1980-11-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English ]

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, since the budget was introduced the prime interest rate at Canadian banks has risen to 14 per cent. The dollar has dropped to its lowest level in relation to the American dollar in over a year, despite massive government intervention in the money markets. There is despair in the stock market as investors sell Canadian issues to take advantage of better opportunities in the United States. Therefore, as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the government take immediate steps to restore some confidence in the Canadian economy and reverse its ill-conceived economic measures set out in the budget.


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.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, in light of your ruling yesterday, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls on the government to announce today its intention to bring in a resolution which would authorize the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee on the constitution to be covered by both radio and television.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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.
*	V *


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the commitment of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to amend the so-called magic ten rule, which presently operates as a prerequisite to qualify for maternity benefits under unemployment insurance, and in light of the demeaning effect of this rule and its rigid application, as seen in the case of Mrs. Katherine Edwards of Kitchener, Waterloo, who has been denied maternity benefits because she is 53 minutes short of the mandatory ten-week insurable employment period-a decision taken without regard for the significant overtime she worked-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House asks the minister to instruct his officials to be flexible and sensitive in such borderline cases until changes to maternity benefit legislation are enacted, as promised.


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.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES TO EXPAND USE OF NATURAL GAS FACILITIES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that there is a drastic need to reduce the consumption of oil in this country, and in light of the fact that the government is apparently eager to encourage Canadian home owners and businesses to switch from oil-fired furnaces to gas, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the government give serious consideration to providing financial assistance to municipalities and/or gas companies to allow for the expansion of gas

November 7, 1980
facilities to regions of the country now on oil where it would not be feasible ordinarily to provide such 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.

[DOT] (mo)


CONFERENCE FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE ENCOURAGEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES IN REACHING OBJECTIVES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I seek the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canadians have a deep interest in international security, human rights and cooperation among nations, and in view of the fact that the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe, known as CSCE, begins officially on November 11, 1980, in Madrid, Spain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That this House urge the representatives of each nation to work in a spirit of co-operation to achieve the objectives of security, disarmament, trade, human contacts, free flow of information and human rights.


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.


RESTRUCTURING OF OIL SANDS PRICING POLICIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The federal government has structured its oil sands pricing policies to aid its policy of nationalization and confiscation of segments of the oil industry. This is an unacceptable policy. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the federal government should undertake immediately to restructure its oil sands energy pricing policies to provide uniform, consistent and fair pricing for all tar sands oil being produced and commercial terms for all new tar sands projects which would permit rapid capital recovery and accelerated development of this major resource.


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.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise as a result of the appearance of officials of the CBC this week before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Considering the fact that a Conservative "heavy" has recently charged that the CBC has been infiltrated by "NDP moles", while the NDP believes the corporation is dominated equally by Liberals and Tories, and Quebec Liberals frequently express alarm that Radio-Canada is under the influence of separatists, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Secretary of State inform this House exactly which political party actually runs the CBC and whether or not that party might be the Rhinoceros Party and, if so, why the Rhinoceros Party has been denied its legitimate right to control the CBC.


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.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the many fears respecting entrenchment of language rights in the constitution as they apply to public servants, and that the resolution entitled "A Declaration of certain Principles respecting Employment in the Public Service of Canada", passed in June of 1973, is not law, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House instruct the government to bring forth the necessary legislation so that paragraph 7 of the resolution of June, 1973, will be made law as part of the Official Languages Act, and that paragraph 7 of the resolution be expanded to include Crown corporations, so that unilingual public servants will not feel stifled in their jobs or denied promotion because they are not bilingual.


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 7, 1980


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On Tuesday of this week the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) put forward a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding the release of Soviet dissident, Anatoly Shcharansky. Regrettably, that motion did not receive unanimous consent.
Since, however, the House has in the past unanimously agreed to resolutions concerning Mr. Shcharansky's freedom, and since it might be construed by certain countries that what happened on Tuesday was a weakening of the resolve of this House that Mr. Shcharansky be freed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That Mr. Shcharansky's case in particular, and that of Soviet dissidents in general, be brought to the attention of the signatories to the Helsinki Agreement, and particularly to the attention of the Soviet Union at the Madrid Conference next week, by the Canadian delegation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Moved by Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) and seconded by Miss Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):
That Mr. Shcharansky's case in particular, and that of Soviet dissidents in general, be brought to the attention of the signatories, especially the Soviet Union, to the Helsinki Agreement at the Madrid Conference next week by the Canadian delegation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence and Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am proud to remind all hon. members of the House as well as all Canadians that next Tuesday, November 11, is Remembrance Day. As required by tradition, I should like to say a few words.
Most of us will return to our respective ridings to take part in official ceremonies commemorating Armistice Day, the purpose of which is to remind us that during two World Wars and the Korean conflict a great many men and women from every corner of the land put on Canadian military uniforms and wore them with the utmost distinction.
Remembrance Day

As usual, the Government of Canada will be holding a ceremony thousands of miles away at Vimy Ridge. It was there at Easter, 1917, that Canada showed the world what it was all about. The Canadian fighting in France came together for the first time as a single force and in less than a week performed a deed which other armies could not accomplish in three years. Successive generations of Canadians built on that reputation. Few gained the glory of Billy Bishop. It was sufficient to serve, enough to do one's duty to Canada. We owe our prosperity and freedom to those hundreds of thousands of unsung heroes.
These men and women fought, not for personal gain, not for glory of conquest; they fought for their homeland. This was their love. Duty was their creed. Truly they are Canada's heroes. I ask all Canadians to pause on November 11 and remember the thousands of our fellow countrymen and women who fell during the holocausts of the two World Wars and the Korean conflict to preserve our peace and our country.

