shaking his head. If it is not the case, then I am delighted to hear it. 1 hope that when the minister rises he will tell us what it is. Is it in fact to be a down-sized Cordoba, which is what my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and I were told by the president of Chrysler Canada about six or eight weeks ago? We were told they intended to build this downsized car here, and we were also told that they intended to build a V-6 engine, but that has gone by the wayside as well for some reason. I would like to know more about this downsized car and what it is we will be building. If we will be building part of the K car, then 1 think that we can be happy; but if that is not the case, then we must take a very serious look at what it is we will be getting. I do not see Chrysler being able to market a car in Canada other than a small car.
On page 8 of the document there is an indication that Chrysler Canada will make every reasonable effort to source material and components in Canada. I suppose one could interchange the wording and say "where practicable", because that is the same phrase. They are just new words with the same meaning. 1 would like to know what will be the term in the contract, that will be the proportion and what are the parts that they intend to source in Canada. Has a listing been made of the parts which Chrysler will be able to source in Canada? Has anyone looked at the various suppliers that they presently have in place, and has Chrysler suggested to the government in the course of the deliberations how much of the car in total, either in terms of dollars or numbers of parts, will actually be sourced in Canada, and where?
There is a grand opportunity here, if this car were to be successful, for the manufacturers to be successful and for the development of manufacturing processes right across this country. This car or its parts could be manufactured in any part of the country-for example in Alberta or on the east coast-where we might not have to put money into Michelin but instead into the sourcing of parts, thereby diversifying the economy of Nova Scotia, which would not be such a bad idea.
With regard to autonomy, I would like the minister to tell the House how Chrysler intends to establish this autonomy. He will remember, I am sure, that when I made my statement a week ago about how I thought we might deal with the Chrysler matter, I suggested that Chrysler Canada should be set up at arm's length from the parent company and should issue new shareholdings in Canada, and that the company should be given a mandate to operate here independent of the parent company. This would be in order that the benefits of
Chrysler Canada
the great expertise of Canadian workers could flow to Canada; in order that there could be some pride in the vehicle produced; in order that we could take full advantage of the opportunity; and not only that, but also in order that we would not be tied to whether or not the company is successful in the United States.
I think the minister knows, as I do, that there is very little in the way of an indigenous manufacturing process that goes on within the Chrysler Corporation. They buy most of what they use for the manufacture of cars from outside sources in any event. The tie-in between the parent company and the subsidiary operation in Canada could therefore quite easily have been set up at arm's length. They could then have purchased from the same sources because the sources are independent operations in most instances.
1 think the minister might address himself to why that did not happen. Before he says it was too difficult, 1 want to point out that Chrysler Canada told my colleague and me at the meeting that although it would be difficult it certainly was not impossible. They said that not only was it a sensible suggestion but one which they did not find offensive, and that they might have enjoyed the independence which would have resulted from that kind of structural change. We might even have ended up with something that could be identifiably Canadian. It does not have to have-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I can hardly allow the hon. member to make his statement in reply to a statement longer than the statement itself of the minister. The hon. member has been speaking for 15 minutes, as did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). I would therefore ask him to conclude his remarks very briefly.


Ian Deans: I will go through the other points but not deal with them right now, Madam Speaker.
1 want to go to the matter of employment very quickly. What is contained in this document is really a farce. It is simply a statement of what ought to take place as a result of the auto trade pact in any event. If the auto trade pact section 1(d) had been enforced over the years, we would have had a higher level of employment in any event. If Chrysler hopes to take advantage of the auto pact provisions, they have to provide employment in Canada.
If Chrysler does not want to pay duty on the sale of its cars in Canada, they have to provide employment in Canada. The levels of employment set out in this document provided by the minister are even lower than the levels of employment they would have had to provide under the auto trade pact in any event. The fact of the matter is that this is not a commitment from Chrysler but simply a restatement of what would have taken place even if we had never entered into any agreement. I suggest to the minister that there is something farcical about that aspect of it. It does not speak to what could have been done here.

May 13, 1980
Chrysler Canada
There are many other things I should like to talk about, Madam Speaker, but perhaps the minister could answer those questions. 1 will be happy to hear his reply.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has made some very interesting comments by way of questions on various parts of my statement. I am glad he confirmed that I made it in the House at his specific request so that it would be formally on the record of the House of Commons. I offered to do this if the House leaders agreed. I gather there was agreement just before question period, which is why the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) did not receive the statement earlier, although, as he said, it was identical to the statement I made to a rather interested and attentive audience of journalists last Saturday afternoon here in Ottawa after the agreement with Chrysler had been confirmed that morning in Toronto.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has asked in particular who will define, for example, what "where practicable" means in the clause regarding research and development, where this development will be done and the nature of it. 1 want to say, first of all, as the statement points out, that it will be done in Windsor in connection with the production of the new T-l 15 van-wagon. It will certainly include engineering support activity. The definition of what is sufficient to meet requirements, in short, who will decide whether what is being done is practicable will be up to me or the minister of the day.
With respect to this clause and the other clauses dealing with sourcing and autonomy, if what Chrysler is doing or intends to do is not to my satisfaction or the satisfaction of the minister of the day, Chrysler will not get the loan guarantees if we are talking about what is being done prior to 1982. If we are talking about the period after 1982, since the loan guarantees are to be drawn down in instalments linked with the pace of the drawing down of loans for the construction and equipping of the van-wagon plant, if what is being done with respect to any and all clauses in the agreement does not satisfy me or the minister of the day, then the instalments of the loan guarantees will not be allowed to be put in place and those portions of the loan guarantees already there can be withdrawn. I or the minister of industry, trade and commerce of the day will certainly have a very powerful weapon to ensure that those clauses have real meaning for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy.
With respect to carrying out the agreement generally, there will be a special group of officials very closely monitoring the activities of Chrysler Canada in carrying out the agreement, an additional source of access to information will be available to us. We will be appointing a member of the board of directors of Chrysler Canada and will have exactly the same reports as Chrysler Corporation has to give under American law to the U.S. federal loan guarantee board which is responsible for administering the loan guarantees to the parent corporation under that law.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain asked a question about the small front wheel drive car referred to in my statement. It is my understanding that it is to be built on a K
car platform. 1 would be happy to get further information for my hon. friend. Whatever the car ends up being called, I understand it is to be built on the K car platform.
In our negotiations 1 pressed Chrysler very hard about having small front wheel drive cars in production in the assembly plant in Windsor prior to the date mentioned in my statement. They replied that they had already begun retooling two plants in the United States and that the production of those plants would meet the estimated market demand, that the production of those plants was, in effect, tied to the availability of the power train components. They said to have made changes would mean, in effect, losing the investment that Chrysler had already made in beginning the retooling of those two plants in the United States. I hope that demand for these cars will grow so that we can validly raise again with Chrysler the matter of advancing the manufacture of a small front wheel drive car in the Windsor car assembly plant.
My hon. friend also asked about the matter of autonomy for the Canadian company. This will be pursuant to a restructuring plan which has to be worked out in a form regarded as suitable by me or the minister of the day. I want to repeat that this gives us a tremendous leverage to have real meaning in these clauses because, without such meaning the loan guarantees will not be available in 1982, as 1 have said; or if instalments have begun to be drawn down over 1982, further instalments do not have to be drawn down if the requirements of the minister are not met and existing instalments could be revoked.
The hon. member has suggested that the figures in the statement which will be in the operating plan of Chrysler for Chrysler Canada regarding employment would be lower than those they would have to meet in any event under the auto pact. I would say that the hon. member is quite wrong in this. In order to meet the requirements of the auto pact, it would be possible for Chrysler Canada to do just about what it is doing now, or less. Without the investment plan to which Chrysler is committed of $1 billion and the product mix also outlined in the financing, facilities and operations plan, we would not have the opportunity-indeed, more than the opportunity-to have employment at Chrysler Canada at the level of close to 16,000 by 1984.
It is quite possible and would be very easy for Chrysler to operate indefinitely at levels where they are operating now and meet the requirements of the auto pact, which are essentially that Chrysler produce finished vehicles in Canada at the same ratio as their sales in Canada.
I would say to the hon. member that, as far as the government and I are concerned, what we have negotiated would enable the restructuring of Chrysler Canada to take place, not simply to keep them afloat, not simply to enable operations to continue at present levels, but to enable Chrysler Canada to have products on the market that will be competitive in terms of fuel efficiency and size to meet the demands of consumers in the 1980s. This would therefore enable the restoration of
May 13, 1980

employment in Chrysler plants in Canada to above pre-layoff levels and to a level of close to 16,000, with all that means in terms of employment in supplier firms, in dealers and employment in an indirect way in all sorts of other companies in Canada.
To conclude, while my hon. friend suggests that the job guarantees were-1 think the word he used was farcical-this is certainly not the view of the Canadian director of the United Automobile Workers of Canada, Mr. Bob White. I see he is quoted by the Canadian Press as having praised my efforts in achieving job and investment commitments from Chrysler. I do not think that Mr. White, being a tough and skilled negotiator and a very outspoken person when it comes to putting his views on the public record, would have said that if he did not believe that the agreement was a lot better than what was suggested in the remarks of my hon. friend. In fact, 1 could be mistaken, but I recall a radio report indicating that Mr. White had said that the agreement which the federal government negotiated with Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Canada was the best agreement that could have been achieved under the circumstances.
These circumstances are very important. They involve the present situation of Chrysler Canada and the situation of the parent, as well as the reality of the very uncertain automotive market, not just now but for a number of years to come.
I say that on balance, and again repeating the words of the Canadian director of the UAW who represents the interests in terms of collective bargaining of the workers at Chrysler and its supplier firms, that this is a fair deal, and therefore a good deal for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. First, I greatly appreciate the efforts of the government. I said so during oral question period and the minister has surely received, as I did, the views of dealers in our respective constituencies who surely welcome the agreement, the government proposal which will finally allow us, as he said, to maintain 6,000 jobs, especially in Quebec.
I refer now to page 8. I hope that Chrysler Corporation will be in a position to find a source of materials and components in Canada. My question this afternoon-I now take this opportunity to refer to it-dealt with supplies and the minister will understand that we are talking about 6,000 jobs in Quebec, jobs which are directly or indirectly related to Chrysler Corporation. He also speaks of saving 40,000 jobs across Canada. Granted that is a high figure for the province of Quebec but it is still relatively low compared with the over-all Chrysler work force. I wondered to what extent representations were made to the minister. I should like to take this opportunity and ask him about the possibility of perhaps giving some consideration to subcontracting industries because, as the minister knows, where Quebec is concerned, there is very little direct participation in the manufacturing
Chrysler Canada
industry. 1 should like to know, in view of that $1 billion investment, just what could be considered as a legitimate and reasonable share of those investments for Quebec, in terms of manufacturing parts, if not the whole automobile.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I trust one of the results of the agreement between Chrysler and the federal government will be a sharing of the opportunities to manufacture parts throughout the country. Of course, that will depend in a way on the willingness of suppliers to tender for making such parts. Once again I want to mention to my hon. friend that Chrysler Canada already has important suppliers in the province of Quebec. For instance, Goodyear Canada Inc., at Valleyfield, supplies tires to Chrysler; Waterville Cellulose Products of Waterville, in the province of Quebec, supplies parts to Chrysler. I must not forget, above all, to mention Firestone Canada Ltd. which also manufactures tires for Chrysler and is operating out of the city of Joliette in the very riding of my hon. colleague.


Madam Speaker:: It being so late, perhaps we could terminate the questioning after the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. I see there is another member rising, and I will recognize just one more after the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I have three brief questions for the minister.
Could the minister confirm my understanding that up until this time there were in fact three major plants in Windsor, a van plant, an engine plant, a V-8 plant, and the Cordoba-New-port car assembly.
With respect to the van plant and the transfer to the new T-115, the world product mandate for the van, according to the minister's statement, runs out as soon as the company pays back the loans which the government is guaranteeing. Can the minister tell us whether he tried to get the world product mandate extended beyond that time so that Canada would be producing at least one world product, not just for a short period of time but for a longer period of time? Could he tell us why he was unsuccessful in that regard?
Second, can the minister confirm that, as of August, 1980, there will be no engine production in Canada?
Third, 1 noticed that he tells us with respect to the car assembly plant that none of the facilities of Chrysler Canada can be closed permanently without obtaining the approval of the minister. Now, the question as to what is a permanent closure will be an interesting discussion. For example, when one looks at permanent lay-offs in an industry under the employment standards act of Ontario, this is a subject which has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Ontario. It has been ruled that a permanent closing can be one that lasts for as long as a year, or even two years, under certain conditions.
If the market for larger cars continues to collapse the way it has collapsed, will the minister agree that there is a possibility

May 13, 1980
Chrysler Canada
that there will be very dramatic lay-offs in the car assembly plant until the time, 1983, for the construction of the K cars? Those are my three questions, Madam Speaker.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the world product mandate will extend not simply to the period of time ending when the plant is in production, but during the time of repayment of the loan, which 1 believe is at least five years after the plan begins operation. 1 think that that is quite an extensive period to market several models of a product of this type.
It would seem to me that if this product is successful, Chrysler would be most unlikely to discontinue the world production mandate for this van-wagon in the Windsor plant. As to whether anything additional could be obtained, there were very arduous negotiations and I can tell the House that if it were left up to Chrysler there would be no job guarantees whatsoever in the agreement. The words "jobs" would not have appeared anywhere in the agreement. There would have been no employment figures in it whatsoever. I refused to accept that on behalf of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy. In spite of what Mr. lacocca was saying at that press conference in Detroit the other week that there would be no job guarantees, we have job guarantees which the Canadian director of the UAW said were the best that could be obtained under circumstances that we are all so aware of in the North American automotive market.
With respect to engine production in Canada, it happened that before a final decision was made by the government of the nature and extent of aid to Chrysler Canada, Chrysler Corporation decided not to make the V-6 engine, which had been contemplated for the Windsor plant, anywhere in its operation. It decided it would purchase that engine elsewhere. The reason was it felt that to stay alive it had to cut $1 billion from its investment plans for North America, and the engine plant was included in that. I suppose that if the government had wanted to put up a couple of hundred million dollars more, it is theoretically possible that the plant might have stayed. But once-


