1980-11-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas in a New York address the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) indicated that Suncor Incorporated is targeted for takeover by the Canadian government through Petro-Canada, and whereas this explains why the same minister is offering Suncor Incorporated $16.75 a barrel as against $38 a barrel which is being offered to other companies in the same area for the same quality of crude oil, 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That this House, in deploring this violation of security laws and this tricky, underhanded, under-the-table, unscrupulous method of devaluating the shares of Suncor in preparation for the kill, urges the Prime Minister to prepare a scroll in honour of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as being, next to he himself, the trickiest and most outstanding under-the-table and unscrupulous manipulator in the Liberal cabinet.


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.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the secretary of the interior of the United States has apportioned an additional $3 million for the Garrison diversion unit in North Dakota, that moneys are still being allocated for further construction of this project and that it is well known that the completion of the Garrison diversion will cause irreparable damage to Canadian waters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).
That this government have on-site monitoring as the construction proceeds and that our consular staff in Washington monitor the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress and report findings to this House on a regular basis so that we may be kept up to date on the status of this project.


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.
.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of a report prepared for the federal government which indicates that Indian reserves in northern Manitoba have inadequate garbage and sewage disposal, which is contaminating drinking water supplies and causing a high rate of hepatitis and dysentery among northern Indians, and in view of the knowledge of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of this problem for years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House instructs the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to table the report prepared for Environment Canada and turned over to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of National Health and Welfare, to provide a statement on motions concerning the reasons why the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has failed to act on the deplorable health hazards cited in this report and to outline the steps he proposes to adopt to eliminate this inexcusable and intolerable health threat faced by northern Manitoban Indian communities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DUMPING OF CONTAMINATED WATER IN NIAGARA RIVER-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Highly explosive TNT has been discovered buried near the site of the SCA Waste Services Company of New York, which has been granted a U.S. permit to discharge millions of gallons of contaminated water into the Niagara river, from which a

November 19, 1980
number of Canadian municipalities draw their drinking water. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That this House condemn the Canadian government for not honouring its election commitment to oppose vigorously the SCA permit, and that this House call upon the Canadian government to launch, in concert with the U.S. government, a full inquiry into the matter, taking into account in particular that the TNT explosives near the SCA site are only a quarter mile from a concrete silo full of radioactive wastes from the making of two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.


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.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Inflation, unemployment, high mortgage interest rates and, in some cases, a total lack of accommodation are severely limiting the ability of Canadians to obtain adequate housing, especially those on low or fixed incomes. Since the Liberal government has abandoned these Canadians in every area of housing policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House direct the government to rectify its inaction and lack of policy in the housing field and implement a shelter allowance program for Canadian families.


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.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the mayor-elect of the city of Toronto has announced that he supports the establishment of a STOL air service for the Montreal-Toronto transportation corridor, and in view of the fact that STOL aircraft are more appropriate for northern and coastal service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That the federal government not authorize the use of STOL aircraft at the Toronto Island airport but instead use STOL aircraft for northern and coastal service.


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.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of extreme national urgency under Standing Order 43. In view of the rapidly growing nationwide interest and concern about the constitutional resolution, and in view of the very scarce supply of copies of this resolution and the complete lack of copies of the BNA Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the federal government's Department of Supply and Services immediately print and distribute sufficient copies of these two important documents to supply all educational facilities throughout Canada.


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.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the next head of the U.S. Senate's energy committee is regarded in some quarters as the strongest antienvironmentalist in the Senate, which must be regarded with great concern here in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House express its unanimous support for the principle, as has been stated when referring to Canada's increasing use of domestic coal in an environmentally sound manner, that the political will to do this in Canada is strong and we must demonstrate this to the United States.


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.
November 19, 1980



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It was reported today that United States interior secretary Cecil Andrus had approved construction of the Garrison diversion project. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the Elouse whether it is his understanding that the whole $630 million project now has the go ahead, or if in fact only the West Oakes test area is involved in this announcement, West Oakes being in the James Bay basin, with no possible effect on Canadian waters?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am not able to give the hon. member the precise information he requested, but I will attempt to provide up-to-date information to him. The hon. member knows the long-standing position of the Canadian government, which has been expressed so often to the United States government, with respect to the Garrison diversion project.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House what steps the government has taken to improve the monitoring done by our officials south of the border, and will he be calling for weekly progress reports on Garrison, as these reports from our own people would go a long way toward allaying the growing concern in this country about ongoing Garrison construction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there has been ongoing concern with respect to the impact of particular aspects of the Garrison diversion project on Canada and on the Canadian environment. The hon. member has made representations with respect to ongoing monitoring; I will consider those representations with the appropriate minister.


INQUIRY WHETHER STEPS TAKEN TO DETER ACTION IN U.S. CONGRESS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, I should like to point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that senator-elect Mark Andrews and the governor of North Dakota are calling for the full completion of the Garrison diversion project, especially senator Andrews who is one of the strong supporters of the project.
During this lame duck session of Congress there exists an increasing risk that appropriations for Garrison could be forced through. Has the Liberal government taken any steps to contact the U.S. government with a view to deterring this disastrous course of action in the United States Congress?
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will be happy to learn that, yesterday, the U.S. Department of Interior announced that the appropriation for the parts of the project that would affect Canadian interests will be withheld and spent only after consultation with Canadian authorities.


UN ACCEPT ABILITY OF PROJECT TO CANADA-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the Garrison project. It relates to what our relations as a government will be with the new administration in the United States Congress. What action is the government planning to let the new administration and the new president know that in fact this is not an acceptable project to Canada because it will, if completed, cause irreparable damage to Canadian waters?
[ Translation]


Louis Duclos: Madam Speaker, we shall adopt towards the new administration exactly the same attitude we had with that of President Carter, that is, we shall insist with the Reagan administration that basic Canadian interests be respected. Be that as it may, we are awaiting a reply to the note we sent to the American authorities on October 1 asking them specifically to start consultations in that regard as soon as possible.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is well known that parties on all sides of the House are opposed to the Garrison project. In fact, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris first travelled to Washington in 1975 to make that point known. Would the government consider sending a delegation representing all parties of the House to Washington at the appropriate time to let the new administration in Congress know, in the strongest possible terms, that we in Canada are unified in our opposition to this project?
I might add that that precedent was set in the spring, I think, when a delegation of members of all parties of this House travelled to Washington to discuss with United States congressmen some fisheries problems that we had.


Louis Duclos: Madam Speaker, we are now in November and the new administration will be in power in a couple of months, around the middle of January, and we will see then what reaction we get to our representations. The suggestion of the
4848

November 19, 1980
Oral Questions
hon. member can certainly be the subject of serious consideration on our part.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Last week I asked the minister if the government was prepared to extend the time allocated to the joint committee considering the constitutional proposal. Given the quality of the groups appearing before the committee and the number of others who want to appear before it, it has become clear that an extension of the deadline set is absolutely essential.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Therefore, I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to assure the House today in an unqualified way that the deadline will be extended in order that sufficient time will be allocated to do justice to this important work.
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the request made by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party last week regarding the extension of the timetable was not addressed to me but to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. To me he put a question regarding the televising of the meetings of the committee and I gave him an answer. With regard to the extension of the timetable the Prime Minister told him that he was very receptive to his suggestion and he explained to him clearly, referring to me, that 1 was prepared to be flexible and would discuss the matter with the House leaders of the opposition parties. I wish to confirm to the Leader of the NDP that I am still prepared to show the same flexibility, that 1 fully endorse the answer given to him by the Prime Minister and that I intend to meet with the opposition House leaders as soon as possible, whenever it is convenient for them.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to be a little more specific in my next question for the hon. minister. Considering the important and positive criticisms which have been made in the last few days about improvements to the charter of rights, for example, I would like to ask the minister the following. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to accept some of these positive suggestions, and will he assure the House that the committee will have time not only to listen to the witnesses who want to appear before it but that, following the witnesses' evidence, the committee will have time to give the most thorough of consideration to the amending process?


Yvon Pinard: From the evidence given up to now by the various witnesses, it is obvious that all of them are in favour of enshrining a charter of rights in the constitution. However, some would want us to go further. That is why, in view of the representations made, I say again to the Leader of the NDP that I am quite ready to discuss this with the House leaders. I think that is the proper procedure under the circumstances, namely a possible extension of the deadline. Last week, the hon. member asked for a two-week extension. I say to him again today that we are prepared to discuss the matter. However, the Leader of the New Democratic Party must realize that I made this offer in early October, after the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition complained in his speech about the December 9 deadline, and also after the Tory House leader wrote me a letter in which he took exception to the fact that at the third stage we would be discussing a committee report rather than the resolution itself. At that time, that is in the first week or ten days of October, I made it clear to my fellow House leaders that I was prepared to discuss the committee deadline and also the possibility that we consider the resolution itself rather than a motion for concurrence in the committee report. However, I required a reasonable indication as to the total length of the debate and also as to the procedure to be followed for the consideration of amendments at the third stage.
The Leader of the NDP no doubt realizes that without a set procedure for moving amendments at this third stage, it could become a real hodge podge. After three weeks of debate, we might find ourselves still on a subamendment to clause 3 of the resolution which contains 57 altogether. Therefore, all I ask is that the opposition parties be reasonable, and especially that they agree to negotiate. Again, last week, I repeated this offer. I must recognize that some of the parliamentary leaders were very receptive to this idea, and I certainly hope that in the days ahead all of them will agree to plan sensibly the remainder of the debate, both at the committee stage and on third reading.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is important that this point is very clear. Nobody is proposing a filibuster on this particular measure. What is being suggested, I believe reasonably, by members on this side of the House and by some members on the other side of the House is that there be adequate time, both in committee and after the committee reports, to discuss important amendments to our constitution. What I would like clear from the government House leader is that he is not considering a trade-off. Is the government House leader suggesting to the House that there will be a time extension for the committee to do its important work, but that the government is considering reducing the amount of time the House would reasonably require for it to do justice to the matter?
November 19, 1980


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on the one hand the Leader of the New Democratic Party says that he is not proposing a Filibuster, and 1 sincerely believe him.


Mr. Beatty:: Write him another letter, Ed.


Yvon Pinard: On the other hand, he is saying that there is no room for give and take or trade-off in this matter. What I would like to determine in the discussions which I will be having with the House leaders is how serious they, or at least the other party, are when they say there will be no filibuster.


INQUIRY AS TO FINAL DEADLINE FOR PRESENTATION OF JOINT ADDRESS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, we are all interested in watching the New Democratic Party shift its ground again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: At least we have some ground.


Mr. Rae:: Tell us where you stand, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: The NDP is asking where I stand. I stand where I stood when the matter was proposed, which is something the New Democratic Party has not done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Would the government House leader tell those of us who are in opposition to his proposal, and his bedmates, what is the date of the government's final deadline for the joint address to Great Britain?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have no deadline in mind. My only wish is that a debate here be as thorough, reasonable and fair as possible. I did not have any such evidence during the first stage of the debate, and 1 say that it is premature at this time to speak of imposing closure at the third stage. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to be provocative, but I do not think that such is his intention, 1 will not play that game. I repeat that, on the contrary, we are ready to extend the deadline reasonably, which is precisely what the House leaders should be normally discussing during the meeting suggested by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
In conclusion, with respect to the request made by the New Democratic Party, which is apparently endorsed by the Progressive Conservative Party, indeed we are ready, as I indicated to his House leader in early October, at the outset of the debate, to reconsider extending the deadline, provided, at the same time, that we have some evidence of good faith, especially that the Progressive Conservative Party does not try to delay the proceedings unduly in a dilatory manner and to start in this House a procedural debate on a constitutional
Oral Questions
issue, the subject matter of which deserves more consideration from his party. That is all I can say to the Leader of the Official Opposition. I do not intend to impose closure at any stage whatever. I merely want to make sure that as an institution and as a government we assume our responsibilities as fairly as possible, while being respectful of the rights of the Canadian people.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as I hear that long explanation from the minister, I cannot help but recall that he is the minister who promised there would be no trickery in the introduction of this measure the first time, an undertaking that has been broken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of shouting among members of the Liberal party who are so disunited on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I just want to be sure that we understand exactly what the government House leader has said. He is now telling us that the government has no deadline for the submission of a joint address to Great Britain.


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is that correct?

Madam Speaker, does the government House leader mean to say that the government has no deadline for the submission of a joint address to Great Britain?


Yvon Pinard: To answer the first part of the question, Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned that I said I was not willing to agree to impose closure at this stage. I think he is right, if that is what he said. In any case, may I remind him that from the very beginning we have offered many times an extension of hours to discuss the matter at the first stage. We are still willing to discuss and agree to extending hours in the committee stage and in the third stage-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Yvon Pinard: -when the report is made, to allow more members to participate.


An hon. Member:: Is there a deadline?


Yvon Pinard: I would hope that members of the opposition would agree to such extended hours. To deal specifically with the last question, which was whether we have any deadline in mind, I will reiterate to the Right Hon. Leader of the

November 19, 1980
Oral Questions
Opposition that in fact 1 have no specific deadline. All 1 want is a full, complete, reasonable debate. 1 expect that at some stage the Conservative party will show more seriousness than it has so far.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, perhaps our difficulty is that 1 am addressing the question to the wrong minister. The government House leader is talking in terms of deadlines for House business. My question has to do with whether the government believes it has a deadline by which it must make a joint address to Great Britain. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if, in the view of the government, there is a deadline by which a joint address must be delivered to Great Britain and, if so, what is that date?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we plan our proceedings and try to carry out our duties with the utmost celerity and fairness. I am sure that the British in London do not intend to interfere in our affairs. We have received from the British government absolutely no instruction as to when we should report. It was courteous enough not to give us any instruction, and I am satisfied that the answers given up to now by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the matter are quite adequate, and that we will get satisfaction as soon as we are ready to submit our joint address to the British Parliament.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. That was an interesting answer but it did not answer the question put by the Leader of the Opposition, which was not what is in the mind of the British parliament but was is in the mind of the Canadian government with respect to the deadline by which they want to make a joint address to Her Majesty the Queen. That is a specific question. Is there a deadline and, if so, what is it?