Next Tuesday, when we pause with pride, let us reinforce our determination to emulate them in their generous deeds for Canada. Let us demonstrate on that day and in our way how proud we are of them. Let us demonstrate also, each and every one of us, that the faith they had in future generations was not unfounded, and that their sacrifices and sufferings were not in vain. We owe them that much.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, as Progressive Conservative spokesman for veterans affairs, it is once again an honour for me to join in the tribute to our fallen comrades.
This is the sixty-second anniversary of the date on which the battle ceased on the western front. At that point in history, 62 years ago, people thought they had experienced the "war to end all wars", but as we know now, 21 years later war broke out again, to be followed by the Korean war and a series of smaller conflicts around the globe. Today we remember 100,000 war dead and they live again in the hearts and minds of Canadians everywhere.
I feel we should also bring to mind the veterans who returned from those wars and who are now suffering under the weight of rising prices and falling pensions.
We can do no more than pause and remember our war dead, but we have a wonderful opportunity in this country to do something positive for our returned veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, may we never fail to pause on Remembrance Day to recall how great is our debt to those who served our country on the field of battle in World War I, in World War II, in Korea and in the other conflicts in which we have been participants.

November 7, 1980
Oral Questions
Indeed, we of the New Democratic Party join with ali the rest of the members of this House in remembering those who served, particularly those who gave their lives. Let us also remember those who survived but came back to live their lives under difficulty. We think in particular today of the late minister of veterans affairs who spent the rest of his life still fighting for his comrades-in-arms. We remember also the families and the survivors of those who served.
Let us pay tribute to all of them at this time of the year by renewing our determination to do the best we can for our veterans and for their families. Let us also renew our determination to put in place the kind of economy that will help us pursue the dream of that day when men shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks and, please God, learn war no more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. GORDIE HOWE
Madam Speaker:: I know the House will have already noticed the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished athlete and gentleman, Mr. Gordie Howe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
\ English]

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, perhaps I could put my initial question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the budget. In view of the fact that this has been the worst received budget, certainly in Canadian history-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -back to the time of Walter Gordon, with rising interest rates, with the dollar falling 1.5 cents since the budget was introduced, with our reserves pouring out of the country, with the Toronto Stock Exchange index having fallen over 4 per cent, and with the oil and gas industry index having fallen over 17 per cent, would the Prime Minister-instead of fluffing the question off on to somebody else-give serious consideration to a review of the budget to see whether certain measures cannot be rescinded, similar to what happened after the Walter Gordon episode in this House?


Mr. Lalonde:: Joe Clark was not even there to vote against it last night.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, I do not understand why the hon. member wants to discuss his nightmares originating from this experience last year which ended in a defeat in the House and in the elections.
I would like to indicate to the hon. member that most Canadians understood on budget night that they would get more through indexation, that is $1.6 billion of purchasing power.
Canadians also understood on budget night that the government has maintained the indexation of social measures such as family allowances, old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement which we had increased by $35.
Canadians understood that the 22 per cent increase in the economic development envelope indicated the priority of this government in the next few years, that it was a new start for the Canadian economy and would stimulate employment.
And finally, they accepted the great challenge offered in that budget, that is, to make the country self-sufficient as far as energy is concerned and to control the development of and exploration for oil and gas in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister, and I hope this time he will answer it. Obviously his Acting Minister of Finance is simply dreaming. My question to the Prime Minister is this. If there is no intention to right some of the wrongs that are in this budget, will he indicate to the House why this is, in view of the fact that at one time he said he had wrestled inflation to the ground? At another time he stated we were on a program to reduce inflation from 10 per cent to 8 per cent to 6 per cent to 4 per cent. Incidentally, Madam Speaker, that 4 per cent was to be in effect two years ago. If they have been so wise over these years, will the Prime Minister indicate what has gone wrong, or has he simply now abandoned his thought of getting inflation down to a reasonable level as he at one time told the Canadian public he intended to do?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the intention of the government to fight inflation has been asserted very clearly, not only during the election campaign and in the Speech from the Throne, but it was reaffirmed in the budget: all the measures then announced by the government were directed towards that goal. However, the government has always indicated that reducing the inflation rate cannot be achieved solely by government action: it must be done through the united effort of all agents or elements of the economy. It must also be achieved
November 7, 1980