Madam Speaker:: Do I have the consent of the House not to see the clock for a few minutes so that we can hear the answer of the minister and entertain a question from the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I thank the House for its courtesy. 1 will conclude my answer in a couple of minutes. Once the government had decided that our assistance to Chrysler should be in the same form as, and generally proportional to, the kind of assistance provided by the U.S. federal government-that is to say, loan guarantees in the amount of $200 million-then 1 had to negotiate to get the best possible deal within that mandate for Canada and Canadian workers.
Frankly, what we have here will create, if everything works out and the products are accepted in the market, more jobs for
Canadian workers in total than if the package had been built around the engine plant. On balance, I have to opt for restoration of jobs and for better, if everything works out, than simply some obviously interesting form of technology that would not have provided the jobs which, in my view, have to be our first priority and were my first priority at the outset.
To conclude, 1 want to answer my hon. friend's third question about the closing of plants. As 1 said in my statement, for the first time in any agreement that 1 am aware of between the government and a company, the agreement covers all the facilities of the company. It is not like the Ford agreement which applied only to the new Essex engine plant; it applies to all the facilities. I said when the content of the Ford engine plant agreement became known that there were lessons in that which I was trying to apply to the Chrysler situation, and it is obvious that I did so.
As to the definition of the word "permanent", 1 would again say that in my view that is up to the minister because it is the minister who decides whether the company is living up to its agreement such that it can get loan guarantees, or whether loan guarantees will remain in place.
The agreement has two very important aspects-and I am just coming to my conclusion, Madam Speaker-that will prevent that clause from, in effect, meaning a permanent closure of any plant. In fact, first of all there is the requirement to maintain employment in Canada proportionate to the employment of Chrysler in the United States. If a product, in my view, that is being manufactured in a Canadian plant is not selling and, as a result, it would mean that the employment in that Canadian plant would not be proportional to employment in the United States, the minister could require that steps be taken by Chrysler to have products in that plant to bring employment back to the proportional level, or he could refuse to authorize the loan guarantees to be put in place or remove them.
There is another very important aspect in the agreement, and that is that it is based on the total product facilities and financing plan which deals with product mix. There is no way that Chrysler could meet the obligations it has entered into by committing itself to the operating plan with respect to product mix if it did not use generally over the period of time covered by the agreement, in my view at least, all its facilities. This does not mean there could not be lay-offs or even temporary closings in response to market conditions, but in my view it would not be possible for Chrysler to meet the requirements of the plan with respect to product mix and the requirements of the agreement with respect to proportional employment if it intended to close permanently the plants that are covered by the agreement.
I repeat, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, there are many points that could be debated in this agreement. One could always argue that one clause might have been better or another clause might have been better; but looking at the balance of the agreement, after very arduous negotiations on behalf of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy, I

May 13, 1980

repeat that I believe we have a fair deal, and therefore a good deal for the Canadian economy and for Canadian workers.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I just have one and a half short questions. The part of the minister's statement that has really concerned me, and I raised it as part of a question the other day, was the statement on page 8 where he says: "Of course, Canadian suppliers will have to meet normal competitive requirements." I believe the minister is aware that about 75 per cent of the automotive component producers in Canada are subsidiaries of American companies, and those companies in many cases have no sales staff. They merely have a production facility here. They build upon demand order from their parent company in the United States.
Under those circumstances, I do not see how they can possibly be competitive. If the minister had said in his statement that they were going to encourage the Canadian automotive parts industry to move into a large orbit so that they could have larger and longer production runs in order to be competitive, that would be something else again. I am concerned about that.
Secondly, I am still not happy with the suggestion here that we also required in the agreement that "Chrysler Corporation transfer pricing practices will not work to the detriment of Chrysler Canada." I question why that statement is in there. There is a lot of hanky-panky can go on in transfer pricing. There are a lot of head office charges that can be transferred from the United States to Canada. Almost every component that goes into an automobile bears part of the cost of research and development, part of the overhead, part of advertising and a myriad of other charges.
1 want the minister to comment on this. Transfer of pricing practices is something that is going to have to be watched very closely, because therein lies whether or not this company is going to fly or fall down the tube in Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right when he says the transfer pricing practices between Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Canada will have to be watched very carefully, because there are various ways that transfer prices with respect to goods and services between a parent company in another country and a subsidiary in Canada can be adjusted-I was going to say manipulated. Perhaps I will. 1 will say manipulated in a way that is adverse to the interests of the subsidiary. It is because of these considerations that we insisted that a clause that transfer prices could not be developed in a way adverse to the interests of Chrysler Canada be put in the agreement. This is one aspect along with all the other aspects that will be monitored very closely.
My hon. friend has raised an interesting point with respect to purchasing by Chrysler Canada from Canadian parts manufacturers. I think that the aspects about which he is concerned will be dealt with in two ways. First of all, the restructuring plan on which we will be insisting under the agreement to make Chrysler Canada more autonomous will have in it the
Chrysler Canada
requirement for a Canadian-based purchasing department which will be in a position to seek out more actively than is the case at present Canadian suppliers for the production of Chrysler Canada, and that of the parent corporation for that matter.
Second, this agreement is not intended to cover the whole range of improvements we want to see in the Canadian automotive industry. This deals with what is almost an emergency situation, but obviously we have a number of other objectives we wish to accomplish for the Canadian automotive industry as a whole, for the Canadian parts industry in particular and its Canadian-controlled component.
We intend to have in place measures to make it easier for Canadian parts manufacturers, whether they are subsidiaries of foreign parent companies or Canadian-controlled firms, to be more competitive in terms of longer production runs, in terms of having the capital necessary to take advantage of sourcing opportunities to be made available as automobile manufacturers, including Chrysler, retool in order to meet product demands of the eighties. It is in this direction that we will respond to concerns raised by the hon. member which are the concerns raised by myself on a number of occasions which form part of my priorities for the Canadian automobile industry.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I said previously that I would recognize only the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling). It being so late, I must keep to that. Now I am in the hands of the House as to whether we should continue with routine proceedings or proceed to private members' business, or whether we should defer it until eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do it now.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 53, 330, 400, 564 and 565.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Between April 20, 1968 and the date the former government resigned from office, how many orders in council were passed?

May 13, 1980
Order Paper Questions
2. (a) How many are available for public scrutiny (b) how many are in any way classified?


David Michael Collenette: 1. 37,535.
2. (a) Except for pardons, all orders in council are available for public scrutiny. In the case of salaries, the salary range is public information but the actual salary of the incumbent is not made available.
(b) One.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) other employees were on the payroll of Nordair Limited as at March 31, 1979?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: (a) 1,113; (b) 71.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of the Yellowknife Transportation Company Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Yellowknife Transportation Company Limited has been inactive since 1966.
2. Nil.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons who are accredited diplomats from Roumania?
2.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons serving the Roumanian diplomatic service who are either non-Canadians or Roumanian Nationals?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Accredited Diplomats from Roumania
Name
Barbu Popescu Gheorghe Baltac Iaon Sebastian Anastasescu Vasile Trandafir Colonel Nicolae Calin
Gheorghe Zamfirescu Constantin Gingasu
Title
Ambassador Counsellor Second Secretary Third Secretary Military Naval and Air Attache Counsellor Second Economic Secretary
Date of Arrival November 30, 1975 September 29, 1979 October 31,1974 December 30, 1977 August, 1972
March 15, 1979 November 25, 1979
Members of the Staff-Roumanian Nationals
Gheorghe Mrvu Ion Bria I lie Teodorescu Tudor Vasile Niculae Moise
September 6, 1978 November 3, 1977 February 15, 1978 July 30, 1976 December 6, 1978


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons who are accredited diplomats from Bulgaria?
2.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons serving the Bulgarian diplomatic service who are either non-Canadians or Bulgarian Nationals?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Accredited Diplomats from Bulgaria
Name
Stefan Todorov Stanev Ivan Nedelev Christo Banov Andrey Transki Branimir Handjiev Strahie Tchervenkov Atanas Vlahov Milcho Nentchev Borislav Georgiev
Title
Ambassador Counsellor Second Secretary Second Secretary Second Secretary Consul-General Consul Consul Consul
Date of Arrival February 26, 1980 June 13, 1975 September 9, 1978 June 13, 1979 December 30, 1979 December 12, 1979 June 17, 1979 August 11, 1979 September 13, 1979
Members of Staff- Bulgarian Nationals
Nladen Gueorguiev	November 12, 1979
Valentin Tanev	April 14, 1979



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott)-Airports- Campaign promise to improve facilities at Mount Hope; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Energy- Assistance program for Atlantic region; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Employment-Summer youth employment projects-Reason for delay in approving applications.
May 13, 1980


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, since the first item on the agenda is an order of the House without debate or amendment, perhaps we could, with the agreement of all parties, dispose in a minute or two of this first item before starting members' hour so that tonight we can proceed with the second reading of the Bank Act.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald James Johnston: That Supplementary Estimates (A), 1980-81, laid upon the Table, Tuesday, April 22, 1980, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald James Johnston: That a sum not exceeding $20,003,428,213.05 being the aggregate of:
(a)	nine-twelfths of the total amounts of the items set forth in the Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1981, laid before the House of Commons on April 22, 1980, with the exception of Social Development Vote I, $18,701,054,379.72;
(b)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of Energy, Mines and Resources Vote L35, External Affairs Votes L35, L40 and L45, Regional Economic Expansion Vote 30, Transport Vote 35 and Treasury Board Vote 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $77,607,000.00;
(c)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of Agriculture Vote 10, Employment and Immigration Vote 30, Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 1 and 15, External Affairs Vote 15, Finance Vote 5, Indian Affairs and
Supply
Northern Development Votes 15, 30, L35 and L40, Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes 10, L30 and L40, Justice Vote 5, Labour Vote 5, Public Works Vote 35, Secretary of State Votes 20, 55, 80 and 105, Transport Vote L95 and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $675,361,325.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of Communications Vote 10, Employment and Immigration Votes 15 and 20, Energy, Mines and Resources Vote L80, Environment Vote 30, External Affairs Vote 25, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 20, 45 and L50, National Defence Votes 1 and 5, National Health and Welfare Vote 10, Privy Council Votes I and 20, Public Works Vote 30, Secretary of State Votes 15, 30, 50, 65 and 85, Supply and Services Vote 1 and Veterans Affairs Vote 25 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $549,405,508.33;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald James Johnston: that Bill C-29, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1981, be read the first time and be printed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-29 be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Madam Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I ask that all bills preceding Bill C-209 be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 13, 1980
Byelections



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot) moved: that Bill C-209, to amend the House of Commons Act (vacancies), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, in all fairness to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), and if there is unanimous consent, we should allow private members' hour to continue after six o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, the intention of Bill C-209 is to bring some order to the calling of byelections where there is the appearance of there being no order. At present the situation is such that not only members of the House but also their constituents are led to believe that there might be some playing around with the calling of byelections.
It happens that from time to time an extraordinarily long time elapses, sometimes exceeding three years, before a vacancy in the House is filled. At other times there would appear to be a parallel between the calling of a byelection by the government and the result of a Gallup poll which might be favourable to the government party and thereby trigger the initiation of a signal for a byelection. It is certainly not for me to impute motives to the government in the calling of a byelection at a given time, but so long as that suspicion remains among members or, what is more important, among constituents, it behoves us as members of Parliament to establish a system whereby byelections are called in accordance with an organized plan rather than at the whim of a government, whichever government it might be.
The intention of my bill is that, in the case of a resignation, a byelection would be called no later than 90 days following the resignation; and in the case of a death it would be called no later than 135 days following the death of a member. The reason for the difference in the number of days is that it seemed prudent, as well as courteous, in drafting the bill to ensure that in the case of a death a period of mourning be allowed for in a constituency. This would allow constituents to have a period of mourning prior to the calling for nominations before a byelection takes place.
[DOT] (D20)
The intent of the bill would be nullified six months prior to the normal termination of a Parliament.
I think it is fair to say that byelections should be for the benefit of constituents who are without representation. They
ought not to be for the purpose of serving a government in power, whatever its motives might be. In moving this motion I want it to be understood that our first and primary concern- and I hope it would be that among members of all parties in this chamber-should be the citizens of Canada who in some instances have gone unduly long without representation.
I bring this bill forward as a result of some personal experience.


Mr. Benjamin:: Don't talk out your own bill.


Arnold John Malone: When I was first elected to this House by the constituents of Battle River, I came here following the unfortunate death of my predecessor, Harry Kuntz. For more than a year his riding was without representation. I recognized the great frustration there was in my constituency when constituents did not have a member to whom they could go or someone upon whom they could call.
Because I come from a province which has traditionally voted for a party not aligned with the government of the day, the appearance was that the reason my constituents did not have representation was that such representation would not be of assistance to the government. Therefore, a byelection was held off.
In Canada presently the writ must be announced within six months of the time a seat is declared vacant. The unfortunate part is that even if that were adequate, the government could announce the byelection for any date, including four or five years down the road. That means that we could wait as long as six months to hear when a byelection would take place. That can and does happen, as it did in the case some years ago when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) came to this House. He came following a byelection which was the result of the passing of his predecessor, but the byelection was called for a date which would have to be at a time in which a general election would already have had to have been called.
Under today's parliamentary system the government is not bound at all ever to fill a vacancy if it should so choose. I think that leaves us in a position where our citizens are not well served. They are given no assurance or guarantee of their parliamentary system, and I think it behoves us to take into account the fact that constituents across Canada require a greater guarantee.
I have been a member of Parliament for six years. I have reflected for that period of time upon bringing some information to this House with respect to byelections. During the time I have been a member of Parliament 18 constituencies have been without members of Parliament for more than 200 days. In that same six-year period seven constituencies were without members of Parliament or representation for more than 300 days, and five were without representation for more than a year.
We should take into account the frustration there is in constituencies. All of us here need simply to reflect upon our own workloads to know the number of people who contact us

May 13, 1980

each day and the sense of frustration there must be among constituents who have the same concerns as any other citizens in Canada but who have no one to whom to turn or relate.
That is why this simple amendment to the House of Commons Act would provide that, in the case either of a death or a resignation, there would be a period of not more than 90 days or not more than 135 days in which a byelection would be called.
It is also interesting to note that the average number of days before elections were held in ridings which were held by Liberal members was 205 days. This is during the period of time I have been here. When a Progressive Conservative, New Democratic Party or Social Credit seat was vacant, the period was 287 days. When we consider that, we can say that it took longer for an opposition member to have his byelection called.
I do not think the number is significant enough to reflect a charge that it was purely for partisan reasons that a government would call a byelection at some particular time, but the fact is that, be it for government members or opposition members, the time is simply far too long to allow a constituency to be without a member. When we combine the figures both for the government side and for the two opposition parties and average them, it should be noted that seats have been vacant before byelections an average of 251 days. There have been some 27 byelections in that six-year period, 23 the result of resignation and four the result of death.
By contrast, we should look at other democracies around the world. In the United States, upon the death or resignation of a senator or congressman the governor of the state affected is empowered to appoint someone immediately to fill the vacated position.
In Great Britain the Speaker issues a warrant to the clerk of the Crown, who immediately issues a writ for byelection as *soon as the Speaker notes that the seat has been vacated, and nomination papers must be filed-and this is interesting-no later than nine days after the writ has been issued.
In Sweden every member has an alternate candidate who immediately takes the seat as soon as it is declared vacant.
In The Netherlands the seat is immediately filled by the first person who is priorized on the list of the party which forms the government. As soon as a seat is vacant the other person on that alternate list takes his place.
In countries such as Australia and New Zealand, when a seat is vacated it is almost immediately filled so that constituents can have representation.
When a bill somewhat similar to the one I am presenting today was proposed on November 25, 1977, the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) responded in part with the following words: "The cost of byelections is something which has to be taken into consideration because they are extremely expensive." Surely that is one argument we can dispel. Considering the money spilled every day in the operation of government, surely it does not make any sense to leave a seat vacant and people without representation for more than 200 days. In my six years the average has been 251 days. It should not
Byelections
make sense to us as parliamentarians to say to constituents that we would like to give them representation but it costs too much, because I do not think that washes in a democratic society, nor with the constituents who are without representation.
Further, the hon. member for Trinity argued against the bill on the basis that, without the government's prerogative of flexibility, we might be forced into a winter election, and how could we hold an election in places such as Yukon? If that was a valid argument in 1977, surely after the experience of 1980 it no longer is valid. Otherwise, members of the Liberal party would say that the last election should be thrown away because it was a winter election.
If we held an election again this summer, I think we would get better results. Nevertheless, we have had winter elections in Yukon and in the two Northwest Territories constituencies. In most of those northern provincial ridings, they all had elections this past winter. Simply I would say that when the argument comes as to representation versus whether you hold it at some time of the year, the fact of the matter is we are Canadians and we have winter every year. That is something which should not bother us. It might be chilly, but nevertheless the ink still goes on the ballot.
My good friend who is a member of the government party now, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), in that same debate of November, 1977, indicated that one of the advantages of the present system is that it allows the government to call byelections in a group which affords the government and opposition parties an opportunity to sound out public opinion. I think it is a blatant use of the byelection to say that we will hold them off and have them all in a group and that, when we hold them in a group, it will be some signal to the government or the opposition as to what some feeling or mood is out among the constituencies of Canada. The purpose of Parliament is to give a representation to the citizens of Canada. The purpose of holding byelections is to allow those citizens to continue their representation. The purpose of byelections is not to serve government or opposition parties, because there are other means and mechanisms for doing that.
If any members of this House, in reviewing the bill I have drafted and presented to the chamber, find that in some way they want to make some amendment to it in time or in some choice, I would be agreeable to that. But I am sure that on principle virtually all Canadians feel this is the kind of system we ought to lock into our parliamentary forum for the purpose of giving some sense of continuity and some sense of order to the calling of byelections, so that at least there will be the belief in the public that those byelections were called for the needs of the constituents and not for the purpose of a government holding on to power, extending its power, or doing whatever it might that would appear to be self-serving, even if that were not the motive of the government of the day.
With that in mind, I would simply want to say that there are other advantages to this bill which I could extend. There are

May 13, 1980
Byelections
many other countries we could reflect upon that have systems in place which assure that seats do not go vacant for extraordinary periods of time. 1 have had some private conversations with members of all parties in this Parliament. At least I know there is a private desire among many members of different political persuasion that such a bill be passed. I hope and urge that members will not talk this bill out until 6.15 p.m. or whatever time is allotted.


