1980-11-18

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 17, consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Stanley Knowles (for Mr. Skelly) moved:: Motion no. 56
That Bill C-6, an act 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 amended in clause 57 by striking out lines 16 to 21 at page 429 and substituting the following therefor:
"Quebec Savings Banks Act applies;
(d)	any other person(s) who is appointed by the Minister of Finance to be a member of the corporation; and
(e)	any other person(s) who is entitled under this act to be a member and who, on application to the Association for membership in the Association, establishes that he is entitled to be a member."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Madam Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division. Motion no. 56 (Mr. Skelly) negatived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Motion no. 57
That Bill C-6, an act 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 amended in Clause 57 by striking out line 13 at page 430 and substituting the following therefor:
"referred to in paragraphs (1 )(a) to (d), shall".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Madam Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division. Motion no. 57 (Mr. Skelly) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-6. Call in the members.
[ Translation]
Order. The first question is on motion No. 1 under the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
The House divided on motion No. 1 (Mr. Lambert) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 22)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Beatty
Blenkarn
Bosley
Cardiff
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cook Cooper Corbett
Cossitt
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Dantzer


Bank Act
	Messrs.	
Darling	Korchinski	OberleDick	Lambert	PaproskiDomm	Lawrence	PattersonEpp	Lewis	ReidFraser	MacDonald	(St. Catharines)Fretz	(Miss)	RocheFriesen	(Kingston and the Islands)	SchellenbergerGamble	Malone	ScottGreenaway	Mayer	(V ictoria- Ha 1 iburton)Gurbin	McCain	ShieldsHamilton	McCuish	Siddon(Qu'Appelle- Moose	McDermid	SpeyerMountain)	McGrath	StevensHargrave	McKnight	StewartHawkes	McMillan	TowersHowie	Mitges	VankoughnetJarvis	Neil	WenmanJelinek	Nickerson	WilsonKempling	Nielsen	WrightKilgour	Nowlan	Yurko-69.NAYS	
therefore it will not be necessary to call a formal vote on motion No. 2. It could go on division.
[Translation)


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Madam Speaker:: Motion No. 2 (Mr. Lambert) negatived on division.
The next division is on motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).
The House divided on motion No. 5 (Mr. Rae) which was negatived on the following division:
Messrs.
Allmand	Ferguson	Maltais	(Division No. 23)	Althouse	Fisher	Marceau	Appolloni	Foster	Masse	YEAS	(Mrs.)	Fox	Masters	Axworthy	Frith	McCauley	Messrs.	Bachand	Fulton	McRae	Baker	Gauthier	Miller	(Gander-T willingate)	Gendron	Mitchell	Althouse	Knowles	OrlikowBegin (Miss)	Gimaiel	(Mrs.)	Benjamin	Kristiansen	ParkerBenjamin	Gingras	Munro	Blackburn	Miller	RaeBerger	Gourd	(Hamilton East)	Blaikie	Mitchell	RobinsonBlackburn	Gray	Murphy	Fulton	(Mrs.)	(Burnaby)Blaikie	Guilbault	Nicholson	Hovdebo	Murphy	RoseBloomfield	Henderson	(Miss)	Ittinuar	Nystrom	Skeily-21.Bockstael	Herbert	Nystrom	Jewett (Miss)	Ogle	Bossy	Hervieux-Payette	Ogle	Breau	(Mrs.)	Olivier	NAYS	Bujold	Hovdebo	Orlikow	Bussieres	Hudecki	Ostiguy	Messrs.	Campbell	Irwin	Ouellet	(Miss)	Ittinuar	Parent	Allmand	Crouse	Gingras(South West Nova)	Jewett (Miss)	Parker	Andre	Cullen	GourdChenier	Johnston	Penner	Appolloni	Cyr	GrayChretien	Joyal	Pepin	(Mrs.)	Dantzer	GreenawayCollenette	Kaplan	Peterson	Axworthy	Darling	GuilbaultCorbin	Kelly	Pinard	Bachand	Dawson	GurbinCousineau	Knowles	Portelance	Baker	De Bane	HamiltonCullen	Kristiansen	Prud'homme	(Gander-Twillingate)	de Corneille	(Qu'Appelle-MooseCyr	Lachance	Rae	Baker	Demers	Mountain)Dawson	Lajoie	Regan	(Nepean-Carleton)	Deniger	HargraveDe Bane	Lamontagne	Reid	Beatty	Desmarais	Hawkesde Corneille	Laniel	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Begin (Miss)	Dick	HendersonDemers	Lapierre	Robinson	Berger	Dingwall	HerbertDeniger	Lapointe	(Burnaby)	Blenkarn	Dion	Hervieux-PayetteDesmarais	(Charlevoix)	Rompkey	Bloomfield	Dionne	(Mrs.)Dingwall	Lapointe	Rooney	Bockstael	(Northumberland-	HowieDion	(Beauce)	Rose	Bosley	Miramichi)	HudeckiDionne	LeBlanc	Roy	Bossy	Domm	Irwin(Northumberland-	Leduc	Schroder	Breau	Dubois	JarvisMiramichi)	Lefebvre	Simmons	Bujold	Duclos	JelinekDubois	Lumley	Skeily	Bussieres	Dupont	JohnstonDuclos	MacBain	Stollery	Campbell	Dupras	JoyalDupont	MacEachen	Tardif	(Miss)	Duquet	KaplanDupras	MacGuigan	Tobin	(South West Nova)	Epp	KellyDuquet	Mackasey	Tousignant	Cardiff	Erola (Mrs.)	KemplingErola (Mrs.)	MacLaren	Turner	Chenier	Ethier	KilgourEthier	MacLellan	Weatherhead	Chretien	Evans	KorchinskiEvans	Malepart	Whelan	Clarke	Ferguson	LachanceYanakis-131.	(Vancouver Quadra)	Fisher	LajoieCollenette	Foster	Lambert


Madam Speaker:: I declare motion No. 1 lost.


Mr. Lambert:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, motion No. 2 could quite as conveniently have been grouped with motion No. 1. They were both on the same subject and
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Corbin
Cossitt
Cousineau
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West)
Fox
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Frith
Gamble
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Lamontagne
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Lawrence
LeBlanc



Bank Act
Messrs.	Messrs.
Leduc
Lefebvrc
Lewis
Lumley
MacBain
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Malone
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
Mayer
McCain
McCauley
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKnight
McMillan
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Neil
Nicholson
(Miss)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Patterson
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Roche
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
Schellenberger
Schroder
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Simmons Speyer Stevens Stewart Stollery Tardif Tobin Tousignant Towers Turner Vankoughnet Weatherhead Wenman Whelan Wilson Wright Yanakis Yurko-180.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, through an oversight, my name was not called. I voted against this motion.


Madam Speaker:: It is recorded.

The motion is lost.
The question is now on motion No. 6, under the name of the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).
The House divided on motion No. 6 (Mr. Skelly), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 24)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Collenette
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Corbin
Cossitt
Cousineau
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Cullen Cyr
Dantzer
Darling
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dick
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Domm
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Epp
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Foster
Fox
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Frith
Gamble
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
Gray
Greenaway
Guilbault
Gurbin
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Howie
Hudecki
Irwin
Jarvis
Jelinek
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Kempling
Kilgour
Korchinski
Lachance
Lajoie
Lambert
Lamontagne
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lewis
Lumley
MacBain
MacDonald
.(Miss)
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Malone
Maltais
Marceat^
Masse
Masters
Mayer
McCain
McCauley
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKnight
McMillan
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Neil
Nicholson
(Miss)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Patterson
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Roche Rompkey Rooney Roy
Schellenberger
Schroder
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Simmons Speyer Stevens Stewart Stollery Tardif Tobin Tousignant Towers Turner Vankoughnet Weatherhead Wenman Whelan Wilson Wright Yanakis Yurko-181.
Althouse
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blaikie
Fulton
Hovdebo
Ittinuar
Jewett (Miss)
Knowles
Kristiansen
Miller
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Murphy
Nystrom
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Rae
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Rose
Skelly -21.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Allmand
Andre
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-T willingate) Baker
(Nepean-Car'eton)
Beatty
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blaker
Blenkarn
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bosley
Bossy
Breau


Madam Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.
Bujold
Bussieres
c-	The question is on motion No. 10 in the name of the hon.
(South West Nova)	member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).
Cardiff
Chenier
Chretien	The House divided on motion No. 10 (Mr. Rae) which was
C'?vancouver Quadra)	negatived on the following division.
4792


Bank Act
(Division No. 25)
Althouse	YEAS Messrs. Knowles	OrlikowBenjamin	Kristiansen	ParkerBlackburn	Miller	RaeBlaikie	Mitchell	RobinsonFulton	(Mrs.)	(Burnaby)Hovdebo	Murphy	RoseIttinuar	Ny strom	Skelly-21.Jewett (Miss)	Ogle	Allmand	NAYS Messrs. Ferguson	MasseAndre	Fisher	MastersAppolloni	Foster	Mayer(Mrs.)	Fox	McCainAxworthy	Fraser	McCauleyBachand	Fretz	McCuishBaker	Friesen	McDermid(Gander-Twillingate)	Frith	McGrathBaker	Gamble	McKnight(Nepean-Carleton)	Gauthier	McMillanBeatty	Gendron	McRaeBegin (Miss)	Gimaiel	MitgesBerger	Gingras	MunroBlaker	Gourd	(Hamilton East)Blenkarn	Gray	NeilBloomfield	Greenaway	NicholsonBockstael	Guilbault	(Miss)Bosley	Gurbin	NickersonBossy	Hamilton	NielsenBreau	(Qu'Appelle- Moose	NowlanBujold	Mountain)	OberleBussieres	Hargrave	OlivierCampbell	Hawkes	Ostiguy(Miss)	Henderson	Ouellet(South West Nova)	Herbert	Pa proskiCardiff	Hervieux-Payette	ParentChenier	(Mrs.)	PattersonChretien	Howie	PennerClarke	Hudecki	Pepin(Vancouver Quadra)	Irwin	PetersonCollenette	Jarvis	PinardCook	Jelinek	PortelanceCooper	Johnston	Prud'hommeCorbett	Joyal	ReganCorbin	Kaplan	ReidCossitt	Kelly	(St. Catharines)Cousineau	Kempling	ReidCrombie	Kilgour	(Kenora-Rainy River)Crosbie	Korchinski	Roberts(St. John's West)	Lachance	RocheCrouse	Lajoie	RompkeyCullen	Lambert	RooneyCyr	Lamontagne	RoyDantzer	Laniel	SchellenbergerDarling	Lapierre	SchroderDawson	Lapointe	ScottDe Bane	(Charlevoix)	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Corneille	Lapointe	ShieldsDemers	(Beauce)	SiddonDeniger	Lawrence	SimmonsDesmarais	LeBlanc	SpeyerDick	Leduc	StevensDingwall	Lefebvre	StewartDion	Lewis	StolleryDionne	Lumley	Tardif(Northumberland-	MacBain	TobinMiramichi)	MacDonaid	TousignantDomm	(Miss)	TowersDubois	MacEachen	TurnerDuclos	MacGuigan	VankoughnetDupont	Mackasey	WeatherheadDupras	MacLaren	WenmanDuquet	MacLellan	WhelanEpp	Malepart	WilsonErola (Mrs.)	Malone	WrightEthier	Maltais	YanakisEvans	Marceau	Yurko-181.


Madam Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost. The question is on motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).
The House divided on motion No. 11 (Mr. Rae) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 26)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Knowles	OgleBenjamin	Kristiansen	OrlikowBlackburn	Manly	ParkerBlaikie	Miller	RaeFulton	Mitchell	RobinsonHovdebo	(Mrs.)	(Burnaby)Ittinuar	Murphy	RoseJewett (Miss)	Nystrom
NAYS Messrs.	Skelly-22.Allmand	Duclos	LeducAndre	Dupont	LefebvreAppolloni	Dupras	Lewis(Mrs.)	Duquet	LumleyAxworthy	Epp	MacBainBachand	Erola (Mrs.)	MacDonaldBaker	Ethier	(Miss)(Gander-Twillingate)	Evans	MacEachenBaker	Ferguson	MacGuigan(Nepean-Carleton)	Fisher	MackaseyBeatty	Foster	MacLarenBegin (Miss)	Fox	MacLellanBerger	Fraser	MalepartBlaker	Fretz	MaloneBlenkarn	Friesen	MaltaisBloomfield	Frith	MarceauBockstael	Gamble	MasseBosley	Gauthier	MastersBossy	Gendron	MayerBreau	Gimaiel	McCainBujold	Gingras	McCauleyBussieres	Gourd	McCuishCampbell	Gray	McDermid(Miss)	Greenaway	McGrath(South West Nova)	Guilbault	McKnightCardiff	Gurbin	McMillanChenier	Hamilton	McRaeChretien	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MitgesClarke	Mountain)	Munro(Vancouver Quadra)	Hargrave	(Hamilton East)Collenette	Hawkes	NeilCook	Henderson	NicholsonCooper	Herbert	(Miss)Corbett	Hervieux-Payette	NickersonCorbin	(Mrs.)	NielsenCossitt	Howie	NowlanCousineau	Hudecki	OberleCrombie	Irwin	OlivierCrosbie	Jarvis	Ostiguy(St. John's West)	Jelinek	OuelletCrouse	Johnston	PaproskiCullen	Joyal	ParentCyr	Kaplan	PattersonDantzer	Kelly	PennerDarling	Kempling	PepinDawson	Kilgour	PetersonDe Bane	Korchinski	Pinardde Corneille	Lachance	PortelanceDemers	Lajoie	Prud'hommeDeniger	Lambert	ReganDesmarais	Lamontagne	ReidDick	Laniel	(St. Catharines)Dingwall	Lapierre	ReidDion	Lapointe	(Kenora-Rainy River)Dionne	(Charlevoix)	Roberts(Northumberland-	Lapointe	RocheMiramichi)	(Beauce)	RompkeyDomm	Lawrence	RooneyDubois	LeBlanc	
Bank Act
Messrs.
Roy	Stevens	VankoughnetSchellenberger	Stewart	WeatherheadSchroder	Stollery	WenmanScott	Tardif	Whelan(Victoria-Haliburton)	Tobin	WilsonShields	Tousignant	WrightSiddon	Towers	YanakisSimmons	Turner	Yurko-181.Speyer	[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on motion No. 13, under the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). A vote on this motion will also dispose of motions Nos. 19, 20 and 21, also under the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West.
The House divided on motions Nos. 13, 19, 20 and 21 (Mr. Lambert), which were negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 27)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Messrs.
Gimai'el	Lumley	ParkerGingras	MacBain	PennerGourd	MacEachen	PepinGray	MacGuigan	PetersonGuilbault	Mackasey	PinardHenderson	MacLaren	Porte la neeHerbert	MacLellan	Prud'hommeHervieux-Payette	Malepart	Rae(Mrs.)	Maltais	ReganHovdebo	Manly	ReidHudecki	Marceau	(Kenora-RaiiIrwin	Masse	RobertsJewett (Miss)	Masters	RobinsonJohnston	McCauley	(Burnaby)Joyal	McRae	RompkeyKaplan	Miller	RooneyKelly	Mitchell	RoseKnowles	(Mrs.)	RossiKristiansen	Munro	RoyLachance	(Hamilton East)	SchroderLajoie	Murphy	SimmonsLamontagne	Nicholson	SkellyLaniel	(Miss)	StolleryLapierre	Nystrom	TardifLapointe	Ogle	Tobin(Charlevoix)	Olivier	TousignantLapointe	Orlikow	Turner(Beauce)	Ostiguy	WeatherheadLeBlanc	Oueilet	WhelanLeduc	Parent	Yanakis-134.Lefebvre	Andre	Greenaway	MitgesBaker	Gurbin	Neil(Nepean-Carleton)	Hamilton	NickersonBeatty	(Qu'Appelle- Moose	NielsenBlenkarn	Mountain)	NowlanBosley	Hargrave	OberleCardiff	Hawkes	PaproskiClarke	Howie	Patterson(Vancouver Quadra)	Jarvis	ReidCook	Jelinek	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Kempling	RocheCorbett	Kilgour	SchellenbergerCossitt	Korchinski	ScottCrombie	Lambert	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Shields(St. John's West)	Lewis	SiddonCrouse	MacDonald	SpeyerDantzer	(Miss)	StevensDarling	Malone	StewartDick	Mayer	TowersDomm	McCain	VankoughnetEpp	McCuish	WenmanFraser	McDermid	WilsonFretz	McGrath	WrightFriesen	McKnight	Yurko-69.Gamble	McMillan	
++NAYS


Madam Speaker:: 
Madam Speaker:: 
(Division No. 30)
Althouse	YEAS Messrs. Kristiansen	OrlikowBenjamin	Manly	ParkerBlackburn	Miller	RaeBlaikie	Mitchell	RobinsonFulton	(Mrs.)	(Burnaby)Hovdebo	Murphy	RoseJewett (Miss)	Nystrom	Skelly-21.Knowles	Ogle	Allmand	NAYS Messrs. Foster	McCainAndre	Fox	McCauleyAppolloni	Fraser	McCuish(Mrs.)	Fretz	McDermidAxworthy	Friesen	McGrathBachand	Frith	McKnightBaker	Gamble	McLean(Gander-Twillingate)	Gauthier	McMillanBaker	Gendron	McRae(Nepean-Carleton)	Gimaiel	MitgesBeatty	Gingras	MunroBegin (Miss)	Gourd	(Hamilton 1Berger	Gray	NeilBlenkarn	Greenaway	NicholsonBloomfield	Guilbault	(Miss)Bockstael	Gurbin	NickersonBosley	Flamilton	NielsenBossy	(Qu' Appelle- Moose	NowlanBreau	Mountain)	OberleBujold	Flargrave	OlivierBussieres	Hawkes	OstiguyCampbell	Henderson	Ouellet(Miss)	Herbert	Paproski(South West Nova)	Hervieux-Payette	ParentCardiff	(Mrs.)	PattersonChenier	Howie	PenncrChretien	Hudecki	PepinClarke	Irwin	Peterson(Vancouver Quadra)	Jarvis	PinardCollenette	Jelinek	PortelanceCook	Johnston	Prud'hommeCooper	Joyal	ReganCorbett	Kaplan	ReidCorbin	Kelly	(St. Catharines)Cossitt	Kempling	ReidCousineau	Kilgour	(Kenora-Rainy River)Crombie	Korchinski	RobertsCrosbie	Lachance	Roche(St. John's West)	Lajoie	RompkeyCrouse	Lambert	RooneyCullen	Lamontagne	RossiCyr	Laniel	RoyDantzer	Lapierre	SchellenbergerDarling	Lapointe	SchroderDawson	(Charlevoix)	ScottDe Bane	Lapointe	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Corneille	(Beauce)	ShieldsDemers	Lawrence	SiddonDeniger	LeBlanc	SimmonsDesmarais	Leduc	SpeyerDick	Lefebvre	StevensDingwall	Lewis	StewartDion	Lumley	StolleryDionne	MacBain	Tardif(Northumberland-	MacDonald	TobinMiramichi)	(Miss)	TousignantDomm	MacEachen	TowersDubois	MacGuigan	TurnerDuclos	Mackasey	VankoughnetDupont	MacLaren	WeatherheadDupras	MacLellan	WenmanDuquet	Malepart	WhelanEpp	Malone	WilsonErola (Mrs.)	Maltais	WrightEthier	Marceau	YanakisEvans	Masse	Yurko-182.Ferguson	Masters	Fisher	Mayer	
Bank Act


Madam Speaker:: Therefore 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 54 (Mr. Rae) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 49.
The House divided on motion No. 49 (Mr. Rae) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 31)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Kristiansen	OrlikowBenjamin	Manly	ParkerBlackburn	Miller	RaeBlaikie	Mitchell	RobinsonFulton	(Mrs.)	(Burnaby)Hovdebo	Murphy	RoseJewett (Miss)	Nystrom	Skelly-21.Knowles	Ogle
NAYS Messrs.	Allmand	Domm	LapointeAndre	Dubois	(Beauce)Appolloni	Duclos	Lawrence(Mrs.)	Dupont	LeBlancAxworthy	Dupras	LeducBachand	Duquet	LefebvreBaker	Epp	Lewis(Gander-Twillingate)	Erola (Mrs.)	LumleyBaker	Ethier	MacBain(Nepean-Carleton)	Evans	MacDonaldBeatty	Ferguson	(Miss)Begin (Miss)	Fisher	MacEachenBerger	Foster	MacGuiganBlenkarn	Fox	MackaseyBloomfield	Fraser	MacLarenBockstael	Fretz	MacLellanBosley	Friesen	MalepartBossy	Frith	MaloneBreau	Gauthier	MaltaisBujold	Gendron	MarceauBussieres	Gimaiel	MasseCampbell	Gingras	Masters(Miss)	Gourd	Mayer(South West Nova)	Gray	McCainCardiff	Greenaway	McCauleyChenier	Guilbault	McCuishChretien	Gurbin	McDermidClarke	Hamilton	McGrath(Vancouver Quadra)	(Qu'Appelle- Moose	McKnightCollenette	Mountain)	McLeanCook	Hargrave	McMillanCooper	Hawkes	McRaeCorbett	Henderson	MitgesCorbin	Herbert	MunroCossitt	Hervieux-Payette	(Hamilton ICousineau	(Mrs.)	NeilCrombie	Howie	NicholsonCrosbie	Hudecki	(Miss)(St. John's West)	Irwin	NickersonCrouse	Jarvis	NielsenCullen	Jelinek	NowlanCyr	Johnston	OberleDantzer	Joyal	OlivierDarling	Kaplan	OstiguyDawson	Kelly	OuelletDe Bane	Kempling	Paproskide Corneille	Kilgour	ParentDemers	Korchinski	PattersonDeniger	Lachance	PennerDesmarais	Lajoie	PepinDick	Lambert	PetersonDingwall	Lamontagne	PinardDion	Laniel	PortelanceDionne	Lapierre	Prud'homme(Northumberland-	Lapointe	ReganMiramichi)	(Charlevoix)	
Bank Act	
	Messrs.	
Reid	Scott	Towers(St. Catharines)	(Victoria-Haliburton)	TurnerReid	Shields	Vankoughnet(Kenora-Rainy River)	Siddon	WeatherheadRoberts	Simmons	WenmanRoche	Speyer	WhelanRompkey	Stevens	WilsonRooney	Stewart	WrightRossi	Stollery	YanakisRoy	Tardif	Yurko-181.Schellenberger	Tobin	Schroder	Tousignant


Madam Speaker:: Therefore 1 declare the motion lost.
The question is now on motion No. 50.
The House divided on motion No. 50 (Mr. Lambert) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 32)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre	Greenaway	McMillanBaker	Gurbin	Mitges(Nepean-Carleton)	Hamilton	NeilBeatty	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NickersonBlenkarn	Mountain)	NielsenBosley	Hargrave	NowlanCardiff	Hawkes	OberleClarke	Howie	Paproski(Vancouver Quadra)	Jarvis	PattersonCook	Jelinek	ReidCooper	Kempling	(St. Catharines)Corbett	Kilgour	RocheCossitt	Korchinski	SchellenbergerCrombie	Lambert	ScottCrosbie	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)(St. John's West)	Lewis	ShieldsCrouse	MacDonald	SiddonDantzer	(Miss)	SpeyerDarling	Malone	StevensDick	Mayer	StewartDomm	McCain	TowersEpp	McCuish	VankoughnetFraser	McDermid	WenmanFretz	McGrath	WilsonFriesen	McKnight	WrightGamble	McLean
NAYS Messrs.	Yurko-70.Allmand	Cousineau	FultonAlthouse	Cullen	GauthierAppolloni	Cyr	Gendron(Mrs.)	Dawson	GimaielAxworthy	De Bane	GingrasBachand	de Corneille	GourdBaker	Demers	Gray(Gander-Twillingate)	Deniger	GuilbaultBegin (Miss)	Desmarais	HendersonBenjamin	Dingwall	HerbertBerger	Dion	Hervieux-PayetteBlackburn	Dionne	(Mrs.)Blaikie	(Northumberland-	HovdeboBlaker	Miramichi)	HudeckiBloomfield	Dubois	IrwinBockstael	Duclos	Jewett (Miss)Bossy	Dupont	JohnstonBreau	Dupras	JoyalBujold	Duquet	KaplanBussieres	Erola (Mrs.)	KellyCampbell	Ethier	Knowles(Miss)	Evans	Kristiansen(South West Nova)	Ferguson	LachanceChenier	Fisher	LajoieChretien	Foster	LamontagneCollenette	Fox	LanielCorbin	Frith	Lapierre
Messrs.
Lapointe	Mitchell	Reid(Charlevoix)	(Mrs.)	(Kenora-RaiiLapointe	Munro	Roberts(Beauce)	(Hamilton East)	RobinsonLeBlanc	Murphy	(Burnaby)Leduc	Nicholson	RompkeyLefebvre	(Miss)	RooneyLumley	Nystrom	RoseMacBain	Ogle	RossiMacEachen	Olivier	RoyMacGuigan	Orlikow	SchroderMackasey	Ostiguy	SimmonsMacLaren	Ouellet	SkellyMacLellan	Parent	StolleryMalepart	Parker	TardifMaltais	Penner	TobinManly	Pepin	TousignantMarceau	Peterson	TurnerMasse	Pinard	WeatherheadMasters	Portelance	WhelanMcCauley	Prud'homme	Yanakis-134.McRae	Rae	Miller	Regan


Madam Speaker:: Therefore I declare the motion lost. [Translation]