through the conviction of the members of this House that the agents of the economy must fight inflation together. Consequently, stirring up a climate of panic, as would the hon. member through his groundless remarks, does not help in encouraging a common effort on the part of the agents of the economy toward a real victory over inflation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again I have a question for the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker. The Canadian public do not care whether inflation is linked in isolation or in combination or what measures the government takes as long as we start getting some results. Will the Prime Minister at least show some compassion for the consumers and home owners in this country by indicating whether, in these budgetary bills yet to come before the House, there is any hope that some steps will be taken to relieve the effect of rising interest rates in this country, mortgage rates alone having gone up 2 per cent per annum since he took power last March?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the matter of interest rates and the hardships they inflict upon some people has been debated repeatedly in this House. It was even discussed when the hon. member was in government. Until now, we have maintained that a measure to protect one group against high interest rates could be unfair to others because home owners are not the only ones who suffer from them. So that builders, businessmen and home owners should have to absorb the cost of higher interest rates is all part of that effort all citizens must be willing to make, in order to weather through this period of economic difficulties. That is part of the united effort, the common will progressively to restore our economy and achieve the objectives of higher production in the next five years.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. Now that we have had that dissertation on mortgage interest rates, perhaps I can ask the minister this. In view of the fact that mortgage interest rates are rising, and we have a two-point mortgage interest rise which on a $40,000 mortgage means an extra $60 a month, can the minister advise what he is suggesting is a course of action for the low and middle-income Canadian family who are looking at renewing their mortgages in the next six months?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to indicate that figures for starts in the last month indicate a strengthening in the industry as a result of additional starts. I hope that is a signal that the industry is
Oral Questions
showing a trend toward strengthening and that that strengthening will be reflected in other sectors of the economy.
In terms of assistance to people, specifically as to the roll-over situation, the hon. member will recall that the government, faced with the prospect earlier in the year when interest rates were higher than they are today, responded with the objective of assisting those people who would be seriously hurt by the rise in rates. So we introduced under AHOP the level of a 30 per cent protection, that is, interest, taxes, principal etc., and directed our attention toward those people who would need help the most. That remains the objective of the government. Our response to those people who would be hurt seriously is to look, on an individual basis, at those who find that circumstances make it very difficult for them to renew their mortgage. As the Minister of Finance authorized and said of the government, we will watch that situation and if, indeed, it is one that would warrant government action, we certainly would be on top of it and supportive of individual requests.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I suggest to the minister that someone who is renewing a mortgage is not interested in housing starts. Under our plan last year, the average Canadian home owner with a $40,000 mortgage would have received a credit of $94 a month in 1981. That amount would be paid to them. Does the Liberal government have any plan to assist the low and middle-income earner who is faced with these sky-high interest rates and he, she or they consider that to be serious?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, our response is, first, to the needy, to those who need help the most. I should like to point out that under the plan of the government opposite, at least 50 per cent of Canadians who were renters were ignored by that plan. There are people who, at present, pay on average 35 per cent of their gross income toward shelter costs. Where is the equity in the response of a program which ignores those people who are in need?


SMALL BUSINESS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister as the man responsible for over-all government policy. Considering that the Bank of Canada rate has gone up once again, continuing this upward spiral, which will mean that the largest corporations in Canada will be able to borrow at 14 per cent but small business will have to pay between 16 per cent to 17 per cent, and as everyone knows most of the new jobs which are being created in the Canadian economy as well as in the U.S. economy are in the small business sector, 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister what specifically the government has in mind to help out these small businesses which are hit in a way that makes it
4546

November 7, 1980
Oral Questions
totally impossible for them to expand and create the kinds of jobs we need in the economy now?


Pierre Bussières: should like to remind the hon. member that the budget already features a measure for small businesses, the bonds, which will bring temporary relief to small businesses which are in need; and that applies particularly to the type of preoccupation expressed by the hon. member.


EFFECT OF U.S. &quot;BUY-AMERICA&quot; POLICY ON CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, even the minister should know that the so-called program for small business assistance that he is talking about will aid only 5 per cent of small businesses and that 95 per cent will be excluded.
I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister which perhaps he will answer, since it concerns our direct relations with the United States. The Bombardier Corporation of Montreal has just announced that it is opening a new plant in Barrie, Vermont, creating 200 new American jobs instead of jobs in Canada, and it is doing this as a direct result of the "buy-America" legislation which exists in the United States. Considering that the president-elect has indicated very clearly that he wants to strengthen this "buy-America" legislation, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what the government intends to do about getting the U.S. government to change this legislation which so adversely affects employment in Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Pierre does not want to answer.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we had been holding very active and urgent discussions with the previous U.S. administration. Just before the adjournment of the House, we had been holding discussions with the present U.S. secretary of commerce, Mr. Klutznick, and we intend to open discussions with the new U.S. administration as soon as possible after their cabinet is in place.
I might also point out that while this plant will mean some 200 jobs in Vermont, it was established there to enable the creation of some 400 jobs in La Pocatiere in Quebec through the carrying out of this contract. I hope my hon. friend does not oppose that.


Madam Speaker:: A further supplementary, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie).


John Edward Broadbent: Only the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could see the loss of 200 jobs as providing some kind of benefits to Canadians-


Madam Speaker:: Order please. I am sorry but I was confused. I meant to recognize the hon. member for Oshawa but I did call the hon. member for Rosedale.