Mr. Rose:: That is what you are doing.


Arnold John Malone: I hope this bill will pass and go on to committee stage, so that whenever there is a vacancy the constituents will be assured, by the guarantee of Parliament, that they will have the right very quickly to have representation in a continued way, rather than this appearance at the present time that it is simply the will of the government that calls the date of a byelection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the bill before us, Bill C-209, an act to amend the House of Commons Act with regard to vacancies.
The present law with regard to the timing of the issuing of a writ for a byelection to fill a vacancy in the House of Commons is set out in subsection 13(1) of the House of Commons Act, which stipulates the following:
In the event of a vacancy occurring, a writ shall be issued within six months after receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of the warrant for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member of the House of Commons.
It should be noted that the six-month period referred to in subsection 13(1) is the maximum amount of time within which a writ must be issued. Although the writ must be issued within that six months, there is no limitation on when the polling day specified in the writ must be.
Subsection 13(1) does not apply where the vacancy, in respect of which the warrant has issued, occurs within six months of the expiry of the time limited for the duration of the House of Commons.
Section 107 of the Canada Elections Act provides the following:
Notwithstanding anything in this or any other act, where a writ has been issued ordering a byelection to be held on a date subsequent to the dissolution of Parliament, the writ shall, after a notice to that effect has been published in The Canada Gazette by the Chief Electoral Officer, be deemed to have been superseded and withdrawn.
A final provision of the Canada Elections Act that should be kept in mind in any discussion on the timing of byelections to fill vacancies in the House of Commons is rule 27 of Schedule A to section 18 of the act which, by prescribing by statute that the ex officio revising officer must, not later than the forty-fifth day before polling day, appoint substitute revising officers, requires that the length of a byelection campaign must be a minimum of 45 days. The bill now before us would reduce the time within which a writ for a byelection to fill a vacancy
in the House of Commons must be issued from six months to 45 days. It would also require that the polling day specified in the writ be within a certain time after the happening of the event causing the vacancy.
Subsection 2 of the proposed new section 13 of the House of Commons Act would require that the polling day named in the writ be no more than 90 days after the day a member tenders his resignation or accepts an office under the Crown. Subsection 3 would require that the polling day named in the writ be no more than 135 days after the date of the death of a member.
Similar bills to the one now under consideration have been introduced in every session of Parliament since the opening of the Thirtieth Parliament, particularly in the fourth session of the Thirtieth Parliament. The need for such legislation to require that vacancies in the House of Commons be filled in the most expeditious manner in order to ensure that all Canadians are properly represented in the House, is best illustrated by examining the vacancies that occurred between June 25, 1977, and May 2, 1978, which in turn were filled by byelections held on October 16, 1978. The usual practice is that when the Speaker of the House of Commons is notified of a vacancy in the House of Commons, he immediately addresses his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy. The Chief Electoral Officer usually receives the warrant on the same day the Speaker has been notified and has issued his warrant.
The writ specifying polling day for the byelections must be issued within six months after the receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of the Speaker's warrant. However, in the case of the vacancy in the electoral district of Lotbiniere in the province of Quebec, although the vacancy occurred on June 25, 1977, the Speaker was not officially informed of the vacancy until October 27, 1977, on which date he issued his warrant which was received by the Chief Electoral Officer on the same day. The writ for the byelection in Lotbiniere was issued on March 1, 1978, and specified October 16, 1978, as polling day. Therefore it is evident that in the case of the vacancy which occurred in Lotbiniere, there was a time period of approximately 18 months in which the people of that constituency were without representation. It can be seen that although the writ was issued just over four months after the Chief Electoral Officer received the Speaker's warrant, it was issued just over eight months after the seat actually became vacant. That is far too long for the people of Canada to be without representation in this House.
If we examine the other 14 electoral districts where byelections were held on October 16, 1978, we find that writs of election for Lotbiniere and eight others were issued on March 1, of that year. The relevant dates with regard to the eight electoral districts other than Lotbiniere are as follows: Fundy-Royal, New Brunswick, the date of vacancy was September 1, 1977; Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, British Columbia, September 5, 1977; Hamilton-Wentworth, Ontario, September 14, 1977; York-Scarborough, Ontario, November 9, 1977; Halifax-East
May 13, 1980

Hants, Nova Scotia, December 9, 1977; Westmount, Quebec, January 27, 1978; and Rosedale, Ontario, March 1, 1978.
On September 1, 1978, writs of election were issued for seven additional electoral districts, with polling day to be on the same day, October 16, 1978. The relevant dates with regard to those seven electoral districts are as follows: St. Boniface, Manitoba, the date of vacancy was March 23, 1978; the date of the warrant was April 3, 1978, rather quickly again, and the warrant was received by the Chief Electoral Officer on April 3 as well. For Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, Newfoundland, the relevant dates were March 23, April 3, and April 3 respectively. Likewise for Parkdale, the relevant dates were March 23, April 4, and April 4; for Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, the date being April 21, and so on down through to Eglinton, Ontario, the date being May 2, 1978.
It can be seen from the above that in the case of the last of the 15 vacancies to occur, in Eglinton, in Ontario, the writ of election was issued almost exactly four months after the vacancy occurred, and the byelection was held approximately five and a half months after the seat became vacant.
It should also be pointed out that in the case of the last seven vacancies referred to earlier, the byelections were held within the absolute minimum amount of time after the writs were issued, namely, 45 days. The last seven writs were issued on September 1, 1978, and the byelections were held on October 16, 1978.
Even though seven of the byelections were held within the minimum possible time after the writs were issued, the minimum amount of time between the date of the vacancy and the date of the byelection, in the case of Eglinton, was approximately five and a half months. That again is still far too long for people to be without representation in this House.
Bill C-209 would reduce the length of time which an electoral district may remain without representation from an indeterminant time to a maximum of 135 days in the case of the death of a member of Parliament and a shorter time of a maximum of 90 days in other cases such as a vacancy occurring as a result of the resignation of a member or by his accepting an office under the Crown. Those time limits seem reasonable to me.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, although there is always room for discussion of what precisely the limits on the discretion of the government in regard to the timing of byelections should be, I would like to indicate my support for the principle expressed in this bill put forward by the hon. member opposite.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I only want to rise briefly to support the bill of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). I hope the government will accept it. We have had crazy situations occur in respect of byelections when vacancies resulted in this House. 1 remember that in 1971 almost six months elapsed, and finally a colleague of mine gave official notice to the Speaker of the vacancy. Then
Byelections
the government had six months more, or longer, to call the byelection.
Many of us have felt for a long time that when a vacancy occurs it should be the responsibility of the Speaker to give notice of the vacancy, because the Speaker and the administration of the House of Commons know when the pay allowances stop and a pension starts. That should be sufficient notice of the vacancy, and the Speaker could so advise the House. The government would then have a very limited period of time in which to call a byelection.
We agree with the legislation and hope the government will accept it so that it can proceed to the committee where, I am certain, it will be dealt with quickly. It can then come back here and become the law of the land. We will then no longer have those spectacles which have occurred in previous decades, resulting from the playing around with the calling of byelections to fill vacancies in this House. I agree with what both previous speakers have said. Every constituency in the country is entitled to representation full time in this Parliament. While I might feel that the length of time the hon. member's bill provides is a little bit too long, we will not argue over details. Let us get it done.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, 1 too would like to say a few words on Bill C-209. The sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), has cited a number of precedents in other jurisdictions, giving examples of how it is done elsewhere. I want to respond quickly to one or two of the points he has made before addressing myself to the substance of the bill.
He cites what is the practice in the British system, and, while that certainly has some merit from his point of view, I would caution him about the British system where the calling of a byelection is automatic, with the result that there is no interference or decision required by the government of the day or the prime minister. Because of the automatic nature of the British proceeding it is possible for a member to be returned in a byelection, as ludicrous as it sounds, after the House has been dissolved. Indeed, that very circumstance happened in a most recent case where the Labour government fell and there was a member returned three days after the government had been defeated in the House and a date has been set for a new election. While he may see some merit in systems elsewhere, he should be aware of the weak points of those practices.


An hon. Member:: We can fix that up in committee.


Roger Simmons: I am sure we can fix it up in committee.
1 find members of the NDP suddenly very co-operative. They are in a co-operative mood and are suddenly for something. They suddenly have a position on something, and that alone makes history in this particular chamber. I am not sure what it is they are for. They are for more talk in committee, and they are very good at that. They have often come down on both sides of things. 1 advise the hon. member for Crowfoot

May 13, 1980
Byelections
not to hold his breath in terms of getting support from the NDP on this particular issue. All they are saying now is that they will talk about it, but they may come down on both sides of it as they did on the guns and butter issues last February, and as they are doing on the referendum issue right now. Unfortunately they are on both sides of that one too. They will help the hon. member in committee. They will do some talking for him, but I hope he does not count on their vote.
I say to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Crowfoot, that he can count on my vote if it comes to the committee because 1 support the principle of the amendment he proposes in this chamber today. The principle is good, and I agree with his sentiments that the people of any particular constituency in this country should not be victimized by being without representation in their Parliament because of circumstances beyond their control, such as the death of the incumbent or the resignation, for whatever reason, of the incumbent. 1 do not think anybody in this chamber can dispute the principle of his bill.
I want to raise with the hon. member one other matter. I listened very carefully to what he had to say in respect of Bill C-209, and he did not say where his party stood on this particular piece of legislation. 1 waited to hear that. We all know what happened to the gentleman who rose to speak at the same time I did, that hon. member who sponsored what may well be, or would have been but for his leader, a historymaking resolution in this chamber late last week.
Those two members, the hon. member for Crowfoot, and the hon. member who proposed the resolution the other day, ought to get together, because I suggest to my friend, the hon. member for Crowfoot, that his colleague had a very bitter experience the other day. He moved a resolution which had the unanimous support of those in the chamber at that particular time, and I say to him that is what is important. Those who were in the chamber at that time, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the opposition House leader and the House leader for the New Democratic Party, supported the resolution unanimously. However, the hon. member's mistake, and 1 wonder if it may also have been the mistake of the hon. member for Crowfoot is that he did not check with his interim leader.
His mistake is that he did not ask the interim leader, the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), where he stood on the issue. But then he found out, to his sorrow, where his interim leader stood. Not only did he find out, but the whole country found out that the hon. member for Yellowhead wanted to bog the issue down further. He, too, wanted to be on both sides of the issue. With that kind of unqualification, the Leader of the Opposition should be leading the NDP.
What I would like to ask the hon. member for Crowfoot, who sponsored this very commendable piece of legislation, is where does his party stand on this bill? Is it unanimously for his bill? Does that unanimity include the Leader of the Opposition? The hon. member nods in agreement.


Arnold John Malone: You will recall that he called the last two byelections.


Roger Simmons: I am glad that the hon. member for Crowfoot has reminded us of the two byelections. 1, together with my good friend, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hov-debo), was involved in those byelections. The hon. member has done his homework on those points very well. I was very impressed with his knowledge of who had died and when, and why they died. One thing which the hon. member avoided saying was that in the one or two cases where, during a Tory government in this country, there were byelections in this country one of them was in the riding of Burin-St. George's, which I have the honour to represent.
The byelection was made necessary by the resignation of the Hon. Don Jamieson on either May 29 or May 30, as I recall. The election took place fully six months later. I say to the hon. member for Crowfoot that if he has the unanimous backing of his party now, including the backing of his interim leader from Yellowhead, congratulations, because he has arranged for the member for Yellowhead to have yet another about-face. It will pale into insignificance in terms of the Jerusalem about-face, the flip-flop on the embassy.
The other flip-flop which we could talk about is the flip-flop on no tax increases. Indeed, that party intended to cut taxes by $3 billion until "merchant John" for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) got hold of the Department of Finance and threw all of the budget cuts out the window. Instead of the $3 billion in cuts, we were suddenly hearing about great tax increases. That party is good at flip-flops, but that is another issue.


An hon. Member:: What does it have to do with the issue?


Roger Simmons: It does not have a lot to do with the issue. It is just a simple little example for simple little people so that they may understand what I am talking about, particularly the people in the NDP. Sometimes one must talk in parables in order to get one's point through to certain people, and if that becomes necessary I will do so. I am making the point that if the hon. member for Crowfoot has indeed succeeded in getting unanimity within his party on this matter, then I say congratulations to him, because he has done something which the people of Canada could not do with this particular leader of that party.
Last week I and everybody in this chamber were party to what could have been a history-making resolution. But then outside this chamber the hon. Leader of the Opposition scuttled the entire action of this Parliament. Before I can vote for this bill before us today, I would like to know whether he intends to continue that kind of despicable practice. The hon. member is not here to speak to the bill. Is he conveniently absent? Does he agree with it? I know what the Leader of the Opposition did in the case of the Burin-St. George's riding- he held off for six months, and all the time I was itching to get here. For six full months he held off.
Now what are we told, that he has had another change of heart, another Damascus Road experience? Has he suddenly
May 13, 1980

seen a blinding light? Has he suddenly been awakened to what is the right thing to do? Where is the hon. member? Is he in the environs of the House? Could he come into the House and tell us where he stands? We have learned a lesson in the last week, that in so far as the official opposition is concerned, it is not enough to have the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) tell us where he stands on banking definitions, because that is not necessarily where his party stands at all. It is not enough to have the hon. member who sponsored the resolution last week about patriating the constitution tell-


Mr. Yurko:: Edmonton East.