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved: 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May 1 call it one o'clock, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.nt.
At 12.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Canadian National intends to close its express office in Charlottetown, leaving Prince Edward Island totally without locally supplied express service and some 37 islanders will be thrown out of work. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House condemn the government for allowing CN to take this callous action and, in particular, to juggle its administrative arrangements to justify the closure on the basis of misleading profit and loss statements.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the establishment of the fourth veterinary college in Canada, slated to be located in one of the maritime provinces, has now been in limbo for several years because of indecision in the maritimes as to its exact location, and in view of the fact that the veterinary profession as a whole has questioned the necessity of another veterinary college for Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the funds originally slated by the Department of Agriculture to subsidize such a program be now diverted to the existing veterinary colleges to assist them in their continuing program and in upgrading their programs and facilities.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the recent budget proposed nothing meaningful to assist the ailing small business sector except to extend the small business development program by 90 days, a program not as yet even introduced, and because this government's actions do in fact contribute to the ever-increasing inflation rate, not to mention high interest rates, causing an unprecedented number of bankruptcies within the small business sector, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Minister of Finance be instructed to introduce forthwith legislation respecting the small business development bond program, and at the same time provide for the extension of that program to at least the end of 1981 in order to make it meaningful.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Finance be instructed to make a statement on motions with respect to financial transactions between Mr. Roland Thornhill, minister of economic development for Nova Scotia, and a number of chartered banks in Nova Scotia and the retirement, resignation and transfer of a number of senior officers of those banks since those transactions occurred, and report to the House whether these transactions involved a breach of the Bank Act, the Criminal Code or financial ethics;
I further move that the Solicitor General consult with the attorney general of Nova Scotia with respect to the RCMP investigation which has been carried out and report to this House following these consultations.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL AERONAUTICAL COLLECTION
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Aviation has played an important role in the development of this motion, both in time of war and in peace. Housed in substandard World War II wooden hangars-fire traps, if you will-in a little travelled section of this city instead of being in a highly advertised and well-marked area as a major tourist attraction to our beautiful capital city, at nearby Rockcliffe is the National Aeronautical Collection, a priceless collection of vintage flying craft. It is one of the finest collections of its type in the world. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the government give immediate consideration to relocating this priceless collection to modern, fireproof premises, more centrally located so that many more thousands of Canadians and foreign visitors might enjoy an important link in their heritage.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, in so far as the unemployment rate in Peterborough county and district has risen by an unconscionable 33 per cent between October 1979, and October, 1980, according to the local employment and immigration office, compared to the national average increase of only 1 per cent during the same period, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce consider this as a crucial and deciding factor in his forthcoming announcement of the location of the new de Havilland Dash-8 plant for which Windsor, Downsview, Hamilton and Peterborough are reported to be leading contenders, especially in view of the fact that his decision on this matter has been particularly tardy at a time when job creation should be a top priority.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The GO transit system in greater Toronto, through the province of Ontario, has taken over the railways' responsibility to supply passenger service to commuters. This assumption of rail responsibility should be looked on with favour by the Government of Canada. Instead, Canadian National Railways is gouging the province of Ontario for supply and service and making windfall profits by taking market rent for the use of its rights of way. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the government do direct the CNR to rebate to the province of Ontario at least $2 million per annum that the CNR improperly charges GO transit for the use of CNR rights of way used for GO service, so that this valuable commuter service can be expanded.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, since the business plan to modernize the Sydney Steel Corporation was submitted to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) almost one month ago, since this business plan recommended an immediate expenditure of $67.5 million in order to get the existing operations of Sysco into a functional state, and since we recognize that members of the House of Commons must have input into this plan before it goes forward and that it must be done fairly quickly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House refer the matter of the Sysco business plan to the Standing Committee on Regional Development and instruct the committee to report back to the House by December 31, 1980.
That is a few weeks longer than was allowed for the constitutional debate.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

1983 WORLD UNIVERSITY GAMES, EDMONTON-CALL FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT AND CONGRATULATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Canada has successfully been the host country for the Summer Olympics in Montreal and the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton. Last week the city of Edmonton, jointly with the University of Alberta, at a presentation in Madrid, succeeded in convincing the International University Sports Federation to hold the 1983 World University Games in Edmonton. These games, which will be called "Universiade Edmonton 83", will no doubt have the support of all Canadians as an international expression of competitive good will.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House go on record as supporting these games and furthermore offer its congratulations to both the city of Edmonton and the University of Alberta and all those directly responsible for their successful efforts in sponsoring the "Universiade Edmonton 83" games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to say a word in suppoit of this motion. I congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) on bringing forward such a worth-while motion. It brings to the attention of the House the success of the great city of Edmonton in winning the site for these games. The World University Games has become more and more prominent and over the years has become quite a large event. Today they are second in importance only to the Olympics. The fact that Edmonton will be sponsoring the games is every reason why Canadians should be particularly supportive of this very great athletic event.
May I also say at this time that it is significant that Calgary, in another portion of the province of Alberta, is seeking to host the 1988 Winter Olympic Games. This would also be a very important event for Canada. Therefore, the members of this House not only want to express their support for the hosting of the World University Games in Edmonton in 1983, but will want to express the hope that the bid by Calgary for the 1988 Winter Olympics will be successful.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It being 2.15 p.m. I must interrupt the hon. minister.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his budget of October 28, just 21 days ago, he forecast an average rate of inflation for Canada this year of 9.7 per cent and next year of 10.2 per cent. The figures brought down last week from Statistics Canada show that the year-over-year inflation rate is 10.9 per cent and that there was a 0.9 per cent increase in the CPI in the month from September to October. This is a very important matter. For the budget forecast to be accurate, the cost of living figures would have to fall six-tenths of 1 per cent in the next two months. Does the minister expect the CPI to fall at least that much in the next two months, and if he does not, what means does he propose to take to stay within the forecast inflation rate increase that he gave in his budget just 21 days ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I thought I cautioned the hon. gentleman and members of the House yesterday about the dangers of forecasting and expecting every forecast to be verified and supported. Developing events often change these forecasts, and by the end of the year it may be that the forecast for 1980 will prove to be on the optimistic side. However, quite apart from whether it is up or down a bit, the main point I made in the budget was that inflation is the number one problem facing Canada, and whether or not there may be variations along the line does not change that fundamental underlying fact that we in the country all face.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to get the minister to treat his own projections seriously. This was a projection made 21 days ago for this year's inflation rate, and it is obvious that it is going to be out considerably. I remind the minister that his associate, the Minister of State for Finance, said on Friday that the government was determined to fight inflation. That is not shown in the budget, of course.
The Minister of State for Finance also said that the government will take the means necessary to stay within the forecast inflation rate increase. What means was the minister's associate minister referring to that he is going to take to stay within the forecast inflation rate increase? I also remind the minister, just to keep him a teensy bit on the honest side, that his own finance department officials have admitted that their inflation forecasts may be too low. They may be out by half a percentage point, says a senior official. If the minister is not prepared to admit it, his officials are. What means is he going to take to keep the inflation rate down within his forecast range for this year and next year?


Oral Questions
Mir. MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has talked about the inflation forecast being made three weeks ago. If he does not know, he ought to know that these forecasts are made quite a long time before a budget is presented; it is totally impossible to present a forecast on the date of the budget. If that were to be the case, one would be constantly putting the budget forward by three months in order to get it updated. So the hon. member is not going to get away with that nonsense today or any other day in the House of Commons.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the minister is like Muhammed Ali when he had his legs. Muhammed Ali does not have his legs any longer; nor does the minister. If the minister does not want to admit to 21 days, let us add four weeks, which means they were done six weeks ago. The forecast for this year was done six weeks ago, and the forecast for next year. Forecasters in the private sector are doing this every month with a great deal more accuracy than the minister's officials and the minister.
If the number one battle is going to be against inflation, what additional steps is the minister going to take now? His own budget has been a disastrous flop. It does not fight inflation. The deficit is burgeoning up. The budget is a monumental flop.


Mr. Chenier:: What was yours?


John Carnell Crosbie: In four years' time we will look back and see what a flop it was. What steps is the minister going to take to keep within his forecast and to reassure the people of this country who are suffering from these increases in prices that he is going to attempt to make a serious effort to stop the rise in inflation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member really believed that the budget was such a flop, he would not be showing the high state of frustration and indignation that he has been showing over the past two weeks. I think that if he believed that, he would be much more relaxed than he has been in the last little while. But let me tell the hon. member that it would be of help to me in restraining inflation if he could convince his colleagues in the House of Commons not to be making proposals every day which, if accepted by the House, would considerably add to inflation. Today there were two proposals made under Standing Order 43, which, if they were accepted by the House, would have added to total expenditures and to the deficit and make their own contribution to inflation. So I would ask him, as a beginning, to get his own act together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance, and if he feels that it is dangerous to forecast, perhaps he will live with the reality of his nine months in office since February 18, the date of the election. During that period the Canadian dollar has fallen almost 3 cents in relation to the U.S. dollar. As the minister must know, this is partly due to the high inflation levels that are being recorded in Canada. Would he indicate to the House whether he is concerned with the vicious circle which is taking place, where you have high inflation, a falling dollar as a result of that, and the falling dollar, in turn, creating more inflation in the country. If the minister is concerned, what does he intend to do about correcting the deterioration in the value of our dollar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member knows that the value of the Canadian dollar has fluctuated considerably in the past several months. He will have recognized that within the last short period, the pressure on the Canadian dollar has arisen, to some extent, from the differential in interest rates, both shortterm prime rates and interest rates, between Canada and the United States. If he has not observed the fact, I would advise him that for a considerable period of time interest rates in Canada have been appreciably lower than they have been in the United States. The hon. member is asking me to jack up interest rates in Canada; otherwise he would be aware of the pressure that that puts upon the Canadian currency.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I think that what we are asking the minister is obvious, that is, to do something about inflation in this country. It is inflation that is triggering the high interest rates. Would the minister tell the House whether he has any concern for those who must carry mortgages on their property, bearing in mind the fact that when he took power the mortgage rate in this country for residential accommodation was 13 per cent and it is now over 15 per cent?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As you know, Madam Speaker, that 2 per cent increase in interest rates means, for a home owner having a $40,000 mortgage, monthly payments $57 a month higher under this Minister of Finance than they were last February. Is he at least concerned about that and, if so, can he tell the House what he will do about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first point I would like to make in reply to the hon. member's statement that the principal cause of these interest rates was inflation is that in this particular case the inflation happens to have started in the United States. It has not been the Bank of Canada or the Canadian monetary policy that has sparked increasing interest rates in the United States. It is not the Bank of Canada that has increased the federal discount rate in the United States. These two factors outside of Canada obviously have an effect on Canada because


of the international character of capital markets. So if the hon. member wants to live as part of the world community, he should understand that there are certain realities which flow from that membership in the world economy. I draw to his attention that simple fact, which he obviously failed to learn even during his short period in office.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday his department released a report which revealed alarming levels of pollution occuring in Canada, much of it coming from crossborder pollutants. For example, some 80 per cent of acid rain comes from the United States, resulting in the following: in Ontario some 4,000 lakes have been destroyed; the salmon industry in Nova Scotia has been destroyed; farmland in western Canada is now being increasingly polluted.
Considering the United States just recently elected a new president who has made it clear that he is indifferent to pollution, what precisely does the Government of Canada have in mind to protect our environment?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the situation described in the report is extremely serious. Perhaps the word "destroyed" which the hon. gentleman used is not appropriate, but certainly lakes have been very markedly affected. We are continuing our efforts in relation to the United States. As I think the hon. gentleman knows, we have signed a memorandum of intent with the United States government. Discussions are already well under way for the establishment of a treaty of accord with the United States. We will continue with those efforts. I do not think it is wise at this time to prejudge the response of the new American administration when it takes office on January 20. We intend to proceed as actively and quickly as we can in reaching an agreement with the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with specific reference to the 18-month deadline to which the minister referred, considering that the president-elect indicated that he will review their legislation from the point of view of taking away whatever tough controls exist in controlling pollution and that the new Republican chairman of the United States Senate energy committee is widely known in the United States for being completely indifferent to pollution, could the minister give us any reason at all for believing that the 18-month optimism he just expressed has any hope of being realized?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker. The optimism is based on the facts of the situation. The acid rain problem is an extremely serious one, not only for Canada but for the United
Oral Questions
States. The United States government's own figures estimate that the cost to the United States, simply in terms of the erosion of buildings, is between $2 billion and $4 billion a year. When the new administration sees the facts of the situation and receives the results of the kind of research published yesterday, I think it will be led to the conclusion that our two countries together should proceed actively to deal with this problem.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the report indicated that a further 45,000 lakes are about to be destroyed and that in terms of freshwater fish none between Ontario and Newfoundland will remain in existence, is the minister telling the House that we will just sit back and optimistically hope that a new government, which has been elected in part on indifference to a pollution program, will provide answers for our alarming levels of pollution, or will he give us a commitment that he will come back to the House, at least before Christmas, with an alternative program to deal with this truly calamitous situation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman implies that nothing has been done; that is far from the case. As the House knows, we have very greatly increased the funds which we are placing at the disposal of research into acid rain and other acid precipitation problems. We have signed the memorandum of intent. Those discussions are continuing with the United States. We are expanding our research and impressing upon provincial governments the more rigorous exercise of limitation orders. That has already happened in relation to Inco. We are assessing the Falconbridge situation, and we are looking at Ontario Hydro plants. A considerable amount of activity has been undertaken in relation to our own efforts in Canada which contribute markedly to the acid rain problem.


John Edward Broadbent: Eighty per cent comes from the United
States.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. gentleman is incorrect in saying 80 per cent; it is 50 per cent. Also he is incorrect in saying that
45,000	lakes are about to turn dead. I do not want to nit-pick on those errors because the conclusions of the report indeed are very serious, but we are acting within our own jurisdiction to the fullest extent and exploring every possible avenue to press the United States to co-operate with us in this very important venture.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the announced intention of CN Express to terminate jobs which are badly needed and to close ten out of its 15 terminals in


Oral Questions
Atlantic Canada, which leaves Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland without any terminals, New Brunswick with three terminals and Nova Scotia with two, what measures will the minister take to continue this service, which is intended to compensate for rail line abandonment in the maritimes in the 1960s? Surely it is time this government stopped picking on the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, one must understand why this has taken place. CN Express are losing money. They lost $14 million in 1970 and they will lose $57 million this year. The main reason for this is that CN Express cannot compete adequately against firms which are more specialized and more selective in their operations.
What is taking place now is that they are cutting a number of points of delivery. They are also pre-retiring, relocating and retaining their employees, which must be underlined. This is done in co-operation and agreement with the union. What is happening is regrettable but one must say that it is being done in a very humanitarian and a very sophisticated way. Obviously this will affect the maritimes because 250 out of the 1,000 people affected come from there. 1 emphasize that substantial efforts are being made to accommodate the situation and to help the employees. I understand that up to 90 per cent of them will be relocated, retired or retrained and that they will have first call on all jobs available from all divisions of CN.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, first we lose the trains and now we lose the express. Has the minister been in contact with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning the devastating effect this reduction in competition will have on rates charged for alternate modes of transportation and the extensive harm this will cause consumers as a result?
Further, has the minister had any consultation with his counterparts in the Atlantic provinces or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion about remedial measures and, if so, what solutions will he adopt? If not, why not?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, many members of the cabinet were involved in the information process. If there is one thing that is not being compromised, it is competition. In the very city of Amherst, Nova Scotia, to name one example, CN Express estimated that they had to compete with 14 other companies which were engaged in the same business. So one thing which will not suffer is competition. As a matter of fact, CN Express was competing with the Post Office Department and also other government interests.


REMOVAL OF FACILITIES FROM NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I also wish to address my question to the Minister of Transport. On Friday, January 25, 1980, Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau, speaking in Halifax, said among other things:
We will use revenues raised through energy taxation to make big projects happen-namely, railway building, pipeline construction, a western electrical grid and coal liquefaction are only a few of the projects that the energy boom could produce.
This statement was endorsed by all Liberal candidates. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport if he could explain further the reasons why this government on November 5 authorized the CNR to remove 11 agency positions in Nova Scotia, seven of which are in my riding at Chester, Malone Bay, Lunenburg, Liverpool, Lockeport, Shelburne and Barrington Passage, plus eight CNR buildings, seven of which are in my riding at Chester, Malone Bay, Lunenburg, Liverpool, Lockeport, Shelburne and Barrington Passage. Would the minister indicate how this government's actions can be construed as railway building since its policies, which are destroying CNR services, are really not in line with the promises made to the people of Nova Scotia by the Prime Minister when he was campaigning for votes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance just said in another context, it is difficult to isolate any body from what is happening, from the changes that are taking place in society. I do not know if the hon. member is referring to CN Express, CN Marine or CN; I have no way of knowing that from the question he raised.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: CN Express.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If he is referring to CN Express, then I delivered the answer a moment ago by indicating that CN Express is doing its utmost in this particular instance to retrain, relocate or pre-retire the employees affected by these changes. My information is that between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the employees of CN Express will be treated in that fashion. This treatment must be considered humanitarian and generous enough because it is getting the full support of the unions. This shows that changes will occur and that CN Express, like everybody else, must adjust to those changes. But they are making these changes in the most reasonable and generous fashion possible.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to clarify my previous question to the hon. minister. It is not only CN Express but also eight CNR stations which will be offered for sale. I ask the hon. gentleman if the $50 million plus deficit in the operations of CN Express, which if I heard him correctly is the reason for the tenth annual loss, has led the CNR to begin a cutback in its operations right across Canada. Is the government contemplating closing down Mirabel Airport which has also been showing a loss since it opened in excess of $50 million annually?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not think one should compare the two.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are other comparisons to be drawn but which I will not mention now. The main point is that it is not


essentially to save money that CN Express is following this course, although that is important; it is because CN does not see how it can compete with other firms which are specialized and have a much more selective approach to small parcel transportation. If CN thought it could compete favourably it would stay there.
I would also like to underline the fact that when CN Express gets out of some of these operations, small parcels in particular, other transportation firms will be providing jobs as they take over. So it is not as if jobs were being lost; they are being transferred from CN Express, which cannot compete, to other trucking companies which can.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the fact that the government appears unable to restrict the sale and, even worse, the promotion of certain pre-natal screening kits which are designed to detect the neurological disease called spinal bifida. In view of the fact that there is great doubt about the accuracy of the test results, to say nothing of whether such tests are appropriate, can the minister tell us what she intends to do about this particular problem?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, with respect to this particular problem, which is a problem of misuse more than anything else, I have written to the provincial ministers of health as well as to the medical profession specifying the conditions of use of these pre-natal screening kits. I brought to their attention the dimensions of the problem-the misuse of these kits.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is not simply a question of misuse but rather a question of whether these kits should be available for use at all without adequate testing having taken place before they are put on the market. This is not the first time that something has been more stringently regulated in the United States than in Canada. My question to the minister is: does she plan any changes in Canada's health protection legislation finally to overcome the long-standing situation of trial by guinea pig? In this case, as in so many others, Canadian women and/or their children are placed at risk because of the government's totally inadequate policy in this particular area.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I regret to disagree with the charge laid by the hon. member. We still believe that pre-natal screening kits designed to detect foetal malformations are an important precaution since they can help to detect and prevent
Oral Questions
some abnormalities. We feel that these kits can do a fine job if they are used properly. Physicians and potential users have been cautioned against the misuse of these kits. If this is not satisfactory, the next step would be to meet with all those concerned as well as provincial health ministers, and we might have to decide to ban the kits from the market.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON TALKS CONCERNING OIL IMPORTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Madam Speaker, could the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or his parliamentary secretary tell the House what progress has been made in the discussions on the eventual purchase by PetroCan of 100,000 barrels of oil per day from Saudi Arabia, and whether the minister feels this is a favourable offer or not for our country?


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that Petro-Canada will be entering into negotiations very shortly with the Saudi Arabian state enterprise called Petromin and that the government welcomes the offer on the part of the government of Saudi Arabia to underline our secure sources of petroleum with that country by the possibility of entering into a state to state trading agreement.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the questions posed to the Minister of the Environment by the hon. member for Oshawa, and it concerns the Canada-U.S. scientific survey on acid rain. That survey has demonstrated that the acid rain problem in Canada and the United States is both more geographically widespread and more severe than had previously been thought. For example, scientists considered 140 lakes in Ontario biologically dead, but this survey demonstrates that that figure may be as high as 4,000 lakes. Is the Minister of the Environment, therefore, intending to seek changes which might strengthen the Canada-U.S. tentative agreement on acid rain in light of this most alarming survey?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, as I previously stated to the House, and as the hon. member knows, we are continuing as actively as possible the discussions which are under way with the United States. I have also in mind some other possibilities which may be available to us and which will enhance our ability, jointly with the United


Oral Questions
States, to respond to these problems. Those ideas are not sufficiently far advanced that I would outline them in detail to the hon. member. I believe he has some idea what I may do later this year.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. Following the presidential election, the Secretary of State for External Affairs held a news conference at which he said that the Government of Canada does not contemplate any problems with regard to the Canada-U.S. acid rain agreement. Ele said that "the House of Representatives is still dominated by the Democrats and .. . initiatives have to receive congressional approval as well as approval from the President". Does the Minister of the Environment agree with the statement of his colleague, despite the fact that in the United States international agreements require the approval of the President and two thirds of the Senate, not the approval of the House of Representatives, as his colleague implied?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that I very rarely disagree with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: 
POSSIBLE OIL IMPORTATIONS FROM SAUDI ARABIA-INQUIRY AS TO CONDITIONS OF SALE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It relates to the answer just given a few moments ago by the hon. member for Etobicoke North and to the question of the sale of
100,000	barrels of oil per day under certain conditions as indicated by Sheik Yamani to the Prime Minister. That sale would take place on a state to state basis. Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether or not the government is aware of what those conditions indicated by Sheik Yamani are, and whether or not they include the demand that Canada formally recognize the PLO?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, all that I know comes from the transcript of the remarks which the Prime Minister made at his press conference. As I understand it, the question came up in the course of conversation, in which Sheik Yamani
indicated that if Canada were interested in entering into negotiations with the state oil company, then that view ought to be communicated to the government of Saudi Arabia, and the normal follow-up would be negotiations between Petro-Canada and Petromin. The Prime Minister was very clear in pointing out at his press conference that the discussion was very general, involving no consideration of price or any other items. It is obvious to me that no conditions were discussed and certainly not the condition mentioned by the hon. member with respect to a political act like the recognition of any body.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, before any such transaction is agreed to by the government or by any agency of the government, especially if any political conditions are attached to any such sale, would the government undertake that the details of such a transaction will be presented to this House for debate and approval prior to the transaction being consummated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I can certainly assure the hon. member that no such political conditions would ever be contemplated. We would not accept any such condition with respect to a deal of any kind that is very much up in the air at the moment. I can tell the hon. member that information with respect to any future developments will be made available to the House.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minster of Transport. A few months ago, I tried to obtain some information about Nordair's future. Since then, I understand that the minister has had several consultations and that he is aware of the interest shown by several groups from Quebec and elsewhere. Therefore, I imagine that today, after all that time, he is in a position to tell us what progress has been made in this regard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker, but I can tell you that I am supposed to meet with the Regionair group within two weeks.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker. In order to reassure many Quebeckers, would the minister be in a position at least to say whether he has decided in principle that the majority of shares could be held by Quebec interests?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is, of course, one of the most important aspects of the problem. It must also be kept in mind that when the Regionair group came to see me to talk about the Nordair takeover, they kept insisting that it is not Quebecair which was taking over Nordair, but rather the consortium known as Regionair. So a whole line of argument follows from that


statement. If the consortium, the group of five companies, takes over Nordair, then one may wonder why it would be necessary for some partners in that holding to have a majority in relation to the others. I think this reasoning is so logical that the hon. member for Joliette, will be impressed.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to return to the Minister of Transport to ask some more about this final double-cross. The minister well knows that when CN and CP were applying to abandon railway passenger trains, close railway stations and abandon rail express services, they gave glowing pronouncements and projections on how much more efficient, more frequent and better express service they could provide by truck. The government, the minister's party and the CTC granted them those abandonments on condition that they would live up to the commitments they were to provide as an alternative service. Now, as the minister knows, they want to get rid of that service too.
I should like to know if the minister will require Canadian National, and CP as well, to live up to the undertakings they gave to the government, to the CTC and the public of Canada when they were allowed to abandon the rail express service in preference for a so-called more efficient, frequent and cheaper express service by truck?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only continue to repeat that CN and CN Express are not particularly proud of what is happening now. But they have to witness the fact-and I repeat it because I think it is the most important fact-that because they are what they are-that is, a quite big company with a long history, as one of them was saying, of being everything to everybody, of being extremely diversified-they find it very difficult to compete against companies with a very specialized function, with a very pointed objective, which keep grabbing bits and pieces of what CN Express could do. Consequently, CN has had to confess that, when it comes to small parcels, they cannot successfully compete against these companies. The job is simply moving to other truckers in this instance, but they intend to give it all they have to stay in the less than carloads heavier shipments and there try to reach their optimum role.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, Canadian National has operated the same way with their express service as they have with passenger trains. If you run them old enough, slow enough, late enough and dirty enough, nobody will get on them and you can abandon them. The same thing applies to the express service-exorbitant rates and inadequate service designed to lose business. They used to operate that specialized express service better than anybody could, and they still could.
Oral Questions
I should like to ask the minister whether he would call upon the CTC to enforce, for the first time ever, section 262 of the Railway Act which provides that they shall provide suitable accommodation for all traffic offered.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am aware that CN Express in recent hours has been in touch with the CTC which has some jurisdiction in these matters. Should the operation announced yesterday or today by CN Express be against some of the rules under which the CTC operates, I am quite sure that the chairman will see to it that the CTC is seized of the matter.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Will the minister confirm that he has received a number of representations on behalf of the Swedish businessman Raoul Wallenberg, a man who heroically saved thousands of refugees in World War II, then mysteriously disappeared and who recently is rumoured to be alive? If so, what does the government intend to do?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, 1 have received such representations. Since there are a number of residents of Canada who have lived recently in the Soviet Union and are known to the RCM Police, I have asked the RCM Police to contact these individuals and find out from them if there is any information about the missing Count Wallenberg. So far, the reports that I have received have all been negative, but there still may be some that I will receive in the near future.