John Edward Broadbent: I do not know, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order please. I think I owe the House an explanation. I was writing down the name of the hon. member for Rosedale because I saw him rising for a question later on. The hon. member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I do not know which of us should rise on a question of privilege!
My last question is to the incomparable Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I said "incomparable" with just a tinge of irony!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Having failed to produce jobs for people at Massey, having failed the auto industry, having failed the steel industry because of its problems with the buy America act, and having lost out in the cabinet in his attempts to get an industrial strategy, will the minister finally fulfil at least one promise he made to the people of Canada, that unless he obtained what he promised for them, he would submit his resignation now?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we should ask the Leader of the NDP why he has not resigned as a result of his efforts which lost his party all its seats in northern Ontario and brought about an absolute failure to get the support of industrial workers in Ontario and in the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On the other hand, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada we took action which has created the basis for the preservation of the 40,000 jobs connected, directly and indirectly, with Chrysler Canada. We have shown our willingness to make a commitment, if the private sector does its job, which will preserve and increase jobs at Massey. This is a demonstration of our achievement and our commitment to preserve jobs and increase jobs for working people across Canada, something which, on the basis of comparison, the NDP and its leader have shown themselves to be totally incompetent, and incapable of doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 7, 1980


SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister will know that on Monday the Canadian Council on Social Development condemned the government's budget as having, and I use their words, "a devastating effect on millions of disadvantaged Canadians". The Minister of Finance attacked the council, which has served this country for 60 years. They had to come back yesterday with a public statement defending their position and indicating that their concerns needed to be dealt with. In particular, they were concerned about the 500,000 Canadians, the so-called working poor, and I quote their words on page 3.
It is these people, the working poor, who will suffer most from the recent budget.
I should like to ask the minister what she intends to do to offer relief to these people?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, it is with regret that I have to make the following remarks on yesterday's press release by, and press conference of, the Canadian Council on Social Development. I say "with regret" because the council has played the role of advocate for the poor in our country which is unique and essential.
However, yesterday the council focused away from the work it did at the beginning of the week and toward the so-called working poor. I have to tell the hon. member that the criticism made by the Minister of Finance and the qualifications I made regarding the council's first document I now have to bring to its second document. The council's table 1, which is called appendix 1, for instance, includes in the incomes of families on welfare the child tax credit and family allowances. They do not include those for working poor families.
I am not saying life is not difficult for the working poor, but I am saying that for a family of four there is an annual, indexed, non-taxable sum of about $960 missing in each of the tables. This is quite a serious distortion. That is all we are saying. We can only applaud the work the council does in trying to remind all Canadians of the poverty in our society, but serious mistakes were made in that document.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, 1 am certain that the minister would not want to mislead the House. The table she refers to clearly differentiates between the working poor who make money as a consequence of low-paying jobs and how much money they get on welfare. The council is dealing with the fact that this budget forces those Canadians onto welfare. That is why the table is there.
There are many other concerns raised in the second report, which is some 14 to 15 pages long. Will the minister meet with the council? The council is supported by her own government. Will she meet with the council and see what she can do to resolve the conflicts among herself, her government and the
Oral Questions
council so that the people who are affected by this budget are aided?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think it is a false battle which is being discussed. The council does receive quite an important sum of money from my department; I think the amount is close to half a million dollars. It does its work completely at arm's length from the government, and it must remain that way. There is no doubt that the council's role of advocate is essential, and I will not interfere in its work.
There is no need to point out that we meet regularly. I had meetings very recently with the council. However, I have not had a meeting since the new executive director was appointed, for the obvious reason that I think he is a former employee of my department. I think people have to settle into their jobs and find their style of work, and I respect that.
However, my fights will continue to be with people on this side of the House to make sure that the portion of money going to social development remains the biggest amount spent by this government. I will fight to make sure that it continues to be indexed to the full cost of living. That is my fight, and that is the way I intend to continue my work.
There is no point comparing two kinds of poor. I have, however, said that the council has made a serious mistake in its figures, and that does not help the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism who is responsible for the co-ordination of the government's advertising program. Figures released indicate per capita government expenditure on advertising in Canada of $6.66, and the federal government is by far the largest single advertiser in the country, up from seventeenth place in just ten years, with an outlay of three times that of General Foods, the second largest. In view of the comparison with the United States where the federal government is the twenty-eighth largest advertiser, with a per capita expenditure of only 65 cents, can the minister explain the rationale of the government's deeming it necessary to spend ten times per capita the amount spent in the United States for advertising?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I believe it is important that the Government of Canada, especially in a country with such a small population and such a large geographic area, communicate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I hear "oh, oh!" from the other side. All I know is that since I assumed these responsibilities I have tried