Roger Simmons: 1 thank the hon. member for letting me know his constituency. 1 apologize to him for not knowing it. It is not enough for the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) to tell us where he stands on patriating the constitution, unless we know where his party stands. It is the same with this particular case.


An hon. Member:: Let's get it to committee.


Roger Simmons: What goes on in those committees, Mr. Speaker? This gentleman down here is all excited about getting this bill into committee. He just had his chance. We have heard his views, such as they were. He supports the bill. The hon. member probably did not hear me, but I said that I support the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then sit down.


Roger Simmons: In order for this bill to get through this House, I want to know where the official opposition stands. The hon. member for Crowfoot, who is in the caucus of the official opposition, avoided saying where his party stands. I do not suggest that he avoided saying so deliberately, but he did not say where the official opposition stands. Perhaps he, like I, learned a valuable lesson last week, thanks to the hon. member for Edmonton East, that if one wants to know where the official opposition stands on any particular minute-and it may change from minute to minute-the very least one should do is insist that the Leader of the Opposition be dragged into the chamber, and dragged to his feet to tell us where he stands.
The Leader of the Opposition is at that point in time where he is concerned, as we all are from time to time, about security of tenure. He is not sure how long the job will last. But in the interest of making it last as long as possible, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is doing some fairly unpredictable things these days. The one place where the hon. member knows that he can have the undoubted support of his caucus is in this chamber when he stands up to say something. For that reason hon. members will notice that he is not saying much in the chamber these days. Could we have the Leader of the Opposition come into the chamber and tell us where he stands on Bill C-209? Is he for it? Can the member for Crowfoot indicate that he is for it? Let the records show, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Crowfoot has informed this House that his leader, the hon. member for Yellowhead, is in favour of this piece of legislation.
Byelections
Now we should all watch, with bated breath, the television news tonight because, even as I talk, the Leader of the Opposition is probably out there undercutting his friend from Crowfoot, just as he undercut the hon. member for Edmonton East, all in the interest of getting his face on television and having another television interview.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: He is back-no, that is not the leader, it is the gentleman from Alberta, but not at the moment at least, the leader. I am sure he is aware of it. I am talking about the present Leader of the Opposition. I would note that at this moment he is for the legislation; that is good news indeed, but I warn the hon. member for Crowfoot that as we speak, as he rises and supports the bill, his leader is out there somewhere, wherever he can find a camera, doing something to cut the very legs from under the hon. member. I hope not, because this bill is a commendable piece of legislation and I invite all hon. members of the House to give it their vigorous support.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, this bill brings back some memories, particularly the fact that the first time I was elected it was in a byelection held on the resignation of one of the most distinguished senators in this country, Senator Manning. That happened in a winter when we had the coldest period in the province of Alberta on record. So, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to suggest that there cannot be a byelection in the wintertime.
Bill C-209 is, I believe, sound in principle. It can be applied administratively without difficulty. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the question regarding second reading of Bill C-209 and referral to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be now put.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is moved by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) and seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the question regarding second reading of Bill C-209 and referral to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: A point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is debatable. I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette).


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, this is highly irregular.


An hon. Member:: No, it is not.


David Michael Collenette: If we get down to brass tacks, we made a special order in this House less than an hour ago out of courtesy to the opposition and the hon. member for Crowfoot

May 13, 1980
Byelections
(Mr. Malone) to allow him extra time. Most of the afternoon was taken up on motions, routine proceedings, statements by ministers, and the question period was an extremely long one, so we sought unanimous consent to continue until 18 minutes past six and we are proceeding-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor for a point of order. When I have heard him I shall listen to any other points of order.


David Michael Collenette: We are proceeding in the normal way for private members' hour. If hon. members on the other side do not agree with remarks made by members on this side or of any other party, that should not enter into the question at all.
1 would say it is only natural courtesy that we continue until we dispose of this question, either by referring it to the committee for second reading or by the expiry of the hour. That is the way we do business around here, Mr. Speaker. If the opposition is going to come forward with motions at private members' hour-and I am not sure whether this motion is in order and can be put at this time and I would ask you to rule on that-then the whole complexion of private members' hour debate will be changed.
Private members' bills and motions are not always talked out. Some of them reach committee. In fact last week we dealt with a motion or a bill of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on the question of Canada Day, which in the Thirtieth Parliament had been sent to the standing committee for consideration. Yet, when it was brought back last week hon. members on the other side talked it out. It works both ways, Mr. Speaker.
If there is a fundamental disagreement it is sometimes the government that talks the motions out. That is not to say that this particular bill would be talked out. I think it is an extreme discourtesy in this House, after we have made a special order-


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker-


David Michael Collenette: -in deference to the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has risen on a point of order and I recognized him. I am inviting him to comment on the motion which is before us.
I have accepted the motion; it appears to be in order according to the rules and it is a debatable motion. If the parliamentary secretary has any further comment, I would be interested to hear.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I think there are many members on this side of the House who will want to speak to the motion now that you have accepted it. If you have accepted it, obviously I do not have a point of order because 1 was really arguing about the whole question of its admissibility at this point.
If you wish, I shall now sit down and rise again and speak on the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) is rising on a point of order. Does he want to state his point of order?


William J. Yurko: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I find that the procedure in the House is somewhat irregular according to my understanding of procedures in legislatures and the House of Commons. You were in the middle of a vote, Mr. Speaker. You asked for "yes" and we responded, and in fact we voted. In fairness to everyone concerned-


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair had a motion placed before it. The Chair has ruled that the motion is in order. The Chair is recognizing those who want to speak to the motion. I will call it again.


Roger Simmons: I should like to speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons).


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the motion now before the House is that the question be put. That is a debatable motion. 1 want to speak to the merits of putting the question at this time and I submit that is my prerogative.
I happen to know that there are at least two other members on this side of the House-


An hon. Member:: Three.


Roger Simmons: I am now informed there are three members. Do I hear four?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sold!


Roger Simmons: There are three or four members on this side of the House who have made exhaustive preparations in order to address themselves to Bill C-209. For some reason an effort is being made through this motion to apply a guillotine and force a vote. We all know that is perfectly legitimate. I submit it is railroading, but it is a legitimate motion under the rules of this House. We have a legitimate option in this chamber to vote against the motion that the question now be put. That is our right, and I give notice now that although I have spoken in the debate I have enough loyalty to my colleagues that I would like to hear what they have to say.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the motion now before the House, the motion that the question now be put. I do not think it is fair. We have only been discussing the bill for 50 minutes or so and it involves a fairly important change in the legislation. It is a change with which I
May 13, 1980

agree and I said so, but nevertheless I do not think we do justice to this piece of legislation if there are others who want to speak to it.
We ought not to apply a guillotine and deprive members of this chamber of the opportunity of addressing themselves to Bill C-209. I would therefore invite my colleagues on all sides to vote against this guillotine motion and allow other members of the chamber to be heard on the subject. There are three or four members on this side who wish to speak, and I am sure there are others on the other side who would like to address themselves to the resolution.
I invite members of the chamber to vote against the motion now before us that the question be put, in order that we may hear our colleagues.


Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that private members' hour is an opportunity for us to present suggestions and to move private bills and that it allows members who want to take part in the discussion to do so. That is why today, because I am in favour of the bill before us, I spent long hours preparing what 1 would say. But if at every debate during private members' hour there is a proposal like the one made tonight I think it will become quite dangerous because whenever a member wants his bill to be passed all he will have to do is to propose it.
That will end the debate and will force a vote. But 1 think that limits the freedom of members of this House to take part in an extremely important and legitimate debate. It is our role to participate in debates. I think that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) indeed tried to impose on us a system which, to my mind, is not democratic because it is precisely our role to consider bills and to try to weigh all the pros and cons. Today, we find out that we cannot speak in this House which is supposed to be a place for debates. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I find 1 must reject the proposal put forth by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those other members who wish to speak on the bill, but now I will have to address myself to the motion. The first thing I must say about this motion is that it strikes me as being one of the most hypocritical acts I have seen in this House in a long time. As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said, we agreed to extend the sitting hours this evening in order that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), who introduced a very worth-while bill, would have the full hour to discuss this bill. Then we had a stunt pulled on us, a swifty.
On various occasions between 1974 and 1979 when the government brought in rule 75 to limit the time of debate, I recall the howls of outrage, the wringing of hands, the crocodile tears, the screaming of "guillotine" from the other side of
Byelections
the House, were something that would bring tears to the eyes of a blind sow. But now we have the very same people, or at least one of them, doing what they condemned over and over again when we were in power for doing it in a legitimate fashion after many hours of debate in every case. Yet in the last parliament we saw the government of that day bring in the guillotine rule, or limitation of debate, at the very moment of introducing a bill.
There is just no consistency in the way that party behaves. Not only is their interim leader inconsistent, but it seems that many of their members are inconsistent as well. This is an outrage against this House after the House agreed to an extension of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is a discourtesy to the members of this House. This should not go unchallenged, and 1 will now have to vote against this motion even though I had intended to speak briefly on the bill and to support the principle in the bill presented by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made very clear that the motion is perfectly in order. The motion was put after two members-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot speak again on the motion that he has placed before the House.


An hon. Member:: Learn the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House has a motion before it. The House is debating the motion, as is its right to do. I will now recognize another speaker. In this case I am recognizing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Laniel).


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up the remarks just made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). Having been here for 18 years I have heard the Tory opposition and even sometimes the NDP complain about the arrogance of this government which on a few occasions, to run the business of the country, had to resort to Standing Order 75C or what the other side used to call closure to make progress in the government's business. Here they are now, unexpectedly, at the last minute, without any warning, calling for the question early in a debate interesting all members.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that even in the case of Standing Order 75C, the rules call for notice to be given, and if the hon. member wants to refer to Standing Order 33 and read it carefully, even then, a minister must rise to give notice of closure, and I want to quote Standing Order 33, at page 26, which reads as follows:

May 13, 1980
Bank Act
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in Committee of the Whole, any minister of the Crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice-
-he has to give notice at the previous sitting-
-of his intention so to do may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.

Order, please. It being 6.15 p.m. and the hour provided for the consideration of private member's business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.18 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-6, to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation which is facing this Parliament, recognizing full well that this is not the first Parliament that has dealt with this particular piece of legislation. Many of my constituents, both individuals and small businesses in the municipality of Burnaby have expressed their serious concerns about a number of aspects of this bill. I hope to deal with some of those in the course of my remarks this evening.
There have been a number of important points made by previous speakers in this debate, and a number of statements which I feel I should make some reference to in the course of my remarks. 1 should also indicate, in view of the proceedings earlier today and the letter which was sent out by the manager of Consumer and Commercial Banking Services of the Royal Bank of Canada, that I do not have any bank accounts. I conduct my financial transactions through the Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.
Referring to some of the remarks made earlier in this debate, in particular certain remarks made by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), 1 believe he was attempting to skate around a very important point which was made by my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). I would like to clear up that particular concern briefly.
My colleague reported quite accurately that since 1976 the Canadian chartered banks have doubled their assets and profits. The member to my right, in each sense of the word, tried to obscure this by declaring that the increased profits of the banks was due to inflation, and stated that all prices had doubled since 1969. In the meantime, he claimed "that profits of the major banks have in fact declined in the past year." The hon. member might be forgiven his inability to hear or understand my colleague's argument, but his claim with respect to bank profits must certainly be corrected. In fact, as my colleague pointed out, bank profits have increased by some 480 per cent since 1970.
In our consideration of this bill we have to address ourselves to a number of important questions, including the scale of banks, their crucial role in the Canadian economy, the effects of their overseas operations and their conduct in this country. It is important that the economic power of these institutions must be employed in the interests of all of the people of Canada and not merely in the interests of a few large corporations and their controllers. We should press for a significant public presence in the banking field. We should press for responsible disclosure of the activities of the banks, both at home and abroad. We should require the banks to conduct themselves more equitably in their relations with their employees.
Let us look for a moment at these institutions to see what an important part of the Canadian economy they represent. The Canadian chartered banks held among them assets of more than $235 billion on February 29 of this year. The five largest chartered banks had among them about $212 billion of these assets or more than 90 per cent of the total. I might point out that this has increased from some $163 billion that the five banks held in assets in 1978.
These same five banks, the big five, have increased their profit position, in contradiction to the statements made earlier in the House by the hon. member for Mississauga South. In 1979 the profits of the big five banks increased by 21.9 per cent over the preceding year. I might point out that is an increase in total profits from $904 million in 1978 to $1,102 billion in profits last year.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank, for example, raised its profits by 24.1 per cent, the Bank of Nova Scotia by 17.5 per cent, the Bank of Montreal by 18.5 per cent, and the Royal Bank by 15.7 per cent. The only one of the big five to have an off year was the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Its profits increased by only 4 per cent over the $193.5 million it had earned in 1978 when it was second in profits only to the Royal Bank's $233.9 million. Not only have these firms amassed great reserves of wealth, but very importantly they are also
May 13, 1980

able to affect which spending projects will go ahead and which will not. This directly affects the futures of Canadian small businesses, farmers, working people and their families.
The banks control the future of these people, not only because of very large cash reserves in investment portfolios, but also because of the very carefully placed directors whom they share with the nation's large resource, manufacturing and agricultural corporations.
As one diligent Canadian sociologist points out, and I quote:
The boards of all the major banks consist of representatives of all the top 100 corporations. The Royal Bank includes members from Abitibi Paper, Algoma Steel, Asbestos Corporation, Canadian Pacific, B.C. Forest Products, Imperial Oil, Imascoand Noranda.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce includes representatives from Bell Canada, B.C. Telephone, Canada Cement Lafarge, Canada Packers, Crown-Zellerbach, Domtar, Falconbridge Nickel, Hollinger Mines, MacMillan Bloedel, Massey Ferguson, Noranda, Simpsons, TransCanada Pipe Lines; and the Bank of Montreal includes representatives from Alcan, B.C. Sugar Refinery, Bell Canada, Brinco, Canada Cement Lafarge, Canadian Forest Products, Canadian Pacific, Eatons, Seagrams, International Nickel, Molsons, Rothman's and the Steel Company of Canada. In addition, other financial corporations, such as Power, Argus, Brascan, the insurance companies and other financial institutions are well represented. Indeed, each is many times represented both through the main holding company and through the subsidiaries.
It is through this network of companies and through their own subsidiaries and connections with foreign banking firms that the big Canadian banks channel funds into some very dubious activities indeed, both in this country and abroad.
Before 1 mention some of the activities of Canadian banks in countries overseas, I should like to point out some of the dubious places where bank funds are being channelled right here in Canada, and I am referring specifically to the Liberal and Conservative parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: In 1978, the last year for which records are available-I will be looking with interest at the updated figures this year-the following contributions are recorded in the Liberal party receipts. These are gifts to our friends on the other side of the House. The Bank of Montreal, $25,000; the Bank of Nova Scotia, $20,000; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, $25,000; the Royal Bank, $25,000; Toronto-Dominion Bank, $20,000-all five of them in the pockets of the Liberal party. We have all heard the tale that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Not to leave the Conservatives to one side, let me point out that these gifts matched almost exactly those that were received by the Tories from the same sources. The only difference was that the Conservatives received $20,098.75 from the Bank of Nova Scotia and $25,351 from the Bank of Commerce. All the rest were the same. So now perhaps we understand somewhat more clearly why both the Liberals and the Conservatives are conspiring to push this legislation through the House as quickly as possible. I do not have to add that there are no such receipts from the banks in the records of the NDP, which is a party which is democratically financed.
Bank Act
It is worth keeping these investments by the banks in mind when we hear the government and Tory members in the House eagerly calling for rapid passage of this legislation and telling us how many times it has been before committees and before the House.
Let us look at some of the many investments that Canadian banks have made beyond this nation's borders. Earlier in the discussion of this bill we heard the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) describing vividly some of the effects of Canadian bank loans in a country like Jamaica. Although the banks are extremely reluctant to release information about their overseas loans, they have certainly been active in some of the more, shall we say, interesting parts of the world. Tonight I will mention only two, namely, South Africa and Chile. In the latter country, researchers have turned up a number of recent loans by Canadian banks acting as members of international consortia. Canadian banks are known to have participated in some 68 consortium loans to Latin American countries in
1978,	and 75 in 1979. Of the $10.6 billion and $13.9 billion lent in those respective years, the Canadian component is difficult to determine. However, we do know that there have been recent Canadian loans to Chilean agencies, for example, the Bank of Nova Scotia's recent participation, a $70 million loan, to the Compania Manufactura Papeles y Cortones, CMPC, advertised in the periodical Chile News in October,
1979.
Others include the Bank of Montreal's participation in a consortium that lent $81 million to the Chilean national electrical company, ENDESA, advertised in Chile Economic News in August, 1979. Another one is to the National Bank of Canada and the Toronto-Dominion Bank, members of a consortium which lent $ 105 million to the Banco de Chile.