PENSION ACT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. In recent months Canadian Pension Commission claims for awards under section 33 of the Pension Act, that is for funeral and burial grants, have had to wait many months for adjudication because of staffing problems. Would the minister consider implementing the proposal of the Woods committee which would delegate authority to the senior pension medical examiner in the district offices to adjudicate matters of a routine nature under section 33 of the Pension Act? This action on the part of the government would go a long way in assisting widows of veterans during a time of great emotional and financial strain.


Oral Questions


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the question of the hon. member is well put and I will look into the matter with my staff. If they can agree with what he just proposed, I will implement that proposal as sOon as possible.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I hope the minister will make himself familiar with that section of the act. At the present time the grant under section 33 of the Pension Act for funeral and burial expenses is not to exceed $550 for the funeral director, plus the cost of the grave, the opening, closing and a marker. For the Department of National Defence this amount is $850. Would the minister increase the amount allowed for a funeral and burial as provided by the veterans' burial regulations and section 33 of the Pension Act to correspond to the amount provided by the Department of National Defence? I am sure this small increase for a decreasing number of widows will not be inflationary.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is very well aware of the generosity of this government toward our veterans and the relatives of veterans. I will consider his question very carefully and see if it can be implemented.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister will know that the food herring fishery on the Pacific coast opened yesterday. I have just learned from fishermen in the Prince Rupert area that the Calistratus, the largest Canadian-owned groundfish trawler on the west coast, has been granted a licence to trawl for herring and is presently on the fishing grounds off Prince Rupert competing openly with the established herring fleet.
Has the minister issued a herring licence to the Calistratus and, if so, how does he justify this decision which contradicts a long-standing promise of his department that the Calistratus would only fish for underutilized species of groundfish?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I was given a piece of paper on my way down to the House which informed me of this matter. I have asked to see my officials after question period today and I will give the hon. member a full answer tomorrow.


Thomas Edward Siddon: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. There is a further element to the problem that the minister should be aware of. It is reported that the Calistratus is purchasing herring from other fishing vessels operating on the grounds and is processing herring at sea. I should like to know in the minister's subsequent response whether he condones this practice. Will he allow other factory trawlers to do likewise?
How does he propose to explain this new policy, if it is a policy, to the hundreds of shore-based cannery workers who depend on the food herring fishery for their livelihood during the winter months?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, 1 am afraid that my amount of knowledge has not caught up with the hon. member's rhetoric. I can only satisfy his tomorrow.


LOTTERIES
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I have a very short and succinct question for the Minister of Labour who is also in charge of sports and lotteries. It has to do with the recent resignation of the director of the National Gallery; I think the Secretary of State should be aware of it as well. Since the lottery fund is now $30 million, of which $15 million was to go to fitness and amateur sport and the other $15 million to culture and art, is the minister prepared to tell the House whether this sum will be incremental to these particular budgets or if it is going into general revenues?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank the hon. member for his question. 1 want to thank him tremendously, because it is a long time since I have had one and it is a great opportunity to stand up!
I want to say through you, Madam Speaker, to the distinguished member that I cannot properly be described as the minister in charge of lotteries because his government gave lotteries away to the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: So I am no longer in charge of them. But if the hon. member is referring to the agreement whereby, in return for giving away a lottery that was gaining $80 million a year, we are supposed to receive $24 million a year from the provinces, to be divided between fitness and amateur sport and culture, it is true that the indexing factor has brought it up beyond the $24 million to around $27 million a year to be divided between the two departments.
To a very large extent this is incremental to the existing budget, but it is a very small amount compared to what had been contemplated for fitness and amateur sport and for culture by the former Liberal government, wherein the $80 million that was being gained annually from Loto Canada would have been available to improve culture in the country and to build up amateur athletics.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I knew I should not have asked him the question because he did not answer it. I would like to know whether the minister is now going to forgo


financing Hockey Canada and participate in financing the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. I understand this is what he is going to do. There are 60,000 or 70,000 kids who want to play amateur hockey and Hockey Canada can pretty well look after itself through the National Hockey League.


An hon. Member:: What about football?


Steve Eugene Paproski: That will be next.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for another important question. One would hope that the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association through its member branches might look to the provinces for more generous financing than in the past as a consequence of the fact that they now have those lottery funds. Hon. members will appreciate that this year the provinces between them will realize in the vicinity of $350 million from lotteries in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I notice the former provincial member clapping. We have federal responsibilities. Part of that responsibility is to see to it that organizations such as Hockey Canada are able to provide Canadian teams to compete internationally at a certain level and that the CAHA do so in relation to other responsibilities.
Finally, although we, of course, continue to fund the CAHA's regular and valuable programs, we are not all that happy with their attitude in the Notre Dame situation in Wilcox, Saskatchewan.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Then don't just sit there, do something about it.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that the rate of the disability pension, including the cost of living increase to be made in January, has been established at a figure which is still below the average take-home pay of the five categories in the public service which were designated in 1972, will the minister give further study to this matter and to the possibility of bringing in legislation which will fix that rate in accordance with the norm that was established in 1972?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, may I first congratulate the hon. member on having been granted honorary life membership in the Canadian Legion last Saturday. It is an honour that he deserves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Friesen


Maurice Lamontagne: I can only presume he was granted this membership because of his long lasting support for the generous legislation introduced on this side of the House over many years on behalf of the veterans. With regard to the hon. member's question, he knows very well that disability pensions are reviewed regularly to ensure the veterans do not lose anything because of a rise in the cost of living. Disability pensions are reviewed once a year and veterans' allowances are indexed four times a year. We will do our utmost to ensure that veterans do not suffer because of inflation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While the acting minister is reviewing that matter, will he also give serious consideration to at least making a start in getting rid of the six and a half year phasing-in provision with respect to widows' pensions? For example, will he consider making a start by providing those pensions immediately to widows of World War I veterans?


Maurice Lamontagne: The hon. member has asked this question a couple of times since I have been acting minister. I can assure him this is being very seriously considered. Possibly at one point we will bring in some measure which will satisfy him and I am sure we will have his support at that time.


Madam Speaker:: I have received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because of an answer provided to me by the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to a question I asked on June 26, as follows:
In 1980, what percentage of the total budget of the Company Film Accord is being financed by CFDC (b) what amount is involved (c) what are the projected support costs for 1981?
The Secretary of State answered:
The corporation does not make this type of information available in keeping with established procedures of confidentiality with its clients.
That is nothing short of a cover-up. This gentleman was being paid $50,000 to $60,000 a year as director of CFDC. He left the CFDC and formed his own company, one of the objectives of which was to get further funding through the CFDC for that film company. The Secretary of State had the audacity to tell me it is company policy and accepted business practice not to tell how those funds are going to be allocated to a company which evidently was formed to take advantage of the experience this gentleman had gained. Michael-I do not recall his last name-had gained knowledge by having worked for the government for two years. We are being denied information that we as members of the House are entitled to have


Order Paper Questions
in order to do our work as best we can. The Secretary of State is denying us that information.


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I do not have the text of the answer before me. I shall be pleased to look at it, but 1 do think this is an answer to a question raised by the hon. member such as one given during question period. He may or may not be satisfied with the answer, but I do think, Madam Speaker, that there is no case at all for a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member gave me written notice of his question of privilege. However, 1 must remind him that a question of privilege should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The hon. member referred to a reply given on June 26. Therefore, it would seem to me that there were many opportunities for the hon. member to raise this matter in the House.
I listened to the hon. member. The fact that he is not satisfied with a reply given by a minister may be a legitimate complaint, but it does not constitute a question of privilege. Therefore, 1 do not see in the hon. member's intervention a question of privilege.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order for clarification purposes. The gentleman's name was Michael McCabe. While 1 submitted the question on June 26, the reply did not come to me until the first part of November. Therefore, I have raised the matter at the first opportunity.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 247, 1,509, 1,597, 1,598 and 1,647.


Mr. Herbert: What was the capacity utilization rate in manufacturing (a) in 1961 (b) in 1971 (c) for the latest known figure and what percentage does the government consider should be the objective of the manufacturing industry?


David Michael Collenette: 1 am informed by Statistics
Canada and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows:
Statistics Canada reports:
(a)	1961 75.3 per cent
(b)	1971 84.2 per cent
(c)	79.6 per cent is the most recent rate relating to second quarter 1980.
The government considers the objective for capacity utilization in the manufacturing industry to be in the range of full capacity with fluctuations reflective of cycles in economic activity and demand for manufactured goods.


Mr. Herbert: For each month in (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980 to date, what quantity of grain was exported to the Soviet Union and, in each year, what quantity was imported into Canada from the United States?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports:
Canadian monthly exports of grain to the Soviet Union from January 1, 1978 to August 31, 1980, in metric tons, were as follows:
Month	1978	1979	1980January	48,880	142,655	123,694February	59,758	-	84,092March	15,213	54	33,292April	10,528	-	75,269May	317,795	52,396	357,386June	179,451	53,522	868,741July	386,860	-	712,316August	683,455	204,921	879,479September	309,691	336,456	-October	360,771	746,955	-December	209,257	96,104	-Total	2,855,789	2,103,044	3,134,269
Canadian yearly imports of grain from the United States, in metric tons, for 1978 were 538,562, for 1979 were 936,901, and for January to July 1980 were 617,921.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many times have the terms and conditions of the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program, Contract for Training, EMP. 2309 E(4-78) MAN 1273, been transgressed since the inception of the program?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the individuals or firms found to be in violation of the terms of the program?


3.	How many prosecutions or reprimands have been investigated by the government as a result of the transgressions and what penalties have been applied in each case?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. In the course of a year, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (CEIC) enters into approximately 35,000 contracts with employers under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program (CMITP). Contracts are monitored by CEIC staff; all claims for cost reimbursement are closely examined to ensure that they comply with all contractual terms and conditions and adjustments to payments are made if they do not; and all contracts are subject to audit. No comprehensive count is made of the number of adjustments required to payment schedules. Reviews of the CMITP since its inception in 1974, conducted by both internal auditors and the Audit Services Bureau, have not indicated any need for legal proceedings resulting from activities of the program.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	See 1 above.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many veterans of World War 1 participated with the Canadian Forces at the 1942 Dieppe raid?
2.	How many now live (a) in Canada (b) outside Canada?
3.	How many receive War Veterans Allowance (a) in Canada (b) outside Canada?
Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans
Affairs): 1. Records of this type of information are not kept.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.


Mr. Herbert: How many government forestry research stations are there in Canada and (a) where are they located (b) what is the budgeted personnel strength of each?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: There are eight federal forestry research stations in Canada:
(a)	Newfoundland Forest Research Centre, St. John's, Newfoundland; Maritimes Forest Research Centre, Fredericton, New Brunswick; Laurentian Forest Research Centre, Ste. Foy, Quebec; Petawawa National Forestry Institute, Chalk River, Ontario; Great Lakes Forest Research Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Forest Pest Management Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Northern Forest Research Centre, Edmonton, Alberta; Pacific Forest Research Centre, Victoria, British Columbia.
(b)	Person-years: 65; 148.5; 119; 124; 151.7; 87; 118; 154.1.
Bank Act


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen 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 third time and do pass.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, debate on second reading of this bill started quite a while ago. Unless I am mistaken, I believe it was in March or April last. It is true that this bill was preceded by others, not only in 1978 but also in 1979. That is why, as we have explained repeatedly, we offer no excuses; experience has proved that the study of the Bank Act easily takes three years. We usually start with a white paper, after which we get the reaction of the public; then, the government introduces a first bill, the subject of which is examined by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. After all those studies the government drafts a new bill which is again submitted to public representations and the perusal of hon. members. Now we have reached the point where yesterday and this morning we voted on the amendments moved at the second reading stage in the House after study in committee.
All that to say that we now have a bill that is tolerably acceptable, and I underline the word "tolerably". That is what it is to me, since I sponsored several amendments of our group in the opposition; of course, we would have preferred certain other amendments, and I am particularly disappointed once more because we still have no definition of the business of banking. I should think the minister will not be surprised when one of these days one of the courts of the land concludes that not only were parliamentarians absent-minded but they showed some lack of intelligence when they refused to include in the act a definition of the business of banking. I say that also because I want to stress what I said last night.

I want to change my way of speaking here because I want to measure my words very carefully. I want to draw to the


Bank Act
attention of the minister and to hon. members on both sides of this House, particularly those on the government side, that the refusal to include a definition of the business of banking stems primarily from the bureaucracy. As a senior member of this House in years served and in experience with this type of legislation I for one refuse to accept the dictates of the bureaucracy, which is rampant in Canada. This is one of the big problems with government. The House is not in control; nor is cabinet. Far from it, and the departments where the system and the administration are in control are legion, and that happens in this particular case.
Bill C-6 would be eminently better as legislation if there were a definition of the business of banking. After all, it is a bank act, it requires a definition and it is only because there has been this pressure, which has been traditional, not to have the definition that the government has gone along with it. 1 can assure the House that if the places had been changed, there would have been none of that nonsense.
There are other areas of concern. 1 am a little concerned about what we have done to the banks with regard to powers to engage in the business of leasing automobiles. I know that led to a very acrimonious-in many ways-detailed and difficult part of our discussions. I think the minister would agree that nothing was quite so difficult as coming down to a consensus on the question of the powers with respect to the direct leasing of motor vehicles. I think we arrived at a consensus, but some of us have a nagging feeling that perhaps we have thrown the baby out with the bath water because we know that a fair proportion of the leasing of vehicles in this country is in the hands of a variety of subsidiaries of known Canadian financial institutions. The only entities which to my mind can give foreign affiliates a run for their money and really contain their operations and expansion are precisely the Canadian banks. It is almost like the sheep farmer who, while the wolves and coyotes are ravaging his animals, locks up his sheep dog, the only one to deal with the problem. I say this by way of simile. I am not suggesting that those foreign competitors or foreign-dominated competitors behave like wolves in any way, but it is akin to it. I want to give fair notice that if there is a dramatic or substantial change in the proportion of business which goes to these foreign-dominated affiliates, I personally will move an amendment to the Bank Act to restore the banks to the business of direct auto leasing. I will do so because it will mean that the automobile dealers have failed to do what they should be doing.
They have a challenge before them; they asked for the business. I can understand that in many towns for thousands of these dealers this represents a substantial part of their business. Particularly with the price of automobiles being what it is, we may see auto leasing taking an increasing portion of the market as a means of financing the purchase of automobiles, doing it through the automobile lessor. Anything beyond a medium-sized car now represents such a substantial initial investment on which there is such a fantastic write down and depreciation in the first couple of years of the ownership of an
automobile that a great number of people, particularly those on expense accounts, will convert to auto leasing as a means of having a vehicle at their disposal.
There are many advantages to it. I know that my colleagues, particularly those from some rural constituencies such as the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff), may have something to say about the exact wording of the amendments to clause 178 dealing with the degree of security which is to be given to producers of livestock under the type of financing formerly contained in section 88. They may be right; there may have been an unfortunate dropping of some words in the coming forward of the government amendment and in the apparent consensus on what had been expressed in the committee. That was another very difficult area for the committee to resolve.
There is also the whole question of foreign banks, and here we have merely laid out some guidelines. Nothing has been said yet about what would be the requirements of reciprocity and how practical it would be. It will be a very interesting exercise to see whether the Japanese, German and French banks, which are already operating here, will wish to incorporate as class B banks. Of course, that will have to be done at a price, and the price will be reciprocity for Canadian banks in the country of origin of such banks.
When it comes down to testing the pudding, it may be a little more difficult for some of these banks to operate. In any event I am hopeful, although not really as certain as I would like to be, that any of these foreign operations which have been in this country for a number of years because they found the loophole in the previous act due to the refusal of the then administration in 1967 to define banking, and which will just carry on in some form or another without incorporating as class B banks for registering as a representative office, are placed under supervision. Let it be said that if there are doors left open, certainly somebody is going to find his way in, and I would much rather have these banks under supervision, not only for the protection of the Canadian public but for their own protection, so they are legally here and doing business legally under the aegis of the Bank Act which is where they should be.
I have been maintaining for many years that there are many quasi-bank operations which seem to take refuge under provincial jurisdiction in a matter where the provinces do not have one inch of jurisdiction but have grabbed a mile of it. This has happened only because the previous administration in 1966-67 was scared of its own shadow with regard to the requirements under the Bank Act. In saying that, I am not lining up with those people who say we need a strong central government in order to establish that control. The legislation is there; it is a question of interpreting it and carrying on in accordance with it. That is the way it should have been.
I am hopeful that we will see healthy competition. I know there has been already a good deal of competition among Canadian and among foreign banks for certain financing requirements in Canada. There is not as much now because economic activity has declined. If the government persists in


its blind folly with the energy policy as enunciated here at the end of last month, there will not be that requirement in western Canada for the specialized financing features which are offered by a number of U.S. and European banks which have been coming into Edmonton and Calgary, because there will be a substantial decline in the industry. Already there are dire warnings out and it is only the stupidly blind who refuse to see them. In thinking they were going to do something for the Canadian oil industry, the government almost knocked it senseless through lack of knowledge and blind partisanship. Frankly, a raid on provincial treasuries has been perpetrated which reminds one of the pirates of old, of brigands on the loose laying hands on funds in the name of public need. That is the policy which came out of the budget a few weeks ago. It is the most dastardly thing that has been done to Canada.
In so far as the requirements for the development of foreign banks is concerned, we will have to see what happens because the actions taken by the federal authorities and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his budget could put a decided crimp in the oil industry from which it may take years to recover, if ever. We will see how it goes.
I am sorry that the minister blindly, I might even say stubbornly, stuck to a figure for total foreign business which was inserted by the bureaucracy, not the ministry. Since speaking last night I have done some more verifying and can now confirm it. If inflation continues at the present rate and business recovers from the checks and blows of two weeks ago, then the ceiling will be more than reached before the ten years are up under the present Bank Act.
As I said two or three years ago and again the other day, in legislating this type of very extensive law there is a tendency to legislate for yesterday rather than prepare the way for the industry into the twenty-first century. We legislate for yesterday, to correct the difficulties we saw yesterday, which we hope will meet the objectives of today. They will not meet the objectives of ten years from now. We come in as limpers. Surely the Minister of Finance, along with the minister responsible for financial institutions, will not maintain either an indifference or a blind refusal-and I say "blind" advisedly-to recognize that before there is another revision of the Bank Act we will require a total review of the needs of the financial institutions of the country. Surely they will not refuse to recognize that we need another Porter commission. Surely we should not have to wait until four years before the expiry date of the Bank Act to name such a commission. It should be named within two or three years so that there is ample time for it to examine the situation, to bring down a worth-while report, to give it mature consideration and to bring forward the legislation. We should not wait as we did from 1954 to 1967, and then regardless of that, from 1967 to 1980. The principle of the Bank Act is that there shall be a renewal every ten years. It has become so easy now to introduce annual amendments for extensions that it is done as a matter of course.
Bank Act
We should be able to move with a little more flexibility in other areas. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is terribly exercised about what I think we will do to a bank which has been doing a good job in the country for nine years. Unfortunately the suggestion made to me last night as a possible solution is not so. There seems to be some misunderstanding. I know representations will be made here today, but I would have thought it would not be necessary to bring in such high-priced help and such heavy pressure on the minister.
I would have thought he and his officials would have recognized that.
We told them weeks ago that the easiest way was to introduce a grandfather clause. Only one bank would be affected by it. There is already one bank operating under a grandfather clause, and that is the Mercantile Bank. The Mercantile is good for business. I have seen a lot of its operations in western Canada, and may I say that its operations are progressive and successful. It is not the cause of any worry to the bigger Canadian banks; they are big boys, they know how to take care of themselves.
The more flexibility we exhibit in Canada with regard to some of the foreign banks which have been doing business here in good faith, and which we will allow to continue to do so in good faith, the more our Canadian banks will be able to operate elsewhere in the world. Reciprocity is based upon good faith. One will not excite the admiration and co-operation of a friend and neighbour by kicking him in the shin or stepping on his small toe. In the past few years the strength of our Canadian banks has been in the foreign side of their business. Prior to that they were little local banks on the world scene, but now two or three of them are among the big banks of the world. That makes a fantastic difference for Canadian businesses in their financing, their handling of deals, their extension of credit, and all the way through. It is of terrific assistance to Canadian business abroad, and that is where Canadian business must succeed. It cannot live on the domestic market, and neither can our banks.
1 make that plea almost on bended knee, not that I should have to but for the understanding that is required. It seems to me that we could have some flexibility very easily. We have seen no flexibility in the proceedings since we have been back in the House. The only flexibility which existed was when we were in committee and the minister was across the table from us. Perhaps he and his officials felt the pressures then, and I say that literally. I say seriously that there has not been the degree of flexibility we would have liked in the House. One of the unhappy features of Canadian parliamentary life is that once government gets into the chamber it is as rigid as building board. Whether, of course, it is being blind foolish or not makes little difference; but for it to admit that there should be some change, that there might be some change, that the conditions are not what they appear to have been, that the advice they received was not the soundest, gracious me, no. What they are going to do is go on blindly with what they have done. And I would hope that we can.


Bank Act
The last point I want to make is one that I made yesterday, that is, that whenever we have given the minister the power to make regulations, those regulations should have been before us by now. There is nothing that can convince me that over in the Inspector General's branch or in the Department of Finance, whomsoever had the responsibility, and in the Department of Justice they could not have prepared those regulations and had them tabled before we gave this bill third reading. I shall ask the minister, when he replies, a direct question. I shall ask him-

The question is this, and I hope I get an honest and firm answer. When shall we see the regulations which we gave the authority to pass and which will affect several areas of the administration of this bank act? The minister has asked for the committee's confidence and told us that we would see these regulations and that they would reflect the views expressed by the committee. The task, the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is therefore in the minister's hands.
I know that several of my colleagues would like to express their views on this legislation. This will be the last time I speak on this bill, at least at this stage. I would like to thank all those who took part in the committee work. For a number of these people, this will have been their initiation into a committee considering a piece of legislation of some significance.
This enabled us to get to know each other a little better, and I think that members realized that it is in this way and through co-operation that we can improve upon any piece of legislation. It is true that I have voiced numerous criticisms, and this was new for me. I do not cast reflections on people or their personalities, but I do reserve the right to criticize their opinions, whether they are officials, members of Parliament or ministers. In this House we attack ideas, not personalities, and this is what should guide us. If I inadvertently hurt or insulted anyone, I apologize, because that is certainly not my habit. It is true that I speak harsh words, perhaps not so much harsh as firm, and that I am hasty-tempered. But at least everyone knows where I stand.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their co-operation in the study of this bill. As for me, even if it is somewhat defective, I do not intend to vote against it on third reading. However, through you, Mr. Speaker, I shall say quite frankly to the minister that if, unfortunately, the regulations are indefinitely postponed or if they distort the principles set forth in committee, then I think some members, especially on our side and probably in the third party, and even on the government benches, will become less co-operative. Bearing this in mind, I do hope that we can complete the study of this bill today.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, it has been a rather long road to get to where we are today with
respect to the Bank Act legislation, and I want to indicate to the House that our party will be voting against the Bank Act on third reading, just as we voted against it on second reading. We do that for some very fundamental reasons having to do with the attitude of the Liberal-Conservative party toward our banking system. The Liberal-Conservative party in our view has produced a piece of legislation which, by and large, almost exclusively protects the interests of our largest chartered banks, our largest semi-monopoly companies in this huge financing business. The average citizen, the average consumer, the average business person, those people who deal with the banks either as consumers or as customers in some way or another, have not had the protection which, in our view, they so justly deserve.
The second major concern that we have has to do with the relationship between the Government of Canada-perhaps I should say the governments of Canada-and our banks. Historically Canada's chartered banks have played a critical role in developing the kind of economy under which we currently live, and this Parliament has itself, by virtue of the Bank Act and by virtue of these ten-yearly reviews which we conduct, consistently protected those financial institutions at the expense of their competitors, be they from the public or private sector. It is on those two aspects that I wish to concentrate this afternoon.
I wish to look at the field of consumer-customer or borrower-protection. One may look at this question from several different aspects. I think one has only to think of the very real lack of control which we have over our banks with respect to their relationship with their customers and the very real difficulties that we have in knowing, in precise terms, the kinds of services that they are providing. We do not know whether or not banks are calling demand loans without any justification. In fact one hears anecdotal evidence that this is happening.
We do not know whether or not it is true some of our chartered banks are moving in a fairly systematic way to reduce their activity in the small business sector, the consumer loans sector and the customer service sector, and are moving more heavily into other areas. I suspect that there is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence, and there are even indications from the speeches given from time to time by members of the Canadian Bankers' Association or others, to support the theory that indeed these are not the growth areas or the other areas in which the banks intend to move. I do not wish to go into any detail on all the amendments which have been rejected. The rejection merely reflects a very different philosophy between what my party has been putting forward and what the Liberal-Conservative party has been putting forward.
The Liberal-Conservative party has said that if we write too much into the Bank Act and attempt to control the banks too directly, for example by establishing criteria of fairness and limitations, it would affect their ability to cut off customers. Such restrictions would limit the ability of the banks to make


exorbitant demands in terms of collateral and so on, on individuals who seek banking loans.
If we attempt to control the ability of the banks to set unilaterally whatever interest rate they wish or to introduce the concept, notion or idea of fairness between banks and borrowers, be it an individual, small business or a large business, we are told that is impractical, impossible, and that it will not work. We are told that such proposals are socialistic, a threat to private enterprise and will cause a greater expense to the banks, and 101 other objections, all of which were raised by the Liberal-Conservative party.


Mr. Kempling:: Be honest, you turkey.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) has asked me, in his inimitable way, to be honest. I am simply pointing out that the Bank Act introduced by the Liberal party is exactly the same Bank Act introduced by his party when it was in power. Can the hon. member show me how this act differs in any degree from the one presented by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)? To answer the hon. member for Burlington, that is why it is quite appropriate to call this act a product of the Liberal-Conservative party and to call it a Liberal-Conservative Bank Act.


Mr. Nielsen:: You're trying to get out of the Liberal bed.