November 7, 1980
Ora! Questions
to take the system put in place by the Conservatives and improve it to have better evaluation of programs, to be sure that taxpayers' money is being well spent and that the various regions of the country are being properly communicated with. 1 think that anybody who is thoughtful about the state of our country would probably agree that we have a real problem in communicating with each other and making Canadians well aware of how their federal tax dollars are spent.
We are a major participant in the Canadian economy. Collectively the provincial governments spend far more than we do, but I make no apology, and I certainly did not see any indication that the previous government would act any differently from the way we have.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, what precipitated my question was my looking at Supplementary Estimates B which were tabled by the government. Those estimates reveal an increase at least of $26,925,000 on advertising this year alone, and an increase, for example, for the Canadian Unity Information Office of $15,172,000. That is more than the dominion spent in the first year of confederation totally. There is an increase of $9,555,000 for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. There is a threefold increase in each of the instances I have mentioned.
Is it the position of the government that the press gallery here is simply doing an incompetent job of explaining to the Canadian people what is happening, or does the government take the position that the Canadian people are a little slow and have to have this kind of direction from the government? What is the reason for this Orwellian increase and the 1984 mentality of this government?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, there is a certain element of hypocrisy in the hon. member's question. At the moment we have two out-front Conservative governments and one pseudoConservative government at the provincial level advocating positions of their governments, not endorsed by their legislatures largely, spending taxpayers' money in putting forward positions, which is something I pledged we would not do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Precipitated by you.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: That is not true. What we are doing is what 1 said we would do when I was questioned some weeks ago, and that is communicate to the Canadian public the programs of the Government of Canada endorsed by this Parliament. That is all we are doing, and that is what we should be doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given
the Prime Minister's repeated assurance that native people would be participants in the process of constitutional change in all matters affecting them, and given the government's failure to involve native people prior to drafting the proposed resolution on the constitution, could the Prime Minister confirm that he has received a letter from the president of the National Indian Brotherhood requesting an early meeting to discuss the constitution, and would the Prime Minister indicate whether he has agreed to such a meeting and, if not, why not?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, according to the information I have received from the responsible minister, the government has offered the native groups some $1.4 million to research their constitutional claims. There have been repeated meetings with officials and with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and very recently there have been meetings at the official level. I have in correspondence with the native leaders indicated that I would be prepared to meet with them at some point when in their own preparation they felt they had some specific proposal to put to the government.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the government's position always seems to be that it is willing to throw money to the native people so that they can hold a meeting among themselves. They would like to have a meeting before the end of November at which time their all-chiefs conference is being held so that they can discuss the constitution now during this first stage.
Could the Prime Minister indicate whether he is aware of the anger and the frustration of Indian, Metis and Inuit people because their rights have been completely ignored in the proposed charter of rights? How does he think native people can be effective participants in this first stage of constitutional change which directly affects their basic rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is not correct to say that they have been completely ignored. The resolution before the committee refers to their rights not being changed in any way. The precise definition of those rights in a written constitutional document is something, I repeat, that we have assisted the Indians, native people, Metis and Inuit to research for themselves. If they come up with some form of amendment which is acceptable to all parties in this House-and I should say hopefully to several of the provincial governments-we are prepared to accept amendments on this as on other things.
I would merely want to point out to the hon. member that I think the simple claim of aboriginal rights, without anyone knowing exactly what it means, is not a matter which one can convincingly argue should be put in the constitution at this time. First of all, the courts would be called upon to interpret such a constitutional amendment, and I think everyone would want to know what aboriginal rights are, what are their extent, to whom they apply, and so on.
November 7, 1980


REQUEST DEPARTMENT UNDERTAKE RESEARCH INTO GASOHOL
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has just given our country an efficient energy strategy for the next ten years. Knowing the government objectives aimed at energy self-sufficiency within the shortest delay, can the minister tell the House if his department intends to intensify research into gasohol and, if so, how?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we have set aside a huge amount to develop new energy sources. Several hundred million dollars have been earmarked for research and development over the coming years. In fact we have allocated some $240 million more for the ongoing research program to promote research and development, particularly in the field of new energy sources. I said $240 million but the exact figure is $260 million. Obviously gasohol is one of the new forms of energy which will be eligible for subsidies for research and development.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Just on that last point and by way of clarification, I wonder if he could check those figures again. My understanding is that the figure of $260 million is for the total research and development of energy, which would include also nuclear, not just renewables.
My question concerns what appears to be a gap in the national energy program which might affect tenants of both small and large apartment buildings who are forced to pay their own heating bills. Can the minister tell the House whether he has in mind any way that landlords might be encouraged to develop programs for retrofitting or to do things to their buildings to make them more energy efficient? Because they have no incentive now when indeed the tenants are paying their own heating bills.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, on the first point I want to stress that the $260 million for research and development over the next three years will be additional to, or over and above, the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent by the federal government, the largest share of it having gone into nuclear. That additional $260 million, the overwhelming share of it, will be in the non-nuclear field and in new forms of energy, renewable forms of energy, particularly.
Oral Questions
As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, our program for insulation obviously is one which is available to all forms of houses. While it is true that in many instances the heating bill is paid by the tenant, it is also true that in many instances the owner-landlord is also contributing to that cost. I think it would be extremely difficult to devise a scheme whereby we could start differentiating between landlords or between landlords and tenants. This program is of a general nature. It is one that is of benefit to all Canadians. We encourage all landlords and tenants to support this particular program and to make use of it. I think any home owner, whether it is his own house which he occupies or whether he is the landlord, will find that he will benefit from insulating the house and reducing heating costs.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 should like to ask the minister how far he thinks $500 will go to insulate a 100-unit apartment building? Because that is the limit of the available resources for those landlords. I am quite happy to see research and development in nuclear continue, but as far as I can understand from the national energy program, that $260 million includes $100 million for research into nuclear energy and waste disposal. I think that is appropriate, but I think we need more in renewables.
Finally, would the minister consider extending the provisions for retrofitting and insulation which go beyond CHIP in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, so that other areas in the country which do not have the opportunity to switch to natural gas, areas where electricity costs are very high, or indeed areas where people are already on natural gas but have very poor housing, can take advantage of this extra money?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that we are eagerly awaiting the report of the parliamentary task force on renewable energy. What I have seen and heard of the work of that task force seems to be very positive and we are looking forward to receiving that report. Once we have received it and if additional funds are required in this area, we will be very happy to allocate the necessary funds to answer any new worth-while initiatives which are not specifically mentioned in the program. We have set aside some money in order to answer the proposals which might come from this parliamentary task force.
As to the suggestion of the hon. member, it is a worth-while one. Certainly I will take it into consideration to see whether we can make further adjustments to our program later on, bearing in mind his representation.