An hon. Member:: What are banks for?


Svend Johannes Robinson: I hear some speakers for the banks in the Tory party who are attempting to justify these loans. If they would stand up and do that, they will have their chance, Mr. Speaker. The same two banks, namely, the National Bank of Canada and the Toronto-Dominion Bank, were also members of a consortium which lent $53 million to the Banco de l'Estado de Chile, reported in the Financial Times of London on December 13, 1979. These are only a few of the recent loans that Canadian banks have made to the bloody, repressive Pinochet regime in Chile.
I should like to point out that earlier, in 1976, the Royal Bank on one occasion made a $125 million loan to a Chilean agency, even though British and European banks had refused to make a similar loan.
Efforts to find out the extent of bank dealings in foreign countries have not been very fruitful. The Parliamentary Library, the Bank of Canada, and the Inspector General of Banks all reported that they could not say how much money Canadian banks have invested in individual countries overseas. A member of my staff, for example, was told by an official in the Inspector General's office that even though such information had been compiled, the statistics cannot be made public.

May 13, 1980
Bank Act
Indeed, he said that the Bank Act prohibits the release of such information. I do not see anything in this bill being defended so vociferously by my friends to the right which would lift this cloak of secrecy surrounding the lending policies of Canadian banks.
Information about South African investments has been particularly difficult to obtain. However, the Montreal Star reported on May 19, 1979, that:
-since 1970 South Africa has borrowed more than $7 billion from western banks, but the extent of the financial role played by Canadian banking institutions is cloaked in secrecy.
The Montreal Gazette reported in March of the same year that during 1976 banking consortia with Canadian participants lent about $250 million to South Africa, and by the end of that year outstanding loans to South Africa totalled about $2 billion.
On February 27, 1978, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that:
-secret documents released in the United States . .. show that three Canadian banks lent a total of $19.5 million to the South African government and two of its agencies in the early 1970s. The Bank of Commerce lent $6 million, the Bank of Montreal, $7.5 million and the Toronto-Dominion, $6 million as participants of banking consortia.
The task force on churches and corporate responsibility estimates, in a brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in November, 1978, that between 1972 and 1976 private Canadian financial aid to the South African government-the estimate does not include loans to private firms-amounted to approximately $684 million to that government which is promoting apartheid and which is condemned in other forums by the present government and, indeed, by representatives of the previous government.
In March of this year the same organization reports that the Toronto-Dominion Bank lent $2.68 million to the South African State electrical sytem, ESCOM. As my friend, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) stated earlier in this debate, the bank has since said that it will not renew this loan or any other similar loans to South Africa. So far it is alone in that policy. However, this loan was made without any sort of review of its effect on South Africa, on Canadian foreign policy or on the Canadian economy.
That is the point, that the banks are taking decisions of this sort in secret without any review by the Government of Canada, the representatives of the people. The evidence at hand points not only to the bad effects that some of these loans have on the people of the receiving countries, but also to the bad effects they have on the Canadian economy. The effects of Canada's bank investments overseas and their effects on the Canadian economy go hand in hand. They can be seen right at the core of the act that the Liberal government and its Tory predecessor have placed before the House. The bill will allow foreign banks to compete with domestic banks. It will speed up the process of penetration of the Canadian financial market, which my Conservative friend is supporting, by foreign banks, which was begun after the 1967 Bank Act revision.
The government has justified this penetration in the name of increased competition. I submit that this is just so much veneer, that the real reason for the government's and the private banks' willingness to open the door to foreign banks is what is known as reciprocity. What this means is that the Canadian banks, which do about one-third of their business outside the country, want to get more leeway to operate in foreign countries, and to do that they are offering the Canadian national market as a bargaining token.
I refer to the Canadian Business magazine supplementary "Focus" for April, 1980, which states that the five major Canadian banks operate more that 300 branches, agencies and controlled subsidiaries in about 60 countries. The same article quotes the Royal Bank head and outgoing president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, Mr. Frazee, as saying that the big banks' "appetites are clearly growing" for foreign investments.
Banks that were once merely national players arc now being catapulted into international competition because the world opportunities for business and the needs of their customers force them to move out-
So, and I quote:
-Canada as the most trade-dependent of the industrialized nations, has no other realistic alternative.
This places the question in a somewhat different light. What the Liberals are asking us to do is to approve and make legal the banks' own rationalization for the necessary evil of letting foreign banks have the same rights here that our banks want to obtain in other countries. You will note that the reasoning so far is not made in terms of the interests of the Canadian people or the interests of the Canadian economy but, rather, in terms of the increased profitable operations of the Canadian banking system. This does not look particularly good for the banks or the government, so we are slipped the guise of improved competition. Foreign banks, we are told, will increase the competitiveness of the Canadian financial system. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian banks' foreign operations will not help the performance of the Canadian economy, nor will the invasion by the foreign banks themselves.
Canada is already in the peculiar situation of having large financial outflows which are severely damaging our balance of international payments. Even though the large banks are able to channel large amounts of investment capital into overseas investments, Canada continues to experience a chronically severe balance of payments deficit. For example, during the period between 1976 and 1978 this deficit averaged $4.48 billion on current account, and of this deficit business services such as insurance premiums, other insurance transactions, consulting and other professional services, commissions, scientific research, product development, equipment rentals, franchises and similar rights and other services accounted for a net average outflow of over $1 billion annually.
Even more serious is the outflow, averaging more than $3.5 billion annually, of interest and dividend payments. The fact is
May 13, 1980

that even though we have in this country some of the world's largest banks, Canada's local, regional and provincial governments and firms have to go outside the country to borrow.
The Canadian chartered banks are asking for increased leverage to expand their foreign operations at a time when the cost in terms of the balance of payments of Canadian borrowing outside our country has reached almost $4 billion a year, up substantially from approximately $3.5 billion last year and $2.7 billion in 1977, according to statistics just released by Statistics Canada. These are interest payments. Between 1976 and 1978 Canadian governments borrowed an average of $5 billion on international-mainly New York-money markets. Even though the banks claim that there have been compensating returns from foreign loans, this does not appear to be the case so far. Over the same three years the balance of payments statistics reveal that inflows of interest payments, that is, flows into Canada, totalled only $230 million, $224 million and $266 million in the three preceding years, so there has been an actual decline in the amount of the inflow of interest payments. The outflow of funds for foreign borrowing and the outflow of funds for the establishment of bank branches and subsidiaries in other countries do our country no good whatsoever.
What we do need is significant public involvement in banking itself and in the regulation of banks' lending and investment policies, and I am pleased to see the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is supporting that policy. This would ensure that these large financial intermediaries are channelling funds not merely for the sake of their own private profit but also in the interests of all Canadian people who depend on their investing and lending decisions. What is needed is not increased participation in the Canadian economy by foreign multinational banking operations. Such firms will only duplicate the services already offered by Canadian banks and squeeze existing competitors such as caisses populaires and credit unions. What is needed is government support for caisses populaires and credit unions. These are responsible local and community-controlled organizations.
Statistics from the Bank of Canada show that in 1979 foreign banks already operating in Canada concentrated their activities in the high profit business loan area. Some 51.6 per cent of their loans were of this nature, while only 16.9 per cent were in short-term paper, 10 per cent in leasing, and 8.8 per cent in real estate and construction loans and a similar amount in loans to their foreign parents and affiliates.
Because of their connections with other foreign firms in their home countries, the foreign banks are likely to win the business of foreign firms away from the Canadian chartered banks. This would increase the strength and size of foreign owned capital in this country if this particular provision in the bill were permitted.
Foreign banks are not likely to create any more business in this country, and what they are likely to do is compete with the Canadian banks, but there is not much possibility or hope that new Canadian banks are going to be growing in the already overcompetitive soil not taken up by the big foreign and chartered banks.
Bank Act
In fact in some financial markets the big banks are already being pressed by domestic competitors. As of December 31, 1979, Canadian credit unions and caisses populaires numbered 3,693 with 4,477 branches across the country. Their savings totalled $25.51 billion; loans, $21.24 billion; and assets, $27.73 billion. The growth of credit unions and caisses populaires has been dramatic. In 1967 their assets stood at only $3,382 billion, so this means that these co-operative financial institutions have expanded their holdings more than eight times in the intervening period.


Walter David Baker: Very healthy.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Absolutely. The credit unions of British Columbia introduced daily interest rates more than ten years ago, something some of the chartered banks only began last year as a result of competition. Some still do not offer these daily interest rates and, rather than allowing foreign banks to come into the country in a big way, surely what we should be doing is promoting these indigenous financial institutions as models of co-operative Canadian economic development.
There have been some other areas in which the record of the chartered banks has certainly been less than impressive and which the new Bank Act would do absolutely nothing to rectify. 1 would like to turn for a moment to the labour relations practices of the banks. Banks have been consistently intransigent in dealing with employees seeking to unionize. Most bank workers in Canada are not unionized, despite the poor working conditions and low pay. The reason is that the banks have resorted to force and manipulation in trying to discourage union organizing. In a decision of last November 30, members of a Canada Labour Relations Board arbitration board ruled that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce had contravened several sections of the Labour Code in its dealings with unionized employees in St. Catharines, Ontario, and Creston, British Columbia.


Walter David Baker: A good ruling.


Svend Johannes Robinson: In its decision the board reported, and I quote:
It has become apparent throughout the organizational attempts at various branches of the employer across the country, by various unions, that this employer has embarked on a campaign designed to discourage its employees from exercising their rights under the code. Some attempts were blatant blundering, others more sophisticated and subtle.
In the matter under review by the board, a system-wide general salary increase that was withheld from unionized workers, the board observed that the bank's unfair labour practices were not attributable to overzealousness on the part of lower level managers but were, rather, decided at the very highest level. These were the same levels which decided how much money to give the Conservative and Liberal parties in preceding years.
The board went further, finding that the bank's labour relations practices had had "disastrous results". The board members reported, and I quote:

May 13, 1980
Bank Act
Besides the chilling effects on the union's organizational campaign, the parties, including the employees, are living in an impossible labour relations atmosphere.
Although the board did not find that the specific complaints brought by the Union of Bank Employees against the Bank of Commerce necessarily applied to the Bank of Montreal and the Bank of Nova Scotia, its members said they would be willing to hear submissions from workers employed by those companies as well. That is hardly a vote of confidence in the Canadian banking system.
The November decision was not the first time that the chartered banks had been found in contravention of the Canada Labour Code, either. In her report to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women released last month, staff member Julie White notes that the banks have been found in violation of the code for firing workers for union activity and transferring staff involved in a union from one branch to another. They have been found in violation of the code by denying promotions to union members for union activity, having additional workers at a branch in the process of unionization in order to undermine the majority of union members required for union certification, holding both group and individual meetings during working hours to apply pressure on employees to prevent them from unionizing-at these meetings were unknown, high-ranking officials of the bank involved whom the workers had not known before the meetings-requiring workers at unionized branches to make up cash shortages at the end of the day out of their own pockets, contrary to practice in non-union branches.
If Conservative members want to justify this kind of conduct, they will have their opportunity shortly. I see that they support it. That is very unfortunate. This is hardly the conduct of organizations which we should allow to operate in secrecy and confidentiality. We should be requiring the banks to provide more information about their activities, and we should subject them to more public scrutiny.
As noted earlier, it is very difficult to obtain information on the foreign operations of Canadian banks. Even highly-skilled analysts, who make it their business to know about such matters, have reported that they have difficulties getting such information and, when they do, it more often comes from American or host country sources than from the chartered banks themselves.
1 might just pause to say that I hope the freedom of information legislation, which has not yet been tabled in this House, will be tabled very shortly to assist us in dealing with this veil of secrecy surrounding the banking system in this country. The banks should be made to own up to their foreign lending because this lending often vitally shapes the de facto foreign policy of this country and shapes Canada's overseas image. I do not believe that our image is particularly good in the Caribbean, where the chartered banks have been so active; in Chile, where their loans help support a regime that has been twice denounced by the United Nations for human rights violations; or in South Africa, where a United Nations Commission on Human Rights study reported in 1978 that four of the Canadian banks are active supporters of the apartheid regime.
One other area I should like to mention is that of profit rates. A recently released Economic Council of Canada study reported that the chartered banks had earned excess profits during the study period, 1968 to 1973, of between $219 million and $425 million, depending on the method of calculation. Certainly if my friend on my right in the Conservative party who has been defending the anti-union practices of the banks wants to defend the excess profits as well, he will have that opportunity at the conclusion of my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: If these excess profits resulting from the monopoly organization of the banking system had not been gained, this objective report by the Economic Council of Canada argues that more firms could have entered into the banking field to compete for the available share of the market, and banking services would have been less costly.
If the government really wants competition, 1 suggest that regulation of the banks and competition with them will do more good than allowing foreign, oligopolistically-organized corporate banks to enter the country. Along the same vein was the Bryce commission report. The hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) will recall well the Bryce commission report, this whitewash of corporate concentration, because when it came out he said proudly that it was Tory blue, that it was their report. That is the kind of corporate concentration they support. He recalls that well, no doubt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Bryce commission report even suggested that the oligopolistic banking system does not achieve any significant economies of scale whatsoever. In its discussion of the chartered banks, the commission noted that the five largest banks control more than 90 per cent of all banking business in the country. Also it reported that the banks had rates of return between 1968 and 1975 that were larger than those of non-financial industrial firms in this country and of the banks in the United States. The Economic Council of Canada study comes to the same conclusions. Also the Bryce commission points out that the banks enjoy the blessing of a self-correcting mechanism which allows them to profit in times of both slow and expanding economic conditions. It indicates the following:
Bank profit performance over the past decade has not been exceptional in good times.
The commission report indicated that it has been much better than average in bad times because of the following:
In a buoyant economy the banks make money on volume, while in a declining or stagnant economy they make money on spread.
That is the difference between interest rates received on loans and paid out on deposits. So, while ordinary working people, small business people, are hurting as a result of these
May 13, 1980