An hon. Member:: Let us see some of your sincerity now.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I can complete my reply by saying that if the British have told us specifically that they have no intention of interfering in our internal affairs, we do not intend to interfere in theirs either, so that it is quite impossible to reply to the hon. member's question. We will submit our joint address as soon as we are ready, and we have every reason to believe that the British will not turn it down.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF CULTURE OF GREECE
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw to your attention the presence in my gallery of a distinguished visitor, the honourable Andreas Andrianopoulos, Minister of Culture of Greece.


NEGOTIATION OF POSSIBLE OIL IMPORTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA- RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALBERTA
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the past few days Canadians have been treated to the rather ludicrous spectacle of the Prime Minister perched on top of a camel in Saudi Arabia negotiating the purchase of
100,000	barrels of oil a day from Saudi Arabia. At the same time, in Canada we have had the cancellation of one of the major energy development projects that this country has ever faced. The reason for this is clearly the intransigence of the government in reaching an agreement with the producing provinces in the whole area of energy policy. Madam Speaker, the world is laughing at us today; we are willing to pay high and escalating world prices to Saudi Arabia, yet we cannot reach agreement with our own provinces in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I should like to ask why the Prime Minister in Saudi Arabia is quite willing to negotiate for 100,000 barrels of oil a day, when he should be in Canada negotiating with the producing provinces to settle the energy policy that this country will follow over the next ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, to deal with the first part of the question, the Prime Minister has indicated that he was not in Saudi Arabia to negotiate anything having to do with oil supply. He has said quite clearly in a statement he made over there that an offer was made in conversation with Sheik Yamani and that this offer would obviously be taken under consideration. That is what the Prime Minister has said quite clearly.
On the second point, may I remind the hon. member that the government of Alberta has indicated it is not interested at the present time in having ministerial or prime ministerial discussions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Lougheed has indicated quite clearly- and this is on the record for anybody to read, if hon. members on the other side bother to read-that he prefers to have discussions starting at the officials level first. I have been in touch with the government of Alberta and indicated that my officials are ready to start discussions immediately. The answer I received was that the officials in Alberta needed a few more days to do some more work. I would hope that in the next few weeks there will be meetings taking place at the officials level.
I think I have answered both points raised by the hon. member, Madam Speaker.

November 19, 1980

As far as his preamble is concerned, I would only remind the hon. member that it takes two to make an agreement. Obviously, in this particular case we have made very generous or what are considered very fair offers to the government of Alberta, but it has not found them satisfactory. The Prime Minister has indicated that we are willing to discuss these matters again with the government of Alberta, and that is where the matter stands at the present time.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. On this side we do realize that it takes two to tango. We achieved agreement in December; surely this government is able to do the same thing.
These oil sands projects are very important to the future of this country in terms of security of supply, economic development, balance of payments benefits-about $2 billion for each of these projects-and also to bring this country together. Surely the government understands the urgency of this matter. When is the minister going to sit down with his counterpart in Alberta in an effort to achieve a realistic agreement that both sides of this country can be happy with?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have indicated to my colleague in Alberta that I am quite willing to meet him at any time that would be convenient. The answer 1 have received is that the government of Alberta feels that the discussions should start at the officials level first. This is where the matter stands.
As to the preamble of the question, again I have to indicate to the hon. member that even the lonely, independent member who was kicked out of the Alberta Conservative party has been trying to get copies of any document showing that there had been an agreement between the government of Alberta and the Conservative government in Ottawa last December, and the poor member has not been able to get anything. I challenge the hon. member to show us that there was any agreement. As a matter of fact, the record is quite clear that there was not an agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there was a third point in the question.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody.


OIL SANDS DEVELOPMENT BY IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED-DEVELOPMENT BY PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question for the same minister will probably have a little different area of emphasis from the questions presented by the spokespersons for the multinationals on my right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mark Willson Rose: Given the latest strong-arm tactics by Imperial Oil Limited to shelve its Cold Lake oil sands project unless Alberta and Ottawa hand over a ransom of some $40 million in development costs, and since Imperial Oil can hardly plead poverty having taken since 1975 $2.4 billion in profit out of the hides of Canadians, would the minister tell us when he intends to make good his pledge of increased public ownership in the oil industry and have Petro-Canada take over this oil sands development-something Petro-Canada says it can do and is willing to do-or at least tell the House how much longer he intends to submit to blackmail by these oil giants?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have to disagree with the conclusion of the hon. member. In this particular instance, Imperial Oil has spent $120 million to get the project going, which the government of Alberta unfortunately has not yet found appropriate to approve. We regret this. The Government of Canada is very concerned about the importance of ensuring security of supply. Concerning those projects, the Government of Canada has always delivered in plenty of time in the past whatever was required of it.
In this particular case the government of Alberta has again decided to delay its approval. As far as we are concerned, the project will be suspended and might risk being cancelled if we do not get agreement with Alberta in the near future. I met yesterday with the president of Imperial Oil. I have reviewed this matter with my officials and I have consulted my colleagues. We have reached the conclusion that it is essential this project proceed. We do not want to lose the team of over 550 people who have been assembled for this purpose. Therefore, we have decided that we will make available our share of the proposal put forward by Imperial, namely that $40 million be made available over the next six months to ensure that this project will hold together. This payment is made on a repayable basis if the project proceeds. In this connection I have instructed Petro-Canada to undertake discussions immediately with Imperial Oil. I have indicated, in addition-


Mr. Andre:: What about Canadian-Hunter?


Marc Lalonde: -that if the government of Alberta for any reason prefers not to come in on this proposal, we will stand ready to ensure that Petro-Canada provides the whole $40 million-


Charles Joseph Clark: You have instructed Petro-Canada?


Marc Lalonde: -so that this project will go ahead.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, yesterday in New York the minister stated that at best the government might triple Petro-Canada's share of the petroleum industry's production revenue. This means that Petro-Canada would move only from seventh to perhaps fifth place in the industry in Canada. In view of this, how can the minister claim that this so-called Canadianization of the oil industry is anything but tokenism, especially when he admitted in New York yesterday that his

November 19, 1980
Oral Questions
plans were "cautious to a fault". Does the minister tell Canadians one thing and American oil giants something else?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will be very pleased to forward immediately a copy of my speech to my hon. friend, which he has obviously not read. There have been three very serious misquotes in his question, so I shall send him a copy of my speech and he can learn it by heart, if possible.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. It has come to light that large quantities of explosive wastes are to be found on the SCA waste site in Porter, New York, on the U.S.-Canada border, in the midst of a silo full of radioactive wastes from the making of the two atomic bombs dropped in 1945 and 88 million gallons of toxic chemical wastes. Will the Government of Canada ask the government of the United States to take the necessary steps to reopen the recently completed SCA hearings, in light of the new evidence concerning quantities of TNT recently located on the SCA chemical waste site, which is just across the Niagara River from Niagara Falls, Canada, and in this way support the strong position assumed by Mrs. Margherita Howe and "operation clean" on the new TNT evidence?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the information concerning the disclosure of TNT at the waste site which the hon. member has just mentioned has only come to our attention today through press reports, which our staff is following up. We do not think a discharge from SCA should be allowed by U.S. authorities until the malfunctioning Niagara Falls, New York, sewage plant has been repaired.
We have made these views known to the United States. We will continue to press the matter, especially in view of the information which has just come to light and to which the member has referred.


PRICE OF OIL IMPORTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed also to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and in this connection I refer him to the Prime Minister's trip to Saudi Arabia. The Prime Minister has indicated there is a possibility of 100,000 barrels of oil a day being shipped to Canada. He stated: "I don't want to minimize what seemed to be an offer and our gratitude if something does take place". Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources indicate what the government expects this oil to cost Canadians? Does he intend to have Petro-Canada offer what he calls the same fair offer that he offered to Alberta? In short, may we anticipate that the oil will cost roughly $40 per barrel, or does the government intend to negotiate the price at roughly the $16.75 conventional wellhead price?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member knows that when we buy oil on the international market, we must pay the international price.
With respect to the present situation, if for some reason the government of Alberta should decide to deprive Canadians of some 180,000 barrels of oil, it is quite obvious that the Canadian government would have to try to make up in some way for the action taken by the government of Alberta against Canadians.
As far as the domestic price is concerned, the hon. member also knows that Canada has been following for years a policy that is in line with that followed by many oil producing countries, namely to set a domestic price that is different from the international price.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I am still looking for some clarification as to why the Prime Minister felt we should be grateful. Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate whether the 100,000 barrels a day is extra to the
200,000	barrels we are now importing? If it is, would the minister indicate what effect he feels that will have on our trade deficit with Saudi Arabia, which in the first nine months of this year has already reached $1.7 billion?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in the interview he gave following his talk with Sheik Yamani, the Right Hon. Prime Minister indicated clearly that that aspect of the matter had not been clarified, that of course it was something to be discussed between Petro-Canada and Petromin when negotiations take place.
All that happened is an offer made in general terms by the representatives of Saudi Arabia at a meeting with the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since the latter had indicated that he was not in Saudi Arabia to negotiate specific arrangements on oil matters but for other purposes, namely to talk about relations between developing countries and more privileged countries and contributions of the OPEC countries in this regard, the Right Hon. Prime Minister did not want to enter into specific negotiations on that matter.
November 19, 1980

Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


COLD LAKE OIL SANDS PROJECT-RESULT OF DELAY ON JOB CREATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to my information 20,000 jobs, including 6,000 in Ontario, stand to be lost if the Cold Lake project is delayed any longer than 30 days. My question is, why is the Desert Fox in Saudi Arabia negotiating for their oil and not here in Canada where both he and the minister should be making an attempt to salvage our own economy and create jobs in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated that the reason there are no ministerial or prime ministerial meetings taking place in Alberta at this time relates to the decision of Alberta to start discussions at the officials level. I have indicated to my colleague that we are ready to meet with him at any time that is convenient to him.
As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, I think I amply covered that in answer to the previous question asked. I indicated that the Government of Canada attaches so much importance to those projects in the tar sands and heavy oils that we stand ready even to pay the full costs of the proposal of Imperial Oil if the government of Alberta for any particular reason does not wish to pay its share of the cost.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, these negotiations have been going on for so long that it is imperative that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources take a front row position in debating them, rather than taking rare birds from Canada to Saudi Arabia. Can the minister persuade the Prime Minister to return to Canada and explain to Canadians why jobs in Saudi Arabia are more important than jobs in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to understand A or B having to do with domestic and international trade. Not only do we want to create a lot of jobs in Canada arising out of projects in Canada, such as the Cold Lake one that we are going to support, but we also want to create thousands of jobs arising out of our export trade with countries like Saudi Arabia. The Prime Minister is out there helping Canadian businessmen sell more to Saudi Arabia and OPEC countries, and that is for the good of Canada all around.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA REPORT ON UNEMPLOYMENT-EFFORTS TO ASSIST NEWFOUNDLANDERS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the Economic Council of Canada released a report which states, among other things, that half the unemployed Newfoundlanders are looking for work outside their province while only one-quarter of the unemployed in Ontario have to do so, since the same report indicates that the real rate of unemployment in Newfoundland is probably closer to 23.9 per cent as opposed to the official rate of 16.4 per cent, and since that same report indicates that Newfoundlanders are looking for work, what is the minister willing to do to ensure that these people find work in their own province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to read the report of the Economic Council of Canada. I am glad the hon. member has given us a few salient points. I know that a report has been prepared by the council at the request of the government of Newfoundland and as a result of a joint reference to the council a few years ago by the present Prime Minister and Premier Moores. I hope the report will provide some leads which will assist in overcoming the unemployment and productivity problem, which was the focus of the report requested by former Premier Moores.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I realize the minister may not have had an opportunity to read the report yet, let alone act on it. There is one area which relates to the report on which he has had a chance to act, and that is the fact that there is going to be oil exploration off the coast. No training is going on in Newfoundland at the present time to make sure the people there benefit from those jobs. What action is the government going to take to ensure that the people who live there can get jobs on the oil rigs and so on, and also to cancel the need for the legislation brought in by the provincial government limiting the employment of people from offshore?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that I placed special emphasis in the budget on the question of manpower training and supplying especially skilled tradesmen and scarce skilled personnel for trades at the present time. He will also have noticed there was a special allocation of $350 million to be spent on retraining and industrial restructuring. I hope it will have some impact on the problem he has quite properly focused on in his question.
* *
*


GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF IMPERIAL OIL COLD LAKE PROJECT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wish to comment that finally, after all these months, the minister

November 19, 1980


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Labour.
Oral Questions
has recognized the importance of the oil sands. Maybe we are making some progress.
Will the minister advise whether the announced support of the Cold Lake project is just a wolf in sheep's clothing? What does he intend to exact from Imperial Oil for this support? Is it unconditional?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is indeed very suspicious. I can assure him he has no cause to be that way. I remind him that over the years the Government of Canada has been pressing ahead with support for all developments having to do with the tar sands and heavy oils. If he checks the record, he will find that over the past three years under our former government, the government of his own party last year and under this government this year, we have always been very forthcoming with regard to taking all steps to ensure the realization of those projects.
For their own reasons, the government of Alberta has decided over the last three years to delay some decisions. I am not passing judgment on the reasons they had to delay these projects; I just mention the fact. The decision I announced today is a further indication that this government stands committed to energy security and the realization of those projects in the tar sands and heavy oil area.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I asked whether this was a wolf in sheep's clothing. What are the conditions? The minister did not answer my question.
I will ask another question. Why is the government willing to pay world prices to other countries for imported oil but will not pay the same prices to Canadian producers, which would keep the money in Canada, create jobs and develop technology in Canada, and help Canada become energy self-sufficient? I have two questions. First, why will the government not pay the world price for heavy oil production? Second, what are the conditions they are going to have to meet for the $40 million?