Bob Rae: 1 can understand why hon. members to my right are so upset. I thought the hon. member for Burlington was getting up on a point of order, but I see that he is just leaving.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Good.


Bob Rae: If one cannot stand the heat, one must get out of the kitchen, and I see that the hon. member for Burlington is now leaving the kitchen. I am sorry to see that he is leaving, but I wish to make my remark clear. The reason that we are calling this act the Liberal-Conservative Bank Act is because that is precisely what it is, a bank act which reflects exactly the same philosophy, be it the philosophy of a minister of finance who comes from Inverness County or a minister of finance who comes from St. John's West, representing those two parties.
Fundamentally, this bank act represents the interests of the large institutions in Canada which, ironically, when one considers the origins of the two gentlemen to whom I have referred, are centred in central Canada and which, for over 100 years, exploited not only the people of central Canada, but also the regions of Canada. It is because of our concern about this legislation that we spent as much time as we have in this Parliament dealing with the act.
There has been some progress with respect to some aspects of competition as, for example, in the field of car leasing. There has been some advancement with respect to consumer protection, because we in this party shamed the Liberal party by redrafting amendments which were the product of the Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act and asked the gov-
Bank Act
ernment to include them in the Bank Act. They agreed to do so and, as a result, we have made some progress.
It is important that the Liberal party be required to live up to some of the principles in which they say they believe, and it is important for these amendments to be in the Bank Act where they belong. We are sorry that data processing regulations, which deal with one aspect of competition in the act, are still the subject of a great deal of controversy within the banking community. We are concerned that the Toronto Dominion Bank is already advertising a number of services which, in our view, are questionable, with regard to competition with data processing companies.
The minister, who has seen the same correspondence as I, is perfectly aware that his own integrity has been called into question by CADAPSO because it is their feeling, which is very strong as indicated in their discussions with me, that the position of the data processing companies has in a sense been misunderstood and, as a result, has been misrepresented by the minister before the committee. I know that the minister will want to discuss this matter when he gives his speech on third reading. I know that he will want to indicate the intention of the government with respect to data processing.
I believe that the data processing question reveals in a sense where the bias of the government exists and where the problem exists. The problem is that we have left so much to regulation and to the judgment of the Department of Finance and the Inspector General of Banks, whose discretion has been exercised by and large on behalf of the chartered banks more so than on behalf of the competing institutions. We have a real problem with the administration of this act because so much has been left to the regulations.
If the minister would consult with each of the groups which compete with the banks in each of the fields which I have mentioned-car leasing, data processing, credit unions, trust companies and so on-to determine if their interests are protected by the Inspector General of Banks, he will find that there is a general feeling that on any given issue when the chips are down the regulatory bias exercised by the department will be practised in favour of the chartered banks rather than their competitors.
That situation has very serious implications because this act leaves a great deal to the discretion of the department and a great deal to the regulations. It has been at least ten years since the last revision and, God knows, it may be 13 years before this act is reviewed again. In that time a number of areas and regulations under this act will come to light, and the government's good faith will be on the line. I give the minister notice today that we will be looking very, very carefully at the regulations promulgated by the department, and that we intend to raise those regulations in question period and on other occasions in the House of Commons in order to see that the interests of people competing with the banks are protected and guaranteed in just as firm a manner as the Bank Act currently protects the banks.
I raised by way of Standing Order 43 the question of the relationship between a number of chartered banks and a


Bank Act
minister of the Crown in Nova Scotia. I did not do so because this matter was news to me. It was something of which I was made aware in the middle of the election campaign in January, 1980 by means of an anonymous letter. The letter was lengthy and detailed, and it indicated that the writer had some inside information which, in my view, had to be corroborated and investigated.
At that time I sent the contents of the letter to the Inspector General of Banks and asked him to carry out an investigation. Since then, there has also been an RCMP investigation. The results of that have not been made public, nor has the result of the investigation of the Inspector General of Banks. Even Mr. Thornhill's own statement in the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia shows why we need a Bank Act which is even more vigorous, even more concerned with the concept of fairness, and even more concerned with the ability of each and every citizen to see that he is treated as fairly as any other.
I shall not make any spectacular allegations this afternoon with respect to this case. I think the facts speak very loudly for themselves. As I understand them-and they have not been refuted to my knowledge-a minister of the Crown with substantial debts to a number of chartered banks, arranged, after his appointment, that rather than declare personal bankruptcy he would pay off the loans at a rate of 25 cents on the dollar.
Our concern with these allegations is that an arrangement was made with a minister of the Crown in Nova Scotia that is qualitatively different from the treatment of so many individuals by other banks in cities and towns across the country. Is this because banks respond to those people who they think have power and influence in our society, and they are prepared to respond to them in a way which, on the face of it, may seem very humane and fair?
One might ask why the banks should not try to extract their pound of flesh from someone, no matter what his station in life-why they should not try to come to a satisfactory arrangement. I do not quarrel with that, Mr. Speaker. All I am saying is that there are many other cases where the banks did not exercise their discretion fairly, did not decide to do things fairly, did not decide to treat the individual with some respect, did not give the individual a reason for calling in a demand loan, did not give the individual a chance before they decide to throw that person or business into receivership.
Since I became finance critic, Mr. Speaker, my office must receive up to five letters per week-and I am sure the minister receives far more-from individuals who feel they have been adversely affected by a decision of a bank, wanting to know why a bank has refused them a loan under this or that program, or why they are not given the same treatment as others.
Our economy is changing, Mr. Speaker, and so is our value system. This party wants to see a concept of fairness introduced into the economy so that there are some moral criteria there, that are generally acceptable to society. We want to see
the requirements for justification in the field of industrial relations, for example, to extend to explanations by management as to why they decide to close a plant. We want a clear indication from this House, and from the people of Canada, that they do not want to see individuals laid off and treated like slabs of meat or commodities. Just as that is true of industrial relations and as it is true of the importance of the individual's rights at work, it is very important with respect to the relationship that people have with the chartered banks.
For this reason we have put forward amendments which have been rejected by the Liberal and Conservative parties, requiring far greater disclosure to the consumer than now exists, requiring that the banks explain and justify refusals for loans and give the right to an individual to take a bank to court, for example, if the bank decides that individual is not credit worthy, when he thinks that he is.
These are all new ideas, Mr. Speaker. Members on the other side of the House claim that they are not workable, but that is what they say every time we advance an inch toward greater rights for the individual. Every piece of consumer protection legislation has been resisted by people who say, "Don't get into the marketplace; the marketplace is the perfect determinant of everything that takes place out there." We know that is not true, Mr. Speaker. The marketplace does not work. It does not always protect the consumer. The gullible consumer can be fooled by advertising that is untrue.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we have not just demanded a requirement for fairness and a requirement for justification. We have demanded, and have been refused, that instead of playing a shell game with no real control over interest rates charged by banks or how much the banks will allocate to small business, how much to large business and how much to consumers, that the banks decide whether so and so is creditworthy that they decide whether smaller businesses shall pay a higher rate than larger businesses, that these things must be regulated and controlled. We must move toward a system of greater planning and control in this sector as in all others.
It seems to us to be quite logical that in an industry that has assets-according to figures issued last summer-of $256 billion, where the 1979 assets of the Big Five chartered banks amounted to $206 billion, that there must be a great deal of regulation. When five institutions control $206 billion worth of assets in Canada and outside, there must be more than a few people in the office of the Inspector General of Banks who have a cosy, old boy network relationship with the financial institutions who call up on a regular basis to find out what is going on and so forth. These issues transcend the relaxed, folksy way whereby we now control what is going on.
Chartered banks make loans of hundreds of millions of dollars in individual cases that affect the whole economy of the country. The Massey-Ferguson example shows the relationship between finance capital and industrial capital.
There is no requirement in the Bank Act for disclosure of the amount of such loans or for a greater degree of investment consultation and planning between government and the huge chartered banks. It is all done on a very casual basis with the


assumption that the government is not interested in planning what the banks' investments will be.
In this Parliament we have less knowledge, less control-the Inspector General has but he is not required to share his knowledge-than is at present required in the United States. 1 will give an example which 1 hope will become the subject of further discussion. In many cases we have to go to the United States to find out which of our banks is involved in a syndicated loan in foreign countries.
We do not know, for example, whether the Bank of Nova Scotia or the Bank of Montreal may be involved in a syndicated loan in Uruguay, a country where political repression is a way of life and where hundreds of thousands of people have become refugees because of the political policies of their government, and where the trade union movement has been crushed. We want to know whether these things are going on or whether the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal, or any other bank is involved. We cannot find this out. We cannot find out if we are a shareholder or are not a shareholder. The only way to find out is if an American state has laws which are more strict than we have in Canada, and many do. We need to go that route to find out whether there are Canadian banks heavily involved in South Africa, South West Africa, or in global financing.
When 35 per cent of the assets of the $256 billion are foreign currency assets, you have a very sizeable political and economic problem on your hands. We are no longer dealing with the Bytown Market or the local corner store. We are dealing with institutions which, at the stroke of a pen, can make or break governments. We are dealing with decisions on whether to go ahead with six or 12-month loans, or whether to extend credit for another one or two years to many foreign governments. These decisions have dramatic impact on the civil rights of individuals in countries as well as on the economic rights and economic future of those countries.
For the next ten or 12 years we will be living in comparative darkness. We are going to be in a situation where it will continue to be a matter of discreet telephone calls between the minister of finance and the president of a bank to find out whether he is really over-extended in Iran. It will be matter of a cosy conversation at the Chateau Grill between the Inspector General of Banks and one of the bank presidents so that he will know whether there are extensive activities going on in Argentina, Vietnam, Thailand, India or anywhere else, or whether that bank is up to its ears in a project in Canada which may be in trouble.
Lord knows that this year we have seen two of our most impregnable industrial companies faced with tremendous financing problems. We simply do not have the information which we are entitled to have with regard to the level of obligation of the banks and the nature of their activities with respect to Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler.
This is really a kind of horse and buggy Bank Act. It is based on a theory of the economy which, while it may be
Bank Act
quaint and has a certain intellectual coherence about it, bears no relationship to what is going on in the real world. We have a Bank Act which continues to put consumers, small businessmen, farmers, and anyone else who has to borrow from or lend money to a bank, in a position of being second-class citizens. We do not have an element of perfectly free information and discussion on what are the banks' decisions regarding the future.
We have a government which, for example, has refused change on a matter of ideology. That is why I call it the Liberal-Conservative Bank Act. It is all of a piece. They refuse, as a matter of principle, even to allow the possibility of one of our provincial governments or of the federal government forming a Crown bank. It said, "No, no, we cannot get into the banking business, that is much too revolutionary an activity, we cannot get involved in that and we cannot interfere with the perfection of the marketplace."
I cannot imagine a more ideological position than the one taken by the Liberal-Conservative party with respect to the Bank Act. It is all of a piece. It makes perfect sense when you consider it from the point of view of institutions whose history goes back in Canada hundreds of years. It is all of a piece when you look at the people who own the shares who control the banks. It is all of a piece when you look at who those people are and what their interlocking network is in the whole economy. It is all of a piece when you consider the fact that the directors of the five largest chartered banks have, in effect, a controlling web of interest across the great concentrated areas of the Canadian economy. Look at the mining sector, the pulp and paper sector, and the manufacturing sector.
You will see it as all of a piece when there is a consistent policy in the Bank Act to protect the interests of those chartered banks, and everybody else comes in at the end as an addendum. The government came in at the last minute and made a concession regarding the car dealerships. The minister shakes his head. It was a last minute thought, for the simple reason that it was not until these amendments were brought in here on second reading and the information was provided in this House, until it was raised in committee, that the minister even considered changing the act.
It was not until the minister had the amendments in black and white which we put forward last spring on consumer protection that he was prepared to look at those things. There was nothing in the Bank Act before that. The Liberal-Conservative party had their first, second, and third look at it. They had four years to look at this. None of this was in the act. It was not in the act until it was raised in this House by our party. It is hard fact, and it is hard for the other parties to accept it.


Mr. Bussieres:: It is an NDP Bank Act.


Bob Rae: The minister says it is an NDP Bank Act. The amendments are NDP amendments. The rest of the Bank Act is yours, and you can have it. We will vote for the amendments and you can have the rest of the act.
4816


Bank Act
When you make a decision to pass the kind of act which has been passed, and which we will not be able to review for 15 years, your philosophy, what you believe about the economy, think about the world and think about our financial institutions, suddenly becomes perfectly clear. If anything has become clear, it is with respect to the fundamental principles of how our financial system is going to work, who is going to benefit, who it is going to protect, who it will not benefit and who it will not protect.
Nothing could be more clear than what we have seen in this Bank Act. The two old line parties, the Liberal-Conservative party, the two wings of despair of the old order which is dying, are ready to have this Bank Act take the place of the previous one.
Before the next ten-year review of the Bank Act, we will continue to point out what we feel is wrong with the Bank Act. It does not take into account the needs and real interests of consumers. It ignores the real problems of small business, the problems of increasing competition and breaking the deadlock of the interlocking directorates and the deadlock they have on the whole of the economy. The government has sanctioned for another ten years the continuation of the old boy network in our banking system, the control over the banking system and our way of inspecting and taking hold of that financial system.
I want the minister to know that we are going to be around until the next review. We will not go away. The fact that the Bank Act has now got through does not mean we are suddenly going to stop being vigilant. I am not making this as an ideological statement. Time will tell whether the interests of consumers have been protected and whether the introduction of foreign banks in the way it has been done by the government will, in fact, increase competition in the Canadian banking sector. Time will tell whether this will further the erosion of our control over the economy, or increase it. Only time will tell, but I think it is important for the government to know and recognize that it has simply looked to the past and not to the future and to the future investment needs of the Canadian economy.
What would the alternative be? In our view it would be a very different kind of Bank Act which would recognize the central role of the public sector in the allocation of investment and in directing the future of our economy. It would recognize the fact that regaining control of our economy and our capital markets is one of the most central things we have to do. We cannot have an industrial strategy without having a strategy for investment. On the other hand, consumers, small business people, farmers and others desperately need protection, and they are not getting it. It must be written into the act. These people must have rights which are hard, and which they can take with them to court. We have not provided those rights, and I think we are making a mistake.
Finally, we should have an act which would call for greater information and require the banks to tell us exactly what they
are doing. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-6, an act 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 not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering clause 2 with respect to the proposed section 222 at page 246 of the said bill.
If I may just explain it briefly, the purpose of this amendment is with respect to the disclosure of the foreign activities of our banks. The minister should not be surprised by this amendment because I have said to him many times that this is one item which has never been satisfactorily explained by the government. There has never been an indication as to why it should not be possible for the Canadian depositor to know whether his deposits are being used to sanction repression in South Africa, South America and in other parts of the world, whether his interests are being protected, and whether the policies of the banks are those he wants to follow.
That seems to me an entirely reasonable request, an entirely sensible request, and a very necessary one if we are to recognize the reality that with their current size and power the banks are acting in a sense as agents of the west with respect to many items of economic policy, and it seems to us essential that these be matters of public information.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the main motion and to indicate my disapproval of the amendment. I will not be speaking for very long, but in giving what will be a fairly philosophical discussion of some of the points before the House today I might begin with what I consider to be a humorous quotation from an unlikely source called "Webster's Unafraid Dictionary" which, in defining a bank, says, and I quote:
An institution that urges you to save as much as possible of what you earn and urges you to borrow as much money as you can spend so you can spend more than you make.
There are so many humorous definitions of banking that I suppose all of us know at least 20 of them. The one I like best is that banks will lend you money if you can prove three times over that you do not need it.
I will be raising some philosophic points. I welcome things which I consider to be correct, and I will welcome corrections from any source, including members of the New Democratic Party even if, as I have said before, in the ranks of the New Democratic Party it is a good business deal for the west to give up what section 109 of the BN A Act guarantees it, namely, control and ownership of its natural resources, in favour of a measure of control subject to "federal paramountcy".
I think it is clear from the amendment that the New Democractic Party just does not like banks. It certainly does not like private business. I think it has been demonstrated around the world that socialists in this country and others basically would like to do away with privately owned banks as they would like to do away with privately owned anything, despite the fact that they do not usually admit it in matters


like this because they like to show their warm smiles instead of, as I put it, their fangs, toward private industry.
The first point 1 would like to raise is the question of members of Parliament and the Canadian Bankers' Association. It was pointed out recently that information with regard to where each and every member of this House banks is supplied to the Canadian Bankers' Association. The provision of this information enables banks to use it in whatever manner. I strongly recommend publicly that the banks cease and desist from this practice. I think it is altogether foreign to a free society and brings banks into general disrepute amongst people who are acquainted with the practice. I understand that the practice has been stopped, but I hope it will be buried away and never see the light of day from now until the end of the New Democratic Party.
The second point I might raise is the question of branch banking versus unit banking. Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware of the fact that in Canada there are, I suppose, 12 or 13 banks, and literally thousands and thousands of branches, whereas in the United States prior to the depression I believe there were 32,000 separately chartered banks. I think the figure now is 16,000 banks. In some states a bank cannot have more than one branch.
The point of the American banking system is that people who live in the community hopefully own the banks in the community. In some cases that is required by law. People who are in the community believe in the community, invest in the community, and lend money in the community. I think it is fairly well known that under our banking system all too often people are moved out of a particular branch after two or three years and sent to the other end of the country. I submit that that aspect of branch banking is harmful.
You may be wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether we should abolish the branch banking system and replace it with another system. I am not, of course, saying that. Many thousands of Canadians work in our banking system. No one, other than someone who is totally ideological, would want to get rid of the jobs of many thousands of Canadians. However, I suggest that it might be wise the next time we are revising the Bank Act to consider providing for more banks and for more locally owned, locally-operated and locally-dependent banks.
The third matter is the question of anti-trust factors. I would probably agree with my friends in the New Democratic Party that banks in Canada far too often act as agents of the crushing of competition or the creation of more mergers in Canada. The recent example of the Bank of Nova Scotia offering to lend money to the Campeau Corporation for taking over Royal Trustco is just one of many.
I think hon. members on this side of the House believe that dispersion of economic power is the best thing for our society, and if we have bigger and bigger units of public or private power, in the long run, I respectfully submit, we would end up with a society with possibly two or three banks, all subject to the control of fewer and fewer individuals. In my view that is one of the great arguments for having a strong competition
Bank Act
policy, and I hope the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) will have the courage to bring one in before much longer. We have been waiting too long.
I doubt if many members know that in the 1912 presidential election in the United States one of the candidates for president, Teddy Roosevelt, took the view that bigness cannot be stopped but that it just has to be regulated. His opponent, Mr. Wilson, took the view that the United States was built on free and open competition and that, as far as he was concerned, there should be anti-trust laws and an attempt to keep enterprises small and competitive. I think we all know that Mr. Wilson won that election and since that time the United States has had a more or less strong anti-trust policy and Canada has had none. In other words, we are about 70 years behind the United States in terms of having a viable anti-trust policy. As I indicated, the banks form an integral part of that policy, and it is one which this Bank Act and previous bank acts do not deal with adequately, in my view.
I believe that the Royal Bank now has assets amounting to $60 billion. That is just about what hon. members opposite want to spend next year as the total government budget. It seems to me that in a society like ours it would be better to have ten banks each having $6 billion than to have one bank with such enormous assets.
Another matter which I hesitate to bring out, and again I would be happy to be contradicted by anyone in this House or beyond it, is that until a few years ago the Royal Bank of Canada, I am told, would not accept a legal opinion on a matter of Quebec law from French-speaking lawyers in that province. If that is the case, I find that to be atrocious, and I hope they will change their policy and accept such opinions in the province of Quebec.
On the same subject I should like to raise the question of the Bank of Montreal which, as we all know, was founded in 1817. I am told that at that time the bank had one Francophone member on its management team. Again I would be happy to be contradicted. I understand that as of today, 1980, there are two Francophones on the bank's management committee. To me that is a deplorable situation as regards two banks, the head offices of which are in the province of Quebec.
I am saying that the banking system in Canada-here I think even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would agree-took great pride during the depression in the fact that not one of the banks had defaulted or gone bankrupt. What they do not tell you is that thousands and thousands of people across the country, and certainly in my part of western Canada, were foreclosed upon by the same banks which took such great pride in the fact that not one of them, unlike their counterparts in the U.S., went bankrupt. 1 do not know if that is as much a matter of pride for Canadian banks as it might be a matter of considerable shame that they did not make more of an effort to help more farmers in western Canada or more small businessmen in the maritimes during the depression.


Bank Act
Now I should like to deal specifically with clause 178 of Bill C-6 which revises section 88 of the Bank Act. My understanding of that clause is that it gives beef producers in western Canada the right to sell their livestock to a packing plant and it gives them protection up to, but only up to, $100,000. After that point, if there is a default or bankruptcy by the packing plant, these basically small producers can have their entire life savings lost in the bankruptcy courts. As a western person who is involved in a small way in the cattle business, I should like to speak against the wording of clause 178 as it stands now. I do not think it gives sufficient protection to the beef producers in western Canada and elsewhere. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) will speak with far more expertise on that clause than I can.
Reference was made earlier to the energy policy and to what it would do to various people in western Canada. Let me point out, to any member who has not seen it an ad which appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail, put in by the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada which describes itself as being "the voice of the Canadian owned petroleum companies". It says about itself:
Two hundred members are oil and gas exploration companies. Two hundred and forty additional members provide essential services to the petroleum industry.
They make the following points about the energy policy which will affect banks, which will probably affect everyone in my riding one way or another, and which will affect many people in western Canada and ultimately in eastern Canada. In this advertisement they are addressing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources (Mr. Lalonde) when they say:
It will make Canadians more dependent on expensive, insecure foreign oil. It will cost Canadians more for gasoline and heating oil in the long run.
It will delay essential frontier exploration, oil sands plants and heavy oil development. It will cost thousands of jobs that could be created by the oil industry across Canada. Canada must achieve oil self-sufficiency. We are the companies your program was supposed to help-
I emphasize this.
-the independent Canadian companies. It doesn't help us-it has stopped us in our tracks. We urge you to reconsider this program for the good of all Canadians.
Those are simply some of the points which I mentioned which are somewhat philosophical. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on just one or two areas, on which the hon. member who preceded me just spoke, with regard to the protection of products of the soil. I understand that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) will also be speaking on this subject later. I certainly support the addition of two words to this clause to support the marketing of products of the soil.
Now I should like to speak on the leasing provisions in the Bank Act. This seems to be an area that is left open and unclear. I think it would be fair to ask for a clarification of
that part of the bill. I believe that the door has been left open in these provisions. However, we do not want to stifle competition, and we want to be fair. Changes have been made to the bill since it left the committee. Perhaps now that the minister is back I could ask him to clarify for me what the provision means. It reads:
a motor vehicle means a motorized vehicle designed to be used primarily on a public highway for the transportation of persons or things but does not include
(a)	a fire engine, bus, ambulance or utility truck; or
(b)	any other special purpose motor vehicle
that contains significant special features that make it suitable for a specific purpose and that is manufactured by a person other than the vehicle manufacturer who manufactured the basic chassis.
I think we can go to almost any dealer or company involved in leasing and order a cab and chassis of whatever style of body we would wish designed for a specific purpose. It could be a chassis and cab which would have a grain body on it with grain gates in the back, designed for that specific purpose. It could be a livestock vehicle with the same type of body but designed for hauling livestock, or it could be a small single axle, single wheel truck which could have a utility body accompanying that chassis and cab for an electrician, or for Bell Canada. I am thinking of Bell Canada trucks. I would appreciate clarification as to the specific vehicle we are talking about. It seems to me we could take almost any type of chassis and cab, do whatever we wish with that truck, and it would be capable of being leased through the banking association.
I said I would not be very long. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would answer those questions.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate on third reading because of a keen interest in specific parts of Bill C-6 which I should like to discuss briefly. I begin by saying that this is my first occasion to participate in the formal debate on the revision of the Bank Act, other than attendance and participation in the work of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs during its session last spring.
Agricultural concerns have not been pursued seriously during all previous attempts to amend the Bank Act over the last three to four years. Over that period those of us who are keenly interested in the agricultural sector were disappointed that agricultural concerns were perhaps not as well advanced as they might have been. In fact, no progress was made concerning any agriculture-oriented amendments over those three or four years. However, at third reading stage it is appropriate to acknowledge the fine understanding and co-operation of all members of the Standing Committee on Finance. Trade and Economic Affairs which I experienced when I joined the committee for a few very special meetings.
Since the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) included a government amendment to deal with what has become known as the "cattlemen's amendment", I wish to make a few comments about it. Last spring when the standing committee began its deliberations on Bill C-6, it was obvious


that the concerns and interests of cattlemen had to be more actively pursued in committee by a member who was personally involved and dedicated to the total Canadian beef cattle industry. During my eight years in Parliament that particular assignment has been my principal responsibility. In this pursuit I was genuinely welcomed and made "at home" by various long-standing committee members from all parties. I appreciate that very much.
Indeed I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the understanding and patience of the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen). 1 first became acquainted with the hon. gentleman during the sittings of the committee which was considering special trends in food costs a number of years ago when he was its first and only chairman. 1 participated in that committee later on in its deliberations because it obviously did not have enough members representing agricultural producers. In addition, 1 appreciate the willingness of all members of that committee to listen to my arguments about the cattle industry as they relate to the Bank Act.
In particular, I mention the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) and the wisdom and understanding of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). I must say I enjoyed his comments throughout the many meetings of that committee. Also I might mention the patience of the Minister of State for Finance in listening to the cattlemen's comments at those meetings. I would also mention the contributions of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I should like to acknowledge the solid support of my fellow agricultural members on that committee-the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) and the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield). These gentlemen have a very clear appreciation of the position of agricultural producers, especially those in the cattle industry.
During my attendance in committee I was involved in only two aspects of Bill C-6. The first was the automotive leasing sections as they related to chartered banks. I do not propose to comment further on that subject at this stage, since that portion of the bill has been covered in great depth and detail by many hon. members. I do not intend to add anything, though, of course, I made a comment or two during the committee consideration.
The second aspect is the "cattlemen's amendment" which to my mind was the most important subject. It is covered by two references in the bill, the first being under the marginal heading on pages seven and eight of the bill entitled: "Products of agriculture". This is a long overdue change in the definitions. Finally this clause includes the term "livestock" as a product of agriculture. I think it is incredible that livestock was not officially designated by definition as a product of agriculture up until now. Clause 2.(1 )(b) reads as follows:
honey, livestock (whether alive or dead), dairy products, eggs and all other indirect products of the soil.
Bank Act
This clarification under "Definitions" is long overdue and very, very welcome. No further comment is necessary at this time.
The second reference to the "cattlemen's amendment" can be found on page 188 opposite the marginal notation "Priority of wages and money owing for perishable agricultural products". I particularly refer to clause 178(6)(b), subsections (i) and (ii) which deal with third party claims such as those by meatpackers and processors who have been able to use farm products which were procured, but not purchased, as security for their operating loans. The new act will allow a priority exemption indexed to the cost of production index from year to year, so that the upper limit of priority will grow with the change in circumstances. I want to emphasize that this is a big improvement over the old upper limit, which was $7500; using this indexing formula it now works out to about $100,000. That is indeed a significant improvement. Initially the cattlemen felt strongly that there should be an open-ended approach to this priority rating. They felt there should be no limitation whatsoever. While we reluctantly agreed to this approach I think it is fair to say that there was some unhappiness in the cattle industry as a result of settling for this.
I wish to refer now to section 6(b), the "Priority of wages and money owing for perishable agricultural products" section. It has already been referred to in debate and it says:
(b) claims of a grower or producer of products of agriculture for money owing by a manufacturer to the grower or producer for such products that were grown or produced by him on land owned or leased by him and that were delivered to the manufacturer during the period of six months next preceding the making of such order or assignment-
The point 1 wish to make and which I feel very strongly about is that while this is indeed an improvement over the old act, which has been very beneficial to the whole industry, there was a technical omission of just three words in the section I have just read. The three words which should be inserted, in my view, following the words "claims of a grower or producer" are "or his agent". Those words should be added. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to give serious consideration adding those words to this amendment which presumably will be agreed to. This was put forward by the government during the various discussions in the committee stage. I think there is no question that if those words are not included there there will be some hesitation on the part of country auction and commission firms who deal by word of mouth over the telephone and who make deals involving millions of dollars on behalf of cattle producers in particular. I think the phrase "or his agent" should be included as a technical amendment to the government amendment to which 1 have referred.
The cattle industry has been very understanding over the years despite serious losses suffered by cattle producers. The ones I remember best are bankruptcies of food processors, the bankruptcy of a packing plant in Ontario and another in western Canada, cases in which the producers' product-[DOT] cattle-was held as security by the banks. This was used by