interest rate policies, it is the banks that are profiting. This is not a built-in stabilizer that is enjoyed by these workers, small businessmen and farmers of Canada. Perhaps what we should be doing, rather than debating giving away more of the shop to the chartered banks, is aiding workers and small business people in this difficult time.
Another pertinent finding of the Bryce commission was that there are no noticeable economies of scale which attach to the size of Canada's chartered banks. In other words, the banks have not improved their service to customers noticeably, even though they have greatly expanded the size of their operations.
I hope I have given the impression that there are serious problems with the Canadian banking system, its effect on the workings of the Canadian economy, and with the bill which is attempting to defend the status quo in the banking system. Surely the approach we should be taking is this: the large chartered banks must channel the reserves of finance capital they have at their disposal into projects which benefit the national interest, not just those firms with which the shareholders and directors happen to be involved. This most certainly would require much increased regulation of the investment planning and lending policy of banks and financial institutions, both at home and particularly abroad. Also it would require the development and creation of federal government financial institutions, both to plan and co-ordinate banking procedures and to ensure a public presence in this most crucial of economic sectors.
Governments are already involved in protecting the interests of their citizens in a number of countries through their involvement in banking. In France, for example, public and semi-public financial institutions already handle about 85 per cent of all bank deposits. The Japanese Trust Fund Bureau collects a major part of all savings and life insurance payments, which are redistributed through government financial institutions according to a government loans and investments plan, reflecting the priorities of the people of that country and not of the shareholders of the banks. The Italian state holding company, IRI, controls three of the country's largest banks and has holdings in a number of local banks as well. Co-operative banking, much like our own caisses populaires and credit unions, is a major part of the public banking systems in West Germany, Belgium, Denmark and The Netherlands. Of course in Norway there have been some sweeping changes to the structure of boards of directors of banks, reflecting the importance of public involvement in this critical economic sector.
I do not produce these countries as any particular example of socialist economies. Indeed, for the most part, they are dominated by production by large corporations. But in each of these nations the state has accepted a degree of responsibility on behalf of its people for ensuring that the public interest is represented in the banking system. And so it should be; financial institutions should be required, by public ownership where necessary, to be made more responsive and more accountable to meeting needs in capital availability.
A responsible government in this country would control and direct investment through a combination of stringent regula-
Bank Act
tions and public ownership of financial institutions. A prerequisite of national planning must surely be a firm grasp on the financial mechanisms of the country. This must include control over major investment decisions of large corporate interests. Public ownership should be an important tool in national development. Public ownership and solid support for the co-operative and credit union movement and stringent control of the banking system should be a major first step in such development now. Canada's banking system must serve not just the narrow and increasingly concentrated corporate sector, but all of the people of Canada. As New Democrats we are committed to fundamental changes in the economic and social fabric of our society.
I can do no better than to quote from the words that were first written down in July of 1933 in Regina by a group of people who founded the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. They said the following:
We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible.
Those words ring as true today as they did in 1933. In conclusion, I should like to say that it is imperative we bring our banking system under control.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) on a point of order.


Mr. Dantzer:: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order, but will the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) entertain a question?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will proceed with my speech, and if there is time for questions at the end I will attempt to deal with them.
In concluding, then, we must bring our banking system under public control if we are to pursue and realize these essential goals, goals which more than any other constitutional changes or tinkering with the constitutional system will surely help in this critical period in our history to keep Canada a strong and united nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) on a point of order.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken made reference in his remarks to comments which he alleged were made by myself at the time the Bryce commission report was tabled. I would just like to correct the record. He was not here, so he does not really know. I cannot say that he did it purposely, but let me say that the colour of the book was blue. I was asked what I thought of the Bryce report and I said that it was blue, because I had not read it. I didn't say it was

May 13, 1980
Bank Act
Tory blue, navy blue, little boy blue, Fauntleroy blue, or anything else.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not made a point of order. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Bank Act. As a former administrator and mayor of a municipality for eight years I saw what has happened to small communities. When people try to bring industry into the area, the first thing they do is go to the community and look at the number of banks to determine what banking facilities are available. In my riding the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce gave notification last year that it was closing its branch at Radium. This is a heavily touristed and industrial area. It has a large lumber mill. Had this happened, these workers and small businessmen would have been forced to bundle their money each day and travel to another community to deposit it. The workers would have gone to the other community to cash their cheques and purchase their goods there.
Members of the Conservative and Liberal parties stood up at election time at meetings of chambers of commerce and told these small businessmen they were there to protect their interests. They said they were the ones who were fighting for the free enterprise system.
There are no regulations in this Bank Act which would stop this kind of centralization of the banks. These banks in small communities have a responsibility to those communities whether they are making a profit or not, because these banks are given special banking privileges throughout Canada. They must fulfil those responsibilities in those communities.
I should like to touch upon another matter as I do not think we have paid enough attention to it, and that is in relation to the organization of bank workers. This is a very serious matter. In 1977 the Canada Labour Relations Board ruled that banks could be organized on a branch by branch basis. Since that time banks have vigorously opposed any move to unionize their workers. Only 65 of the 7,500 branches in Canada have been organized. Most of the workers in banks are women, and the banks have successfully used that fact to intimidate those workers. They have intimidated them in a way they would never have dared had they been dealing with seasoned industrial workers.
Some 67 complaints of unfair labour practices have been registered with the Canada Labour Relations Board against banks. Banks have more complaints against them than any other industrial sector. In 1977-78 complaints against banks comprised one-third of all those received by the Canada Labour Relations Board. It is a disgrace for any elected
member who establishes regulations for banks without setting the working conditions for the people working in those banks.
The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has touched upon some of the tactics these banks rely on, including the firing of staff for union activity. Can you imagine going to work in the morning and finding that because of some of your activities you are no longer employable? Some banks transfer their workers who are involved in union activities, from one branch to another. The hon. member for Burnaby has said this already, but I think it is worthy of repeating because these things happen in banks, and we cannot allow them to continue.
Banks hire additional workers at branches involved in certification, in order to increase the number of votes, thereby stopping any certification program. The banks hold group and individual meetings during working hours to apply pressure on the workers not to unionize. Often those meetings are attended by high ranking officials of the bank. Some branches require the workers at unionized branches to make up cash shortages at the end of each day, a practice not followed in non-unionized branches. Can you imagine going to work and finding that you have to make up a shortage at the end of the day? Banks have withheld annual pay increases at those branches which have been organized, or branches that are awaiting a first contract, and the banks have been careful to inform all employees of this distinction.
Let me quote from a recent report on women and unions issued by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women:
While these employer tactics are not unfamiliar in any union organizing attempt, the banks have applied them in a particularly centralized and coordinated manner with obvious co-operation between different banks. Extensive legal advice has been obtained and profitably used, so that proving illegality is very difficult. The banks have the time, money and personnel not only to mount a strong anti-union campaign, but to maintain the opposition for years if necessary. Needless to say branch workers feel that it is difficult to oppose these wealthy and monolithic institutions. They are right.
The banks do not stop their intimidation once a branch has been certified. As I have already pointed out, they were found guilty of withholding pay increases to unionized workers and forced to pay them back wages. That is not all. I should like to recount the history of the bank workers' struggle at a branch right here in Ottawa.
In February, 1979, Local 2104 of the Union of Bank Employees was certified at the Commerce Bank on Carling at Preston. After certification the bank began to apply what a former shop steward described as subtle pressure. The bank was sticky about time schedules and converted to an hourly wage from a weekly salary so it could dock pay for lateness and absences for such things as mid-day doctors' appointments. In March the bank was decertified by the workers. The workers could not take this kind of harassment any longer and decertified themselves. It is shocking for any of us to stand here and discuss the Bank Act while allowing the workers of that kind of an institution to be dealt with in that way. The women workers simply did not feel they could successfully compete against one of the largest corporations in the world.
May 13, 1980

Many of my colleagues have already spoken of the incredible profits being collected by Canada's chartered banks, in the three months immediately prior to January 31, all five of the major banks registered after-tax profits in excess of $40 million. The Royal Bank registered profits of nearly $80 million. The banks are very reluctant to share this wealth with their women employees, but they are not hesitant to give it to the other political parties represented in this House. In 1975 three of the five big banks donated $60,000 to the Liberal party and three of the five banks donated nearly $70,000 to the Conservative party.
What can this government do if it is at all interested in living up to the lip service which it has so far provided to women's issues during this Parliament? First, it should immediately launch an investigation of the anti-union tactics being employed by the chartered banks of this country. Such an investigation has recently been called for by the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and it is long over due. The investigation must have some teeth and the government must be willing to take some positive action once the investigation is complete.
This morning I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) if he was prepared to do something about this matter. As a result of the negative response which we received from that minister, I would strongly urge every member of this House to assure that something is put in the Bank Act that will bring the standard of working regulations for employees in the banks to a level that can be respected in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sidney James Parker: Second, Mr. Speaker, the government should live up to its commitment under the Canada Labour Code, to promote the organization of workers. Some of the women who work in the banks have been quoted as saying that they were led by their employers to believe that belonging to the union was practically illegal and most certainly disloyal. The government has a responsibility to make these women aware that unionization is not only legal but that it is actively encouraged.
In this speech I have raised two issues which at first glance might seem unrelated. I have said that the banks must not move out of the small towns, and I have said that the banks should cease and desist from their active union busting campaign. But these issues are not unrelated. They both point to the fact that the banks in Canada have become the robber barons of the twentieth century. They have no sense of decency or fair play. It is time that this government sends the banks a message. The banks must clean up their act.
The banks in Canada are in a very lucky position because Canadian governments have refused to encourage the type of anti-trust laws which are prevalent in the United States. They have very little competition. They must not abuse this special privilege. They must think a little bit more about the people who keep them in business and who work for them, and a little
Bank Act
bit less about establishing the highest corporate profits in recorded Canadian history.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few moments this evening to talk about banking, a subject with which I am very familiar. I suppose that it could be said that I am almost expert because no one has been to the bank more often than I. The problem is that I am usually taking money out. Rarely am I ever saving it, and it is getting worse.
It seems appropriate to talk about the Bank Act because it will be a number of years before I will have another opportunity. In fact, knowing politics, one can never tell. One may only get four chances such as this during one's terms of office. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has only had about seven chances to speak on the Bank Act, which says something about his longevity.
This is a very important piece of legislation, perhaps the most important piece of legislation with which this House will deal. As one looks around at what is happening to the economy, at the people in the economy as they are affected by the changes in interest rates and by the dramatic shifts in credit, and at the changes in the way society is developing, one can appreciate that unless we pay far more attention to the financial institutions, particularly the banks, it could well be that the lifestyle to which most of us have grown accustomed, with which most of us have grown up, and which we look forward to passing on to our children, will not in fact be available.
We are about to give, once again, a right by charter to a half dozen privately-owned institutions. We are about to give those institutions the right by law to manage the economy of the country, to establish, for all intents and purposes, the way in which credit will be meted out, to establish the interest rate policy, and to determine the cash flow for the greater number of people in this country. We are allowing the banks to do all that for profit.
Anyone who looks at the banking system will appreciate that there must be careful regulation governing that industry. If it was ever more evident than it is today, I cannot imagine when that might have been. Banks must be regulated carefully. They must be made to behave because of something called national interest. Banks of late have a poor public image. Many people are very skeptical of the way in which banks have behaved over the course of the last three or four years.
The government has an equally poor public image because of the operations of the banks and of the way in which the banks have behaved; and the government's reluctance to come to grips with the problems of banks. As many of my colleagues have said, the banks have made massive profits, profits that are bordering on usury. Therefore it is time that we in this House of Commons make some very careful decisions about the role which the banks are to play from now until the next time this legislation is brought before the House.
We have elevated banks to a status far in excess of what they deserve. As a child, I did not go to the bank very often,

May 13, 1980
Bank Act
but my grandfather owned a public house, a drinking establishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: In another period of his life my grandfather owned a dairy, so he tried to satisfy both ends. My grandfather often went to the bank, and he talked about his banker in terms which most people reserve for discussions about their priests. It was just about that level. One can almost imagine the kind of sense that he had about his banker. Quite frankly, he was probably more afraid of his banker. I think that that feeling persists today. We are afraid of the banks. We are afraid to demand that they exercise some caution and discretion. We are afraid of the banks in terms of the way in which they implement policy. Most of us do not understand the workings of the banking community.
I think you cannot talk of the banks without talking about the central bank, the Bank of Canada, the bank that should be setting policy, the bank that was established for the very purpose of providing some over-all policy. Unfortunately the Bank of Canada has not been responding well to the needs of the country as a whole. The Bank of Canada has not been responding to the domestic requirements of Canada, and for some reason or another up until the last few days, and even now, 1 suppose, is following policy that is not established in this country. It is following policy that was established in other parts of the North American continent-Washington and New York. The establishment of bank rates and interest rates for the Bank of Canada, which are passed down through the chartered banks to the consumers in Canada, was almost in locked step with the banking interests of the United States.
As we look at that situation we have to try to understand the problem it creates. We had an opportunity in Canada to use a very strong banking establishment to develop, in social and economic terms, the kind of economy we would like for ourselves. We could have had interest rate policies that were, as my leader said during the election campaign, "made in Canada." We could have had interest rate policies that reflected the needs of Canada; interest rate policies that recognized the problems of families with mortgages that had to be renewed; interest rate policies that understood the dilemma the small businessman faces as he attempts to maintain some kind of equity in his business. We could have had interest rate policies that took into account the distinctive difference in lifestyle and goal of the Canadian population compared with that of the United States. We could even have had, maybe, an interest rate policy that was humane, an interest rate policy that showed understanding.
For reasons that escape me entirely, the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, never seemed to sit down and determine what was best for Canada and the Canadian people. His interest had something to do with cash flow; his interest had to do with strengthening or weakening the dollar; his
interest had to do with matters over which he really exercised very little jurisdiction; yet in matters where he could have had jurisdiction and have made an impact, he refused to take action.
When we talk about what banks are supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, we should realize that they are supposed to be an instrument of economic and social policy. They are, perhaps, the single most important instrument. With careful direction the banks could be used as a means of stimulating the economy; they could be used as a vehicle for the development of Canada; they could be used to unite the country in terms of the creation of economic opportunity all across the land, yet they have not been so used for a number of reasons. In the majority of cases there is no evidence from the banks that they care very much about impact. In the main, they have been a major contributing factor to the ever-increasing credit problems that confront people.
From the time we gave the banks the power to advertise and encourage direct lending, they have in fact encouraged people to go into debt. They have not taken the time to try to establish a counselling service that would keep people from running up charges on credit cards to three or four times their limit. They have not taken the time to understand that there is nothing within the educational system that enables people to learn how to handle money.
As you drive down the street you see the sign on the bank window which reads, "Come on in and borrow; we have the lowest rates in town."


An hon. Member:: Seventeen per cent!


Ian Deans: The lowest rates in town are still out of reach of the majority of people. The bank tells you how much it is going to cost if you want to borrow money and spread the payments over 18 months, 24 or 36 months. "It is only" going to cost you, is the way they put it, without any consideration of whether or not you can afford to pay it.
My colleague has handed me a letter from the Bank of Nova Scotia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: Where do you stand on the referendum?


An hon. Member:: Is that a note from Mr. Nystrom?


An hon. Member:: Take it easy; keep your trousers on.


Roger Simmons: Where do you stand on the referendum?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would expect hon. members to show the usual courtesy that is extended to members who are addressing the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I really desperately require your intervention to keep hon. members opposite from heckling me so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 13, 1980


An hon. Member:: For a leadership candidate you are not putting on a very good show.