November 7, 1980
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


GASIFICATION PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Everyone knows about the interest shown both by Nova Scotia and Quebec toward the regasification project. Last Friday, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion told some reporters before the Chamber of Commerce in Quebec that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had informed him that it would be completely ridiculous to choose Canso as a site for this project, which has obviously greatly encouraged Quebeckers to try to get it for themselves. Can the minister now tell the House whether he has indeed examined this project and whether he considers it ridiculous, as indicated by his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in Quebec last Friday?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, not only is the hon. member misquoting the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but I believe he is even misquoting the newspaper article to which he has referred.


Roch La Salle: I must repeat, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion told reporters in Quebec that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources considered that it would be absolutely ridiculous to choose Canso as a site for this project. 1 would like to ask the minister whether he can now confirm that the statements of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion were well founded, in contradiction to what the minister has been saying for some time in the House to the effect that this project was still under consideration. I believe that it is important for the population to understand the significance of the statement made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that such a question should be put to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion himself, to find out what he did or did not say. What I wish to stress is the fact that the hon. member does not even properly quote the newspaper article to which he is supposed to be referring.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The
faculty of dentistry at the University of Toronto, which is Canada's largest dental school, has recently lost its full accreditation to that of provisional accreditation. Since this is an indication of weakness in the teaching program and has a significant impact on the quality of dental care which is available to Canadians, is the minister aware of this problem and what is being done about it?


Monique Bégin: I am aware of this problem in a relatively superficial way. It does not fall at all under the responsibility or the jurisdiction of the federal government. If the hon. member is interested, I can inquire and obtain more information, which I will forward to him.


Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, 1 assume that the minister is concerned about the over-all health care of Canadians. With that in mind, and the fact that she is committed to preventive health care, is it true that she has no dentist in her health services directorate? If that is so, does she have any plans to rectify this major deficiency in her staff?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, this is one of those days when I wish I was a provincial health minister. I am the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare. Within these parameters I try to make sure we have the best medicare in the country and the best health services. The direct delivery of services does not fall under the jurisdiction of my department but is the full responsibility of the provinces.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is supplemental to the one asked earlier today by the hon. member for Rosedale. It is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There are rumours-and this government seems to thrive on floating rumours and balloons of one kind or another-that the minister's next attack on the poor will be by way of taking an axe to the Canada Assistance Plan. That is to say she intends not only to place a limit on the provincial payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, but that she intends to reduce it considerably. Since she has already managed to upset senior citizens and the working poor, and it is now a question of welfare recipients, she has the opportunity today to stand in the House, as I would ask her to do, and put an end to this rumour that her next move will be to attack the Canada Assistance Plan and welfare recipients.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's description is like the wording in a cartoon, and I suppose I must stand up and answer although I am not sure I Fit her description.
The purpose of the government's objective, which was expressed through the budget, my role and the role of the team in my department, and of the standing committee on which the
November 7, 1980

hon. member does not sit and to which she could come-that would be appreciated since there are not enough people in this country fighting poverty-is to make sure that our program's target with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan, which is a program providing billions of dollars of federal moneys to those in need, to social services and welfare, will remain the way it is. Of that the member can be sure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the minister will remember that she would come before a committee only to fight against the extension of spouse's allowance. That is what she would do in committee.
I ask the minister, since she has refused to meet with the Canadian Council on Social Development, and since she has refused to do anything to satisfy concerns with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan, if she would meet with her cabinet colleagues-the people who are supposed to exhibit compassion-and ask them if they would stop pressuring her to cut back on the welfare recipients of this country, something we know the cabinet has in mind to do.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think this debate in no way helps anybody, especially those to whom 1 thought the hon. member was committed. She speaks of my being against increasing the extension of the spouse's allowance. She knows that is not true. I choose my priorities differently and I chose to find hundreds of millions of dollars to increase the GIS by $20 a month in 1979.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: When the opposition came to power for a short time, to my knowledge they brought in one baby social measure which amounted to $4 million. We were in opposition and had to fight them to raise it to $10 million. That is what we did for the spouse's allowance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: With respect to the other accusations she makes, they do not make much sense nor are they helpful. As a matter of fact, I have forgotten what they were about. I simply repeat that 1 have never refused to meet with the Canadian Council on Social Development. I would like to say that is pure rumour. At the beginning of her question, the hon. member said she was operating on the basis of rumour. I do not do that. I fight on the basis of fact and reality.