Marc Lalonde: In answer to the first part of the question, Madam Speaker, I assure the hon. member it does not have anything to do with sheep; it is all lamb! There is no condition put forward. I have indicated that we will negotiate with Imperial Oil as to exactly how this should work, and discussions should take place very quickly.
With regard to the second point, the hon. member knows that in the past we have paid the world price for heavy oil plants. We have again offered to start paying at the current world price level, escalated with the cost of living. We feel this is a very generous price for those products. Further representations have been made by Alsands and Imperial Oil regarding these projects to the effect that their costs have further escalated. We are looking at this and are in discussion with them. We are not only concerned that these projects go ahead, but that during this process the Canadian consumer should not be given the axe.
The minister is certainly aware of the strike by Royal Bank employees in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area which lasted more than a year. As a result of the intervention of the CLRB which held discussions with the employees and the management, an agreement was signed about three weeks ago, following which the cases of eight employees who had been suspended by the bank are still pending before the Canada Labour Relations Board.
Can the minister tell us when he expects the Canada Labour Relations Board to make a ruling on the cases of these eight employees?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He will be aware that the strike which ended some time ago between six branches of the Royal Bank of Canada and the union in the Lac-Saint-Jean district was a long and difficult one and that the matter of the eight employees who were not re-employed by the bank is unresolved. The Canada Labour Relations Board is vested with this problem, and it has made a finding that there has been a violation by the bank in dismissing the eight employees. The board held further public hearings concerning what remedies should be taken in that regard.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The decision concerning the remedies will be released very shortly by the Canada Labour Relations Board.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lioydminster):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member with respect to whom I wish to raise a question of privilege is not in the House at this time. I would like to bring my question of privilege to the attention of the House when both he and I are in the chamber together.
mr. Mcknight-notice of intention to raise question of



Mr. Nielsen:: You read very well, Gerry.
November 19, 1980


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order relating to a statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who was in the House a moment ago but who may inadvertently have misled the House in an answer he gave earlier.


Marc Lalonde: I am here with your friend.


Charles Joseph Clark: I see that he has been over with the NDP, but he is coming back to his place.


Mr. Cousineau:: That is not true. What is the matter with you?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources 1 believe said today that he had instructed the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, to take certain actions. I wonder if in fact he did say that and whether he intended to say that.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to advise the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that the Conservative energy critic, if I understand him well, has now joined the New Democratic Party. I hope he will be assured before long that he is still safe with his energy critic for a while, because he was the gentleman I was talking to, and not members of any other party.
With respect to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I have indeed instructed the president of Petro-Canada to undertake discussions with Imperial Oil as to this particular project. I have indicated that whatever comes out of those discussions will be taken into account in the approval of the capital budget of Petro-Canada.


PRIVILEGE
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It concerns the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Before I do, I might observe that it is incredible that this government, in addition to all the other tax breaks, is now going to give some $40 million to Imperial Oil.
My question of privilege has to do with the minister's response to me that he was misquoted. He gave me a speech to back up his argument. The only quotation I made was his saying that his plans were "cautious to a fault". With regard to the ranking of Petro-Canada I would like to read from the minister's own speech as follows:
For perspective, consider that Petro-Canada accounts for about 5 per cent of our petroleum industry's production revenue. Now suppose that Petro-Canada
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
doubles or even trebles its share as a result of the energy program. We are still looking at a company with a small minority of the market.
That was the point I was trying to make, and I did not quote at all from the minister's speech when I was talking about the rankings.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think the quote mentioned by the hon. member speaks for itself. I indeed said, "Suppose that Petro-Canada doubles or even triples; it will still be a small part of the total industry". That industry will still remain overwhelmingly private. If it is quadrupled or multiplied by five or six, obviously the percentage increases. "Suppose".


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) has raised this matter as a question of privilege. Since he has raised it as a question of privilege, I feel obligated to rule that, of course, there is no question of privilege in the fact that something has been quoted, misquoted or whatever. Rectifications were asked for by the hon. member of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). This is debate, and the exchange has taken place. There is not much I can do about it, but it is not a question of privilege.


MR. NIELSEN-PROCEDURE GOVERNING PARTICIPATION IN HOUSE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question of privilege or point of order to raise with respect to the practices of this House and its committees. I was not at the committee meeting or other meetings involved personally where this has been taking place, but there is a growing practice of refusing members of Parliament, who are not specifically named on the lists of members forming standing committees, participation in the deliberations of the committees. That happened to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) yesterday in the Standing Committee on Transport, I believe. He was accomodated by the chief government whip, who simply deleted his own name and substituted the name of the hon. member for Peterborough therefor. However, the committee chairman and the clerk seemed to be of the view that members who are not specifically named on the roster of members forming that standing committee were not entitled to participate in the deliberations of that standing committee.
It has long been the practice here, for many, many years, that notwithstanding the fact that the name of a member of Parliament may not be included on the roster of members forming a specific standing committee, he has the inherent right, as indeed is the right of all members, to participate in that committee's deliberations. Normally the practice has been that those members whose names are on the roster of a standing committee are called upon by the chairman first, either to ask questions or to state their views, but subsequent to that any other member who may not be on the roster, if he expresses a desire to do so, is then invited to participate in those deliberations.
4856

November 19, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
I merely raise this at this time so that perhaps the knowledge might be disseminated to the various chairmen of the standing committees that they should not be depriving the rights which are enjoyed by all members of Parliament to participate in committee deliberations, notwithstanding the fact that they are not specifically named on the rosters of standing committees.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have two things to say. First of all, it is true that members of the House, even if their names are not on the roster of a standing committee, may attend the meetings of that committee, but it is up to the chairman to recognize those who take part in the proceedings, and each committee is master of its own procedure. I know that those whose names do not appear on the roster of a committee do not have the right to vote. According to our practice, they are generally entitled to take part in the proceedings if the committee and the chairman agree. However, the hon. member has raised a specific question concerning the Standing Committee on Transport. In the absence of a report from this committee I believe, Madam Speaker, that it would be very difficult for Your Honour to rule on what may have happened. This committee is master of its own procedure, and I believe that it would be improper for you to make a ruling without having a report from that committee.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am very happy with the first part of the response of the government House leader because in those remarks he confirmed my view of the past practice of the House that members who are not named on the rosters of particular standing committees have the right to participate if called upon by chairmen to do so.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), may I point out to him that he does not have to rely on what he says is past practice. The matter is covered in the rules. There was a time years ago when it was a matter of practice, but a few years ago the rules were amended.
Standing Order 65(9) says quite clearly:
Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing or special committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but he may not vote or move any motion, nor shall he be part of any quorum.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the wording of that Standing Order 65(9) does not leave it to the discretion of the Chair. Unless the committee passes an order saying that non-members of the committee may not speak, the right of such non-members to speak is clearly provided in Standing Order 65(9).


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having read to members of the House the Standing Order to which this point of order refers. Although members usually know the Standing Orders very well, it is not a bad idea to read them from time to time. I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will agree that this Standing Order says exactly what has to be said about the committees. His point of order might be considered by the committee itself. The Standing Orders are quite clear that the committees are responsible for their own procedure and that any member who wishes to participate in the proceedings may do so.

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired:
Bill S-12, an Act respecting the Canadian Merchant Service Guild;
Bill S-13, an Act to revive Montilac Ltd. and Socam Ltd.;
Bill S-14, an Act to revive Tremus Industries Limited.


POINT OF ORDER
Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, last evening during the course of the late show an exchange involving me and the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) took place. The hon. member for Peterborough used some unparliamentary language to which I draw your attention for a moment, Madam Speaker. Because of the rules of debate during that particular exercise, there was no opportunity for me to raise the issue. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker) assured me last night that there would be an opportunity to do so today. He also undertook to have a look at the transcript of Hansard to see if further action were required.
In the absence of any action from the Chair on this matter up to this point, I wish to raise the matter. I refer to page 4841 of Hansard, in the left column, three lines from the bottom, where it is reported that the hon. member for Peterborough used the word "lie".
The term "lie" is clearly unparliamentary. I realize that the hon. member for Peterborough and I have a difference of opinion on an issue, but this is not the appropriate time to debate the substance of that issue. The fact is that whatever he
f|

November 19, 1980

might feel about my views or stance on the subject, he should use parliamentary language. I submit that, according to the parliamentary authorities, the term "lie" is clearly unparliamentary and the hon. member should be asked to withdraw it, as I invited him to do last night. If he does not do so voluntarily, I suggest the Chair has a clear duty to instruct him to withdraw the unparliamentary term.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise in response to the point brought up by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons) with regard to the debate last night in which I referred to a statement and used the words of the parliamentary secretary, with the addition of one word in error. I used words in my remarks such as "an untruth", and other parliamentary words which are perhaps considered acceptable, but I also used the word "cowardly" because I was quoting the parliamentary secretary when he referred to me as having used cowardly means in giving partial truths to my constituents.
At the time when I raised my question of privilege following the May 12 episode, you ruled, Madam Speaker-I respected your ruling and fully supported it-that there were ways in which I could address the subject of the statement by the parliamentary secretary in which he stated that I was using cowardly tricks. One of the ways in which you suggested 1 might handle it would be in a late night debate. So last night in the late night debate I brought forward certain subjects dealing with the "cheap, cowardly and political" points, to use the words of the parliamentary secretary.
To be exact, he said I had used "cheap, cowardly, political means" to point out that the parliamentary secretary was misrepresenting the facts, that I was, in turn, misrepresenting the facts and I was cowardly. However, last night I inserted a word which seems to have aroused the ire of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, and that was the word "lie".
When he rose on a point or order last night, he said he would yield the floor to the hon. member for Peterborough in order that I might clear up the matter and withdraw the word. I rose to my feet in order to respond to the request of the parliamentary secretary to tell him I would be prepared to leave in part of the statement, in which I said he was using cheap, cowardly, political points to score a political gain in his presentation, and that perhaps I would consider-and I do so now- substituting for the word "lie", in order to make the sentence grammatically and structurally sound, the phrase "mired in the mud of mendacity".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Well, I am sure we are all in favour of good grammar and good phrase structure-


Walter David Baker: And against mendacity.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure that anything the hon. member can do to help in that situation is important to this House.
Point of Order-Mr. Simmons
I was not present when these events took place. I gather from the intervention of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) that he wishes to stress that he was describing a situation, not addressing words to the parliamentary secretary which were unparliamentary. If that satisfies both hon. members, I can rule on the matter immediately and hope that everyone in the House is satisfied. However, I should like to make the reservation that I have not read Hansard and I was not present when the incident occurred. Despite that fact, if hon. members are satisfied with the comments which have been made on both sides of the House today, I guess we should leave it at that.


Roger Simmons: No, Madam Speaker, I am not satisfied-


Walter David Baker: Who is wasting the time of the House now?


Roger Simmons: -and I doubt that any member in the House, partisan issues aside, can be satisfied with that kind of response to an invitation to withdraw a term which is clearly unparliamentary. We cannot allow this word to stand on the record. On page 4841 of Hansard the word "lie" appears quite clearly, three lines from the bottom of the left hand column. Erskine May will tell you quite clearly that that is one of the terms which is unparliamentary, no ifs, ands or buts.
I submit, with respect, that this is not a matter of grammar or a matter of rewriting a phrase, or saying it differently. The hon. member, without equivocation, without entering into a debate and without explaining why he did it, should withdraw the term. There is no excuse for using it. It is unparliamentary and he is not allowed to use that term, I submit to the House. He should be asked, without equivocation or asides, to withdraw the unparliamentary term unequivocally and categorically. I am not allowed to use it in the House nor is any other member allowed to do so, so why should he be allowed to use it? It cannot stand on the record, and I appeal to the Chair to ask the hon. member to withdraw the unparliamentary word "lie" without any equivocation.


Some hon. Members:: He did withdraw it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I do not think the parliamentary secretary is paying attention-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Clearly I withdrew the word "lie". I should like to point that out.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: After the dissertation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I think I should at least be entitled to respond.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!

November 19, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Simmons


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment made a statement in the House which prompted me to follow the procedure as set out by the Speaker of the House, which was to address his statement that I in turn, through my announcement, cancelled the Parks Canada move from Cornwall to Peterborough. That is a blatant untruth.


An hon. Member:: It is a lie.


Mr. Evans:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: At that time I asked for the opportunity on a question of privilege. Madam Speaker advised me to take up the matter during the adjournment debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, could I just finish one sentence, please?


Madam Speaker:: 1 had understood that the hon. member had, in essence withdrawn an unparliamentary expression, but the hon. parliamentary secretary does not feel that the expression has been formally withdrawn. In that case, if members do not agree, I will have to look at Hansard, look at the "blues", to determine whether there has been a situation which calls for the withdrawal of any words.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have just a brief word on this point of order. When Madam Speaker is checking the "blues", if that is your intention, I would urge you also to check the "blues" with respect to the intervention of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) in the debate on the constitution when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was not present; he will find a good many things to withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Order, order! I will be ruling on only one situation.


Walter David Baker: There goes the Bank Act.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I understood that my second intervention-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: My second intervention was based on the contention that the hon. member had not withdrawn. I submit that in his second intervention he withdrew unequivocally. I accept that as an unequivocal withdrawal, and I do not think the matter needs to be pursued any further.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I ask the hon. member to co-operate. Since the hon. parliamentary secretary feels that the matter should not be pursued-and he was the aggrieved member-I think we will leave it at that.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I did not withdraw-


Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Gordon Edward Taylor: A point of order, Madam Speaker-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very definite point of order. 1 did not withdraw without conditions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I substituted.


Some hon. Members:: You cannot do that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 234, 810, 860 and 1,543.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Were (a) payments (b) commitments made in the past three fiscal years towards hospital construction costs and, if so, by province, what amount was paid or committed in each year?
2.	Were any commitments or payments made since April, 1979?