Ian Deans: The Bank of Nova Scotia decided it is not making enough money so it has to solicit some additional customers. It sent out letters and, of course, they all do it. I have had them and I am sure Your Honour has them too. This one states:
If your ideas are bigger than your bank balance, we might be able to balance things out for you.
A low cost Scotia plan loan lets you keep your savings intact for emergencies and get the things you want now, without waiting any longer. That car, television, boat, snowmobile, furniture-
See how far down the list furniture is.
-or holiday idea could become reality.
Borrowing money makes good sense when you can repay a loan regularly and a Scotia Plan Loan costs less than many other loans-
That does not say what those interest rates are, of course. The letter continues:
-in fact, 50 per cent less in some cases. It's fast too, and life-insured at no extra cost.
So if it's cash you need, just drop in and see us about a low-cost Scotia plan loan.
It is signed "Sincerely, Scotia plans."


An hon. Member:: I am sold! I am sold!


Ian Deans: At a time when people are struggling, the banks dangle out, "If you need a boat or car, don't use your money, don't save money and buy it-no, no, come in and borrow from us."


Roger Simmons: At least a bank keeps a promise.


An hon. Member:: You guys should take your straitjackets off.


Ian Deans: Then we wonder why so many families are facing personal bankruptcy. Why is it that so many families-


Roger Simmons: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the hon. parliamentary secretary seeking the floor on a point of order?


Roger Simmons: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am trying desperately to hear what the hon. gentleman has to say. I wonder if you would restrain his NDP colleagues so that I can hear what is going on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: I am glad the hon. member is interested. I will do my best to say it all in single syllable words so that it will get through.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that with this kind of letter it is no wonder that families are being faced with personal bankruptcies; it is no wonder that their standards of living and expectations have been raised in excess of their
Bank Act
ability to meet their obligations; it is no wonder that you can go into a bank and get a Visa card, into another bank and get a Bank Americard, you can take your Esso and Shell credit cards, you can go and get an Eaton's card, you can go and get a Simpsons-Sears card, you can have a card from any number of the other chain stores-so is it any wonder that people are having a very difficult time trying to manage their own economics? Is it any wonder families are being faced with problems? Credit is too damned easy to get. Then, once you get it, up go the interest rates.
Whatever happened to the day when people used to save a few dollars and then use that as collateral to go out and to purchase? Whatever happened to the day when being in debt over the top of your head was considered to be something unusual and unacceptable? And yet the banks, the very institutions to which we give the power to manage the affairs of the country, are encouraging people day after day to go out and borrow and become part of the debt-ridden society. The end result of it all is, of course, larger and larger profit margins year after year for the same banks, without any consideration for the people and whether they have the means or the ability to meet the obligations thrust upon them.
1 think credit counselling must go along with credit. Along with the extension of credit, the banks have an obligation to make sure that the people who borrow the money have the ability to repay it. We have to find ways to have some control over the amount of credit people are able to get, because the majority of people cannot manage credit.
There is no point in allowing this situation to continue as it is, and in encouraging more and more people to the point of bankruptcy. That is what the banks are doing. That is partly what is wrong with the banking system. It is about time that we took a serious look and called upon the banks to answer for their actions because they have to answer for them. They, and they alone, have the power to redirect the kind of purchasing that has taken place in the last few years.
In any event, what I am saying is that I see the banks in a little different way from the majority of people, it is not that I see them as an enemy necessarily, although some people might wonder at that. Frankly I think they could provide a great deal more. 1 think they could be a much more important part of the economic policy-making process in the country if only they were not so interrelated.
I heard my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), outlining last week the directorships and the interrelationship between directorships and the major corporate sector. When the board of directors of a bank is meeting, and the directors there represent the major corporate sector of the country and they are talking about consumer interest rates, and they are trying to encourage people to buy the very products the firms that they represent manufacture and sell, I ask hon. members would they not think that there might be a conflict of interest there as these directors set rates and policy for the consumer borrowing that takes place? Would hon.

May 13, 1980
Bank Act
members not think there is a conflict of interest there as these people encourage more and more people to borrow more and more to buy the products which they, in their own private companies, manufacture? I ask hon. members whether they do not see some room for a conflict of interest in that situation?
Quite obviously if the director involved is in a company manufacturing durable goods and is then faced with a decision of sitting down and establishing consumer borrowing for the bank, he is going to encourage a more open and freer consumer borrowing policy in order that he can sell more of his goods. Therefore we will have to look at how directorships are set up in banks because that conflict carries right through the system. It carries right through in the decisions as to whether or not money will be loaned to major developers in order to develop, and where that development takes place. It carries right through in terms of whether they want to encourage development to take place where their competition might get the inside track or the upper hand. It carries right through in terms of whether they themselves want to see expansion take place in one part of the country over the other, or whether their primary company, the one from which they come to sit on the board of directors, will make decisions in the best interest of the economy as a whole, given that their own private company may suffer some detrimental effect as a result of policy established at the bank level.
There is something wrong with the relationship between the way we establish directorships in banks, and the tie-in of those directorships with the private operations they conduct on a day to day basis. I want to suggest, as we go into committee, that we take a serious look at severely restricting who can sit on boards of directors of banks. It is about time that we understood just how boards can in fact manipulate the policy to the advantage of the companies represented on the boards. If hon. members do not believe this, I would suggest they sit down over the weekend and give it some thought.
In addition to that, I think we have to try to get the banks to understand where their primary obligation is. As they would tell you, it is to their own shareholders. This is wrong in a private system like this where that becomes the area to which the directors and the banks must answer. It is not merely enough to do that because the bank and the banking institutions together probably control most, if not all, of the opportunities for development; or most if not all of the opportunities for growth; most if not all of the opportunities for balance in terms of the economy of the country. Therefore we must try to write into this legislation the terms and conditions under which the banks will act in the best interests of the country as a whole; what kind of social and economic responsibility they have; what kind of social responsibility to parliament and to the direction set by parliament, and also what kind of social responsibility they have to the communities all across this country.
With respect to mortgage rates, the banks could quite easily, with the direction of the central bank, have had a major influence in bringing mortgage rates to a level that people could afford. We said in January that the interest rates could
have been dropped 2 per cent right there on the spot. People now in the government and some in the Conservative party thought it ridiculous at the time. I remember statements such as "it could not happen, it would be outrageous, it would destroy the system." But it has happened. Had it happened in January untold numbers of people would not have faced the kind of hardship that they have faced in the intervening months. The interest rate could drop by another 2 per cent right now without detrimentally affecting the economy of the banks. It could be done tomorrow morning with a direction. It is time it was done. It is time that we understood that the welfare of people and their families is as important, if not more important, than the unusually high profit margins being enjoyed by the banks.
When I was speaking in the House the other night 1 mentioned that I was in the bank cashing my cheque and I was talking to a friend of mine who owns a business. On that day I told hon. members he had told me that he was becoming desperate because he did not know how he was going to finance his business over the next month or two. He said that, as he carried his inventory, the carrying cost of the inventory has reached a point of almost 20 per cent. That is 20 per cent in addition to the value of the inventory.
He put it to me that it made it almost impossible for him to compete with the larger operations. He did not understand why it was that the government, a government that pays lip service to small business, could not find a way to establish some reasonable interest rates that he could use for short-term borrowing, in order to maintain the inventory he must carry to serve the public, to create and maintain the jobs that he had.


Mr. Corbett:: What about the small business development bond which you defeated?


Ian Deans: The small business development bond which we defeated? Unfortunately, it would not have been of help in this instance.
What he asked me was why is it, since it is generally recognized that small business employs by far the vast majority of people, that the government does not seem to be able to direct, either through the institutions or directly, the interest rates in order that he, and many like him, can take advantage of it in order to maintain their business?
This is when we were talking about giving Chrysler $700 million. He said, "I do not understand. How can the government find $700 million to give to a company that is damn near on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot find $20,000 to loan a guy in a little business that employs five people and maintains an operation in this community?"
I met another man the other day. He came to see me last weekend when I was home in my constituency office. He had the same kind of problem. All he needed was $4,000. That is all he needed. He had inventory valued at $44,000. This man had a loan from the Federal Business Development Bank of $8,600 and an overdraft of about $5,000. He needed this
May 13, 1980

because of some changes he wanted to make in his business. It would have returned for him probably 30 per cent more than he was currently making. He needed some capital just to tide himself over. He cannot get it.
He cannot get it at the bank because he cannot get any more on his overdraft. Do you know why he cannot get it at the bank? Because the Federal Business Development Bank has attached all of his assets, all $44,000, for the $8,600 loan. When he went to try to borrow the additional amount that he needed, he could not get it. The government could find $200 million to put up for loan guarantees for Chrysler, but for $4,000 this man will lose his business.
That is a reflection of a lack of policy on the part of the government. It is a reflection of the inability of the banking institutions to recognize the problems that confront small business people and to deal with them in an adequate, sensible, and sensitive way. That speaks volumes of what is wrong with our system.
Our system turns on credit. The banks have decided that they are going to get everything they can out of the system. They do not have any sense of responsibility in terms of trying to make sure that the people who are coming to them can, in fact, meet those obligations, and that that obligation heaped upon the other obligation will not finally sink them.
The banks are so interrelated with so many of the largest corporate entities in the country that there is a definite conflict of interest on a day to day basis taking place; credit, the lack of it for small business people, and the banks do not respond to it. I said when I started that the problem with this-and this is probably the single most important piece of legislation that we will have-is it unfortunately speaks in traditional terms as to how you manage the financial affairs of the country. It speaks as if it were being written in the early thirties rather than the eighties to meet the needs of the eighties and nineties.
There has been much written about it. It is very difficult to feel any sympathy for the banking institutions because they have had it all their own way for such a long time. They have had many opportunities to correct the problems they have created and they have refused. Unless this government is prepared to put quite clearly into this legislation the kind of performance that it requires from the banking institutions, we are going to have to take another look at another way of managing the financial affairs.
We cannot trust people who up to this point in time have betrayed the trust they have been given. We cannot further entrust them with the finances of the country unless they show definitely, by example and by direction, that they now understand the role they must play. We cannot just give them carte blanche for another ten years.
I suggest there is more wrong with the legislation than one may believe at first glance. If you take a very hard and serious look at it, you look to see whether at least some of what I have said reflects an accurate picture of what happens within the banking structure. You take into account my colleagues' remarks about the hiring practices, and the problems of the
Bank Act
relationships that were brought up by many other colleagues, and you have to come to the conclusion that it would be ill-advised to hasten this legislation through. It should be carefully thought out. The restrictions have to be in place. Banks cannot even manage the endeavour they are in in the best interests of the country. For heaven's sake, don't give them more to do. Make sure that they at least live up to the responsibilities they have been given before granting them the power to infringe on areas that other people can look after at least equally as well and perhaps even better.
Do not give them any more power. Do not give the directors who, in my judgment, exercise some rather strange power, further opportunity to infringe on their competition in other areas. It is time we took a look at this act and restructured it in an effort to re-establish the banking institutions in a way that will meet the social and economic needs of the next decade as we go towards the year 2000.
Times have changed. The old image of the banker with the banker's hours is no longer there. The banks manage the affairs of the nation. They have more power and more influence than any other structure. They have more power and more influence than we do in the House of Commons. They even have more power and more influence than the Senate. That is hard to believe, but true. Therefore I suggest that we not rush this through, that we take our time and look at it very carefully and, if need be, restructure it, because it has to be restructured if it is going to meet the needs of the next generation.
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Mr. Speaker, you will remember that on May 1 I had the honour to launch the second reading debate on the Bank Act and I will take a few minutes to conclude that debate. I have listened carefully to the speeches delivered by all members of the House and in my opinion the interventions were constructive and mostly very serious. They have enabled us to throw light-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Do hon. members agree that if I recognize the minister, he will be the last speaker at this stage of the proceedings. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, those discussions helped shed some light on several extremely important questions. I am convinced that basically we have the same objectives, mainly the establishment of a financial system that is strong, competitive, efficient, fair and controlled by a majority of Canadians. Following the comments heard in this debate, I am convinced the proposals contained in Bill C-6 will help a lot to achieve those objectives.
I am under the impression that we are not fully aware of the competition taking place in Canada among banks, credit unions, caisses populaires, trusts and loan companies and a number of other financial institutions. Maybe I should have

May 13, 1980
Bank Act
mentioned that very great competition in my opening speech. As i already suggested, it is the purpose of this bill to allow for that competition to be increased. A number of members pointed out that the entry of banks in the business of financing leasing of automobiles and trucks would probably force a number of car dealers to drop their leasing operations. That is not at all the intention of the government, Mr. Speaker. We are worried about the concerns of small businessmen and it is quite obvious that the purpose of the provisions dealing with financial leasing and the intention of the government is not to do away with car dealers engaged in the business of leasing automobiles or trucks in Canada.
What the government seeks is greater competition in this field as well. Regulations have already been made public and 1 am sure the members of the committee, particularly after hearing the speeches in this second reading debate, are going to look very carefully at those regulations and that we are going to be able to find together, if those regulations are too broad, a way to alleviate in theory and in fact the fears of car retailers.
Another question raised on several occasions has to do with representations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and beef producers about the provisions in clause 88. Here again I am convinced that committee members will look at that clause very attentively and that we are going to try altogether to find a way of protecting adequately both farm and beef producers. In concluding, 1 would have liked to go over certain criticisms that were made about this bill, it is obviously very tempting to use the consideration of this bill to criticize the profits of banking institutions. Or again it is easy to use this opportunity to criticize the present situation with respect to interest rates entirely outside the particular economic context in which we live, not only in Canada but in North America, but that is not the purpose of this bill. And I would urge the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to use the few days they have before consideration of this bill in committee starts to review the general provisions of this bill and perhaps take a little time to go over the discussions that already took place in previous committees both in the House and in the Senate so we may continue the consideration of this bill in a rigorous but also very serious and attentive manner.
It has been said at times that we should not hurry too much to pass this bill, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not agree with those who have taken this position. I think that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and certain of his colleagues as well as members on this side of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) have repeatedly spoken about the urgency to pass this legislation. It has been studied in depth and examined very seriously.
The expiry date has been postponed several times and if we use the forthcoming examination by the committee to correct the point which have been singled out as creating the most difficulty, 1 am certain, Mr. Speaker, that with the co-operation of all members who sit on the committee, we shall be able to conclude very rapidly the study of this bill and proceed very soon to its third reading and final passage.
1 wish to thank hon. members who have contributed to the debate at the second reading stage, and once again, 1 am counting on the co-operation of the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to give this bill rapid and effective consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, on three different occasions in this Elouse during the last week in April and the first week in May, I questioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) about the government's plans for Hamilton civic airport. 1 thought it strange that since the Liberal government came to power, we in the greater Hamilton area-