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


BILINGUAL BONUS FOR SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I realize he has a personal commitment to the Official Languages Act, but I am concerned about two actions which his government has taken lately which have hurt the implementation of that act. As we know, the translators have been without a contract for the last 19 months. This has resulted in services, programs and documents not being available to citizens in both official languages.
My question is really with regard to another negotiation with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. All members of that employee group are bilingual-and I congratulate them for that. What I am upset about is that, in the round of negotiations which is continuing at this time, the government has refused to pay that group a bilingual bonus. It is the only group which does not receive the bilingual bonus. I think if the government is committed they should be acting on that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's first question, I am not clear what stage of negotiation the parties have reached.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: They are still carrying on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 understand they are still carrying on. I know the hon. member would not want me to intervene in this dispute at this stage, on one side or the other.
As far as the second question is concerned, I will take it as notice. I am not aware of the facts the hon. member has brought to my attention.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for that commitment. In fact, negotiations with both groups have broken down and this is something else the Prime Minister can look into. In both cases the problem is the government's refusal to accept the conciliation board report. I would ask the Prime Minister, when he is doing his research into this matter, that he ask the ministers responsible to take a much more positive attitude toward conciliation board reports and to stop making the public service more militant.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that we are now talking about two management-labour disputes, which have nothing to do with the government's policy on bilingualism; it is a matter of dispute between two contending parties. I fail to see how the hon. gentleman could find that we are not following up on our bilingualism policy because there is a labour dispute with a particular union. It does not seem to follow at all, Madam Speaker.

November 7, 1980
Oral Questions


TRANSLATORS' DISPUTE-STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, my question follows along much the same lines. It was intended for the President of the Treasury Board but, in his absence, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could answer it. It also pertains to the translators' strike, which is now starting to affect our committee activities. While it is understood that there is a broad area of agreement in the settlement, I wonder if I can be advised whether negotiations have broken off, and whether the point of contention is the alleged refusal of Treasury Board officials to permit the Department of the Secretary of State to predetermine the amounts of the salary deductions that will be applied during the slowdown period?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, as the question implies, the discussion is going on at two levels. It is going on firstly at the Canada-U.S. level. As my hon. friend knows, Eastern Airlines has not used its Ottawa-New York licence. Therefore, through different channels in the United States, we are looking at the possibility of using airlines other than Eastern Airlines.
At the other level, Air Atonabee and First Air are also candidates for approval by both regulatory bodies in Canada and the United States. The first effort is toward getting a direct airline service which we tried to get on its own without the pre-clearance facility. That is the first line of effort and, of course, the second will follow.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member asked that question, as it will partly answer the question of the hon. member who spoke previously.
It is not true to say that there has been a breakdown in negotiations between translators and their employers. Hon. members are aware that the Treasury Board has already accepted the conclusions of the mediator's report. A qualification has been made by the union representatives to the effect that the discussions which were supposed to go on to determine salary adjustments following last summer's work slowdown be resumed. This morning they requested through the spokesman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board than an independent mediator be immediately appointed to settle this minor point which still stands in the way of a collective agreement. Consequently, at this stage the Treasury Board is awaiting the recommendation of the staff relations board to resolve that minor point and put an end to this most troublesome dispute. I am sure all hon. members from all parties in this House are equally committed to linguistic equality and to the fulfilment of that goal.
*
* *


AIRPORTS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. With respect to direct air service between Ottawa and New York, I understand that the government has approved the concept of at least two applicants before the board. Would the minister tell the House whether or not within the government there are discussions going on to allow customs pre-clearance, a service which would be of benefit to international passengers whether they be leaving or entering Ottawa? Are those discussions continuing?


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, but he has left the House. Perhaps I could address it to his parliamentary secretary or to whomever represents the Prime Minister in his absence from the House. Is the government planning to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code permitting euthanasia along the lines of the 1969 amendments which permitted therapeutic abortions?


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, there are at least 12 priorities involving the Criminal Code at which we are presently looking. They range from the Judges Act to the omnibus act. The issue of euthanasia is not a major priority, but we will take cognizance of the issue and deal with it in due course.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, arising from that answer-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but we must end the question period; we have already gone beyond the time allotted. Since the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton did not ask a second question, I thought I would end after one question by the hon. member. We must now go to the routine proceedings of the House.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have received notice of a question of privilege by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). While I did receive his written notice of the question of privilege, I must say that procedurally it is not very explicit. The idea of the written notice, I would remind hon. members, is so that 1 can be informed of what the question of privilege
November 7, 1980

will be about, so that the Chair can try to find out in advance the facts leading to the question of privilege. The notice is not very specific, but I will hear the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, if it is your wish, I am prepared to delay discussion of my question of privilege until Wednesday in order that you may be given more information.