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare, National Defence and Veterans Affairs as follows: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare does not have hospital construction programs. Federal assistance toward hospital construction costs has been provided under the Health Resources Fund Program to assist with construction, renovations, acquisition and equipping of health training facilities, including teaching hospitals, as follows:
(a) Payments:
Payments 1979-80	1978-79	1977-78	: 4: MNewfoundland	-	2,951,975.60	71,057.45	Prince Edward Island	-	133,844.90	-	ItNova Scotia	-	-	561,178.75	New Brunswick	-	4,516,613.82	13,111.87	ftQuebec	1,296,016.79	1,497,347.69	7,404,597.19	Ontario	765,861.25	5,540,711.76	7,585,011.10	Manitoba	799,408.13	6,755,006.15	-	Saskatchewan	678,799.41	735,538.25	2,439,189.77	Alberta	-	2,670,784.00	-	British Columbia	-	10,530,388.59	2,044,736.34	Northwest Territories	-	-	-	Yukon	-	-	-	Canada Total	$3,540,085.58	$35,332,210.76	$20,118,882.47	*
Vy - [DOT];
I:
m' lP*i
:ir'!
.#* *

November 19, 1980

Order Paper Questions
(b) Commitments:
Commitments
Newfoundland	1979-80	1978-79	1977-78Prince Edward Island	-	1,676,971.12	-Nova Scotia	-	-	-New Brunswick	-	925,583.38	(12,825.45)'Quebec	-	(478,028.17)*	10,393,989.12Ontario	-	(17,889.29)*	5,792,498.90Manitoba	-	4,167,873.00	-Saskatchewan	-	-	584,676.50Alberta	-	2,967,537.81	-British Columbia	-	(2,989.00)*	14,205,138.00Northwest Territories	-	-	-Yukon	-	-	-Canada Total	-	9,239,058.85	30,963,477.07
Funds not claimed by provinces
2. For year 1979-80, see parts 1(a) and (b) above.
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned:
1.	(a) and (b) Payments for the past three years were as follows:
2.	Please refer to above reply.
Note: These expenditures represent progress payments to the provinces in accordance with the terms of hospital transfer agreements.


Mr. Towers: 1.	(a) On what date was the Metric Commission established (b) under what legal instrument does it exist (c) what are its terms of reference or its mandate?
2.	(a) What is the term of office for a member of the commission (b) are honoraria paid to the members and, if so, in what amount?
3.	(a) What are the names of the members of the commission (b) what are the names and addresses of previous members of the commission?
4.	Do any members of the commission, past or present, have an interest in any firm which manufactures, distributes or sells any form of weights or measures calibrating devices?
Fiscal Year
1978-79
Province	Payment (Sthousands)
British Columbia	$ 501.5
Alberta	309.1
Ontario	101.1
Quebec	654.8
Nova Scotia	261.9
British Columbia	21.3
Alberta	67.1
Ontario	44.3
Nova Scotia	458.7
Alberta	7.0
Nova Scotia	121.0
Quebec	42.0
1979-80 were as follows:	
Province	Commitments (Sthousands)
Alberta	$ 2,229.0
Quebec	51.0


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: In so far as Metric Commission Canada is concerned:
1.	(a) Metric Commission Canada was established by order
in council 1971-1146, 1971-06-10.
(b)	It exists under section 18 of the Government Organization Act, 1969.
(c)	Attached is order in council 1971-1146.
2.	(a) Term of office for a member of the commission is
three years, except for the chairman who is appointed during pleasure.
(b) An honorarium is paid to the members for the periods they are engaged in Metric Commission business. The amount is on a per diem basis set from time to time by order in council.
3.	(a) List of members:
2. Commitments and payments for year 1979-80, see parts 1(a) and (b) above.
In so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned:
1.
	(a)	(b)
1977-78 - Nova Scotia	26,100	279,918- Quebec	841,275	46,387- Ontario	4,483	-- Manitoba	304,055	-- Alberta	1,153,234	-1978-79 - Nova Scotia	273,900	6,018- Quebec	103,108	51,860- Manitoba	88,009	57,627- Alberta	69,174	394,7341979-80 - Quebec	335,468	600,000
Manitoba	129,879	6,494- Alberta	469,174	42,671
D. R. B. McArthur M. Archer L. H. Chater P. Demers G. L. Draeseke S. M. Gossage A. J. Groleau W. M. Hall
C.	J. Laurin
D.	D. Morris R. Parent
Mrs. B. Robinson A. S. Somerville Mrs. Y. Thode A. S. Tirrell J. O. Wright
Member and chairman Commissioner

n
n
ii
//
n

n
n
ii
n
n
n

November 19, 1980
Order Paper Questions
(b) G. G. E. Steele, 165 Sparks Street, Ottawa A. D. Cohen, 1370 Sony Place, Winnipeg J. E. Thomas, Brockville, Ontario (deceased).
4.	No.
SOR/71-276
GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, 1969 Metric Commission Order PC 1971-1146 10 June, 1971
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, pursuant to section 18 of the Government Organization Act, 1969, is pleased hereby to make the annexed Order to Establish a Preparatory Commission for Conversion to the Metric System.
AN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR CONVERSION TO THE METRIC SYSTEM Short Title
1.	This Order may be cited as the Metric Commission Order.
Interpretation
2.	In this Order,
(a)	"Commission" means the Preparatory Commission for
Metric Conversion established pursuant to section 3; and
(b)	"Minister" means the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce.
Establishment of Commission
3.	A committee is hereby established to be known as the Preparatory Commission for Metric Conversion, consisting of
(a)	a full-time member who shall be the chairman of the
commission, and
(b)	not more than fifteen part-time members, to be appointed by the governor in council.
4.	The commission may make such rules as may be necessary for the conduct of its meetings and the performance of its duties.
5.	(1) The governor in council may, upon the request of the commission, provide the commission with the services of such officers and employees employed by or in any department of the Government of Canada as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the commission, and the commission may obtain the advice and assistance of any department or agency of the Government of Canada.
(2) The commission may engage such organizations or persons having a technical or specialized knowledge on any matter relating to the work of the commission to advise and assist the commission in the performance of its duties.
Purposes and Powers
6.	The commission is established for the purpose of advising the minister on plans for conversion to the metric system, and for such purpose, the commission may
(a)	initiate, co-ordinate and undertake investigations, surveys and studies relating to the implications of conversion to the metric system in different sectors of the Canadian economy;
(b)	prepare, in consultation and cooperation with any department or agency of the Government of Canada, any department or agency of the government or any province, the Standards Council of Canada, or other interested parties an overall program for conversion to the metric system which will ensure, as far as possible, that any programs for such conversion in the different sectors of the Canadian economy are phased and co-ordinated in order that
(i)	the benefits of conversion to the metric system are achieved at minimal cost, and
(ii)	conversion to the metric system as a whole is effected to the best advantage to Canada; and
(c)	furnish, publish and disseminate information concerning conversion to the metric system.
7.	The commission shall advise the minister on the need for legislation or any other action that may be required to facilitate conversion to the metric system.
8.	The commission shall make such reports on its activities from time to time as the minister may require.
Oath
9.	Each member of the commission shall, before taking up his duties, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation in the following form:
"I.	solemnly
and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties that devolve upon me by reason of my appointment as a member of the Preparatory Commission for Metric Conversion and that I will not, without due authority in that behalf, disclose or make known any matter that comes to my knowledge by reason of such appointment. (In the case where an oath is taken add, 'So help me God')".


Mr. Gass: 1.	What amount was spent by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the preparation of the white paper on policy review?
2.	Will the white paper be tabled in the House of Commons and, if so, on what date?
November 19, 1980


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1. Policy review is now, and has long been, a continuing activity of my department. Part of the review process under the previous administration was identified as a white paper exercise, and expenditures that can be identified as belonging to it totalled $123,516. As of February 17, 1980.
2. The review process is continuing, with a view, among other things, to preparing a discussion paper for consideration by groups with fisheries interests.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a letter dated July 7, 1980 and signed by Mr. J.C. Best, executive director, immigration and demographic policy, Department of Employment and Immigration, circulated to all members of the immigration and demographic policy staff?
2.	Did the letter refer to an article in The Glohe and Mail of May 24, 1980 on the subject of immigration to Canada and did the letter state in part, that the minister "has requested that this article be circulated to all immigration staff as he feels that it accurately reflects his own thoughts on immigration policy"?
3.	Is it government policy to formulate policies in the field of immigration by consulting articles on the subject in The Glohe and Mail during the formulating process?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: E Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No, the article was the result of a personal interview by the writer with the Minister of Employment and Immigration and accurately reflected the views of the minister on immigration policy.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,542 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each of the past three years, what percentage figure of the total contracts awarded by the Department of Supply and Services went to recipients operating in each of the ten provinces and what were the over-all percentage of total contracts for each province during the three years combined?
2.	In each case, what was the percentage population figure of each province of the total Canadian population and did it compare with the percentage figure of contracts awarded?
3.	Will the government take steps to call tenders for its requirements to a greater degree in the western and maritime provinces and (a) if so, what are all the details and the individual provincial percentage targets (b) if not, for what reason?
Motions for Papers
4.	What was the total money value of all contracts awarded by the Department of Supply and Services (a) in each of the past three years and, in each case, what percentage of all figures went to recipients in each province (b) in the past three years combined?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. parliamentary secretary my notice of motion for the production of papers No. 24, dated July 11, 1980, which reads as follows:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the contract entered into between the government and the Canadian Media Corporation to perform its duties as agency of record for the government.
It was four months ago that I put my notice of motion for the production of papers on the order paper. The government has awarded an untendered contract to a company which did not exist before the contract was awarded. The contract was signed in September, and I think surely in the course of four months the government should be prepared to say to the House whether it agrees to accept this notice of motion for the production of papers. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could indicate to the House when he will be prepared to give the government's answer.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of that question and will refer it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette).
Bank Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
November 19, 1980

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 18, 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 the amendment thereto of Mr. Rae (p. 4816).
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise as I did last night to continue debate on Bill C-6 and to make an additional point to the three points I made last night.
Just to review very quickly my three points of last night, first of all they dealt with the location of chartered banks within the nation, or the location of the head offices of chartered banks within the nation. I pointed out that three of them, with a capitalization of $100 million, were located in western Canada; that seven of them, with a capitalization of $700 million, were located in central Canada, that is, four in Montreal and three in Toronto; that only one was located in the Atlantic provinces, in Halifax, with a capitalization of $50 million.
I made the point that serious consideration or an examination should be given by the banking system itself in terms of relocating its head offices in this nation, as big as it is and as dependent upon the banking system as it is. I suggested that it would be appropriate if one located in Calgary, if one considered St. John's, Newfoundland, and if the other one would perhaps consider Quebec City.
I went on to indicate that, because of the geographical size of the nation and the spread of the population across the nation, it was necessary for the banks to give the utmost consideration to placing on their boards of directors Canadians from all over the land, so that there would be regional representation on their boards of directors.
My third point was in connection with the use of Canada's technological might in terms of working on an export basis. Canada has great capability today in technology and in its amassment of engineering talent to work throughout the world in this area, but it must associate itself with the liberalization of the capitalization of some of these projects. I indicated that the chartered banks should look seriously at setting up a comprehensive system in regard to the use of Canadian technology and technological might overseas.
My fourth point deals with the evolution of a quasi-form of government bank. The shortcomings of the banking system for western Canada have caused much apprehension and concern over the years. For example, for the first time in Alberta there was an ability to amass sufficient capital together to deal with capital needs in the west and permit a growth formula, controlled and directed by the west itself instead of by central
Canada. In this regard it was advisable, on the basis of extracting money from resources, to set up vehicles like the Alberta Energy Company and the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund.
I want to speak about the use of these instruments to Canadianize Canada's oil and gas industry. There are two ways of doing this. One way is to use a blunt instrument to nationalize the oil and gas industry and literally take over segments from government funding and from some form of quasi national banking institution. The present government has embarked upon a system not of Canadianizing the oil and gas industry but of nationalizing it. There are some pluses and minuses with respect to this type of procedure or over-all policy.
As a member of the government in Alberta I was associated rather closely with the oil and gas industry. We decided at one point it was necessary to Canadianize some of the oil and gas industry. We arranged a remarkable tool for accomplishing that without disturbing the existing industry in all its dimensions. We set up the Alberta Energy Company, which is 50 per cent owned by the province of Alberta. The other 50 per cent was sold to the citizens of Alberta, who are Canadians in the truest sense of the word. In every possible way Albertans are Canadians, and they intend to remain as such. With the type of tool we arranged it was possible for Albertans, in conjunction with the Alberta government, to move on an equity share basis on new projects in the province of Alberta and therefore specifically and directly to Canadianize some of the growth of this industry. This was done to assist the industry, and it was done in co-operation with it. It created a terrific impetus to the growth and catalyzation of this industry, not only in Alberta but in western Canada.
Last summer when I was a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus committee on energy I wrote a memorandum in which I specifically proposed a national energy bank. That was a memo I wrote a year ago last August. I also indicated in it that in connection with the national energy bank in an effort to Canadianize some of the oil and gas industry in this nation-indeed, much of the energy industry in this nation-and in conjunction with money from the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund this would effect, on a gradual and co-operative basis, a degree of Canadianization of the energy industry. That is an acceptable way of moving forward, by using the financial resources of this nation to Canadianize in a gradual and acceptable way by using shareholders and government capital, if you wish, to increase the Canadian ownership of two vital industries in this nation.
I would like to put forward a comparison of that system, which is partially working so well in Alberta, and the federal government system of providing a quasi form of banking through their Petroleum Compensation Fund in order to buy additional multinational corporations. They wish to buy them in totality, not to buy 20 per cent or 30 per cent of some of these companies, which would effect some reasonable amount
November 19, 1980

of control, and nationalize them. They want to buy them in totality and add them to the corporate public giant called Petro-Canada, thereby increasing the inefficiency of this corporation. We all know that its inefficiency is increasing dramatically compared to the efficiency of some of the well-managed multinationals.
Mr. Speaker, nobody is against Canadianization of the oil and gas industry, or a movement toward the Canadianization of it through banking institutions or quasi banking institutions, through government funds or shareholders. Nobody is against Canadianization of the oil and gas industry in that way. Some of us have difficulty, though, with the proposal of Canadianization through the process of nationalization, which is a blunt weapon. This is an unacceptable weapon, which can be used in such a way that it could dictate policies, reducing the asset value of companies which have done business in Canada for many years. So they are prime targets for takeover at a low share value. Suncor is an excellent example of this. It was a company that pioneered the oil sands. This was a subject discussed rather hotly and heavily in the question period today. It is known that in the oil sands there are approximately 900 billion barrels of oil. About 74 billion barrels are available through surface mining, and 900 billion are available through in situ mining.