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


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: 1 started off with Madam Speaker, but 1 thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, 1 thought it strange that since the Liberal government came to power we in the greater Hamilton area have hard heard nothing from the Minister of Transport nor from any of the Hamilton area Liberal members, ministers or otherwise, about their administration's intentions with regard to upgrading and expanding the airport facilities at Mount Hope.
I was astounded to hear the Minister of Transport say that the government would follow up on the previous Conservative government's commitments to spend $45 million on Hamilton's airport "if it makes sense to do so." Subsequently, in replies to the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and myself, the Minister of Transport told this House that the previous Conservative government had not really committed $45 million to the Hamilton airport expansion. Rather, says the minister, we on this side simply passed a resolution in cabinet expressing the wish, the desire, for such a project, and the previous Conservative government had only made funds available for consultants on the proposed layout of the airport.
Three things are obvious from the minister's answers. First, he does not know what the Mount Hope expansion is all about, or even where Mount Hope is; second, the minister has been badly briefed on the decade-long saga of studies, consultations and endless delays in expanding Hamilton's airport, and third, even giving the minister the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is talking about, you can fly a 747 jumbo jet between the positions of this transport minister and that of his cabinet colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), on the government's future role in this interminable odyssey.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, 1 am afraid that when we talk of our ticky-tacky terminal in Hamilton, the government seizes on

May 1 3, 1980
Adjournment Debate
the word "terminal", and that is the probable forecast for this very important expansion for the southern Ontario air traffic: terminal. At the very least the Minister of Transport is being devilishly clever in playing word games in answers to my questions in the Elouse, and almost certainly the Government of Canada has relegated Hamilton airport expansion to a very low priority on the Richter scale of campaign promises.
1 might just remind you, sir, of one specific campaign promise, straight from the horse's mouth-I think it was that part of the anatomy-when the hon. member for Hamilton East last January 25 during the election campaign, told the Hamilton Spectator that the $45 million would result in primitive facilities at best and that the Liberals would stand by their commitment to a $100 million expansion at Mount Hope.
There is a far more serious aspect to the confusion that the Minister of Transport has tried to sow in connection with campaign promises and commitments. The minister has repeatedly alleged that we, on this side, simply approved in principle a $45 million expenditure on the airport, that it was never a government-approved funding, and that it was simply an allocation for consultants. I think 1 can prove with the documents that I have in front of me that this all came from a recommendation from the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), which went to the Treasury Board and was subsequently approved by the full cabinet, and that in fact an investment of $45 million had been allocated for the purposes of developing Hamilton Civic airport. As far as the minister and the Air Administration Act were concerned, and as far as we were concerned as a government, the airport expansion was "go."
There was a government commitment to the program officially announced by the then minister of labour, my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West, on January 25. The consultants' fees of $220,000 which the Minister of Transport has mentioned, was the amount for the first stage only of the proposed development, that is, the firm conceptual design.
I want to make one last point in connection with this hold-up, Mr. Speaker. Nordair has been providing Hamilton with an excellent, regular air service for some years. Nordair is not going to sit around forever with existing facilities. The airline has made it clear that it has contingency plans, and now flight routes, to operate from Toronto international airport, which could be implemented at any time. Sooner or later, and on the basis of evidence I have received from very reliable sources which gives me every reason to believe it will be sooner, rather than later, Nordair will bail out of Hamilton. Unless the airline has concrete evidence, an absolute commitment that Hamilton airport facilities will be upgraded and expanded, then 1 am convinced that two million people in my area will be adversely affected by Nordair leaving Hamilton.
Throughout this whole process I have been kept totally in the picture, both as a reporter and as a member of Parliament for Hamilton-Wentworth. I also kept the former minister of transport physically in the picture by bringing him to Mount Hope. He made his decision. The enlarged airport would not be a Taj Mahal, another Mirabel, but it would become a firstclass regional facility of benefit to the greater Hamilton area. In short, sir, everything was "go" until the election and the arrival of the new Minister of Transport. Now it appears that the government is trying to weasel out of, not only the previous government's, our government's, $45 million commitment, but also the former Liberal government's $100 million promise which was reiterated by the hon. member for Hamilton East. Mr. Speaker, the people of Hamilton and I want a clear and definite statement from the ministry of transport on the future size and use of the Hamilton civic airport.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 the hon. member for Hamilton Wentworth (Mr. Scott) raised the matter of the government's plans for the expansion of the Hamilton airport in a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
As the Minister of Transport noted in his replies, the previous government had announced approval in principle of a plan for the expansion of this airport at a total estimated cost in the order of $45 million. Commitments such as this one are now being reviewed by this government to see, as the Minister of Transport so aptly put it, if they make sense. In this context I think it would be useful to provide some background to the current situation and to elaborate on the review to which the minister referred.
There is no doubt that the people of the Hamilton-Niagara-Brantford area require access to convenient and adequate air transportation service, and this government intends to see that this need is met. At the present time most of the people from this area use Toronto international airport with its many flights and same plane connections to numerous destinations. Thus, simply to provide new airport facilities for Hamilton will not necessarily ensure the provision of better service. What is required is to identify the additional service that existing or new carriers may wish or be persuaded to offer, and plan the development of the airport commensurate with the resultant operational requirement.
At the present time the only scheduled carrier servicing the Hamilton airport is Nordair. To obtain an appreciation of what additional services might be offered, inquiries are being made of other air carriers, including Air Canada. Once these inquiries are completed we will have a better understanding of the potential for new or expanded air services and the consequent level of investment.
This government fully recognizes the need to provide convenient and adequate air transportation services for the people of the Hamilton-Niagara-Brantford area. Our review is designed to ensure that what is proposed for the development of the Hamilton airport is consistent with the likely improvement in air transportation services.
The Minister of Transport stated in this House that the review, or assessment, of what is needed-
May 13, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his allotted time of three minutes has expired.


ENERGY-ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House on May 2, 1980, and addressed a question to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Pepin) concerning the provision for an assistance program for Atlantic Canada in respect of electrical rates.
Let me explain very briefly the background for that question. In Nova Scotia and other Atlantic provinces, particularly Prince Edward Island, prior to 1974 electrical energy was primarily based on imported crude oil, that is to say, foreign crude oil was used to supply electrical generation to the extent of 70 per cent of the total output in Nova Scotia. The rising price of foreign crude oil in the years following 1974 had an effect on the price of electrical generation to the extent that it escalated prices well beyond those prevalent in other parts of Canada. In fact, in Nova Scotia electrical energy rates are almost twice as much as those of the average price imposed in the rest of Canada, and in some parts of Canada more than 100 per cent of the price of energy.
Our problem then was to provide and seek assistance from the Government of Canada in order to offset this increase in the cost of electrical generation. The budget introduced in December, 1979, by the Clark government made very specific provision for this problem in Nova Scotia and in other parts of Atlantic Canada. The budget provision promised assistance to the extent of $300 million for Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and other parts of the Atlantic provinces to offset this tremendous increase in the price of electrical generation caused by the escalating price of foreign oil.
The purpose of my question to the Acting Prime Minister at that time was to ensure that the government would make a similar provision for the Atlantic provinces, and particularly for Nova Scotia. I did not get an answer from the Acting Prime Minister, but a few days later on May 6, 1980, in Halifax the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) at a press conference indicated very definitely that there would be no guarantee of such financial assistance for the Atlantic provinces and that any subsidy would depend upon the oil pricing agreement reached with the western provinces, particularly Alberta. This uncertainty leaves Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and other parts of the Atlantic provinces in a very uncertain position.
Let me explain the case for Nova Scotia very briefly. That province has taken very definite steps to relieve itself of the difficulty caused by the escalating price of foreign crude oil. In particular, Nova Scotia has set about to develop its coal reserves and convert the electrical generating plants that were dependent on foreign oil to coal. This has resulted in a very
Adjournment Debate
substantial reduction in the amount of crude oil used for electrical generation.
The over-all conversion program would have six and a half million barrels that were consumed in 1977-78 reduced to less than half a million by 1988. The program to replace the oil fired generation will involve approximately an eight-year period before the complete reduction can be made. The net result will reduce Nova Scotia's dependence on foreign crude oil as a source of electrical generation from a 1981-82 high of 76 per cent to less than 40 per cent by 1980-81.
For these reasons I think Nova Scotia is entitled to the kind of relief that has been suggested by the government of Nova Scotia. The steps that have been taken to reduce the consumption of foreign oil for electrical generation has led to tremendous savings for the Government of Canada. The net drain on the funds used to subsidize the price of imported foreign oil will be greatly reduced by the conversion to coal.
It is in the interests not only of Nova Scotia and other parts of Atlantic Canada, but of all Canada in achieving self-sufficiency in energy, to apply these saved funds to support alternate energy programs and to subsidize the price of electricity in Nova Scotia. Only in that way can Nova Scotians receive and pay a fair price for electrical generation, which everyone will regard as a necessity of life.
The point simply stated is this. Nova Scotia has encountered an energy problem of devastating proportion. The escalation of the price of foreign crude oil from $2 per barrel to $36 per barrel over a five-year period has resulted in a tremendous increase in the cost of domestic electricity. Rates in Nova Scotia are already almost twice the Canadian average. Help is required. It was promised; it ought to be delivered. If it is, Nova Scotia can maintain rates until alternate sources of energy can be brought on stream.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the members of this House are aware, this government is committed to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they reside, share in the benefits of our energy opportunities. Certainly we include the Atlantic region in our commitment to equitable treatment for all. In fact our energy strategy meets particularly pressing needs in Atlantic Canada which has a very heavy dependence on oil for generating electricity.
Over the years the federal government has assisted the maritime provinces in a variety of ways in meeting their electricity requirements. More recently support has been provided through federal loans to aid New Brunswick in the construction of the nuclear generating station at Point Lepreau. When this nuclear unit comes into service later next year, it will have the potential to displace six million barrels of oil consumption annually.
More recently also, federal funds for the Nova Scotia program for oil displacement have supported the construction of the second coal-fired unit at Lingan and provided funding for a small-scale hydro development as Sissiboo.
1054

May 13, 1980
Adjournment Debate
In large measure the solutions to reduced oil dependence must be supported by co-ordination within the region itself. The initiatives of New Brunswick in negotiating contracts to import hydro-generated electricity from Quebec are an example of this. More generally, the federal government has indicated a willingness in principle to provide financial support for the development of a broader degree of regional co-ordination and planning through the Maritime Energy Corporation, but it is disappointing that this opportunity has not made greater progress. Clearly the Atlantic provinces should, in their own interest, attempt to achieve the highest degree of co-ordination so that the disadvantages of smaller scale systems and generating facilities are reduced to a minimum and so that through co-operative effort the displacement of oil-fired electricity generation takes place as rapidly as possible.
In Newfoundland the dependence on oil for electricity generation is less significant at the moment, with only 16 per cent of production for provincial needs coming from oil. The concern is that this dependence is likely to grow because the more economic hydro resources on the island of Newfoundland have already been developed. For this reason the federal government agreed in 1978 to become a partner in a joint federal-provincial enterprise, the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, which was charged with the responsibility of developing proposals for hydroelectric development in Labrador and the transmission of electricity between Labrador and Newfoundland.
The policy of the previous government, which would have imposed much higher prices for oil on the consumers of Atlantic Canada, also would necessarily have involved a greater palliative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted three minutes have expired.


EMPLOYMENT-SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROJECTS- REASON FOR DELAY IN APPROVING APPLICATIONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker. I sought to follow up my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) of May 22 because the answer which I received from him on that occasion did not do justice to the spirit in which the question was originally asked, and because it did not do justice to the facts.
I rose in my place to ask the minister whether there were any pending announcements which would explain the delay which groups seeking funding under the summer youth employment program were experiencing. I knew of these delays because I had been telephoned by a group, not from my own riding but from a riding represented by a Manitoba Conservative member, a point which will be worth remembering when I get to the minister's comments on the alleged relation of NDP members of Parliament to the delay.
So, after being notified of the delay, I asked if an announcement was coming, not an announcement of who was to be funded but an announcement on a change of the program which would both explain and justify the delay.
Instead, the minister replied, first, that the announcement of funding was coming and that "there really is no delay." Yet the group I talked to expected to hear on April 30 whether they were to start some time after May 5 with their funding. They were concerned that people who lined up for this date would begin to look elsewhere for work. The minister said there was no delay and that his department was aiming at a May 15 target date, consistent with the schedule he announced in a press release some time in early April. In fact that press release of April 3 gives not indication of any time frame.
First, there was no delay, according to the minister's first answer, but then in the answer to the supplementary question, after being pressed a bit, the minister admitted that he was having problems. However, instead of telling the House why, and acting as a minister of the Crown should, he slipped into that petty, partisan attitude for which he is so famous and tried to take a cheap shot at the NDP, that party which he so despises for actually believing in justice and for having credibility in areas of concern in which he so futilely tried to get the Liberal party interested. Here I give the minister the benefit of the doubt, granting him status as a sincere eunuch in a harem that will yet be the ruin of him, a harem which ignores his public pleas, and one hopes there are private pleas, for rail relocation, among other things.
In a letter originally sent to members of Parliament asking them if they wished to recommend projects for their ridings, the minister said that if he did not hear from us by a date several days before my question in the House, he would proceed. In fact he did hear from us collectively and individually as we severally asked that our input be taken more seriously and not second guessed by a Liberal patronage committee, and that we be allowed to return to a system where community advisory committees had a significant say in what was to be funded and what was not.
The minister said in the House on the same day as my question on another occasion on the same subject, that New Democrats did not have the same respect for the role of a member of Parliament because we would not adjudicate projects the way the minister had suggested. We have more respect, not less, for the role of member of Parliament because we do not try to play God as members of Parliament. However, it is not surprising that the minister, a Liberal, should say this about the role of a member of Parliament, for that is really all that Liberal members of Parliament have ever been about, the dispensing of government money.
My question remains. Many groups are still waiting to hear about their funding. It is now 11 days since I asked my question in the House of Commons. I await an answer, and an explanation of this increasingly mysterious delay. I await an indication of whether the minister and his department intend
May 13, 1980

in the coming months or in the fall to reinstate the community advisory process for deciding which projects are going to get funds and which projects are not.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the earlier comments by the minister to the hon. member on the summer youth employment program and the approval process established for that program. The hon. member will be pleased to hear that we have been able to adhere to the original schedule and that, to date, there have been no delays in the approval of projects. In fact more than 80 per cent of the projects to this date have now been approved, which is much higher than the schedule we had earlier programmed.
1 expect that in most regions commission officials have already advised a number of project sponsors that their projects have been approved, or will be doing so very shortly. The approval of projects began several weeks ago and is now proceeding quite smoothly. Those projects which have come highly recommended and which emphasized a need to begin very early in the program time frame, are now being given priority attention.

It is expected that most of the projects which have been approved will be made known before the weekend, that is earlier than had first been expected. In fact, at this time nothing allows us to say that including consultation with hon. members has caused or will cause any serious delay in going ahead with the projects approved under the program.
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, 1 understand there can be concern about the applicants being advised their projects have been approved, because it took longer to process the first projects than the ones approved under the Young Canada Works program. However, I should like to point out to the House that the situation had been foreseen from the start, as the Progressive Conservative government which was unable to announce the summer youth employment program for this year, had planned to do so on January 8, 1980, contrary to the Liberal government in previous years which announced them in early December. Of course, since the job-creation program for the fall and winter of 1980 under Canada Works program was announced on December 12, on the very day before the Progressive Conservative government was brought down, it is not surprising they waited till January to announce their summer job-creation program.
Mr. Speaker, for a program of that importance, the announcements are usually made in the fall preceding its implementation, but this year the staff of the commission had to work within very narrow time slots. Fortunately, they found ways of shortening the normal time period necessary to implement the program so that, in fact, students will be able to avail themselves of job possibilities at the time when most of them are looking for summer jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Wednesday, May 14, 1980