Bank Act
packing companies or processors as security for operating loans before the cattle were ever settled for. I repeat, if that addition could be made to this section of Bill C-6 it would be a vast improvement.
That is all I wish to add at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon and take part in this debate on Bill C-6, which is to amend the Bank Act.
Like the previous speaker, my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), 1 have been involved for a good part of my life in the livestock business in western Canada. It is with this in mind that I take this opportunity to call attention to what I believe to be some problems with the act and which I think are relative to what the hon. member for Medicine Hat has just been saying.
I must say this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak formally in the House since we returned this fall. There are two or three things that need to be said about the bill before us. The first is that I am glad to see that the definition has been changed so that livestock products are included and treated in the same as direct products of the soil and dairy products. I think the case can be made that livestock products should have been treated differently previously. For a great many producers livestock products are marketed over a very short period of time during the year. For instance, in the cattle business you will find that there are a lot of producers who only have an opportunity to market their product once a year. I imagine this is because of the physiological nature of the cow. It is very important that when sales take place the process the producers goes through to market that animal is fiscally and financially sound.
Under the previous definition livestock products were treated differently from direct products of the soil or dairy products. 1 feel the point needs to be made that direct products of the soil can be stored for longer periods of time than livestock products. Dairy products are marketed on a day to day basis, as are many of the direct products of the soil. If a financial problem arises it would be hard to conceive of a producer suffering a loss that would involve his full year's work, whereas in the livestock industry a man who raises calves and markets his animals once a year could find himself in the position of marketing a full year's work. If it turned out that he was unfortunate enough to do it at a time when the institution he was dealing with was having financial problems he could find himself out of pocket for the full year's work. I do not think that is a situation dairy producers and producers of products of the soil would find themselves in.
I would like to elaborate on the reason we think the insertion of the three words "or his agent" into this act is so necessary. To appreciate the importance of this one must understand the nature of the marketing process that livestock people follow to market their cattle. Most people are involved in one way or another with professionals in the marketing of their animals. There are bonded commission agents who operate out of the public stockyards. There are people who market cattle directly
to packing houses on a commission basis. These people perform that service to a high degree of efficiency. It is their business. They are knowledgeable as to what the market is doing and producers over the years have come to rely on their advice. When this happens, the people who are in a position to offer advice are sometimes in a position also to take control of the cattle from the producer's feed lot, or pasture, or farm, look after the marketing, and send the producer his cheque. In that case the agent technically becomes an agent of the producer.
I think that if those three words are not inserted a loophole could be left and the correction we are trying to make in this bill would not be achieved. If a producer does choose to make use of an agent to market his cattle and that agent, through some technicality in the act, is judged not to be the producer, the producer could again be the loser. In order to understand the significance of this point I think it important that people understand the process that cattle go through-and this applies to pork as well.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Canadian Wheat Board-Compensation for farmers due to embargo on shipments to U.S.S.R.; the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Grievances of Cornwall employees-Government consideration thereof; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)-Environmental Affairs-Toxic chemicals spill on west coast.
[Stage Direction]
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall order No. 6 in the
name of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Shall order No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster) moved: that Bill C-216, to amend the Criminal Code (Abortion), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) for seconding my motion. 1 welcome the opportunity to stand in the House this afternoon on my private member's bill. I feel that the ability of a member to present a bill for discussion in this House is in the true form of democratic Parliament. Such a bill represents the feelings of individuals rather than those of political parties whether they be in opposition or in government.
Bill C-216 is simple and straightforward. Its intention is to erase the loophole which literally permits abortion on demand and to ensure that the unborn child receives the full protection of the law and to repeal the section of the Criminal Code which allows therapeutic abortion committees to be formed.
Although the issue of abortion is emotional, it is one upon which we cannot be silent. Since the abortion law was put in place 11 years ago, over 450,000 innocent children, human beings, have been killed. We cannot be shrill or strident; we must be rational and have certain expectations of the people of Canada. In each and every one of us there is the emotion to recognize humanity. Humanity has many definitions. The definition which I in my own mind and conscience accept is that of a human being, whether it be a human being outside the womb or a human being in the womb.
I was first elected to this Parliament in 1979, the year of the child. That year was so designated by the United Nations to commemorate the signing of the UN declaration on the rights of children some 20 years earlier. In 1959 the United Nations adopted the declaration of the rights of the child based on the following preamble:
Whereas a child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before, as well as after, birth-
At the time the Government of Canada was a signatory to the declaration to the rights of the child. Just 11 years ago, Canada passed legislation to deny the existence of rights for unborn children. In 1969 the Criminal Code was amended and passed. Section 251 permitted an accredited hospital therapeutic abortion committee to allow an abortion when the contin-
Abortion
uation of the woman's pregnancy would "be likely to endanger her life or health".
Anyone reading the debates of Parliament at the time would clearly understand that the new law was meant to be applied only in cases of medical need. The then minister of justice, the Hon. John Turner, who introduced the legislation, said during third reading:
This bill has rejected the eugenic, sociological or criminal offence reasons for abortion. The bill limits the possibility of therapeutic abortions to these circumstances. It is to be performed by a medical practitioner who is supported by a therapeutic abortion committee of medical practitioners in a certified or approved hospital, and the abortion is to be performed only when the health or the life of the mother is in danger.
That quotation can be found in the Hansard of May 6 of that year at page 8397. At the time of that vote, the government of the day, much, I am sure, to the resistance and sorrow of many of its members, forced hon. members to vote-and 1 know some of them-against their conscience in order to pass the bill. In other words, in 1969 Parliament amended the legislation on the understanding that abortion was to be performed only when the health and the life of the mother was endangered. At that time the government of the day and this Parliament, though it was asked, in fact, did not take the time-perhaps it did not feel the matter was important enough-to define the word "health" in all its meanings.
Since the bill was passed, its meaning has changed greatly. Many people thought they were protecting the life of the mother, but that is not the case. In 1970, one year after the law was passed, there were 11,152 recorded abortions in Canada. In 1978, the latest year for which figures were available, there were 62,290 recorded abortions in Canada. It strains the credibility of anyone in this House or in Canada to assume that the state of health and danger to life of pregnant women was six times worse in 1978 than in 1970, yet there were six times as many abortions. Right now, for every six children born, one is killed by abortion. In other words, there is a loophole in the abortion law which gives Canadian unborn children no legal rights.
I contend that the insertion of the word "health" in section 251 of the Criminal Code provided such a loophole that the primary intent of the legislation has been so distorted that it should not be taken as fact. The interpretation of the word "health" is so vast and diverse that it makes a mockery of the law passed by Parliament. The definition of health used in this country comes from the World Health Organization, which states:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
I do not believe that health, as it is regarded in the present abortion law, should be interpreted so loosely. The present law protects women in cases of dangerous medical risk from pregnancy, but the vast majority of the abortions being performed are an attempt to cope with social problems. Abortion has become a necessary, cold-blooded medical service available on demand. There is a serious social problem and it warrants the attention and the response of all hon. members and all Canadians.


Abortion
Surely we must agree that abortion should not be used as a method to solve this problem. To use abortion in this way only brutalizes and dehumanizes our society. Whether one views life as a gift of God or as an entity to be cherished with wonder in our universe, Canada's abortion laws are removing this right to life, and it is nothing but a condemnation of each and every one of us.
The purpose of my bill is to insert an amendment in the Criminal Code which would remove these loopholes which permit wholesale murder based on social expediency. My bill would allow a qualified medical doctor in an accredited hospital to abort or procure the miscarriage of any woman in order to prevent her death, not for any socioeconomic reason or for purposes of expediency. On November 11 we were reminded of the holocausts of World War 1 and World War II, when life in some minds became very cheap. This is not what we would expect from a civilized country. This is something we must change. If we do not advance in this way we cannot be truly civilized.
The other portion of the amendment contained in my bill is the repeal of the provisions in the Criminal Code which permit the establishment of therapeutic abortion committees. The 1969 provision did not, and does not, require the setting up of the therapeutic abortion committees in accredited hospitals, it merely sets down the procedure in the instance that this option is undertaken. Abortion provisions are contained in the Criminal Code and thus are a matter of federal jurisdiction. However, hospitals come under provincial jurisdiction and that is where the administration and control lies.
I would simply say that these committees have not worked, Mr. Speaker. The issue of abortion is a moral one, not a political one. When people run for election to hospital boards, whether they be classed as anti-abortion or pro-abortion, then the matter becomes political. But abortion is a question of civil rights. The unborn child has a right to life; a civil right to life. It is up to the state, to the federal government, to this House of Commons to protect and honour the right of the unborn child.
We have been discussing the constitutional resolution in this House, Mr. Speaker. Will the right to life in that resolution deem that section 251 of the Criminal Code is ultra vires? Will it honour the intent of this bill and, if so, will it specifically honour the pregnant woman's right to life if her life has been deemed in medical danger?
As a member of Parliament, I believe I am elected to serve my constituents. This past summer I surveyed my constituents asking their views and seeking their input on the abortion laws in Canada. The majority of the response indicated that abortion should be permitted only to prevent the death of a mother.
Pro-life groups in Canada have often been referred to as the silent majority, Mr. Speaker. I would submit to you that there is no such thing as a silent majority; only governments that are deaf and refuse to hear the cry of the populace. I hope that regardless of political affiliation, hon. members will send this bill to committee for further study. I shall not take all the time
allotted to tie, Mr. Speaker, so that we may hear from my hon. friends and colleagues in the other parties. I know that the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield) and others would like to express their views and concerns on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as a I did one year ago on November 30, to speak on this very important question of abortion and changes to the Criminal Code. I believe the changes suggested to the act would be regressive and discriminatory toward women by preventing them from having the right to choose what is right for them and their families in their particular circumstances.
I should like to make one point very clear at the beginning. The New Democratic Party does not sanction abortion as a method of birth control. Along with the hon. member, we deplore the increasing need for women to seek abortions. In most cases this is caused by the stresses of today's society, increasing poverty, the lack of stable family relations and, often, of stable marital relations; the extreme youth of many mothers-and I shall come to that in a moment-the health problems that are often involved, and economic insecurity.
The New Democratic Party believes that it is much better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than for a woman to be forced to bear an unwanted child which she cannot care for or which may be neglected or even abused in later years. It is far better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to decide to have an abortion. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, abortion is rarely a consideration if a woman and her partners have a stable relationship and the means to care for their child.
I believe it is also far better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than it is for unwanted children to be born and then given up for continuing changes of foster homes. This is happening frequently today and there is considerable evidence that children may be damaged by constant changes and feelings of abandonment, no matter how caring many foster homes may be.
Prevention, of course, starts with a loving relationship and adequate sex information in the home. Parents who provide relaxed, honest answers about procreation, human relations and sexual development, are preparing their child for mature relationships later in life. Preparation, as we all know, starts with pre-schoolers, the information increasing as the child reaches puberty.
It is also important that schools take a positive attitude toward teaching human growth and development, including positive family life education for both girls and boys. Early training must demonstrate the importance of love and caring, respect for others and for one's self.
Unwanted pregnancies will not be prevented if we do not deal realistically with what is happening with youth today. Despite family standards, the mores and desires of parents who care very much for their children, it is a fact of life that in today's society things have changed completely from the way


they were in our youth. Sexual experimentation often starts between children, and intercourse is common in early teenage years. Indeed, we know there is increasing evidence of teenage prostitution involving both boys and girls and very young teenagers on the streets today. Increasing numbers of young people view this as a means of getting money, something which is only possible, Mr. Speaker, because of the demands of adults who seek this service.
There is an alarming increase in the number of children under age 15 who are becoming parents. I would like to quote from the Vancouver Sun of October 14 which ran an article on this subject. It begins as follows:
A report on teenage pregnancy and parenthood in B.C. reveals an alarming increase in pregnancies among girls age 14 and younger-
-it urges the development of more school and community programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies-
'-a 33 per cent increase in the rate of pregnancies for girls 14 years old and younger has occurred in British Columbia over the past seven years '-
The increase in pregnancies among young teenagers coincides with a marked decrease in the number of children given up for adoption. The report found more than half of the teenagers giving birth in B.C. are unmarried, and 75 to 80 per cent of teenage mothers now decide to keep their babies-
Deaths from complications of pregnancy are 60 per cent higher for girls under 15 than for women in their 20s-
The death rate for infants in B.C ... for the babies of 15-year olds was 26.1 ... babies of mothers 16 and younger are more likely to be mentally retarded or have brain and nervous disorders.
A recent study of 79 teenage mothers in Vancouver revealed that 80 per cent had not finished high school and nearly 23 per cent had Grade 8 or less-
The death rate of preschoolers of teenage mothers was 41 per cent above average-
This shows how difficult it is for young mothers to care for babies. The article decries the attitude that giving services to these girls is seen as a reward for their misdemeanor:
'As a result, they're condemned to a life of isolation and poverty'.
Dr. Tonkin was quoted as saying he found 87 per cent of teenage pregnancies are unplanned and unwanted. He further said:
B.C.'s high teenage abortion rate of 106 abortions for every 100 teenagers who go through with the pregnancy is further evidence that most pregnancies are unwanted.
Birth control counselling to prevent unwanted pregnancy is not available to many teenagers.
I am sure we all agree that prevention is a top priority, particularly for young people faced with this kind of situation. No one disagrees that a child mother finds it hard to care for herself and mature into an adult while looking after a young child, meeting its needs and caring for it. Therefore, prevention is our first priority.
Abortion
Our party strongly supports the recommendations of the Bagley report which my colleague from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has mentioned several times in this House. That report stresses prevention, family planning clinics, availability of contraceptives and accessibility to medical services for those who apply for abortions. We feel it particularly important to give more attention to community clinics. 1 understand these are increasing in the province of Quebec with excellent results. It is important that such community clinics be established so that there is accessibility to information, counselling and family support services for those women who decide to keep their babies.
If a woman becomes pregnant against her will, she should be able to discuss this with an objective, understanding counsellor and perhaps a religious adviser. She should come to her own decision as to what is best for her and her unborn child. She should have access to a doctor's advice if, as one alternative, she is considering an abortion. We should be looking at the clinics in Quebec as an alternative to placing a heavy burden on hospitals and the very costly services which are required.
Family planning is a social responsibility just as the increasing cost of caring for unwanted children is an increasing social cost. Last year I spoke about the need for a more democratic and realistic approach to the whole question of abortion. I respect the fact that members in this House, including some of my colleagues, have different opinions on this matter. I respect their personal opinions. However, the private member's bill before us today is not just a personal thing. It seeks to impose and restrict access to abortion. The women of this country must make their own decision in this matter.
I wish to direct some questions to the member presenting this bill. First, if the bill were to go through, would it stop the increasing number of teenage pregnancies which 1 just cited? Would it prevent pregnant women with money, or their sexual partners who have money, from going across the border to the United States to seek an abortion? Would it decrease the number of backroom butchers who are now performing abortions in areas where there is no access to proper medical treatment in a hospital with an approved abortion committee? Would it decrease in the cities the increasing numbers of unwanted pregnancies, particularly among younger women? Of course it would not prevent these things. The hon. member who just spoke would probably agree. It is a further restriction on access to abortion.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like clarification. The hon. member said she would like to ask some questions of the hon. member sponsoring this bill. Would she like me to reply to those questions?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this point. I was just about to answer them. The hon. member had his time. This is a very important question and I would like full advantage of my time.
4824


Abortion
The answer to these questions is that changing and restricting access to abortion would not stop unwanted pregnancies. Hospitals do not cause pregnancies. Men cause pregnancies. This is a fact that men in this House continually seem to ignore. This is not a legal question. It is a human physical question which affects the lives of women far more than men. An amendment to the Criminal Code to further restrict abortions in hospitals will not deal with the concerns of those who oppose abortions on moral grounds. It will force young girls and poor women to go to the back street butchers in surroundings where they risk their health. That is why I want to talk about this bill in relation to democracy.
Our party respects the right of every man or woman to take a religious view on the question of abortion. I do not intend to talk about what is or is not life. Obviously there is a great difference of opinion on this very emotional subject. We respect personal and religious views that are a matter of conscience. However, we are opposed to measures that impose certain moral views on other people, and particularly on women in this case.
The member proposing this bill has a right to a personal opinion on abortion. However, neither he nor this House has the right to impose views on a woman who is pregnant, who cannot care for her child, and who, after careful consideration, decides to have an abortion. It is her decision in consultation with her doctor. It is not the role of a member of Parliament to say to that woman, "You cannot have an abortion. I am your judge." Not only will this not work, since the woman obviously will find another way of having the abortion if it is important to her, but it is not the role of Parliament to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body and her life.
Many women and enlightened men today feel we should be broadening the concept of health to accept the UN definition to include mental, social and physical factors as well. This should be the criterion used by hospital boards when a doctor recommends an abortion. We should not be restricting it as this bill proposes. Better still, we should not be taking up the time of the hospital, with its expensive services, in dealing with abortions. It should be decriminalized and treated as a medical service at community clinics.
In many countries today abortion is not a moral issue. It is a human practical issue that involves population planning. It is part of practical medical services. A pregnant woman is free to choose what is best for herself, her partner and her family. Children are born wanted in a family that can nourish and care for them.
Recently I had a long chat with Grace Maclnnis, the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway who, as many of us know, worked for many years in this House and across Canada for women's rights, the strengthening of families and the right of all children to be wanted, to grow and develop into mature, healthy human beings. She reminded me that we live in a pluralistic society. We know that individuals have very different points of view on abortion. She also reminded me that we must not give up the fight for a woman's individual right to choice in the matter of abortion. She said it took 80 years for
the House of Commons to legalize birth control. Now it is time to work for the repeal of abortion from the Criminal Code.
I agree with this. It is the policy of my party. Therefore, the NDP opposes this private member's bill as an undemocratic, regressive and sexist act. It would prevent a woman from having access to hospital services if she and her doctor request an abortion as a matter of health.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in support of the private member's bill presented by the hon. member for Kindersiey-Lloydmins-ter (Mr. McKnight). The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) said that male chauvinistic views were being expounded. I would like her to know that there is one member on our side who is female and who does not really agree with that attitude, and she would like that view to be on the record.
We are dealing with a very controversial and emotional subject which goes right to the root of our very being. There are several questions to which we should address ourselves. What rights does the unborn child have? Are those rights subject to any qualifications? Is the unborn entitled to full human rights? If so, does he or she receive those rights at conception or at some subsequent point in his or her pre-natal development? Does the mother have the right, for whatever reason, to end the life that is within her?
The question of abortion is one of the most widely disputed topics in recent years. The supporters of strict abortion laws express deep concern over the abolition of the intrinsic and absolute right of life which has always been recognized as fundamental in Canadian society. Pro-life people see abortion as the destruction of innocent children. Those who are proabortion tend to blur the issue by citing abstract philosophical arguments about personal freedom and privacy or talk in terms or generalizations such as "social good" or "the quality of life".
The courts of our land can make a wrong legal, but they cannot make a wrong right. Pro-abortionists like to refer to the unborn as a fetus instead of a child, and I am convinced that they are using certain words to depersonalize the unborn baby. If we accept that there is no difference between having an abortion and the removal of a gallbladder or an appendix operation, it will affect our attitude toward the rights of those seeking abortions.
However, if we believe that this is a human rights issue, that we are more than two-legged animals and that man was made in the image of God, formed from His hand, then for those reasons human life is very precious and not to be dealt with lightly.
I wish to quote from the declaration of the rights of a child made by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1959, as follows:
The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.