John Leslie Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be most interested if the hon. member could possibly relate his comments to the Bank Act, which is the subject before us now, and not to oil policy or the national energy program. Could the hon. member be asked to restrict his comments to the topic?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Edmonton East.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke yesterday about the Bank Act and about banking institutions in Canada I specifically stated that this system, which is vital to the nation, had enormous power in the circulation of wealth, finances, and the creation of credit. Indeed, I said that it had a great effect on the growth of the social structure and the organization of the nation in totality. I also spoke about the banking system and its effects on the growth and health of the industrial sector of this nation. That is a very vital and substantive part of this banking act. It extends from one end of the nation to the other, putting forward the fundamental nature of commerce.
Today the energy industry needs some $200 billion of investment to create growth during the next decade. Can the parliamentary secretary honestly suggest that the energy industry and the banking industry are not totally intertwined? Of course they are.


John Leslie Evans: What has that to do with nationalization?


William J. Yurko: Of course it does because you can raise money in several ways. Mr. Speaker, I do not have too much time left and one could spend a great deal of time on this topic.
I simply want to reiterate that Canadianization of a vital industry like the oil and gas industry could have been done in
Bank Act
such a way that the industry's growth and performance in terms of self-sufficiency would not have been affected to the extent that it was. This is a fundamental point.
The vital project at Cold Lake is the first of its kind dealing with some 900 billion barrels of oil which are in the ground. It was vital this process and this plant go ahead. That is one of the reasons why I wrote to both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of Alberta last August. I wanted to do whatever was necessary to see that this plan and this process went ahead, because it was a new form of technological development. By the way, that oil in the ground is better than dollars in any bank, but I wanted to see that this resource was developed and commercialized, since this in situ plant was the first such plant.
The point I am trying to make is that the financial institutions of this nation could have been used rather effectively to Canadianize a substantive portion of the oil and gas industry, as is being done in Alberta through the Alberta Energy Company and through investments of the Heritage Savings and Trust Fund in oil sands plants and in other areas. These institutions could have been used in such a way that they would not affect the industry to any great extent. I am honestly saddened, because I have spent so many years dealing with this industry as a minister in the Alberta government, that we have had to use such blunt instruments in relationship to Canadianizing the oil and gas industry, by nationalizing rather then by Canadian investment in the industry.
Those are my remarks, but I hope to have the opportunity again to speak on the use of Canadian capital, whether it be by the government directly or, indeed, by the people through investors and shareholders, or by corporations themselves, in regard to excess capital and Canadianization of the energy industry in Canada, particularly the oil and gas industry.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems which arises when this government introduces legislation is that it is considered to have descended from heaven and to be virtually the holy grail of legislation and not subject to criticism, unless one wishes to be mocked by government members, or to amendment, as was illustrated beyond any question of doubt as vote after vote rejected amendment after amendment during report stage in the House.
The government controlled the committee and accepted only some very minimal amendments. The act as it exists today is virtually identical to the act which was introduced three or four years ago. 1 sat on the banking committee four years ago and listened to the objections of hon. members from the province of Quebec in particular, and there was consideration given to caisses populaires and credit unions. Many of the proposals were accepted, instituted and put into the act by that committee four years ago. That particular committee was considered-


John Leslie Evans: Talk to Bert Hargrave.

November 19, 1980
Bank Act


Fred Alward McCain: At least I would be talking to somebody who understands what he is talking about, and that would be significant because the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) sat on the committee during its deliberations on agriculture and made a major contribution to one of the minor amendments which was of major consequence to farmers in this country, namely, that livestock dealers be protected for their deliveries up to the figure which is presently in the bill. The hon. member criticized the act, and it was only after great pressure by myself, by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and others, that the amendment was adopted. All of this occurred in the initial presentation and consideration of the act by the committee, like all the other changes.
The amendments which were offered in the House the other day were rejected out of hand. I believe that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) voted against every single amendment, regardless of whether an amendment came from my extreme left or whether it came from the official opposition. The hon. member was as guilty as the government itself in rejecting amendment after amendment by virtue of his vote.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not know whether or not the hon. member realizes that he is misleading the House. In referring to the contribution of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), it was certainly a great one, but there was no animosity in that committee with regard to the agricultural amendments.


Erik Nielsen: That is debate, not a point of order.


John Leslie Evans: If the hon. member will review the speech of the hon. member for Medicine Hat in this House yesterday, he will find that in fact-


Erik Nielsen: Don't abuse the rules.


John Leslie Evans: -the hon. member made the same comment.


Mr. Cullen:: You never do that, Erik?


Erik Nielsen: Never.


Fred Alward McCain: I have acknowledged the contribution of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, myself and others toward that end. I repeat, every amendment which was submitted to the House was rejected by vote, and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre contributed to that vote. I am referring to the voting in this House during the report stage of the Bank Act. Let us separate the apples and the oranges and get down to what I said initially. Every amendment submitted at the report stage was rejected in one vote after another by the government.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: And by the opposition.


John Leslie Evans: It is just not true.


Fred Alward McCain: The hon. member can read Hansard.


John Leslie Evans: There were 59 amendments.


Fred Alward McCain: Would the hon. member for Ottawa Centre reflect on what I said. Like the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), he is digging himself a deeper hole as he emphasizes his point. The amendments which were moved in this House at the report stage were rejected by the government.


John Leslie Evans: There were governments amendments which we accepted.


Fred Alward McCain: But those are government amendments, and that is a different structure.


John Leslie Evans: They are amendments.


Fred Alward McCain: They pleased the government, but what pleases the public is of a different consequence to this particular government.
I, like the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), appreciate the amendments which affected agriculture because they did so in an important way. I repeat, though, that the proposals were brought in on behalf of the caisses populaires and credit unions and were primarily supported by Quebec members of the government and opposition members when the act was initially submitted. There were some changes on behalf of those members which were very important, and which will make a better financial structure for Canada.
The act was primarily introduced-as I can see when I compare the 1967 act, which was finally passed in 1971, with the performance of the banks-to give the authority to the banks to perform functions which they were able to perform by virtue of the fact that they were not asked to observe the letter of the Bank Act of 1967 by consecutive ministers of finance over that period of time. The act has opened up the fields into which the banks more or less infringe, with the acquiescence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and his officers who are responsible for the administration and supervision of the regulations.
As a result the banks have been expanded to a degree which gives me great concern. I am concerned that we have established for Canada an oligopoly which will control the financial structures of this nation to the point where the Minister of Finance may not be able to control the money supply or inflation, since he may lose control of the M2 and M3 factors which must be considered in the fiscal and monetary policy of this nation. We are creating a structure which is now involved in virtually all fields of finance. The banking institutions can now go into equity, and under certain circumstances can deal with securities. The banks are into the mortgage business, leasing, and all sorts of fields.
I submit that we have created an oligopoly and abandoned the principle that banks were intended to receive deposits and loan money to creditors primarily for individuals and the businessmen of the country. Now we find that banks have the option of putting such money as they may have at hand into
November 19, 1980

fields which may be more lucrative than what small businessmen, farmers and others may wish to pay. Banks also have the opportunity to put their moneys, raised through deposit or through the issuance of equities of their own, where they wish to finance, by mortgages, the building of structures, for example, in Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal and so on. And if such a move creates a tight money situation for farmers, small businessmen or others, this act offers no means by which the banks can be directed in the spending of their money.


Bob Rae: You voted against our amendment yesterday.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, that is a funny thing. I have sat in this House and listened as these people on my left pleaded with the government to help Chrysler Corporation, a multinational-


Bob Rae: You voted against it.


Fred Alward McCain: -and applauded the government. Let the hon. member take one step at a time, Mr. Speaker. I will take another one when I am through. They applauded the government when it supported a Canadian multinational, Massey-Ferguson.


Bob Rae: Not true.


Fred Alward McCain: They applauded the government because jobs were at stake. They claim to be the friends of the job seekers and the employed, and now they interject in this debate. They want to pick and choose what they will support. They say that the oil industry should be dropped into perdition but they do not want jobs to be affected in Peterborough, Brantford, Windsor, or some of the other constituencies in which they wish they had stronger support.


Erik Nielsen: The Liberal bed is getting uncomfortable.


Fred Alward McCain: If they are going to pick and choose, to make flesh of one and fowl of the other, it would be better if they made their choices early and then were quiet.


Bob Rae: You have made yours, brother!


Fred Alward McCain: I do not happen to be one of those $100,000 a year lawyers, an apologetic millionaire associated with the NDP.


Bob Rae: Who are you talking about?


Fred Alward McCain: One of the boys who was appointed to a directorship. He is probably making more money than he ever saw, and certainly more than I have ever made or expect to make.


Bob Rae: Who are you talking about?


Erik Nielsen: Husky Oil, maybe?


Bob Rae: Name him.
Bank Act


Fred Alward McCain: It is all very well to exploit the dissatisfied people in the country and mislead them by supporting their complaints-by proposing the impossible as though it were practical, and then watch people be put out of work and go on the unemployment insurance rolls because the Government of Canada has adopted too many NDP policies. Hon. members to my left should get out of the Liberal bed and stand on their own feet for a change.


Bob Rae: You are going to vote for the Bank Act.


Fred Alward McCain: They should get out of the Liberal bed and speak for themselves for a change, and not talk out of both sides of their mouths at once.


Bob Rae: There is no room left. We will see who stands up for the government in half an hour.


An hon. Member:: The bionic mouth.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, they call themselves economists and socialists but we have seen, as they supported the socialist tendencies of the Liberal government, that unemployment has gone up, deficits have gone up, taxes have gone up-at what point in the tax structure will they be satisfied?
Having allowed the banks into all these forms of business and having created an oligopoly, ten or 15 years from now we may have some reservations about the success of this act. Have we created a structure so large that it could interfere with the fiscal and monetary policy of Canada? Will it be possible to reverse what has been done?
I have heard the excuses put forward for allowing the banks to get into the leasing business, such as the one that an American bank owns a leasing company in Canada. All of those things could have been adjusted by amendments to the Bank Act, or by restrictions on the operations of foreign corporations in this country. We should not have compounded the problem by extending the privilege, which is precisely what we have done.
I admire the hon. member for Bow River, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), and the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) for identifying a problem which exists in every rural constituency in Canada. It is impossible for the branch banking system that exists in this nation to offer the expertise in the village or small town branches that is necessary to oversee the breadth of business that they handle. The bank staff is usually trained in the small rural branches, at the expense of small business, farmers and fishermen, and the expanded field of business which would come about as a result of this act would be new to them.
I regret that hon. members in this House who come from urban areas do not understand the difficulties that will be faced by small businessmen and farmers. A member of the NDP mentioned that branches had been withdrawn from isolated communities in British Columbia. I am very sorry for those communities as I understand the problems some of them will face. Although the mileage involved is not as great in the province in which I live, the same thing has happened, to the

November 19, 1980
Bank Act
detriment of small communities in New Brunswick, and it is a matter of very deep concern.
The act does not place any obligation on the banks, however, to recognize the needs of farmers and small businessmen.
I am concerned about the expansion of opportunities available to banks, Mr. Speaker, because one by one the provinces have been forced into a structure in which they are financing small business and farmers. I think I am correct in presuming that one of the reasons for this is that, after the 1967 structure was created, there were other places for the banks to put their money. At a time when absolutely no control was exercised over the mortgage rate, small businesses and farmers could not exist because of the rates they were charged. Now there are government guarantees. The banks encourage people to go to the government to get a guarantee. If someone is refused a loan by a bank today, he can approach a government structure such as the Farm Credit Corporation, Small Business Development Bank and so on. Federal officials are encouraging this action. This is not the way the banks should operate, Mr. Speaker. The banks and the government should see to it that all businessmen, farmers, fishermen and others who require funds, are looked after by the banking structure of Canada. That is not the case, however.
We have created an oligopoly. I hope that Canada has a healthy fiscal future and I hope that my fears are not realized. I hope the Minister of Finance and his officials will exert the necessary influence to bring banks back to reality.
I should give an example of why I complain about the operation of the rural banks Mr. Speaker. A business friend of mine approached the bank in his community for a loan. As security, he offered assets valued at more than twice the value of the loan. The bank manager looked at his statement, which had been favourable and progressive, and suggested that he add his house as collateral. He owned the house outright, Mr. Speaker. This man had been engaged in a profitable business for ten or 15 years. There was no way he was going to put his house on the line, as this was not considered necessary according to standard banking practice in other areas of Canada. I checked with other members of this House to find out whether it would have been necessary, had he lived in a city, to do the same thing. The answer was no.
In the branch system in a city where there is a multiplicity of perhaps eight to 15 different bank branches, there is competition. In the village and small town structure of this nation there is no competition and there is nothing in this act which will create competition. That is my complaint. Lack of competition denies opportunity to small businessmen in Canada, and there is no mechanism by which the minister can exert any pressure.


An hon. Member:: Open a credit union.