In our society there is no person more weak, defenceless or vulnerable than the unborn. It is the function of the law to protect innocent human life. When the mother, who should be the natural protector of her unborn child, becomes its adversary, then it is the function, the duty and the responsibility of the government to intervene to protect that innocent human life.
Governments pass such laws as seatbelt laws to preserve life, yet we stand idly by while the pro-abortionists brainwash our society into believing there is nothing wrong with artificially ending the lives of thousands and thousands of children.
First, if we believe that life begins at conception, we must accept that there is a new being entirely separate from its father and mother because it has a different chromosomal makeup. Second, at conception the unborn is alive because it has the capacity to replace its own dying cells. Third, at conception, the unborn is alive, needing only food and time to grow into an adult human. Fourth, the unborn is just as much alive and human before birth as it is after birth. It is not a different life. Fifth, the body of the unborn child belongs to the child, just as the body of the mother belongs to the mother. The mother is not aborting a part of her anatomy, as suggested by the NDP member for Vancouver East; she is aborting the result of the union of two people placed within her. Sixth, since we have not given the right to a mother to terminate her child's life after birth, why should she have the right to terminate the child's life before birth?
We know that the entire genetic package which determines one's personality and physical characteristics is totally present at conception. It is just like a tape recorder, our total being programmed at that instant.
The tiny humans we once were have developed into the adults we now are; but we were there totally at conception. All we needed to become the adults we are now was nutrition, oxygen and time. A being who has never before existed in the history of time, a being not at the end of the line but at the dawn, a being completely intact and containing within himself or herself the totality of everything that being will ever be, a being moving forward in an orderly process of growth, a being destined to live within the mother for about nine months and for as many as 90 or more years without: this living being is dependent upon his or her mother for shelter and food but in all other respects is a totally new, different, unique and independent creation.
Some people say that by granting an abortion, in many cases we are preventing the creation of candidates for our relief roles, our prison population and our growing list of unwanted and battered children. I am sure we would all agree that every child should be wanted. A world with wanted children only would be a very ideal place in which to live. On the other hand, it would also be a wonderful world if there were no wives unwanted by husbands, no aging parents unwanted by their children and no unwanted Jews, black people, white people, protestants or Catholics. The truth of the matter is that we must remember that people have feet of clay and the unwanted will always be with us.
Abortion
To use being wanted by someone as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live suggests the frightening concept that the unwanted can be eliminated. Abortion is not just another method of birth control. Contraception prevents the creation of new life; abortion destroys life after it has begun. The question of contraception is a personal decision for a couple to make. Abortion, on the other hand, involves society's responsibility to safeguard the life of another person. A woman has both the right and the ability to determine whether she will or will not conceive. Once she has become pregnant, however, it is no longer a question of her body alone. The life of another human individual is present, one who is distinct and separate from the mother. If we accept that the unborn child is human, it is obvious that the issue is not the right of the mother to control her body but whether she has the right to end the life of another human being who shares her body.
I am sure I could go on citing Figures and statistics to support my presentation with regard to the almost 6,000 per cent increase in abortions during the last ten years. I believe the crux of the matter is whether we as parliamentarians wish to do something about the problem or whether we should turn our heads, ignore the situation and hope it goes away.
It will not go away, and it will haunt our society in the years to come. No country can allow such flagrant disregard for human life and not pay a heavy price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my position to the debate this afternoon. I will indicate first that what I am about to give is my own personal position because my position is not the same as that which was adopted in convention by the New Democratic Party, which I would now like to read into the record. The following was the position of the New Democratic Party recorded at the federal convention in 1967:
Be it resolved that the New Democratic Party favours the legalization of abortion so that abortions could be permitted, under the closest medical and social supervision, depending on the condition of the pregnancy involved, these conditions should include:
(1)	genuine risk of death or physical or mental injury to the mother, or to
any existing children of her family;
(2)	substantial risk the child will be handicapped by severe physical or
mental abnormalities;
(3)	following rape or incest.
When I was asked to run for the New Democratic Party, the basic philosophy of which I accept as socially a good way to handle our country, I made it very clear before I let my name stand that I was against that particular position.
In my nomination speech I indicated where I stood on the question of human rights. This position was approved by my local constituency and I announced it as one of the main platforms upon which I ran for the House of Commons. My personal position is this: I believe in rights across the board. I believe that human rights were an essential issue in that campaign as they are every day of my life, and rightly so, just


Abortion
as they are in many parts of today's troubled world. In my nomination speech on September 17, 1977,1 said:
I will defend human life from its conception until its natural end.
This means I am opposed to, first, abortion; second, euthanasia; third, capital punishment; and-although I do not have it included in the document from which I read at that time-I am also against death from starvation, from war or from any other act in which the human right to live is violently taken away from some other person.
The human rights which I support are, first, the right to be born; second, the right to adequate food, housing, medical care and education; third, the right to live in, at least, frugal comfort within one's cultural tradition; fourth, freedom of conscience, worship, expression, political participation and peaceful dissent; fifth, equal treatment in public, job markets and courts, regardless of sex, age, ethnic origin, marital status, religious or political beliefs, social and economic status; sixth, the right to social assistance when age or other circumstances make self-support inadequate; and seventh, the right to die with dignity.
I believe that human rights are all of a piece-ignore one right and you jeopardize all the others. That is why a single issue approach to rights will not work. If we are really pro-life, we have to protect human life from conception through to death. This requires an active, lifelong concern for a just social system.
In that document I repeated that my stand on abortion is at odds with the present New Democratic Party policy, but dissent has an honourable tradition within the NDP. As other speakers have already pointed out, there is no doubt at all that the issue about which we are speaking is highly emotional, and because of that, it is very difficult for people to really hear what the other side is saying. I am fully aware of this. When an emotional argument is taking place, it is terribly difficult to hear the other side. Over the years I have tried to hear all the positions, but the part which I was never able to hear, at least within myself, was the basic assumption that abortion itself was a moral act. Abortion, as I understand it, is a direct attack carried out against a living unborn child. I cannot see it from any other point of view than that of morality and I consider it to be an evil act. It is an evil act, in my view. It touches on a basic moral principle which I am sure can be sustained by everybody in the House. It is a basic moral principle of ethics that you cannot do an evil act for a good end.
So we face a serious problem because of how one should act in the face of problems which have been discussed today, the existence of which I do not deny, the social problems about which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) spoke. I recognize that there are answers to social problems, but I cannot, in my conscience, understand how it is possible to carry out an evil act, or an act which I perceive as being evil, for a good or an apparent good.
I could bring religious arguments into the debate but I will not. However, I think I can bring to this debate some of my own reflections in past years. I have had to come to terms with
my own life every day and with the life of everyone else whom I have met. Every single person whom I meet is a mystery which cannot be explained except for the fact that we are all present here in this universe at this time, and that we are in the process of going from conception to death. The process cannot be stopped. So when someone says that they can overcome that basic mystery and that somehow or other they have greater understanding and knowledge of the point at which life starts and stops, after seven days, after seven months, after seven years or after 70 years, I cannot accept that, because no one I know has that power.
I spoke of the mystery of human life, and it is because human life is a mystery with individual reason, will, personality and conscience that 1 speak about human rights. 1 believe that the individual is unique on the face of this earth and therefore has rights. Individuals have those rights not because the House of Commons gives them to him or her but because there is basically something different and special about human existence. That is why dogs, horses, salmon or geraniums do not have rights. All plants and animals have life but they do not share the kind of life I have-they do not have human life.
I do not want anyone to think that I am attacking anybody for what they have done, or anything of that sort. All I am saying is that I have never heard anyone answer the questions I am posing in a way I would consider reasonable. I have to live by my own conscience. In my belief, conscience is a unique power that a human being has and that no other thing on this planet has. A human conscience, so far as I understand it, is the judgment of right reason. It is a judgment which I must make about a particular act, about a particular way of acting, about a particular series of acts, and the only thing I have to go on is my right reason. I must use my faculties to look upon a particular action and say whether it is evil or good. I must follow my conscience in making that decision. I am sure no one in the House would deny that. Perhaps we see it differently because we have a difficult time hearing each other.
I should like to share some of my own experience. As we go through the period from conception to death we acquire experience. I refer to the question of health and what human health basically means. If it is a question of health-the health of the unborn child is not taken into consideration. It is destroyed! That is the act to which we must relate our consciences.
Yesterday I had an opportunity to speak with an archaeologist whose wife had experienced an accidental miscarriage. She was an archaeologist as well; I do not know whether they had any religious faith. He related the drastic effect of this spontaneous miscarriage on his family. His wife was able to explain it by indicating that her body was the result of five or ten million years of preparation before it could reach the high level of existence necessary to produce a human life. When the miscarriage occurred she reacted to it in such a way that the emotional impact was present years later. My experience counselling many people involved with abortions leads me to


believe it is not really the answer. I cannot explain what is left within a person who experiences an abortion; it just does not go away.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to present my personal and private position this afternoon. In general I support the tone of the bill of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). Although my party is criticized as being the abortion party, I think we must look at the entire question and realize that when hon. members to my right were in power they did not change the law which was originally brought in by hon. members opposite.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion I rise to speak on Bill C-216 to which I agree in principle. I do not necessarily agree with the exact details of it, but I should like to indicate that for two sessions in a row I have had a private member's bill of this nature on the order paper, Bill C-496.
When I decided to leave provincial politics and get into federal politics, nothing concerned me more than this issue. I knew it was an emotional issue, full of fundamental thoughts by different people on the matter. I had sufficient data at my fingertips which indicated that a prairie fire had occurred in the area of abortion and that the abortion law was being abused and used as a means of contraception. Hospital authorities informed me about that and I learned that the hospital committees of many big hospitals were overloaded and simply gave blanket approval to abortions irrespective of need.
This is not a partisan issue. It is moral issue of profound importance. It is an issue upon which each individual must reflect and make up his own mind. 1 have always lived by the philosophy that it is my duty to protect, enhance, improve, cherish and embrace human life in all its dimensions. I have always asked myself the fundamental question: what is human life?
As one who has experience in the area of nuclear science and nuclear technology of various kinds, let me say that in my estimation human life is a unique form of intelligence. At conception this intelligence is programmed and it evolves with the simple provision of an environment and a means of feeding. It is totally programmed, it is human life right after the moment of conception. So this is a moral issue. It is not a sociological, economic or environmental issue, although it has those implications. It is a fundamental issue of life, and the Parliament of Canada must look upon it as such. When this House passes legislation, it must be prepared to review it periodically to ensure that it serves the intent for which it was brought before us.
I have come to the conclusion that the legislation providing abortions, not only when the mother's life was in danger but because of social and economic conditions, is now being badly abused. Hospital committees are overloaded and simply give blanket approval to abortions.
This is not a choice which a woman makes alone. It is one which involves various people, in fact society as a whole in almost all cases. Today our hospitals are very complex institu-
Bank Act
tions. Abortions involve the services of doctors, nurses and technicians who conduct various tests. It involves taxpayers, it involves society as a whole. Thus it is an issue with which we must all be concerned. Therefore, I am in favour of a reexamination of the law in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business
having expired, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen 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 third time and do pass, and of the amendment thereto (Mr. Rae).
Murray Cardiff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) on his point of order, I would indicate that when the debate was interrupted at five o'clock the hon. member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer) had the floor.
The hon. member for Huron-Bruce on a point of order.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would answer the questions I raised in my speech earlier this afternoon, with the consent of the House. He has had time to deliberate over the dinner hour if it would be proper at this time to answer those questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Such a request would require the unanimous consent of the House in view of the fact that an exchange of questions and answers is not normally appropriate during debate. I am concerned that the hon.
member for Portage-Marquette may have some feelings on the matter.


Charles James Mayer: No.


Bank Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent that for a brief period some questions and answers be exchanged?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it very clear that the fact of replying to the questions of the hon. member will not prevent me from taking part in the debate. All hon. members should realize that the fact that I am replying to these questions will not deprive me of my right to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is without question. The hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) will still have the right to speak later in the debate. This is an exception which was accepted by the hon. members.

In no way will this affect the minister's right to speak later. [Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, thank you, for this clarification. The hon. member was speaking on motion No. 27 designed to correct an amendment accepted in committee to restrict the leasing activities of banks. The hon. member was concerned that motion No. 27 might allow banks to carry on leasing operations and that this would emasculate, if I may use this expression, the amendment passed in committee. Is that what the hon. member asked me?
I should like to remind the House of the origin of this amendment. I was invited by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking to discuss the bill, and particularly to inform the members of this committee of the reasons for the amendments accepted in committee by the government. At that time, the evidence given by some senators and the questions they raised brought home to me the representations I had received from businessmen who operate in various spheres of this activity and who were concerned about the fact that banks would not be allowed to provide leasing for the purchase of certain types of equipment.
As I recall, I gave certain examples of this at the report stage. I gave the example of fire engines. I also gave the example of trucks with very specialized equipment that might be used, for instance, by a provincial hydro service, fitted with a basket to repair wires atop poles, or the same type of trucks fitted with a drill to dig holes for the poles, fire trucks used by some municipalities. I also talked about certain types of trucks mounted on both wheels and caterpillars which are used in the forest industry, but which in some provinces have to be licensed. The restriction which existed in the act with regard to licensing is well known.
I could give many other examples to the hon. member, but I want to assure him that the intention expressed in committee
to make it impossible for the banks to lease in the field traditionally reserved to car and truck dealers has been folio-lowed up and is that of the government. Still, we did not want to deprive an entrepreneur, a municipality or a service business of the possibility of obtaining leasing through the banks since that source was limited, in that, for instance, a fire engine, must be bought "stripped". Another firm that specializes in fire engines will make a fire truck out of it and then sell it. That firm is not interested in leasing. To give more expansion to its market and facilitate business with the municipality, it was quite favourable to the idea of the bank going into leasing in that specific field.
The same goes for forestry equipment and some big trucks used for transporting oil, milk, etc., in bulk quantities. I wonder if the hon. member understands in what spirit the amendment was made. We want to preserve the spirit that prevailed in committee and give businessmen the opportunity of going to a financial service that is accessible and favourable to them.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was referring to some of the concerns which I and members on both sides of the House feel about the revisions to this act and how they affect the livestock business. The livestock industry is very important to a large part of Canada particularly to western Canada where the beef cow herd is largely located. If my memory serves me correctly, roughly 80 per cent of the beef cows in Canada are located in the prairie provinces, thus it is a very important part of the economy of western Canada. Section 178 of the act is very important to those involved in the livestock business and to farmers in general.
If we refer back a couple of years, the figures show that roughly 45 per cent of the grain grown in western Canada was fed to livestock there, another 45 per cent was exported and the remaining 10 per cent was used for seed and industrial purposes. Livestock is important to the people involved in its production and sale but it is also important to producers of grain crops. About one third of the production on the prairies is fed to livestock within 30 miles of where it is grown. That gives an idea how important livestock industry is to western Canada.
We are all concerned about stability in agriculture, Mr. Speaker. The problems with roller-coaster prices of recent years are well known. There have been times when it has been difficult to find world markets for our products. When you consider that almost as much of our grain is fed to livestock as is exported, it is easy to realize how important livestock is to a stable base for the western economy. Without a livestock industry, in times of high production and low prices, it would be more difficult to find a market for the grain crops.
A large part of the packing industry in western Canada has been lost in the last ten or 12 years because of variations in


livestock numbers. At the present time there are only three points in western Canada where hogs are slaughtered. There are several points in Edmonton where hogs are still slaughtered. In Saskatchewan, where 1 was born, raised and educated, there is only one point and only one plant that is still in the business of slaughtering hogs, and that is Intercontinental Packers in Saskatoon. Winnipeg is the only point in Manitoba where hogs are still slaughtered. The declining packing industry in western Canada makes it important to be careful about the kind of security offered to the livestock industry in section 178 which is to replace the old section 88 of the Bank Act.
I should like to refer to a couple of things said in recent times by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, how attitudes and how statements can change as circumstances change. Prior to the Quebec referendum, the Minister of Agriculture addressed the Quebec Farmers' Association at Sawyerville, Quebec, on May 7. In part he said as follows:
The 'Crowsnest Rate' and the Feed Freight Assistance Program have reduced the cost of grain shipped into Quebec and thus lowered the cost of producing hogs and poultry here. These subsidies have resulted in benefits for western grain growers, but they have also decreased the natural comparative advantage for livestock production on the prairies and given assistance to livestock producers in the east.
Also, the 'Crowsnest Rate' has favoured the growth in Quebec of processing plants for meat, flour and vegetable oils since products processed in the west are not eligible for the preferential statutory rate, while the raw products are.
That is an interesting statement by a minister trying to get a point of view across just before the Quebec referendum, Mr. Speaker. After the referendum, in a speech to the Canadian Feed Industry Association in Quebec City, the minister had this to say:
On this subject of feed freight assistance, you know it is sometimes said that the program has encouraged eastern pork production to the disadvantage of the west. So I was interested in a study that Dr. Perreault has done which shows that the assistance only amounted to about 50 cents a hog in Quebec on the majority of pork produced here. So the assistance is not much of a factor, especially when you consider how extensive the Quebec feed industry was in the first place.
I find this a rather inconsistent position for a minister of agriculture who should be speaking on behalf of all the livestock producers in the country. In some ways it is unfortunate that a minister who has as his constituency the total agricultural community should find it convenient to make conflicting statements at different times and in different places about the things that concern some of us in regard to this bill.
I think we all agree that changes to section 88 of the Bank Act are needed. Perhaps it is necessary to have some understanding of the way in which livestock is marketed in this country to see the necessity for such change. Livestock is still marketed largely on trust in this country. I think it is fair to say that those of us engaged in this business can do a lot of our selling by telephone when dealing with packer buyers and order buyers who have had past experience with producers. This only works if everyone involved has complete confidence in the system, of course. The old section 88 really did not accomplish as much as it could have in the way of giving producers confidence in the marketing system as it limited their ability to claim against a packing house to roughly
Bank Act
$7500. Anyone familiar with the cattle business knows the expenses that face producers. Fertilizer costs, machinery costs, repair costs, land costs and taxes have all increased substantially since the present Bank Act has been in place. It is a very expensive proposition to raise livestock for sale. A lot of producers sell their stock at a particular time of the year, so it is important that the buyer has the means to pay, otherwise the whole year's work is in jeopardy. Things are different in the case of other farm products. For instance, the dairy industry, because of its very nature, markets on a daily basis. The grain industry can store the product until the market is right and so a whole year's work need not necessarily be marketed at one time. In contrast, a farmer who raises calves may sell them all in one day. We therefore have good reason to be concerned about the old section 88 of the Bank Act. I am aware of several cases of packing houses experiencing financial problems in the last ten or 12 years which resulted in producers being unable to collect what was due to them.
I am familiar with the arguments advanced by the banks and the packing companies to the effect that if the banks are not allowed to take security on livestock, as was the case under the provisions of the old section 88, the packing industry would suffer. These arguments usually refer to the small packing plants. It seems to me the case is exactly the reverse. As we well know, in this country the packing industry is dominated by the "Big Three"-Canada Packers, Burns and Swift, who account for over 50 per cent of the kill. I think those institutions are financially secure, although such an assumption does not necessarily follow when one remembers what has happened in the past year to such large manufacturing institutions as Chrysler and Massey-Ferguson. However, the three large packing houses are public companies and I think it would be quite difficult for them to have financial problems without a great many people being aware of the fact.
Some of the small packing plants are independently operated, family-owned businesses, and are well run. But it is a competitive field and it is not uncommon for companies to get into financial difficulty. If there is any suspicion that one of the smaller packing houses is having financial problems, I think the producers would be hesitant to deal with it. We must do all we can to assure that, irrespective of the size of the packing company or processor, the producer is protected by this act. This would go a long way to assuring that the smaller packer had as much chance to compete with the larger packer as possible. Our concern is that the bill before us does not go far enough in terms of assuring the producer there will be no financial problems and that his product will have prior claim in any bankruptcy settlement until it is paid for. If there is any hint of that not being the case, and I argue strongly that the smaller packer will be disadvantaged as opposed to the major three packers in this country, Swift, Canada Packers and Burns, that simply does not wash as an argument for the banks to use.
It is precisely the opposite. If they were interested in seeing a competitive packing industry, they would ensure as much


Bank Act
financial security in the hands of the producer when dealing with processors as possible. This would go a long way toward seeing that some of our smaller packers have as good a chance to bid on livestock as the larger packers.
If we look at the experience across the line, we see that the Americans have also had some problems. Some of us are aware of the larger problems they had. In 1976 they passed a packers and stockyards act. I will quote part of that act I referred to in the speech I made on second reading of this bill on May 6, as reported at page 772 of Hansard. It is a concern I am dealing with tonight. I quote from the act:
-in effect, that all livestock purchased by a packer, and all inventories of or receivables or proceeds from meat sales, shall be held by a packer in trust for the benefit of all unpaid cash sellers until full payment has been received.
Since that act was put in place in 1976, I understand there has not been one case where a producer has not been fully paid for his product after a financial problem had arisen with the processor or packer. Therefore, to say that nothing can be done is not accurate. We need only look to our neighbours to the south. They put in place legislation which protects producers from some of the problems we are pointing out this evening.
The banks like to have as much security as possible. They like to say that putting in this kind of provision which would guarantee producers full payment, would put an extra burden on the banking industry and cause them added costs in the form of bonding and extra security and, therefore, make them less competitive and less able to do the job. That is nothing but rubbish. It is not borne out in the example we saw across the line in 1976 when the Americans put in their packers and stockyards act. In fact, we have seen the exact opposite. We have seen the packing plants there survive, grow and flourish. Their return to the producer, based on a percentage of the consumer's dollar coming back to the farmers, is greater than the percentage of consumer dollars going back to the producers in this country. So that is another argument that just does not wash. We were Concerned about this when we were in government and the Bank Act was in front of us prior to the last election. There was concern on both sides of the House. When we were in government, I was part of the finance committee which looked at this. One thing that came out during the election campaign was a statement by the Liberal national campaign headquarters. It was part of their election policy.


An hon. Member:: Their propaganda.


Charles James Mayer: That is probably more accurate, based on what we see in front of us in the bill and what was promised during the campaign. I will read a section of the Liberal party agricultural platform which was released on January 30, 1980. I quote:
A change in the revision to the Bank Act (section 88) will be made in order to permit better financial security for the farmer, on agricultural produce in transit storage or processing, by providing protection to producers of all agricultural products (not just crop and dairy products) and that protection will be extended to a maximum of $250,000.
That was said during the election. It is interesting to note that the chairman of that campaign committee is our present
Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). One would think that if anyone had been aware of what the policy was and how it was developed, it would be our finance minister. As the finance minister in the new government, one would think he would have seen fit to honour a commitment made to the farmers of this country during the last election.
What happened is that we have a formula. It is based on the most recent annual average index number of farm prices for agricultural products for Canada, published by Statistics Canada, at the time the receiving order or claim is made. That figure is to be multiplied by S400. My understanding is that will roughly raise the limit from $7,500 to $100,000. I certainly agree that is a step in the right direction. However, the principle of this is not attacked. It should not be lawful in this country to let any processor or packer take as security a product from a farmer, or anybody for that matter, and give it to a bank as security without the producer being fully compensated. In the case of financial problems, the processor or packer can give that product to the bank as security, without the farmer fully being paid for it.
Something is not yours until it is fully settled and fully paid for. It goes a little beyond that when you understand the marketing system in this country. As I stated before, it is largely based on trust. Producers deal with agents, order buyers and packing buyers with packing houses on a year to year basis. They do not get a chance to deal with them regularly and keep up to date with some of the problems that may be encountered in the processing plant. Dealing is based largely on trust. A lot of producers could find themselves in the position of not being aware of problems they are getting into, particularly when they feel that their cattle are theirs until they are fully paid for. According to this act, the procedure that is sold to a packing plant can be taken by a bank. The bank would then have prior claim on it over the $100,000 limit. The producer could be out any amount over $100,000. That sounds like a lot of money, $100,000. In fact, it is a lot of money. But if you look at what is involved in raising livestock and getting it to market, a lot of expense is incurred along the way in terms of producing costs. In many cases the farmer is not dealing with his own money. He is dealing with borrowed money, lines of credit, credit accounts with fertilizer dealers, fuel dealers, machinery dealers and repairs. In a lot of cases, he could be out an additional cost over and above his cost of production. Therefore, if we cannot deal with processors and packers with complete trust and confidence, no matter what happens after our livestock leaves our premises, we are calling into question some of the premises upon which our marketing system has been based throughout the years.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), a long-time and well-respected spokesman for the cattle industry in this country in various fora has pointed out very aptly and accurately that on page 188 of the bill subsection (6)(b), "claims of a grower or producer of products of agriculture for money owing by a manufacturer to the grower or producer for such products"-I will not refer to the full paragraph-is incomplete and that there is probably a technical omission


there in the sense that after "claims of a grower or producer" we should insert three words "or his agent" so that the section would read, "claims of a grower or producer or his agent of products of agriculture for money". I think hon. members would agree that that is a technical omission. It would simply mean that a person involved in the marketing of livestock could then use an agent, and the agent would be an extension of the producer himself. In that sense the producer would be covered under the subsection of this act to which I just referred.
Unless we insert those three words within the subsection, it seems to me there is a fairly substantial loophole, if we understand the way cattle are marketed in this country, because many people market cattle through an agent; they do not market them directly. They market them through an agent, and the agent then becomes an extension of the producer himself. If we leave out those three words in the case of a financial problem with the processor, it seems to me we leave open the possibility that the producer would not be protected at all under this act. As I said, when we understand the way the marketing system in this country works, I think it becomes clear that a good portion of cattle and livestock which is marketed in this country is marketed either through or by an agent acting on behalf of a producer. While it may be a technical error, and a minor one, in terms of its significance and its relevance and the act's ability to do the job it was intended to do, I think it would be very useful to have those three words inserted so that the act would read; "claims of a grower or producer or his agent of products of agriculture for money owing" and so forth.
I think that is something we should look at very closely with an eye to putting those words in if at all possible because without them, as I said, I think there is a possible large loophole in terms of what the effectiveness of this act could be.
From my recollection of the finance committee in the previous Thirty-first Parliament, there was much agreement in the committee that the principle which I have tried to outline here should be in the act so that not only the producer but also the people acting on behalf of the producer-in this case the agent of the producer-should be considered an extension of the producer himself. I do not really think there would be many problems about getting an agreement to insert those three words into the act. As I said, this would certainly tighten up the act and make it serve the purpose better than the present act without the addition of those three words.
That about covers the points I wanted to make in relation to this act. I will summarize them briefly. First, this act really does not go far enough. I think the $100,000 is an improvement. I would much sooner have seen the $250,000 which was promised during the election campaign, but 1 think the best option we could have would be to adopt in principle a statement saying there should be no limitation whatsoever on livestock producers so that when they do sell their cattle, no matter what the amount is, they are entitled to full payment of that amount before their produce becomes part of a bankruptcy settlement.
Bank Act
I welcome the change in the definition whereby direct products of the soil and dairy products are now classified in the same way as livestock, which was previously not the case. I pointed out that precisely the opposite should have been the case, since people who market on a regular basis are less susceptible to severe financial hardship. If there is a problem with marketing what they produce on a daily or weekly basis, people in the livestock business market on an annual basis, and we would certainly like to see this act tightened up so that there are no loopholes in terms of agents acting on behalf of producers in the marketing process as we now know it.


Mr. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River);: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not take a little time this evening to make a few comments with respect to the bill which everyone is so anxious to pass here tonight. We have only been at it for five years. The act expired in 1977, and we began the debate relating to changes in the Bank Act two years prior to that. As we all know, the act was extended until now, and we are finally getting around to putting it straight and doing what we should have done in 1977 to make the changes which have been discussed.
There is a lot of mystery about the Bank Act. The average Canadian really does not understand how the banks in this country function. Frankly, I do not understand very much about it either.


Mr. Skelly:: You have come to your concluding remarks, I hope.


Frank Oberle: My friends in the New Democratic Party understand all about banks. I always say that if it had not been for banks, I probably would not be in politics.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain!


Raymond John Skelly: That is one of the criticisms we left out.


Frank Oberle: There is a lively peanut gallery among the members of the New Democratic Party. I will give them a little lesson in banking. They are usually the great defenders of personal freedom and liberty. One of the freedoms I espouse most is economic freedom, and I have always thought I could be freest if I managed all my own affairs. In my case, that meant to start my own business and be the master in my own house. I did not want to punch a clock. I always wanted to be the master of my own affairs. I thought that this country to which I had come was a place where a man was entitled to the rewards of his labour as long as he was prepared to pay for his mistakes.


Raymond John Skelly: Order!


Frank Oberle: A member of the New Democratic Party wants to call me to order, but I have not said anything yet. They know exactly what is coming.


Bob Rae: I have no idea what is coming, and neither do you.


Bank Act


Frank Oberle: They are waiting with great anticipation. When I said bankers got me into politics, I said so because I started quite a number of small businesses. All of them, incidentally, were successful. None of them went bankrupt.


An hon. Member:: Yet.


Frank Oberle: No, they are still going. Because I wanted to have a clean shirt when 1 came to Parliament, I divested myself of most of my business interests. However, I developed a skill in talking to bankers and convincing them of the viability of small businesses which employed usually two, three, five, ten or 120 people. It requires quite a bit of skill today-and did 20 years ago or 25 years ago when I started my first business-to convince a banker that you have something going for you, that you have a better mousetrap, that you deserve a place in the marketplace and that you need some credit to get started.
Our banks do not give venture capital to small businesses. 1 am not making any excuse for this absolute statement. There is just no way that our banks are in any way interested in helping young people to get started in business. Whether that business is farming or in the manufacturing sector does not matter. I do not care if you are a member of the New Democratic Party or any other party; if you cannot walk into your bank manager's office and prove to him beyond all doubt that you really do not need money, you simply will not get any credit.
I always say that in our country there is no single entity, whether it is government or anything else, which has more influence in the marketplace than the banks but which at the same time has less understanding of what goes on in the marketplace, particularly with respect to the small business sector.
The reason I wanted to say a few words about that tonight is that over the last 25 years of frustration and starting businesses-which probably could have been four, five, six or ten times their size if bankers had co-operated-I always said there would be a day when I would get even with some of the bankers with whom I have had to deal.
We do not want to be too unkind tonight, but certainly they do not deserve any credit whatever. The 13 chartered banks in this country do not deserve any credit at all for helping small business. In fact, I would say they deserve the lion's share of the blame for the economic situation in which we find ourselves today because they ignore completely the incredible role which the small business sector plays in our society. It is the small businessman who creates the permanent jobs quickly with the right incentives and in the right business climate. It is the small businessman who always comes up with new ideas. To me, sir, there is not much difference between the bureaucrats who sit around in offices in the nation's capital, public or corporate bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats employed by large corporations. They are nine to five people, they go home on weekends, they take a month's holiday annually and they
cannot care less. It is the small businessman who is out there competing in the manner in which Adam Smith intended, in the free enterprise manner. It is the small businessman who invents the mousetrap and who thinks for 24 hours a day so as to stay ahead of the next guy.
I say that the banks have no comprehension of what is going on in the marketplace and of the role which the small businessman plays. And why should they? Imagine an official of the Chrysler Corporation coming to a bank manager and telling him he needs $100 million. Imagine how much time the bank manager would have to spend talking to small businesses to lend them $100 million! With Chrysler he can do it in a two-hour session and a working luncheon. But here is $100 million and, my God, the branch can lend that sum of money because it is great business. It is not necessary to ask the client for security and tangible assets in the case of a large corporation such as Chrysler because the government is the security. If something happens, the bank can go to the government because the impact on the economy would be so great that the government would have no choice but to bail out the corporation. We have seen recent examples of that.
But let us consider the person who works for that large corporation-and I will get in my dig at the NDP at this juncture. Members of that party come to the House every day and every time one of them is up during the question period he talks about economic nationalism and about all these horrendous things that the multinational corporations do to our country. Yet when one of these multinational corporations comes to us for help, as has been the case of Chrysler-they stand in their place and they scream, holler, assert themselves and demand from the minister that he act right away to save jobs. The reason they do this is the invisible handshake-we have heard of the invisible hand of Adam Smith-between large corporations and multinational unions. They all get together in the board room behind closed doors. They say "there is one multinational corporation which we will have to protect but every other corporation that is not unionized or does not contribute to the NDP coffers can go down the drain." The small businessman is left in the dark and so is the employee of small businesses. I dare say that a person who works for Massey-Ferguson or Chrysler and then finds himself out of a job is no better off or worse off than a person who works at the corner grocery store, the baker, the shoemaker, the plumber or an employee of another small business. He is just as hard up as the other fellow, but the government never comes to the aid of the small business which goes broke. The bank moves in, calls its note and saves its skin. Usually there are enough assets to ensure that the bank does not suffer. I do not know of any bank with which I have dealt, particularly in the north and in the small communities in Canada, which has ever made a bad loan to a small businessman, the reason being that they hardly make any loans to them and when they do, they are protected well enough.
What we have been trying to do in these five years of talking about the Bank Act is, because of our belief in free enterprise and competition, to build in a little more competition. We have


made comparisons with our system here, which is still a mystery. It became a mystery when we first brought in the fractured reserve system according to which the bank lends you a certain amount of money and then is allowed to lend a certain amount of "blue sky", in other words they lend you more money than they have in deposit. However, I do not want to go into the technicalities because that would be too difficult for some of the members of the NDP to understand. What we wanted to do was to build in some competition to match what was going on in the marketplace throughout the country. We have 13 chartered banks in this country. In the United States there are 1,300 chartered banks, all of them competing with each other. If there is a personality conflict between you and your banker, if he does not like your type of proposal or if you cannot convince him of the potential success of the prototype or of the plant where your particular mousetrap would be manufactured, you just go to another bank and sell your idea to them. Eventually you convince someone of the possible success of your idea and you get the money. Indeed, there were several occasions in my business career, one which I remember in particular, which have made me say to this day that the banks become involved in politics. There was a time when the 13 chartered banks in this country simply did not make any loans to small lumber companies because they did not like the government in power. So if you were in British Columbia at that time and you wanted to expand your business, as we did then, you had to go to the United States and get your money there. Lo and behold, there was all kinds of money available because we had all kinds of assets. As for our banks, it did not matter how much you had in assets, how much you had in inventory, how much protection there was under section 88. They said that lumber and wood converting industries did not have a very bright future under that particular government, so they would not make any loans to them. 1 do not know whether this had anything to do with the fact that there are certain people in the larger companies integrated with the multinational companies, who sit on the boards ofdirectorsofthe banks, but certainly there is room for all kinds of suspicion. If you really want to get started in a small new business, you have to go to a foreign country to promote your idea. That is a very sorry state of affairs.
The government is well aware that our banks are not interested in small business, not interested in venture capital. From time to time we have found it necessary to intervene as a government, knowing how important small business is as a sector of the economy, to put in place some measures, to create some institutions which will help the small business sector. An example of that is the Farm Credit Corporation. Why should we need a Farm Credit Corporation in this country? If banks did the business which they were set up to do, that is to make loans to businessmen-and, after all, a farmer is a businessman-what reason would there be for the government to be in the business of lending money to farmers? The reason, as 1 have stated, is that banks are in no way interested in helping out anyone who wants to start a business, regardless of the security they offer. We must remember the farmer who has
Bank Act
worked many years clearing his land and developing a farming enterprise. He has worked for many years and has never made any money. His only reward would be if he sold the enterprise, the farm and the land to his son. Then he could retire and live his declining years in comfort and security. The Farm Credit Corporation started out with good intentions, but it is in no way more equipped to respond to those particular needs. Officials of the corporation will say, "If you want to buy the farm from your father, he should underwrite the loan or perhaps make you a loan". A lot of Canadians are fed up with living in the breeding grounds of human misery in the concrete jungles of our large cities. They want to go out to the country to start farming enterprises. It would probably take at least $250,000 to build a viable farming operation today. At least it would take $250,000 to buy the land and clear it or to buy an established farm. We all know they would not get very much for less than $250,000.
But there are still some people out there who are-should I say-almost crazy enough to think that farm life is worth fighting for. So, they start working in sawmills or on construction. They take their earnings and put them in their farms; they clear a little more land. When they reach the point at which their farms are almost viable, they go to the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow a little money to get them over the hump, to buy that first piece of machinery. They realize it is no use going to the banks. I have established that fact. But, the Farm Credit Corporation says, "If you have not made the major part of your income on the farm, you are not entitled to a loan". Incidentally, they are not entitled to loans if they are in any way involved in provincial or federal politics. They cannot obtain loans from the federal government because there would be a conflict of interest.
The Farm Credit Corporation was established over the years to keep banks honest. Another example is the Federal Business Development Bank, a perfect example of how the government, from time to time, intervenes and hopes to help small businessmen or people in regions where banks are not as well represented as they are in larger centres. As we all know, the Federal Business Development Bank likes to be known as the bank of last resort. Indeed it is, because its interest rates are usually 2 per cent or 3 per cent higher. The government wants to be very careful not to enter into competition with the chartered banks. After all, the chartered banks have a monopoly and they do not want anybody to meddle with that, including the federal and provincial governments. So, the person interested in obtaining a loan must bring to the manager of the Federal Business Development Bank a letter indicating that the chartered bank will not lend him any money. Without that letter he cannot obtain a loan from the Federal Business Development Bank. The bank manager is not required to say why he will not lend him the money, but of course we know why. Then the FBDB will take a look at the person. It will charge an interest rate which is 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent higher. It will take a chance on him and will be lenient if he gets behind in his payments.


Bank Act
The FBDB takes other factors into account, but it is twice as onerous to be tied up with that bank than to a bank of foreign origin. Not only does the Federal Business Development Bank want a personal guarantee, it requires the personal guarantees, of one's wife, one's mother and one's mother-in-law, if it is able to get them. If one has a house and a boat, it wants the title to those. It will make sure, beyond all doubt, that when a person has his head half way out of the water, he has absolutely no security left in order to run to another bank to cash in on some of those assets. Anyone who deals with the Federal Business Development Bank will have no other assets with which to negotiate other loans.
From time to time the government goes to the chartered banks and indicates that it has a particular problem and wants to stimulate the small business sector. It asks the banks to make loans to the small business sector and, of course, there is the infamous Small Businesses Loans Act. They go to the chartered banks and say, "If you make a loan to a small businessman, we will guarantee it. In return we want you to give him a concession on interest of 1 per cent, 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent."
On many occasions I have received telephone calls from small businessmen. For example, one will phone and say, "There is a real demand for the product I am producing. I am in the tourist industry and a new road has been opened. I should be building a coffee shop, a service station, a service centre. I need some money. Where do I go?" Of course I will say, "The banks are set up to give you a small businessman's loan. There is a little concession on interest in return for a federal guarantee". Usually the businessman will call back and say, "I have gone to see my bank manager, but he has never heard of it". I am always very amused by that and then my amusement turns to anger. I will phone the vice-president of the bank and say, for example, "You have a bank manager in Watson Lake who has not heard of the Small Businesses Loans Act. Once you have told him about that act, will you tell him to call me so that I can discuss a certain client with him?" Promptly I receive a call from the manager of that small branch who will say, "I have talked with this client. His credit is good enough that we can make him a conventional loan. He is not entitled to a small businessman's loan". He is entitled to a conventional loan at an interest rate which, of course, is 1 per cent or 2 per cent higher than the government guaranteed loan. So, the poor businessman is tied to the rafters and the bank sticks it to him every time.
Perhaps I should bring my remarks to a conclusion because getting back to what I said at the outset, if I get wound up about banks I become very incensed and carried away. Of course not all bankers are alike. I have dealt with a lot of managers in small branches over the last 25 years who felt the same way as I do. When one requests a $20,000 or a $100,000 revolving loan, the bank manager is required to phone his regional vice-president or manager. For example, the areas in which I started my businesses were usually 700 or 800 miles away from Vancouver. Then the regional manager is required to pick up the phone and call Toronto for an okay. I have experienced that on several occasions. By the time he gets
around to saying, "We will be willing to help you", the opportunity has passed. Usually one has generated enough income in the business by waiting, working 24 hours a day and keeping one's suppliers on the string, that by the time the bank gets around to helping, one does not need the help any longer and can tell the bank to find someone like Chrysler or Massey-Ferguson to give the money to. The banks always say, "We will be willing to help you", and I always say, "Who do you think is helping whom here? I am paying interest and I am creating a job for you". In fact the other day I told a banker that I paid him $7,000 in interest last year. Who is helping whom? I do not want their help. 1 do not need handouts.
I should say something positive about the act because we on this side are supporting some aspects of it. We tried to build into it some competitive features. We tried to give the credit unions a little more room to manoeuvre and to compete on a more equitable basis with the banks. The credit unions and caisses populaires should be entitled to participate under the Bank Act. That was not achieved. In my opinion the act will do little to encourage new charters which would start more banks. I would like to see more banks in western Canada, banks which are sensitive and interested in making loans in mid-Canada and the northern parts of our country. In so doing they would be sharing the potential and development of the north and of mid-Canada. What we have done is a small step in this direction. It is in no way sufficient to suit my particular need. I do hope that after this act is passed we will not wait another seven or eight years before we discuss further changes, which in my opinion are required to the Bank Act. I would prefer to see the committee continue its work. I would like us to continue talking to Canadians so that all of us here in the House of Commons will know just how the banks have been failing our economy and how they have been failing Canadians. This would enable us to see how little they have contributed to the welfare of all our citizens because of their monopoly position.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, we are on the third reading of the Bank Act and as I understand it the third reading is to discuss the broad general principles of the bill. There is no possibility of changing anything in it on third reading.
I suppose that is the best we could expect from a government which is contradictory in many of its policies. I read today that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) was elated because he was able to get 100,000 barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia at $30 a barrel. I cannot understand that elation when he is not prepared to pay Canadians $20 a barrel, which would keep the money in Canada. It is so contradictory the man in the street is becoming very frustrated.
With regard to the money which is required to operate the industries in the energy field, we are making it almost impossible for those people to get credit. The government professes to be a free enterprise government yet it is holding nationalization over the heads of those in the industry. To a great extent


the smaller industries are dependent upon the multinationals which can get capital. Yet today we see the smaller industries leaving the country. Consequently, this postpones the day when we will have self-sufficiency in energy. At the same time the Prime Minister is chasing around the world trying to get oil elsewhere at double the price at which he can get it right here in Canada. I wonder why he does not enable the smaller companies to continue to receive credit and to operate within Canada by entering into an agreement at a proper price with the producing provinces instead of going half way around the world at public expense and being elated when he can arrange oil at $30 a barrel, probably $38 to $40 by the time the contract is completed. People upon whom we must depend to attain self-sufficiency are finding it very difficult to get credit. There are difficult times ahead. The longer the government waits to pay a proper price for the oil in Canada the longer we will be paying through the nose for foreign oil. It is affecting the credit of this country, which the banks will reflect in their thinking and in their loaning of moneys. As a result there will be hundreds of Ontario, Quebec and maritime boys, now earning good wages in Alberta and Saskatchewan, who will be left jobless in the next few months if this thing is not changed.
We talk about the Bank Act as though it were something that did not affect the lives of everyday people. The Bank Act is an instrument by which we can have good times or we can have poor times. I believe that banks have been responsible for much of the inflation in this country. They say inflation is caused by having too many dollars chasing too few goods. Every time the banks attack this problem they do so by raising the interest rates. They will reduce the number of dollars. And what does that mean? It simply means that no one can borrow the money.
The small businessman the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) detailed here so excellently a few moments ago is left high and dry. He is not able to expand his business. As a result there is less production and people are unemployed. If anyone is able to borrow it is only the wealthy, and the wealthy do not borrow when the interest rates are high. They wait until the interest rates are low before they borrow. That is one reason why they are wealthy. This leaves us with less production. Once again there are more dollars chasing fewer goods and so the interest rates go up again. I wonder how many years it will take the banking system of this country and the Bank of Canada to realize that this is not reducing inflation in Canada. It is just not working. Why do they not work from the other end by increasing production? If you have a pile of money this high and a pile of goods this high you will surely have inflation. The money will continue to rise. But if you have the goods coming up it is a far better way to fight inflation than raising interest rates, which defeats the very purpose. The small businessman cannot produce as much. Sometimes he goes out of business. I know a businessman in this country who is sweating his heart out because the interest rate is eating him up. He is wondering what will happen to his wife and children. The interest rate keeps rising and it is killing him.
Bank Act
Changing the Bank Act as we have been changing it will not affect that type of situation at all. The Bank Act has a tremendous influence over the daily lives of our people. In times of prosperity the banks let the credit out and when the banks begin to draw in that credit they can produce a depression in no time flat. As the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River said a few moments ago, the small businessman is being forgotten. This is exemplified in every case he gave, and we can produce hundreds more of them across this country. The small businessman is being forgotten. Today there is fear in the hearts of the small businessmen because they cannot produce more. Interest rates and unemployment are going higher and higher and production is getting lower and lower. This trend will continue until we begin to increase production.
I will be very interested to see the kind of competition the foreign banks have to offer in Canada. There is not much competition among the banks in Canada today. The situation is similar to the competition between CN and CP. These companies have identical rates in most cases simply because they are controlled by a government regulatory body, yet they are considered to be in competition with each other. In reality their prices are increasing simply because they are running two lines of track when they should be operating on one line if there was real competition between these companies, such as, in the trucking industry, there would be better railway facilities.
If foreign banks are required to operate under the same common policy as the chartered banks I doubt that there will be very much competition. In spite of the fact that many hon. members have a view to the contrary, one way to increase competition in the banking field would be to allow provincial governments to become involved. But it is felt that they might provide too much competition, so the provinces must compete in a backhanded way through such institutions as treasury branches and so on. If it were not for the credit unions, caisses populaires, trust companies and similar institutions, this country would be in a sorry plight.
Too many of the policies of the banks are contradictory. For example, what one pays today on exchange for $100 of American money will be different from what one pays tomorrow. The profits of banks are too high. I recently attempted to exchange some money in Edmonton, and I was horrified at the rate of exchange. The whole situation is a one-way street for the banks. They must pull up their socks and increase their services to the consumers.
I agree with the comments of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River on the Prairie Farm Credit Corporation. These government organizations are usually formed as institutions of last resort. As a result people are forced to be dishonest in order to get a loan. In fact they encourage you to be dishonest. They tell people to go to their bank manager for a letter saying that the bank will not lend the money. I would not tell a young farmer that he must lie in order to get money from the Prairie Farm Credit Corporation, although many


Bank Act
people are being told to go to the bank manager for such a letter. These corporations lend money at such prohibitive rates that no young farmer can survive. With the high interest rates and the price of land today, the young farmer is sunk before he begins.
These programs are established at public expense as banks of last resort. It would be far better if a bank loaned money on the basis of credit. As the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) said a few moments ago, this act establishes a maximum amount which livestock dealers may borrow from the banks. Why is there a borrowing ceiling for livestock dealers? There is no ceiling for oil companies, wholesale companies, packing houses or other industries. They may borrow up to any amount. The livestock dealer is just as responsible as any other businessman in the country. I cannot follow this kind of logic, nor can the livestock dealer.
Perhaps the amount of $100,000 will be satisfactory for many farmers, but that is not the point with which I am dealing. There is a borrowing limit for livestock dealers, but no limit for any other group, and this has not been explained satisfactorily to me. We are now on third reading and that clause remains in the bill and will become law within hours. Banks are quite able to deal with loan applications from livestock dealers. They will provide loans commensurate with the collateral, and that is the principle upon which the system should work.
Even with the Prairie Farm Credit Corporation a farmer has two strikes against him. For example, if a farmer buys a combine for $100,000 and the interest is deferred until, say, July, the Prairie Farm Credit Corporation will not loan that farmer the money, simply because he has taken out a temporary interest-free loan. I have received a number of letters of complaint on this very subject. There is a great difference in Alberta between banks, farm corporations and the treasury branches. At one time these institutions were in the same position. But this ridiculous rule came to the attention of the Hon. Marvin Moore, a former minister of agriculture in Alberta. When he learned that farmers were being denied credit because a farm implement dealer gave them a few months of interest-free payments, he changed the regulations. Today, the agricultural corporation in Alberta no longer withholds a loan for this reason. The Federal Farm Credit Corporation has come up with umpteen dozen reasons in this regard, all of which, in my view, are ridiculous.
Such policies do nothing but drive up the cost of food. What they are saying to the implement company is, "Do not give out these temporary interest-free loans and we will give out the money". This has the effect of driving up the cost of production. If these policies continue, it will not be long before the public outcry will become so loud that this clause will be changed and the provinces will be allowed to form banks to compete with the chartered banks.
Such a policy would have the same effect as when the government of Alberta created an insurance company to compete with the private insurance companies. The insurance rates of the government company were lower and in order to compete the other insurance companies had to lower their rates. It is an indication that these insurance companies were charging what the market would bear with no relation to risk, costs or profit. The banks are following this policy today.
There is one other point I would like to deal with, Mr. Speaker, and that is the expansion of credit. Governments have given the banks this tremendous instrument for making money. They have given the banks the sole right to expand credit. Unless people go into this matter very deeply they may not realize what it means. Today the banks extend credit by simply lending, say, $100,000 and then when it is paid back, they mark it off. Then there is the interest on that created money during that period based on how much money a chartered bank has deposited with the Bank of Canada.
As 1 have said in this House before, and will repeat as long as I remain, some of that expansion of credit belongs to the people. It would be a good thing if the banks would even go part way and offer half of the net profit on expanded credit, to build schools and hospitals, for instance. But the banks do not do that; they still make huge profits from the expansion of credit, a privilege given them by the government of the day.
I am not against banks, Mr. Speaker, and I do not mind that they make a profit, but that profit should be reasonable and the banks serve the people. In my view the expansion of credit has gone too far. The people of this country should derive some benefit from it. That is not possible as the act stands but I suppose it is the best we can expect from a government that is so full of contradictions in the energy field. It is pleased to pay $30 or $38 per barrel for foreign oil yet refuses to pay more than $16 or $17 for oil produced in this country. How long will the people accept that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker? Maybe after all the rigs have left the west and the hundreds of Ontario and Quebec workers return without jobs, the Prime Minister will begin to realize what has happened to the country. The government then may realize why people in the west feel alienated, distressed and frustrated. Much of that frustration could be alleviated if the government were to pay a reasonable price for western oil. If it made the same offer as that made by the Clark government, more rigs would come back into the country, more jobs would be created and the whole economy would benefit.
I suppose this bill is the best we can expect at this time, Mr. Speaker. I hope it will be used as an instrument to create more buoyancy in the country.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to refer to some comments made in this House this evening. The amendments offered by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and already voted upon were dealt with very quietly yesterday by both the Conservatives and Liberals. This evening the hon. member from Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has spoken about the problems of the small businessman, of the housing industry, of the farmers and of the economy as a whole, yet not one member of


the Conservative or Liberal party spoke in support of our amendments.
Just the other day the minister said that the government did not want to interfere with the banks in a social way, Mr. Speaker. What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to make room for the foreign banks to become competitors in this market? Are we considering the credit unions which, due to the curtailments imposed upon them, cannot compete in the same market as the banks? This bill provides all kinds of privileges for the banks but does not give any relief to the credit unions to allow them to become actively involved in this market.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) brought us the philosophy of the Social Credit party. Mr. Speaker, I have seen some of the philosophy of Social Credit governments in British Columbia. They decided to flood thousands of acres of heritage land, not to provide electricity for Canadians but in order to provide a backup resource of water for the United States. Future generations of Canadians will be denied the pleasure of that bottom land, Mr. Speaker. We have had other projects of that nature under Social Credit governments so I know something of the philosophy expounded by the hon. member for Bow River.
I should like now to deal with the structure of the boards of directors of banks and some of the decisions they make. We run into serious problems when we allow these boards of directors to control the flow of money and direct how it should be invested. The ramifications of this could be very serious indeed.
The Conservative and Liberal members who spoke did not mention the large donations made by banks to their parties. The banks make large donations to both parties, so let us align them, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Oberle: Where did you hear that?


Sidney James Parker: I not only heard it, it is a matter of fact, because it is disclosed in accordance with the law. These are some of the things we should be very concerned about, Mr. Speaker.
Just yesterday the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) asked where I was when the committee was sitting. As he well knows, Mr. Speaker, we are only allowed a certain number of members on that committee and the amendments which we voted on today were the result of their efforts to get changes made to the Bank Act. I am proud of them, Mr. Speaker.
If the other two parties in this House had allowed the amendments to pass, a lot of small businessmen would have benefited, there would be more housing starts in the future and the economy of the country would improve. It is unfortunate that they did not agree with our view, because there was a tremendous opportunity here, after waiting five or six years, to improve the Bank Act. To be honest, the people of Canada have missed an excellent opportunity to have an instrument to serve our needs. I am hearing this throughout my constituency and from other areas of the country. Every day I hear of
Bank Act
concerns about interest rates, housing starts and with regard to various other areas. We know through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the need is there because they have conducted studies. In some areas there is a zero per cent vacancy rate, yet we hear about MURB housing, housing for doctors and real estate agents. They can put their money into deferments, apartment blocks and fancy housing which does not meet the everyday needs of the people of Canada.
When considering the Bank Act, we should look at meeting the needs in order to build a future of which we can be proud. We should develop an industrial strategy, conscious that if we invest in one area, we might hurt another section of the country or another business. We must include controls in the Bank Act to ensure that we are protected.
One member stated that even provincial governments are affected by decisions regarding the Bank Act. If they like a government, they feel the banks should not be involved in investments because they might make a government look a little better. Isn't that something, especially coming from a member of the Conservative party. Those are the kinds of concerns we have been expressing year after year. They are very real concerns which affect everyone. Maybe that is what the Liberals and Conservatives want. Maybe they want that kind of society. We in the New Democratic Party have a new vision. If the banks are making that kind of profit, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) should be able to direct them to put their profits into such areas as interest rates so that housing, farming and small business can be assisted and that part of our economy can start moving again.
I also heard the comment that we in the NDP would fight to ensure that Chrysler is a viable business so that the employees would be protected. Naturally we will fight for that. We are not necessarily saying we should give that company money or issue a grant. We say that if money is made available or guaranteed by the government, we should have some equity. If the company later becomes profitable, the government should be reimbursed. If it does not become profitable, we should help make the decisions about what takes place in the company and the people who work for it.
I had the opportunity of visiting Windsor during very trying times. I say that if those kinds of decisions are not made, the government will feel the effects. It will not be Chrysler, but the people of Windsor, the governments involved and the country as a whole will be affected. If that company does not carry on its programs and does not follow through, the social aspects that will take place and the ramifications in the community will affect the whole country.
These are serious matters and we take them very seriously. I resent it when other members suggest that we in this party favour handouts. That is not our philosophy. Our philosophy is to join together in hard times and make an agreement with the companies involved. This proved very satisfactory in British Columbia. One of the Liberals mentioned yesterday many of the programs in which we were involved during our time in


Bank Act
government. He referred to Ocean Falls and various companies in which we were involved. Many of them are now going down under another government. They are being sold off and are disintegrating. We will be back and we will again bring in those kinds of programs. These are concerns of the New Democratic Party. They are the issues we would like to see debated. We offered a tremendous number of amendments to this legislation. They were rejected by the other parties. Therefore, we have no alternative but to decline to support this Bank Act. It is unfortunate that some of the amendments could not have been accepted, but that is something the Liberals and Conservatives will have to live with.
[ Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5), that the House be allowed to sit beyond the normal time of adjournment in order to complete the third reading of Bill C-6.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the motion pur forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette). if there are members who object, will they please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There being more than ten members who have risen, the motion fails.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak on third reading on the general and broad principles of this very important bill. The banking system in Canada is a stable and acceptable system, althouth not overly responsive in certain areas. It is the primary motive force in our society. It is the real essence of industrial and commercial catalyzation and the growth of our industrial society.
The banking system in Canada has enormous power. It controls to a large degree the recirculation of wealth, the creation of credit, in many instances the very growth of the social structure and social organization in which we live and, to a large degree, the growth and health of the industrial structure of our nation. In connection with the growth of any regional area, the chartered banks play an enormous role. That really diminishes with distance. The influence of a chartered bank in an area reduces in concentric circles around its point of location. As a result, in this nation we have had to grow sub-banking systems such as trust companies, credit unions, treasury branches, the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation and various types of government institutions.
These have been necessary because of the location of the chartered banks in this nation. Where are the head offices of the chartered banks located in this nation? Let me just say that according to regions the west has three banking institutions with a capitalization of $100 million. The first is in British Columbia and has a capitalization of $25 million.
There is one in Alberta, in Edmonton, which has a capitalization of $40 million. There is one in Manitoba, in Winnipeg, with a capitalization of $35 million. There are three in Ontario, in Toronto, with a capitalization of $275 million. There are four in the province of Quebec, in Montreal, with a capitalization of $425 million. There is one in the maritimes or the Atlantic provinces, in Halifax, with a capitalization of $50 million.
The distribution is such that in the western part of this nation there are three institutions with a capitalization of $100 million. In central Canada there are seven institutions with a capitalization of $700 million, and in Atlantic Canada there is one institution with a capitalization of $50 million.
We all know that the investment effect goes far beyond the extent of capitalization. This nation is a large nation growing in a certain pattern. In western Canada we will be needing more like $200 billion for energy investment in the next ten years plus. To a large degree this capitalization was intended to be generated by the profits of the industry itself. What the federal government has done with its energy policy has been to reduce this self-capitalization and place the industry, again to a large degree, at the mercy of the centralized national banking institutions.
My first point is that if this nation is to grow in accordance with its capability, the government and the national banking institutions must look seriously at their locations in the nation. There is no need to have seven chartered banking institutions headquartered and centralized in Toronto and Montreal. I want to repeat that. There is no need in the future for centralizing seven of the largest banking institutions with a capitalization of $700 million in Toronto and in Montreal.
The government should recognize that there is a need to examine the possibility of relocating the head offices of some of these financial institutions. I can ask a very specific question: Why should not a financial institution-not the largest but a medium-sized one-be located in St. John's, Newfoundland in view of the capacity of the oil industry in that area?