Fred Alward McCain: I attended the opening of one the other day. It is a good idea and I am not quarelling with credit unions, nor have I attacked them. I have applauded the amendments
which gave them a better opportunity, but that is not good B enough. That is the government for you. The government is B your enemy, not us.	B


An hon. Member:: Do not get into bed with them, though.	B


Fred Alward McCain: I have a second example that I would like to B put on the record. I asked the president of one of the major	B
Canadian banks whether his branch had ever granted a	B
household mortgage to anyone in a small community in my	B
constituency. I told him that I did not believe the bank had	B
done this, although I knew the bank had taken mortgages on	B
some very large structures in the west, and I could name them. B However, I told the president that if I was wrong he was to let	B
me know. 1 told him that I would be blunt and that I knew he	B
had not taken a single mortgage on a new house in a certain	B
community in New Brunswick. I was not asking how many but	B
I told him that if I was wrong that he did not accept a single	B
mortgage in that rural community, he was to let me know.	B
1 must assume the bank did not issue a single mortgage for	B
the building of a new house in that community because I have	B
never heard from him since. As a person from rural Canada I	B
am alarmed that this act will go through as it is without any	B
consideration for the lack of competition, or any obligation on	B
the part of banks to supply the needs of the villages and small	B
towns of rural Canada. As hon. members have pointed out	B
repeatedly, it is in those areas where there is employment.	B
If control can be kept of the money supply and if inflation	B
can be controlled with this Bank Act, I will retract my words	B
five years hence if I am still here. But these are my concerns at	B
the moment and they are real. If I were president of the Bank	B
of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal or the Royal Bank of	B
Canada, and I had a choice on behalf of my stockholders of	B
taking a mortgage on a new building for company X in	B
Toronto or lending it to a fisherman in Campobello, I would	B
choose the highest return with the least risk, which would	B
probably be the mortgage in the city of Toronto. Having done	B
that, I must ask whether I would then have any money left for	B
the fishermen in Campobello. That is my worry. There is no	B
obligation on the part of the banks to look after people in areas	B
where there is no competition. These people are unable to	B
compete with large corporations in other parts of Canada for	B
mortgages which are attended to personally by bank presidents	B
and city competition. There is just nothing in this act for a	B
small town in rural Canada and	its residents.	B


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to	B
say a few words about Bill C-6 this afternoon before it is	B
passed. It is a bill to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec	B
Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, and to	B
establish the Canadian Payments Association. We have had	B
four extensions to the Bank Act since 1977. Hopefully this	B
time we will be able to complete and put in place a new act to	B
which all financial institutions in Canada will be able to	B
adhere.	B
Since banks were established in Canada, dynamic growth	B
has occurred. Assets are now at $250 billion, and 35 per cent	B
November 19, 1980

of net revenues comes from foreign operations. I mention foreign operations because there is no question but that the business the banks do in foreign countries aids Canada in trade generally. Rather than discouraging trade, we should be encouraging it, and we can do this by allowing other banks into Canada, which in turn will create competition in the banking system. The banking system is controlled by five major banks. I believe most of us see a need for competition. However, I find it very strange that on the one hand we would encourage expansion of the banking system partly by allowing foreign banks to come here, while on the other we are telling the oil companies to leave.


An hon. Member:: Who told them that?


Frederick William Wright: I find it even more strange that this government would support Chrysler Corporation by guaranteeing loans to an American corporation and on the other hand tell the oil companies they are not wanted.
I remember in Winnipeg in the early 1960s we attempted to obtain money for the producing provinces. We tried to raise money in the east. In fact we phoned all over Canada in an attempt to raise money for the small oil companies starting out. But what happened? We ended up going to the United States. We put small packages together and asked U.S. individuals to help us. That was the method by which a lot of the smaller oil companies got going. I realize the majors were here, but they were not doing all of the exploration. In fact it was the small oil companies to a great extent that brought in the competition for the major companies. It was not through the efforts of Canadians. But it was more than that. During the period of the 1960s and 1970s-and I must admit this is my opinion-the Canadian government actually discouraged the investment of funds.
Over the years those of us who have moved into the oil business could see that the Government of Canada was not encouraging people to enter the oil business. Yet, I find it very strange just two months ago I stood here and said that $600 million of Canadian money, sitting in Canadian banks, was going to leave the country for the United States. Little did I know then that that figure would double within a month and a half. Now over $1 billion of Canadian funds is leaving Canadian banks for the United States. It is also my opinion that the real purpose of the Canadian government is total nationalization of the oil companies. That is not based on lack of information or a lack of knowledge of this industry.
I am not sure whether present Canadian banks will be affected, but I have a feeling that there will be some effect on new Canadian banks. These new enterprises will look at the government and ask "has there been a major shift in policy from being supportive of industry to being a socialist government wanting to take over any industry that is vibrant?" The banking industry must now address itself to this problem. If the government should take over the oil industry, what is to stop it from taking over the banking industry? That is a real problem. If it takes over the oil industry and the banking industry, what is next?
Bank Act
As the representative of Calgary North, I cannot live with that. Quite frankly, that is not my Canada. However, I see a nationalization of industries coming far greater than we have seen before. When I have to deal with the separation problem in my constituency, it scares me. We are not going to hide behind, we are going to deal with it directly.
I sat here many months ago listening to members opposite from Quebec speak about their problem of separation. I must say that their problem was nothing compared to ours. You cannot turn ours around by standing here in the House of Commons and saying why the west should stay in Canada. There are studies out now by qualified individuals from the University of Calgary which suggest that it would be better for western Canada to separate.
I do not believe that. I have been across Canada and probably know it better than most people. I cannot put my head in the sand and presume the problem will go away, or that it is in any way similar to what we saw here some months ago. It is far worse. In my opinion we cannot turn it around. We cannot treat it like the Quebec problem.
Nationalization of the oil companies is a very real threat in western Canada. I would be very surprised if the board of directors of any bank in Canada did not have on its agenda in the last two weeks the nationalization of the banks. They must address the problem.
I wish to mention some of the good things which happened on that finance committee. We were very fortunate in having a minister who was receptive to many ideas. We got through a number of amendments. We were encouraged by the support of government members with regard to leasing, and now are very happy that automobile companies in Canada are being protected. All of us will be watching to make sure they do not abuse the privileges and protection they will receive under the new Bank Act.
The protection provided to cattlemen is a step in the right direction. Many of us feel it does not go far enough, but we are quite prepared to go along with the government on this point. To give cattlemen $100,000 protection when they sell their cattle to the livestock yards is not very much. That amount can represent as few as ten cattle. However, we recognize that we could not possibly provide everything the cattlemen wanted. We will be watching this new act to see that it fulfils the intent of what we wanted.
I now wish to make a few comments regarding the committee. We were fortunate in having on the committee members who wanted to see the act passed. Parts of it they wanted changed in order to improve it. However, speaking as a new member of this House, I was appalled at the NDP filibuster. I thought that they, like the rest of us, were here to do their best for the people of Canada. Little did I, as a new member, realize that they are not dedicated to the same purposes that I am.


An hon. Member:: That's true.

November 19, 1980
Bank Act


Frederick William Wright: They tried to push through amendment after amendment, even though they were getting nowhere. I suppose when I become more accustomed to this place and realize the kind of people they are, I will accept that. Elowever, quite frankly, the travelling road show which the NDP brought to that finance committee in July, bringing in members to alternate and speak to amendments, was ridiculous. How anyone in their right mind can vote for them in an election is beyond me. Fortunately, many Canadians who did vote for them are coming to realize that.
T want to make another comment which those on the government side may not like. As a new member perhaps I am not aware of all that can happen in committee. One evening we were presenting an amendment which had the sympathy of some of the government members. I was very surprised when two government members stood up, left the room and broke the quorum. Older members may say that is quite acceptable, but as a new member I found it ridiculous. I am here to represent those in my constituency. When members walk out of a room like that, whom are they representing? Perhaps all of us should stand in this House more often and say that we do not agree with this type of partisan politics.
I do not mean to be critical of the government, certainly not of the chairman of that committee or the minister, because I believe I learned a lot from associating with them. However, it is too bad when we have that type of politics in committee meetings. 1 know it goes on in this chamber, but surely it is not needed in committee meetings.
I hope we can conclude third reading of the Bank Act this afternoon and put in place an act which will allow more competition in the banking community. It is certainly needed. It should not be delayed any longer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my friend to the left said that he thought I had already spoken on the bill now before us. Clearly, from some of the comments made by both the government members yesterday and the socialist members calling themselves the New Democratic Party, my mere presence in the House last night seemed to be enough to stop the bill in its tracks, which rather surprised me. The fact is that I have not spoken on this bill, certainly at report stage or third reading. It was over six months ago that I even commented on the Bank Act which was then before us for second reading.
I wish first to comment on some of the strange happenings that occured yesterday, particularly during the speech of my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). As we know, he proposed an amendment, and because perhaps they are forgetting, I would like to remind hon. members that what is now before us is the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), 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.
The reason I read that into the record once again is so that there should be absolutely no doubt, when the name calling begins and when it is suggested that our party is somehow or other blocking the passage of this legislation through the House of Commons, that the very person from whom that is said to be an accurate quote is the person who, only a few hours before, stood up in the House and said he did not want the bill to proceed at all and that it should be referred back to the standing committee for further consideration.
Was the hon. member just frivolous in moving that amendment? Was he simply saying that for good measure he should throw the amendment in and "see what the House does with it" and that he can have a little sport with it? Was he saying that if somehow or other he could get things turned up, that would be good fun? Or did he mean it? If he meant it, surely it was his party which was trying to block the passage of this legislation last night and certainly not ours, because how can one more effectively block the passage of this bill than to suggest that we not now read it a third time but refer it back to the appropriate standing committee?
This is the cynical approach some of the socialists take to this House of Commons. They seem to feel that the House is a plaything and that they can come in and move amendments to delay almost permanently-certainly for the next few weeks- the passage of this bill, and then be able to walk out into the lights of the television cameras, the radio microphones and what not, and say that somehow or other it is somebody else who is blocking the passage of the bill.
If there is any doubt on this subject, let me recall for hon. members what I said when I spoke at second reading on May 6, as reported at page 784 of Hansard. I concluded my remarks by saying the following:
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this. If we, as a new Parliament, can pass this bill-
That was Bill C-6.
-that will go a long way toward creating a new sense of confidence in the economic community in Canada. This is needed, and I only hope that members will accept the challenge and say, "Let us debate it, get it into committee and passed." Thank you very much.
Those were my sentiments on May 6, those have been my sentiments ever since, and they are my sentiments today, and I challenge anybody in this House to show where I have ever blocked the passage of this bill in committee or at any stage in this House of Commons.


John Leslie Evans: Sine, you are too much.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I recall for those who sat in the finance committee that it was my motion, accepted by government members, which put a limitation on the amount of time during which the committee would sit for the further consideration of the bill. Hon. members will recall that it was then suggested and agreed upon that we would come back during the recess to
November 19, 1980

consider the bill so that it could be in a form suitable for passage in the Elouse as soon as the emperor chose to call back the House of Commons.


John Leslie Evans: You moved closure, Sine.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have said that because I believe that it is important that, contrary perhaps to what some government members may feel or certainly what some of the socialist members may feel, the record be at least accurate as to what has happened with respect to the bill which is now before us.


Bob Rae: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the committee to which I was referring, hon. members will recall that many witnesses were heard, and I suggest that there are various things which were considered. Some changes were suggested by members of my party.
In general, I think we have a better bill before us today than that which went into committee. Let me recall for hon. members some of the sections which were considered and amended largely as a result of action taken by members of the official opposition. Hon. members will recall section 12 of the bill which is now before us. That was with respect to covering institutions applying for bank charters and any public objections which might be raised thereto. We proposed that the Inspector General of Banks should be able to call full public inquiries with respect to such applications, and I am pleased to report that that was accepted. I think we have a better process to be followed under section 12 than that which the government was initially suggesting.
Section 28 originally stipulated that foreign bank licences should be renewed every three years. I want to come back to this question of foreign banks, but largely at our suggestion that was changed to one year in order to give the government a little better control over what foreign banks may be doing in future years with respect to banking in the country. Surely it does not behoove members of the government or the NDP to suggest that these changes were unnecessary or somehow delayed the passage of the bill which is now before us.
If they feel that, I would like them to go out and tell the cattlemen of this country that the changes for which we were largely responsible under section 178(6) would likely not have been made if we had not pressed the minister to accommodate the request of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. These are things which I think should be put on the record and understood.


John Leslie Evans: How can you say that with a straight face?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They should be understood not only by members in this House but also by the public at large.