Mr. Rompkey:: Why not Grand Falls?


William J. Yurko: Why should there not be serious consideration by these large banking institutions in terms of examining the head office location in Calgary, where much of the energy industry or the energy capitalization in western Canada is needed? Indeed, why not one in Quebec City? Why should not Quebec City have as its apex centre a banking institution to fan out its influence in concentric circles around that centre? That is what happens with banking institutions. As you go farther and farther from the apex centre of banking, there is less and less knowledge at the banking centre and therefore less and less response. The branch banks do not work very well in that regard, and several people have indicated that we have needed trust companies, treasury branches and credit unions to provide risk and venture capital because risk and venture capital is not provided as you get farther and farther from the centres of these banking institutions. They become too conserv-


ative. They lack knowledge of the outlying points of this nation, which is such a big nation.
It is extremely important that the banking institutions themselves and the government examine seriously the location of some of the chartered banking institutions in this nation. There is a need for change in order to bring balance to this nation from one end to the other. Indeed, western concerns, which are paramount today, could be diminished if there was more control over the formation, recirculation and direction of capital within and from western Canada. One of the reasons for the energy battle which is going on in this nation this very moment is that western Canada is trying very hard to create a capital pool so that that capital can recirculate from its own apexes or points of influence rather than constantly from central Canada.
The second point I wish to make deals again with the power of influence and the power of decision-making with regard to the growth of the national industrial equation which is associated with the chartered banks being located in central Canada. I plead with the financial institutions and chartered banks to look very liberally at a policy of appointing to their boards of directors an appropriate representation from the entire nation rather than just from the centre of the nation.
If these institutions will not move their head offices out, it is very important that they bring into the centre, to the point of decision-making and policy formulation, Canadians who understand fully the aspirations, the desires and the potential of various parts of this nation. It is only then that this nation will experience its full growth potential. It is only then that we will be shifting our population in accordance with capability and ability for development of our vast resources and our vast potential. It is vital that chartered banks and the government be very interested in where the banks get the people to man their boards of directors and that there be a representation from this entire nation on the boards of directors of these chartered banks. There should be a very liberal representation, and I do not mean in a partisan political sense.
1 have just one other point to make, and it has to do with financing exports and imports and particularly Canada's vast potential for exporting not only goods but also technological competence. This nation has educated its population. It has inherent in it a technological competence per capita which is second to none in the world. Indeed, it is even greater than that in the United States.
This technological competence is desired and needed in many places in the world, but technological competence can be exported hand in hand with available capital. I would like to see the chartered banks put together a structure for integrating the use of capital in association with the export of technological competence from Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we can call it ten o'clock, and I beg to adjourn the debate.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Charles James Mayer: 1 rise in the adjournment debate with respect to a question I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his capacity as spokesman in this House for the Canadian Wheat Board. It referred to what was and still is a concern of mine, and a great many producers in western Canada, with respect to compensation to them in light of the American grain embargo, which the Canadian government decided to support. After the invasion of Afghanistan almost a year ago one of the things which was decided upon by the Americans was to impose a grain embargo on the Soviet Union as a method of showing their displeasure with what they were doing in Afghanistan. This country decided to go along with the embargo based on certain concerns. One of the concerns related to how the Americans would conduct themselves in terms of international grain sales. Another, which affects us directly in this country, was the fact that it was agreed by the Clark government at the time that producers of grain should not carry the full expense of Canada's international policies. In this case it was foreign policy. It was decided by the previous government that if it could be demonstrated that there were losses of income to western grain producers they should be compensated by the Government of Canada for those losses. The drop in the price of grain from January to the spring of this calendar year was something in the order of 75 cents a bushel. I think this is documented and can be verified by looking at the grain markets and the grain prices.
The answer I received from the minister back in June was:
This decision was made by the previous government and it is supported by the present government; there is no doubt about that. Obviously, the previous government knew that the decision made last January would have certain effects on volumes and on prices. That is why they put forward the idea of compensation.
It is interesting to note that the Minister of Transport, who speaks in this House for the Canadian Wheat Board, agreed in principle that compensation should be paid. He also said in June in answer to another question in this House that there would be a cabinet paper in a few weeks, at the end of the grain season. Those of us who know something about the grain season understand that the crop year ends on July 31, which has long since passed. The crop year runs from August 1 to July 31. So when the minister referred to the end of the grain season he was referring to July 31. We are now passed the middle of November and are far beyond the end of the crop year with no indication from this government as to what the level will be or, indeed, whether there will be compensation


Adjournment Debate
paid to western producers. During that period we have heard many conflicting statements from different cabinet ministers involved in this matter. We have heard statements by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), by the Minister of Transport and by the minister in the other place who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Last week the Minister of Agriculture said he hoped to have a cabinet decision at the end of November on how much producers will be paid. His colleague, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board disagrees with the agriculture minister and says he does not think a decision will be made until late December, possibly not until January. One cannot help but wonder who is speaking for the government in this connection and exactly what their policy is.
It is unfortunate that we cannot have a clear indication from the government as to what their policy is to be. Just yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), in reply to a question by a member of the NDP from Saskatchewan, said:
There has never been a complete embargo, only a partial embargo. The way in which it has been phrased is in terms of normal levels of trade in those products. That is still the rule. We are now into a new crop season and we have to try to establish what that means for this year.
So, according to the Secretary of State for External Affairs we do have an embargo. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board says that even though the boycott has been ended, Canada will not increase its exports to the U.S.S.R. to make up for the American shortfall. He said we do not have an embargo but the Secretary of State for External Affairs says we do.
The point is that western producers have lost grain. Our government agreed on the level of exports to the Soviet Union of 3.8 million tonnes, and evidence has been available from independent groups, from universities-the University of Saskatchewan just recently completed a study which said that there had been $67 million in lost sales; there have been other private studies and I have press reports-which say the losses have been in the neighbourhood of $200 million. I think it is very important, before we get too far away from the grain sales we are talking about, that some level of compensation be agreed upon so that the producers in western Canada know whether they can expect compensation from this government. 1 strongly urge that this government make good on its promise to western producers. 1 urge the government to make a statement tonight stating that compensation will be available and indicating the level at which compensation will be provided.


David Michael Collenette: Mr, Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the U.S.S.R. grain trade restraints and the government's commitment to compensation. I should emphasize that we are talking about restraints on grain trade and not an embargo.
First of all, with respect to our participation at international meetings, a subject which the hon. member question last June,
we have been full and active participants. Granted, the Wheat Board did not go to the Brussels meeting in May, but Canada was represented by the grains' group which consulted fully with the Wheat Board before going. The Wheat Board was represented at the meeting in Adelaide.
There have been several questions recently about the government's position on the restraints. Let me repeat what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) said yesterday. He said that there has been no change in policy. Likewise, the government remains committed to compensation and we expect a determination very soon on the level of compensation.
What often gets lost in this discussion, Mr. Speaker, is that our over-all export performance has been very good. Grain exports were up 20 per cent last year, and the Wheat Board has advised us that they will be able to sell all the grain available for export this year. So the western producer will not suffer.
As far as the price is concerned, things have been looking up since earlier this year when the price was temporarily depressed. Initial payment levels announced in July were up substantially from the preliminary levels announced last March. The continuing trend of strong international prices should also encourage the western farmer and this is something we are monitoring closely to see if any further change is warranted.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, the situation for the western farmer is looking quite positive this year.


PARKS CANADA-GRIEVANCES OF CORNWALL EMPLOYEES- GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION THEREOF
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I was gratified to see in Hansard of June 19, 1980, at page 1877, that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) aspires to "ensuring that the province of Ontario is well served and its interests are looked after." I was gratified that the Deputy Prime Minister should aspire thus, but also I was surprised in view of his budget which is a blueprint for disaster for central Canada. If the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues more directly responsible in this area which I am questioning truly acted in the best interests of Ontario, her people and the services that Parks Canada regional office provides, they would have accepted the findings of July 3, 1979, put forward by the ADM for Parks Canada, Mr. A. T. Davidson, and 1 quote his words:
-we should move as soon as possible; that any major regional centre near Toronto would be suitable; but that Peterborough is now the most suitable.
They would have accepted the November, 1979, update from Parks Canada which found, for example, that:
The capital program forecast for the region for the next five years provides for more than 70 per cent of expenditures to take place in locations which would be closer to Peterborough than Cornwall.
They would have acted also upon the conclusion that:
An annual saving of $291,700 is estimated to result from the relocation of the regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough.


Instead they acted upon the needs of a member of the Liberal cabinet rather than the needs of all the people of Ontario. Nonetheless, I am willing to take his word that his is an honest aspiration, sincerely felt if not acted upon. Are his colleagues as sincere? Do they aspire equally to the well-being of Ontario, to the efficiency of government, to the course of action which serves best the majority of Ontario or her citizens and public employees who work on their behalf?
Certainly one could not come to such a conclusion on reviewing the lamentable and drawn-out Parks Canada affair. I am sure members opposite will recall their shameful and quite cynical decision to rescind the thorough and exhaustive eight-year effort to move the Ontario regional Parks Canada office from Cornwall to Peterborough, an effort which was ratified and encouraged by both sides of the House while in government.
The words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on June 9, then, have a sad and ironic ring, coming only a month after the announcement by his colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), that the regional office of Parks Canada should remain in Cornwall.
Or, do I understate the case? Am I being too deferential to the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment and their colleagues opposite? Should I not state unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt, that their decision was an irrefutable demonstration of the worst kind of pork-barrelling, that it demonstrated utterly their political opportunism, that it condemned them forever in the hearts of Ontario citizens and employees of Parks Canada, that it was crass, cynical and manipulative power-mongering of the most disgusting kind? This sits a trifle uneasy with the honourable aspirations of the Acting Prime Minister to ensure the prosperity of Ontario.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons) urged that I borrow a leaf from his book on the matter of parliamentary decorum and recommended that I score "honourable, legitimate political points", as reported in Hansard of May 12. His honourable, legitimate political point was that the Conservative government deferred the move of Parks Canada to Peterborough for ten whole months. I am sure the hon. member will wish to acknowledge that as the Conservative government was in power for only eight months, we could hardly have deferred the decision on that matter for ten.
But the hon. member's claim to honour and legitimacy may be more vulnerable on a further issue. Knowing his concern for right and justice, 1 feel compelled to give him an opportunity to redeem himself. The hon. member went on to remind me that "the announcement to defer" this decision "made on August 3, 1979, was made by none other than the hon. member for Peterborough himself. . . the man who announced the deferral last August". This is an unmitigated falsehood, an untruth, a lie. It is furthermore couched in terms which damn the hon. member to his own condemnation-they are "cheap, cowardly and political".
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is somewhat confused. Is the hon. member quoting from a document or making these allegations directly?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting the words of the hon. member when he said I used "cheap, cowardly and political" tricks. They are quotes from Hansard which I am trying to bring to the attention of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not think the Chair ought to take the view that the rules on parliamentary language change as between normal debate and the adjournment debate. There is much dispute about whether the kind of language the hon. member is now using is in fact parliamentary or unparliamentary language. But it caught my attention without a complete feeling of confidence on my part that I followed how the words came into usage. I think under the circumstances that I and the other officers of the Chair have a duty to take under reservation and consideration the language which is being used. But if I understood correctly, the hon. member should know, provided my interpretation is correct, that such a choice of words leads to difficulties in the House. Aside from the fact that it is likely to encourage such language by other members as well, it also leads in some cases to the appropriate demand that the Chair rule on whether the remarks should be withdrawn. In any event, the evening wears on. 1 will take that matter under consideration and I would ask the hon. member to exercise some caution in such a selection of words. If I understood the earlier part of the hon. member's speech correctly, he is probably somewhat irritated, but we do have our obligations in the choice of language.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I respect the wishes of the Chair. I used these words because they were expressed in question period. As a result, I raised a question of privilege, but Madam Speaker ruled that I did not have a question of privilege and informed me that there were other means by which a member of Parliament could refute the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, one means being during the adjournment debate.
For this reason I raised this matter and those exact words which were used by the parliamentary secretary again tonight. I had hoped that the adjournment debate would afford me the opportunity to obtain the retraction which I have not been able to obtain from the parliamentary secretary through a question of privilege. 1 respect the wishes of the Chair.
Some may ask why I waited six months to refute the charges made against me by the parliamentary secretary. The reason is that it has taken six months for the matter to come up on the adjournment debate. I do not wish to prolong this debate any longer, but recognizing the fact that the Chair did take some of my time, I would ask the indulgence of the Chair and that it add a minute or so to my time so that I may proceed with my prepared text.
On May 15, 1980, only three days after the exchange to which I just referred, I sent my first courteous letter to the


Adjournment Debate
parliamentary secretary asking that his offer of making available to me the source of information be forwarded immediately to my office. On May 13 in this House, the hon. member stated that his source was "senior departmental officials". I have yet to receive a reply. On May 28 I wrote again repeating my request, but I received no reply. On the same date my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and former minister of the environment wrote to the member refuting absolutely his statements made in the House on May 12 and repeating, on my behalf, my request that he fulfil the undertaking he made in the House on May 13. To date I have received no reply.
On August 12, 1980, three months after the exchange and the promise, the hon. member for Vancouver South wrote again to remind the parliamentary secretary of his previous letter and to urge him to reply. On August 14 we received a reply. The hon. member stated in his missive-and 1 would ask members on both sides of the House to judge the honour and legitimacy of the reply-"in view of Madam Speaker's ruling, I saw no need to pursue the matter any further". He saw no need. As the hon. member for Vancouver South succinctly stated in his response to this pathetic and cowardly cop-out, "Madam Speaker disposed of the question of privilege. That ruling did not dispose of your word given in the House of Commons, nor could it".
In the interest of restoring the honour and integrity of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's in the eyes of his colleagues and the people of Canada and in the erasing of the soiled record of this dishonourable falsehood, I urge him to either retract his statement of March 12 or to fulfil his undertaking made in this House on March 12 to supply information to me and to the former minister of the environment, the hon. member for Vancouver South, on his source of "senior departmental officials"whose information he used in the House, which is not according to the facts.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, if the rules of the House for this particular exercise allowed, 1 would have risen on a point of order. The right of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) to refute statements is not at question, but he does not have the right to use unparliamentary language. Beauchesne is very clear about the use of the word "lie", Mr. Speaker; it is clearly and unequivocably unparliamentary and should not be permitted in this chamber.
I recognize that the hon. member and I have a difference of opinion on a matter which 1 shall come to in a moment. However strong, however vociferous that difference may be, however, I appeal to him, in the interests of maintaining the integrity of this House, not to stoop to using unparliamentary language to convey his ideas. I am sure he has within his fund of vocabulary the parliamentary means to convey the strength of what he feels on this particular subject. 1 appeal to the hon.
member to withdraw. I would be prepared to yield the floor to him in order that he may withdraw the unparliamentary language he has chosen to use tonight. It does nothing for his standing in this House, it does nothing for the integrity of this House or the way in which we try to conduct debate from time to time.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: A point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: He said he would yield the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no point of order.


Roger Simmons: I indicated to the hon. member that 1 would yield the floor to him so that he could withdraw his unparliamentary expression, of course. I see that Mr. Speaker says I am not able to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to take up the time of hon. members again, but unfortunately the rules prohibit the parliamentary secretary from ceding the floor for someone who seeks to raise a point of order. It is not permitted.


Roger Simmons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member will take the first opportunity that the rules permit to withdraw his unparliamentary language.
I come now to the substance of the issue, Mr. Speaker. The decision made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) last May is not to be reconsidered. It is a final, irrevocable decision and the sooner the hon. member for Peterborough recognizes that, the better for all concerned and the less pain there will be for the people he purports to help. The decision is irrevocable; it is final; it is not reversible; it is done.
In view of that, I do not know why the hon. member insists on fighting yesterday's battle. What good can he hope to achieve by this constant repetition, this constant tirade of events that cannot be undone? At the very least-and I say this kindly-he is unwittingly doing further damage to the people whose careers have been in limbo for some time. We recognize that and it is the reason we moved to make a quick decision on the subject.
I am sure the hon. member knows the facts of the case so I shall not take the time to respond on the facts but I will respond on the matter he has raised tonight.
In this House I undertook to expedite a matter for the House-not for the hon. member for Peterborough. He understands the case full well; he lived with it; he made an announcement last August and I undertook to expedite the matter for Madam Speaker. When she indicated that the matter was taken care of I, rightly or wrongly-and I believe rightly-assumed it had been disposed of.
The one point I make to the hon. member in concluding is that if he will refer to his announcement of August 3, he will realize that his government had been in power for two months


and that his announcement further delayed the move for another year. That was the point of what I said to him in May and I repeat that point tonight. I dare him-I invite him-to contradict the truth of that particular statement.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-TOXIC CHEMICALS SPILL ON WEST COAST-LEGISLATION TO PREVENT REPETITION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to a response I received to a question I put to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). His answer is recorded at page 931 of Hansard for May 12, 1980, and reads in part as follows:
I will examine it and report back as soon as possible.
To date there has been no response or report from the minister. To refresh the memory of the House, it related to the dumping in November of last year of a truck load of dangerous toxic chemicals just south of the Queen Charlotte Islands from a barge en route from Alaska to Washington state. These containers began to appear in the vicinity of Prince Rupert in May. They were and are dangerous to the public. At that time 1 directed my question to the Minister of the Environment. I wish to read a few brief quotations in an attempt to elicit from the parliamentary secretary some response and perhaps a tabling of the report which is due from the Minister of the Environment. 1 quote from a May 9 report:
U.S. Coast Guard spokesman Lieutenant Walters in Anchorage said this morning that he was "89 per cent certain" that a notice to mariners had been issued by the Coast Guard office in Juneau at the time the spill occurred.
Karen Gehing, spokesman for the Aids to Navigation Office in Juneau said, however, that a check of the November records showed that no such notice had ever been issued.
The chemical, which is highly toxic and volatile, is bacteriacide used in oil fields. More than 1.1 parts per million of the chemical over a period of 96 hours is lethal to fish and wildlife. It is also highly corrosive, has a flash point of 83 degrees Farenheit, and is absorbed through the skin.
I wish to quote from a report of May 12, 1980:
The loss, and damage to the ship, was reported to the U.S. Coast Guard in Seattle, but according to Marine Inspection Spokesman Lieutenant Larson, the Coast Guard was not informed of the nature of the cargo. .. U.S. Coast Guard officials in Juneau say they have not yet ascertained whether the drum was a part of the November shipment or debris from some other spill. They say safety precautions prevent the Canadian Coast Guard from getting close enough to the recovered cannister to read identifying marks which might determine its origin.
I trust the parliamentary secretary or the minister will respond to this point since my question relates to whether they are considering or have any intention of bringing in legislation which will allow or require labelling to be properly in place so that these types of incidents will not occur. I quote from the same document:
John Hopps of Marine Inspection in Vancouver said today that while there are recommendations for the carriage of dangerous goods as part of an international shipping agreement, and some regulations are enshrined in federal legislation, they are quite vague in many instances. Even though recommendations do exist for many types of chemicals, it is left to the shipper to enforce these recommendations-
Chris Hatfield, former west coast Emergency Co-ordinator for Environment Canada, said from Vancouver today that regulations for chemical transport are "non-specific and need a lot more work."
Adjournment Debate
"Questions of what to transport, where to transport, and how to transport haven't been looked at yet," Hatfield said ... "It's really a vague area; there are so many agencies, so many chemicals, and no regulations."
My concern, and I trust the parliamentary secretary will address this, is in relation to what comprehensive legislation is concerned. The minister is on record as saying that about 85 per cent of the toxic and hazardous waste in Canada is dumped improperly at the present time. One could hardly go to the public at this point and say that either the corporate sector or the government are adequately handling this situation.
There must be feasibility and financial studies, legislation relating to transportation, storage and handling, regulations and legislation related to trans-boundary movement, classification, technology, treatment facilities, the citing of criteria and public safety and environmental impact. None of those issues has been addressed. It took six months before the Canadian government even knew of this spill. Another six months has gone by without any response from the Minister of the Environment. The concern of the public is very much in limbo at this point.
It is a relevant question to ask how many "Love Canals" are being created at the present moment with hundreds of thousands of tons of carcinogenic and mutagenic material being dumped and, in many instances, the creation of totally new and unknown chemical substances in our environment. Tens of thousands of chemicals are now in use and they are being madly dumped in our environment.
In conclusion, I hope the parliamentary secretary will address both the issue of toxic chemical spills, since 1 have not yet received a report or a response, and as well, the legislative question which I put to the Minister of the Environment on the same day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary will not be able to reply under our normal rules because we have reached the end of the debate on the adjournment. Because another matter has also come up, I will take a few seconds myself. As some hon. members will have noticed, I have had some discussion with one of the Table officers. 1 simply want to assure the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), who has absented himself, and the parliamentary secretary, that while no points of order or questions of privilege are permitted during the debate on adjournment, that does not in any way imply the loss of the right to rise such an issue at the next sitting of the House or even, indeed, at another time. I think it is my obligation to review Hansard tomorrow morning and determine whether the matter ought to be carried further.
I think perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will suggest that with the unanimous consent of all three members present we might allow the parliamentary secretary to reply. I am in full favour of that, but just in case that were not possible, I wanted to assure those


Adjournment Debate
hon. members present that if indeed there is an issue relating to the exchange tonight between two hon. members, it will be handled in a manner which will not reduce anyone's rights in order that it can be dealt with tomorrow.
I understand that there may in fact be unanimous consent for the parliamentary secretary to proceed to answer the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was my suggestion.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for interceding on my behalf so that I can be heard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 hope it is worth it.


Roger Simmons: On the general issue of jurisdictional concerns within our 200-mile exclusive economic zones and our 12-mile territorial seas, the situation is a bit more complicated than the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), indicates. Fie wrote us on July 28 of this year suggesting that the government should seriously consider implementing or supporting the introduction of east and west coast 200-mile zone legislation parallel to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
The exclusive economic zone concept is a relatively new development in international affairs and is among the items being considered at the ongoing Law of the Sea Conferences.
In January, 1977, Canada proclaimed its 200-mile fishing zones on the east and west coasts. The international community has tacitly agreed to Canada's management of marine life resources in these zones, largely because of the diplomatic negotiations which preceded the proclamation and also because of the assurance we gave that historic fishing rights would be honoured. However, tacit agreement on the management of marine life cannot be considered as a precedent to act
unilaterally to encompass the regulation of shipping in the 200-mile zone. Bilateral or multilateral negotiations should precede any proposed action on our part.
I believe Canada must work within the international framework of the United Nations Law of the Sea and the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, 1MCO, to obtain ratification of the various IMCO conventions and their protocols to establish global standards for tanker safety, pollution prevention and the carriage of hazardous and noxious substances. We will not get international support if we act unilaterally, and we probably would suffer setbacks in our trading activity as well. We will achieve our goals much more rapidly if we continue our strong support for the international initiatives.
Ratification of the various IMCO conventions will require changes in Canadian legislation. I assure the hon. member that when such changes are introduced, we will be promoting those which protect or enhance the environment. Meanwhile, this government has been working closely with the United States in harmonizing marine navigation systems and in establishing joint contingency plans.
I want to reiterate my concern and, I am sure, the concern all of us share, about the environmental protection of our valuable marine resources. I can assure the hon. member for Skeena and hon. members generally that Canadian federal officials are working in the closest consultation with their colleagues in the United States to ensure the protection of those resources.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, November 19, 1980