Bob Rae: You should be blushing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Section 208 deals with the question of the banks holding reserves with respect to moneys which they may take for one to five-year terms. Hon. members will recall that in its eagerness to accommodate the banks the government in
Bank Act
effect told them to forget the reserves, there should be no reserves, "We want to give you that big break, you are not doing well enough and we would like to give you that added break". We suggested, largely on the representations of trust companies and loan companies, that that was perhaps an undue concession to be giving to the chartered banks.
The trust and loan companies indicated that they felt that it would result in severe added competition for them, and certainly prior to its passage, or even of an indication of what was in store for them in their own trust and loan legislation yet to be introduced in the House, they asked that the banks not be given that added advantage. We agreed with them and pressed the government, and I am pleased that the government did accept that it perhaps should not give that added concession to the banks. As a result section 208 now requires a reserve as opposed to the original government suggestion that there be no reserve for such encashable deposits.
Section 193 was the subject of much debate and comment. As originally drafted by the government, it would have given the banks tremendous leverage in going into the leasing field in Canada and particularly the leasing of ordinary automobiles and trucks. We opposed that. We impressed upon the government that this was a concession it was giving to the banks which we felt was unnecessary and unneeded. There were witnesses. There were representations made by various associations in the automobile leasing field.
However, our general feeling was that the government had to be pressed to concede that the advantage it wanted to give to the banks by allowing them to get into that leasing field was too rich and too lavish. I think largely due to the efforts of members of the official opposition the government finally backed up and agreed to give the banks only a limited right in the leasing field compared with the very generous rights it originally proposed.
Again there is the data processing industry. Representations were heard. Clause 174(2) deals with this. It was the government's original suggestion-they love the banks-that the banks should be given increased powers to go into data processing in this country. At least we managed to get them to change the onus in that connection so that, in effect, the banks would have to show that data processing is of a banking nature as opposed to the reversed onus which the government was proposing that anything was fair game for the banks so long as they could decide whether or not they wanted to go into data processing. 1 just touch on those points, because in the debate which will ensue, the facts perhaps will become clouded and we will forget to what extent the bill which is now before us is an improved bill. It is improved largely as a result of the efforts and activities of members in the official opposition.
Earlier, when I referred to foreign banks, I indicated that I wanted to touch on this question of the foreign banks' penetration in this country. You will recall that clause 157 in the bill states, and I would ask hon. members to listen carefully to the words:

November 19, 1980
Bank Act
Every person who, in any language, uses the word "bank", "banker" or "banking", either alone or in combination with other words, or any word or words of import equivalent thereto, to indicate or describe his business in Canada or any part of his business in Canada without being authorized so to do by this or any other act, is guilty of an offence against this act.
Then it goes on to say:
Every person who uses the name of a bank in a prospectus or advertisement for the sale of securities other than those issued by or guaranteed as to principal and interest by Canada or a province, a municipal or school corporation in Canada or a bank, is guilty of an offence against this act; but this subsection does not apply where such use is required by law and is confined to a statement contained in a prospectus that a corporation is the holder of shares of the capital stock or evidences of indebtedness of a bank.
In short, to any lay person who reads section 157 in our existing Bank Act it would appear that one cannot carry on the business of banking in this country unless one is authorized to carry out the banking business under the Bank Act. That was the law of the land for over 100 years, and it is not to be questioned. What I find most strange is that this government, which pretends to wish to Canadianize industry in this country, and in particular the petroleum industry, is, at the same time "foreignizing" the banking industry in our country in direct defiance of the existing Bank Act. Imagine what they have done in spite of the clear lav; of the land as I read it. They have permitted an estimated 80 to 90 foreign banks to set up operations in the country, with assets totalling something like $8 billion at present, notwithstanding section 157 of the existing Bank Act.
Is it not understandable then why people are so cynical about this government and about the coalition of the government opposite and its NDP allies?


An hon. Member:: How are you going to vote on the Bank Act, Sine?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We hear glorious statements such as, for example, the one which appeared in the national energy program for 1980, made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), a statement which, presumably, can be attributed to him. It reads as follows:
The significant fact today remains that the foreign companies control most of Canada's oil and gas industry, and of its revenues. Foreign-controlled firms control the future through the control of the land in which exploration takes place.
Throughout this document, all kinds of similar comments are to be found. The whole thrust of the document is that, in view of foreign ownership, the only way to put it right, to Canadianize the situation, is through some type of nationalization, ownership by the state as opposed to ownership by the private sector of petroleum companies which are declared to be foreign.
The point I want to make is that, whether or not you believe there is undue foreign ownership in the petroleum industry, surely it is strange to have a government which says, on the one hand, it wants to Canadianize the petroleum industry through state ownership, and at the same time says about the banking industry, which has been one of the truly Canadian owned industries in the country, "We want to open it up so that foreigners can now participate". Not only is the government eager to do it by having Parliament pass the bill which is now before us but, as hon. members will recall and as I have stated, it turns a blind eye to some 80 foreign banks setting up shop here and being active to the tune of $8 billion. In spite of that, the government asks us to believe that somehow or other it is the great Canadian champion.
I sometimes wonder where that illustrious Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) was when all this was going on, that minister who likes to say how much he hopes he will be able to Canadianize industry in this country and ensure it is owned by Canadians to a greater extent. The truth is that the government opposite is hypocritical. We have a government in power which is vacillating, pragmatic, deceitful. Ministers know how to win elections by deceit but, unfortunately, they fail to recognize that you cannot run a country by deceit only.
I suggest that hon. members look through the list of foreign banking corporations which the government has permitted to enter the country. It is truly astounding, notwithstanding the provisions to which I have referred in the existing Bank Act. For example, the Bank of America, which has an office in the Royal Bank Plaza in Toronto, shows assets in Canada amounting to $301 million. The total assets of that bank, which is one of the largest of the world, are $108 billion. They have been allowed to enter this country, notwithstanding the Bank Act. 1 could take hon. members through the list. ABN Canada Ltd. is a subsidiary of A. Oortman Gerlings and has assets in Canada amounting to $53 million. Barclays Canada Limited, a subsidiary of Barclays International Limited, has assets in Canada amounting to $625 million. BCI Finance Ltd., a subsidiary of Banca Commerciale Italiana Group, has assets in Canada amounting to $13 million. The B.T. Capital Services Ltd., a subsidiary of Bankers Trust Company, has assets in Canada amounting to $158 million, and it has an office in the Royal Bank Plaza in Toronto.
We have the Canadian Financial Company, which is a subsidiary of the Bank of Virginia, with assets of over $78 million. We have the Chemical New York Canada Ltd. and the Chemco Leasing concern, University Avenue, Toronto, which is a subsidiary of the Chemical Bank of New York, with $783 million in Canadian assets. Then we have the "biggie", we have Citicorp, 100 King Street West, Toronto, which is a subsidiary of the First National City Corporation in New York, with assets in Canada of over $1,600 million. I could go on and refer to Chase Manhattan Canada Limited, which is a subsidiary of the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York, with Canadian assets of over $175 million. We have the Continental Illinois in the Commerce Court North, Toronto, which is a subsidiary of Continental Illinois in Chicago, with Canadian assets of over $324 million. We have the Credit Lyonnais, which is a subsidiary of the bank with the same name in France, with Canadian assets of over $320 milllion.
In one sense the government is saying that it wants to Canadianize certain parts of our industrial structure. That
November 19, 1980

self-same government over the last few years, particularly since the early 1970s, has allowed bank after bank of a foreign nature to set up shop in Canada and carry on business.
The net result is that presumably 50 to maybe 60 banks will be licensed and permitted to enter into banking operations in Canada under the act which is now before us. 1 only ask that the government, as it accepts these new banks, also accept the challenge or obligation of policing them with respect to their operations in a more effective manner than they have been policed under the existing Bank Act which includes a complete prohibition against foreign banks coming into the country.
But an odd thing happens. 1 could take us through the various Japanese, German, Dutch, British, French and American banks, but there is only one foreign bank about which, for some reason, the government is determined to put an impediment in its way with respect to its eligibility to be an operating foreign bank in Canada. I see the minister is getting ready to speak. When he speaks, I hope he will try to clear the air as to why he singles out one foreign bank for a prohibition when he seems to be so generous in accepting 50 to 60 or possibly 80 other foreign banks into Canada. The bank to which 1 refer is a bank called Grindlays.


Bob Rae: Now the truth comes out. Here is the lobby. It is not for businesses, it is not for the car dealers. It is for Grindlays. Let the record show that the hon. member is for Grindlays. Is he not for Citicorp? Let's hear it for Citicorp, let's hear it for Lloyds. We can pray for Lloyds, we can shed a tear for Citicorp. You are a credit to your party, Sine.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I wish the socialist side of this coalition would just hear me out.


Bob Rae: I bet you wish we would go away.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If they would just hear me out they might not be so quick to join in the general condemnation. They should listen to some of the things I want to put on the record. Of all the banks which might come into Canada, the one which has the most presence, if you like, in countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan-


An hon. Member:: And it really helped the people there!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In fact, if we review the various branch operations of this bank-


An hon. Member:: You can say this with a straight face?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -we will find that of the 200 branches that bank has around the world, 60 alone are in India. The majority of its operations is in the countries to which I have referred, those Asian and African countries.


An hon. Member:: What about South Africa?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: For example, I could refer to the fact that there are branches in Zambia, Malaysia, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong, Uganda, Kenya and Zaire. I want to know what the government and its NDP cohorts-
Bank Act


An hon. Member:: They are bed partners.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What do they have against those countries?


Bob Rae: How will you vote, tiger?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why, of all the foreign banks they are willing to accept into this country, do they want so dramatically to say no to the bank which is active in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and those African countries?


John Leslie Evans: Because it is owned by Citicorp.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If we take a look at the world bank atlas, we will see that the majority of the countries to which I have referred have average per capita incomes below $200. They are among the poorest countries in the world. It really fascinates me why this socialistic little alliance indicates that that is the one place they do not want any banking connections. The fact that that bank has already arranged $150 million in lines of credit for Canadians to do export business over in those countries means nothing to them. They somehow or other say that they would like to see them disqualified, notwithstanding.
I am sorry I did not recognize from what seat on the government benches came the comment that Citibank is a shareholder.


An hon. Member:: It was the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the minister is recognized later this afternoon, I would like him to stand up and tell us that he knows exactly the shareholdings behind all the other foreign banks which presumably he is willing to accept. The fact is that he does not. But they zero in on this one bank on the pretext that they understand it is 49 per cent owned by Citibank.
I do not care if it is owned by Citibank, or who exactly are the shareholders of that bank. I am very curious as to why they seem to be dead set on preventing that one foreign bank from coming into Canada. It is a bank represented in areas of the world where literally no other bank is represented. If we are to accept foreign banks, why are they dead set against that one bank? I think there is a story to be told that is not being told.


Bob Rae: You are telling it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I should like the minister to elaborate on what are his reasons. If he can assure the House, with whatever technical problem there may be in clause 303(4), that he feels in all likelihood he can work out an accommodation for this bank, then I will be very much relaxed and satisfied that at least we are accepting all banks, as far as the initial criteria are concerned, without singling out one which seems to have a very interesting side to it that no other bank in the world has. That is an entree for us into not only Commonwealth countries but into some of the poorest nations of the world. What I would like to find out, Mr. Speaker, is what is that sort of little alliance, that socialistic alliance up to-

November 19, 1980
Bank Act


Bob Rae: How are you going to vote on the Bank Act?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They want to zero in, in what appears to be such an unfair way, with respect to a bank that I think could lead some of our exporters into those markets where we see so little activity at the present time.
When we had the opportunity to visit the Prime Minister of India, in new Delhi, in company with my leader, I can still remember how impressive it was to hear the prime minister state that we should restore the economic operation which could, and at one time did, exist within the Commonwealth of Nations. Frankly, I think we should. I think we should seize every opportunity to increase trade with such countries as India, Pakistan and African nations. If they are members of the Commonwealth I think we have a bond which we can capitalize on, not only for our advantage but for their advantage also. When this act is passed it is something I hope the minister will weigh, and hopefully he will see fit to accomodate it, and extend our trade activities into those areas. A national trading corporation is being proposed by the government. Unless they want to appear totally inconsistent they should not allow a trading corporation to be considered and, presumably, accepted, at the same time killing off obvious avenues to develop trade for Canadians in areas of the world which are relatively inactive at the present time.


Bob Rae: Maybe Grindlay's will set up a bank in New Brunswick for Fred McCain, and put their head office in Alberta.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it would be such a blessing if the NDP would join the Liberal caucus. Presumably they could settle that matter with it, and we would not have to listen to it in the House of Commons.


Mr. Skelly:: Don't bend over like that!


Bob Rae: There is a Liberal behind us. Don't bend over like that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when you stand in this House with socialists behind you, and near-socialists in front of you, you can understand what a Tory must do in order to keep his guard up.
As I said last May, if we can get on with it, and presumably we will pass the bill this month, I believe we will be able to get into a new banking environment in Canada. In many ways I think it can be constructive. I urgently press on the government that we are entering into a decade that will be the most revolutionary we have had since confederation, as far as banking in Canada is concerned. I hope that with the entry of these foreign banks there will be a continuing discipline applied by the federal government to ensure that the banking activity, and in particular the foreign banking activity in the country, will be for the benefit of all Canadians and not just for the benefit of a few. I say that because I think that the system will be very fragile for a few years.
If we have the opportunity to review the bank act a decade down the road, we might find that things will have occurred in those ten years that most of us in the House today would never have felt could happen. I believe if we do not have a vigilant minister and a vigilant inspector of banks that the banking system we have known, which is one of the best in the world- hopefully it will continue to be one of the best in the world- could be unrecognizable if we do not watch what we will be doing in the coming decade.
I do not want to continue. It may be that the NDP will get on with their blocking tactics now and we will find their true spots will show. I can only say that if they are having somewhat of a war with their friends on the government benches, I wish they would settle it privately and not take up the House's time any longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have seldom been as puzzled in this chamber as I have been this afternoon. We heard the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) say that the NDP members have been blocking passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I was told on Monday by our House leader that there was an agreement between the House leaders of the three parties that-


Erik Nielsen: Just two-you and the Grits.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the reason they are interjecting so much is that they are ashamed of the fact that they broke their commitment.
I was told there was an agreement that the report stage amendments would be voted on Monday evening. That did not happen because the Conservatives kept the debate going. I was told we would finish third reading last night. Who held it up? It was the Conservatives. Now we are told we are filibustering. We have listened to Conservative members talking about-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the record should show what the truth is. This so-called agreement which the hon. member is referring to never existed. Clearly the NDP are confused. They are so confused now they think that when they have an agreement with their cousins on the government benches that it is a House agreement. We were never party to an agreement and the record should show there was never any agreement with respect to the passage of the bill last night.


John Leslie Evans: That is false.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North-


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.
November 19, 1980


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the point of order raised by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). It is all very well for him to say that. I would like the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to come before the House and say exactly what his colleague has just said.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the same point of order, and as deputy opposition House leader, I back up 100 per cent what my colleague has just said. While there was an agreement-and the minutes of the House leaders' meeting will show-it was confined to the Liberal party and the New Democratic party and there was no such agreement coming from the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the same point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, several members are talking about things that happened when they were not there. The fact is there was an understanding among the three of us that this stage of the debate, the report stage and the third reading, would not take more than six days. Those six days ended last night. That was an agreement among the three of us, and those who are trying to deny it are responsible for a good deal.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, that is simply not true. The member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did provide the understanding which the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speaks about. He did provide that understanding, but there was no agreement. Indeed, the House leader, who is now in his seat, said, "Will you agree, then, to ..." I do not like disclosing matters which go on in House leaders' meetings. That should not be done, but the matter was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and is now exposed.


Bob Rae: You are completely exposed.


Erik Nielsen: If the bionic mouth would control himself for a moment, he will hear the truth.


Bob Rae: We all know how much we can trust you guys.


Erik Nielsen: I believe the government House leader will confirm that at that particular meeting the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, when asked by the government House leader whether there could be agreement as to time, said that he could not give such an agreement. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said that he had been informed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who has the conduct of the debate on this side, that there would be six speakers.
The agreement cited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was an understanding only and did not take the form of an agreement. Indeed, the hon. member for Nepean-
Bank Act
Carleton went out of his way to say that he could not give an undertaking as to the limitation of debate as requested by the House leader.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is no order of the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and myself attended that meeting as parliamentarians and no other individual, except we three parliamentarians is in a better position to know what happened at the meeting. I have absolutely no hesitation to support fully the comments which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just made. [English]
I confirm that there was no House order, but there was a gentlemen's understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: That understanding was respected by the House leader for the New Democratic Party, his party and by ourselves.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has a problem. As the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will realize, he has already been up twice on this matter. Perhaps I could invite the hon. member to think up a new point of order on which he may rise, because he has already risen twice on the same point of order. Unless there is some desire on the part of hon. members to pursue this discussion further, it seems to me that it has been vented and that we should return the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
The hon. member for Yukon seems to be insisting, so I will recognize him on a fresh point of order. However, it may have the effect of producing another round of discussion.


Erik Nielsen: With respect, Mr. Speaker, if the Chair had not been so premature it would have learned, as the hon. members present would have learned, that I was rising to say that because the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is not present perhaps I could reserve in his name the possibility that he may wish to contribute to this discussion tomorrow afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Here he is now.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is here now. He was absent when this matter arose.


Walter David Baker: I saw some of it on TV.


Erik Nielsen: The government House leader has confirmed in every respect, and qualified by his definition, that what went on in the House leader's meeting as being a gentlemen's understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's right.

November 19, 1980
Bank Act


Erik Nielsen: Both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and members opposite have said that there was an agreement with respect to the termination of this debate. My understanding, in discussing the matter with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, is that that was not the case at all. In fact the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton went out of his way, when requested by the government House leader to give a commitment, to say that he could give no such commitment. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is here and is familiar with that meeting, and familiar, now, with what went on in the past few moments.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the floor for just a moment, I watched the "public" House leaders' meeting on television, and it was quite interesting. But since the matter has been raised publicly and since my name was used publicly, perhaps I should read from the minutes of the House leaders' meeting.


Yvon Pinard: Who took the minutes?


Walter David Baker: The minutes were taken by my executive assistant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: They are dated November 13, 1980, and were circulated on the same day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To whom?


Walter David Baker: They were circulated to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), Senator Flynn, Mr. Fairnie, and Miss Huntington and other officials in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, the PC research office and within my own office, so there would be no doubt, if questions were asked of these people, they could be answered if possible. The minutes with respect to the Bank Act read as follows:
Marcel Lambert has offered to end the report stage of the Bank Act on Monday evening, and third reading on Tuesday evening (according to Pinard).
There was an offer, and some discussion may have gone on. The minutes continue:
I said we had no reason to carry the debate on but I couldn't guarantee the schedule, although it seemed reasonable.
The "I" refers to me, and I said quite clearly that I could not guarantee the schedule. The request did not seem unreasonable, but I could not guarantee the schedule. After listening to this debate on television, the point, in my view, is whether or not there had been an agreement which had been binding between the parties and binding on the House in the absence of a House order. There was no such agreement, and I would not make such an agreement with my friend unless I could. There had been a discussion which carried over two House leaders' meetings and a number of days on the estimate of time that would be taken from our point of view, even with extended hours.


Yvon Pinard: Six days.


Walter David Baker: Yes, six days. But if the issue here in the House is that there was some binding agreement between me as the House leader, the government House leader, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which would apply even in the absence of a House order, that is not the case. The minutes which were prepared by someone else at the time, and signed by me as being correct, and which I have now read into the record of the House of Commons, indicate that there never was such an agreement.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we have already spent too much time on this matter.


Walter David Baker: You raised it.


David Orlikow: Indeed, I raised the subject. I have worked with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for many years and I am prepared, on the basis of my experience, to accept his version of what happened. If others do not wish to accept that version, that is their business.
We heard a great deal from the hon. member for York-Peel about the so-called coalition between the members of the Liberal party and the members of the New Democratic Party. We will see in a very few minutes where the real coalition lies, because members of our party have said on every occasion in the House, and in committee, that they disagree fundamentally with many of the important clauses in the Bank Act and will vote against the act. The hon. members for York-Peel, Calgary North (Mr. Wright), and Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), this afternoon criticized important sections of the act and pointed out what was wrong with them, but when the debate is over in less than one hour, those three supporters of free enterprise, who are so opposed to the so-called socialists on the Liberal side, will vote with those so-called socialists for the exact bill which we will vote against.
I ask the hon. member for York-Peel: who is coalescing with whom? The hon. member for York-Peel says that by moving the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), we are filibustering the bill. We moved that amendment because we are concerned about the tremendous amount of money involved in the foreign loans which the banks have made. We are particularly concerned about the loans which have been made to countries such as South Africa and Chile. These countries have received loans from such Canadian banks as the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Royal Bank, and the Orion Bank in England. Our concerns are shared by such organizations as the United Church. That was a very legitimate concern, and we put it in an amendment.
I assume that the hon. member for York-Peel and other Conservatives who are so critical of banks will vote against our amendment, even though they should not.
November 19, 1980

The hon. member for York-Peel criticized the government for permitting and encouraging foreign banks to come to Canada. This party does not believe they should be coming, and that is part of the reason we will vote against the bill. After listening to the long speech of the hon. member, 1 assume he will vote for the bill. So much for his opposition to foreign banks.
We are opposed to foreign banks. This government failed significantly to expand the powers of the near banks and so the foreign banks will carry the ball for the government's argument for increased competition. We believe it would have been healthy and more consistent with a policy of gaining control of the Canadian economy, to strengthen Canadian financial institutions rather than encouraging more subsidiaries of foreign banks. We think that foreign banks will concentrate on wholesale or large scale commercial business. Statistics from the Bank of Canada support this view. Assets of the 35 to 40 foreign banks operating in Canada through their representatives' offices have grown by 169 per cent over the last four years-from $1.7 billion in 1975 to $4.8 billion this year, while the assets of the Canadian chartered banks have increased by just 94 per cent.
That is the case with the foreign banks, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for York-Peel made quite a critique of them and then, with his Conservative colleagues, proposes to vote for this Bank Act which will permit them to expand.
We heard the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte complain that the banks do not look after the interests of small business. In the committee, our members proposed amendments that would require the banks to allocate more of the capital they have available for loans to small business, but the Conservatives voted against that suggestion. We argued that banks should direct their funds to more useful purposes. We proposed that they should be required to make more of their investment portfolios available for housing at a reasonable rate of interest, especially housing for low and moderate income people. Of course this was not supported by the Conservative party. They are not prepared to put their votes where their mouths are.
The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte argued that the banks do not make money available for loans to farmers or fishermen in the small towns and rural areas. When we proposed amendments which would require them to do just that, the Conservatives voted with the government against them.
We heard the hon. member for Calgary North complain about the amendments that our members of the finance committee proposed to this bill. Of course they proposed an amendment which we felt would strengthen the Bank Act and which would have directed the banks to make part of their portfolios available to people in isolated and rural areas. Some Conservative members had been calling for it, but when it came to the vote they were conspicuous by their absence. They certainly did not propose such an amendment themselves.
The hon. member seemed worried about the possible nationalization of the banks but, Mr. Speaker, no member of this House argued for that. There is nothing in this bill which
______________________________4875
Bank Act
would indicate movement in that direction. I suppose what he was talking about was the fear that the government is going to take over the oil industry. Mr. Speaker, there are many people who, like president-elect of the United States, Ronald Reagan, are opposed to public ownership. We could discuss the merits of American public ownership and of private ownership. I am puzzled and confused when I hear members of the Conservative party argue against public ownership.
There are publicly-owned telephone companies in western Canada, Mr. Speaker. In 1908 a Conservative government in Manitoba established a publicly-owned telephone company, and no one since then has suggested they should get rid of it. Alberta also has a publicly-owned telephone system. That province has had a Conservative government for a number of years and before that it had a Conservative government which called itself a Social Credit government. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) could tell us about it. It never moved to get rid of the publicly-owned telephone system. Almost every province has a publicly-owned power company and many of these were started by Conservative governments and expanded by Conservative governments. No one has suggested we should get rid of that public ownership.
The Conservative government of Alberta has taken over Pacific Western Airlines which is now a wholly-owned public corporation. I do not know how they can square that with their belief in free enterprise. Then there is the Alberta Energy Company, Nova Corporation, the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company. All of these have a substantial public investment, and they were established by the Conservative government of Alberta.
I have to assume that the Conservatives oppose public ownership except when it is proposed by Conservative governments. That is a very interesting way of looking at things.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the companies the hon. member has just mentioned are in competition. They do not have a monopoly; they are in competition with others, and the shares are owned by the public.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it was not my understanding that the Alberta telephone system is in competition with any other, but it may be. Petro-Canada is certainly in competition with the privately-owned energy corporations. Even this party has not suggested that all energy corporations should be taken over and run by the state.
I would remind the hon. member for Bow River that in almost every other country in the world, whether Norway, Sweden or any western European country, governments own a very substantial percentage of most of the new oil and gas development in recent years. Since World War I, BP has been 50 per cent publicly owned. That great exponent of socialism, Winston Churchill, took over 50 per cent of it.
I should like to take a few moments to indicate some of our reservations about this bill, Mr. Speaker, and why we propose to vote against it. We not only speak against the bill, we vote against it. That illustrates the difference between this party

November 19, 1980
Bank Act
and the Conservative party which speaks against the bill and then will vote for it, as I believe it will.
We are against this bill because, in our opinion, it fails to meet the needs of the Canadian people. We believe that for too long the Canadian banking system has been allowed a central position in the economy of this country without playing a key role for the benefit of Canadian citizens. That is not to suggest that the banks have necessarily abused their position. What I am saying is that the opportunity to use the banking system as an instrument of public policy to benefit Canadians, and to strengthen our economy, has been missed and it will continue to be missed if we pass this bill as it has been drafted.
The disparities and the weaknesses of the Canadian economy are well known and well documented. What is especially worrying to us is that these disparities and weaknesses result from underlying trends in the national economy which continue to go untreated. The problem of regional disparity is getting worse, and is accompanied by very high unemployment. In fact we have the highest rate of unemployment in the industrialized world. We also have low rates of job creation. The manufacturing sector in this country is deteriorating. The share of that sector in the national work force is dropping. It has dropped from 26 per cent in 1973 to 19 per cent in 1979. Research and development are inadequately funded. In the past five years, $13.8 billion in dividends and interest payments has left the country. A further $8.5 billion left in management fees, patent fees, licence fees, copyright fees and the like.
We say the banks are, to a large extent, responsible for that situation because the banks have not been directed by governments of this country, Liberal or Conservative, to play a socially useful function in this economy of ours. We say the banks should be one of the best instruments for helping to put this country back to work by developing resources for the benefit of Canadians. Instead, the banks have been given tremendous economic power. They have used it largely to benefit their directors and shareholders.
I do not want to repeat today some of the things I have said on other occasions, and which other members of our party have said. However, the system of interlocking directorships we have in Canada in which bank directors are also directors of other corporations, has helped to build a resource not just at the banks, which have grown at a tremendous rate, but has helped to give an even greater stranglehold each year to the large corporations in Canada.
We have a situation where directors of each of the major banks are in turn directors of the major industrial and business corporations in Canada. The Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, in fact all of them are involved in this kind of operation. Directors of the large corporations, such as the president of the CPR, the president of Seagram's, the president of Brascan, and other corporations are in turn directors of banks. Each of them is interested in seeing their corporations grow. They grow obviously at the expense of the small businessman, the local
entrepreneur, for whom our friends in the Conservative party have so often expressed sympathy, and on whose behalf they are very loath to do anything of any real significance to help.
We do not apologize for our opposition to this bill, nor do we apologize that our members did what the hon. member for Calgary North said they did, and that was bring in a large number of amendments. They did it knowingly and with the support of all members of our party. They did it because we have fundamental disagreements with the government and with Conservative members of Parliament who, despite all of their protestations, are going to vote for this bill. They will vote for this bill despite being so critical of so many of the provisions in it, because they wrote the bill. The former minister of finance helped draft this bill, as did the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). And to whom did these people go for help? They went to the very people this bill is supposed to regulate and monitor, the people in the banking community. They got the kind of bill, despite the protestations of some of their backbenchers, which the bankers wanted.
The same bill which was introduced by the former minister of finance, with very few amendments or changes, comes back today in this session brought forward by a Liberal government. It proves again what we have said so often, that there is virtually no difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties.
I conclude by saying that we are going to vote against this bill despite the claims of the hon. member for York-Peel that there is a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. I am certain that members of the Conservative party are going to vote for the bill. These votes we will have will demonstrate very clearly to Canadians that if there is a coalition of parties in this Parliament, it is between the two old line parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. We, as always, oppose this bill and bills like it which are brought forward either by Conservative or Liberal governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
November 19, 1980

Bank Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 
Madam Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost.
The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Benjamin Blackburn de Jong Fulton Hovdebo Jewett (Miss) Keeper Knowles
Messrs.
Lewycky Manly Miller Mitchell (Mrs.) Murphy Ny strom Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Rae
Robinson (Burnaby) Rose Skelly Young-22.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
++NAYS


Some hon. Members:: Nay!
Allmand
Andre
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-T willingate) Baker
(Nepean-Carleton) Beatty Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blenkarn
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Bussieres
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Foster
Fox
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Frith
Gamble
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
Gray
Greenaway
Guilbault
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Mayer
McCauley
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McMillan
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Hamilton East) Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Olivier


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. Madam Speaker: It being after six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6.08 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 20, 1980