Madam Speaker:: I think that is a very good idea, and I thank the hon. member for his co-operation.
 * *


POINT OF ORDER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise to ask you to consider a point of order which flows out of the report you made to this House yesterday on the presence of security guards in the chamber on October 24, 1980. The reason that 1 am asking that you rule on this point of order is that I seek direction for this House as to whether or not a Speaker's report is the same as a ruling by the Speaker. Does the Speaker's report become a precedent which then goes into Beauchesne's and Hansard and then is looked to in the future for guidance by people who are seeking to apply a new set of facts to a report of the Speaker?
1 would like to know how a member of this House can have input into a report made by the Speaker, if it does have the same effect and force as a ruling. Such input would assist your office and give you as Speaker the benefit of some of the experiences in which we participated on that particular evening. In the future people will be looking for guidance from whatever is said by Madam Speaker. I think that it is very important that we decide whether or not a report becomes a ruling. 1 reviewed Beauchesne's and I cannot find anything which states that a report becomes a ruling. 1 am concerned, because 1 have very serious reservations about what was stated in the report delivered by you yesterday, Madam Speaker.
Also, as part of my point of order, I would ask you to consider something which is in Beauchesne's. It is suggested in Beauchesne's that the Speaker may request the Sergeant-at-Arms to prepare a report on a disturbance in the House. 1 would suggest that perhaps this has not come up too often. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that you have an opportunity to bring Beauchesne's up to date on what is happening in the world today in that the practice of administrative bodies investigating their own acts is rapidly disappearing in Canada.
When the Sergeant-at-Arms is asked to investigate a disturbance in the gallery or in the corridors, that is an entirely different matter than when the Sergeant-at-Arms is asked to investigate a disturbance which involves his staff.
Lastly, Madam Speaker, and I say this with the utmost of respect and dignity, there are facts in that report which are
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
simply not accurate. I refer to the last portion of the report where it is suggested that the vote was called and the guards left the House. The vote was called, I pulled the curtains while the bells were ringing and the Acting Speaker, the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), who was sitting in the chair, immediately ordered the guards to leave. That is what concerns me. We will not set history in 1980 but in years to come when people refer to Hansard and to your report to determine what happened, they will weigh what was said yesterday. I am concerned that they will apply that report to a new set of facts and, quite frankly, that particular part of the report is not accurate.


Mr. McDermid:: That's right.


Madam Speaker:: To begin with, the statement I made in the House the other day was certainly not a ruling. It was merely a statement, a report on a situation on which I promised the House I would report. I think that is clear. The hon. member then proceeded to ask me how members can have some input into investigations, or a report of that nature. I would suggest that he could speak to the Sergeant-at-Arms and give his version of what happened so that the Sergeant-at-Arms would investigate the facts as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) saw them, and compare that to what he is being told in the course of the investigation, by the security staff.
I would point out that 1 am asking the Sergeant-at-Arms to review the procedures and the type of general instructions which the security staff has in case there is a disturbance in the House.
The report that I received from the Sergeant-at-Arms suggested that the staff was carrying out its normal instructions in the circumstances. I have asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to review the whole matter, however, because if some members found the positioning of the security guards offensive on the night of October 24 or October 25-I am not sure if that is the right date but at any rate we know exactly what we are referring to-in case some members found that offensive and not in the spirit of our Standing Orders, I have asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to review that and make recommendations to me as to changes that might be made in the practices and the instructions which the security staff receive in order to deal with this kind of situation.
I shall inform hon. members, when the Sergeant-at-Arms gives me a report, of that review of the instructions given to the security guards. If hon. members are not satisfied at that stage that it fully covers the grievance they might have in this respect, then-and the hon. member referred to people on the staff making their own inquiries into things that they themselves had done-if hon. members are not satisfied, perhaps we can devise some other way of getting advice about how these instructions could be carried out and how they could be defined. I shall endeavour to do that if it is the case that hon. members are not satisfied.

November 7, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
There is another point in the last paragraph-and I would want to check it against what the hon. member just said- which refers to timing. When did the security guards leave the House? Immediately, when the bells stopped ringing? There is the matter of the bells there and I would need to have the report in front of me. I shall get it and see whether there is some discrepancy in the wording of the statement that I made in the House with regard to what actually happened according to witnesses. I think that is all we can do-get witnesses and the opinions of people who were close by and saw what happened.
I retain this, that whoever was in the chair ordered the security guards to leave, and I think he was probably right in doing that. He was well aware of what was going on and acted in accordance with what he should do to protect the privileges of this House.
If this statement satisfies the hon. member at this point, and if he will bear with me and wait until I get the recommendations from the Sergeant-at-Arms, I think we can leave it at that for the time being.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would just say that I think it is important that you have clarified the difference between a report and a ruling, and to compliment you on the rest of your statement.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, may I draw your attention to Standing Order 65(13) of the Rules and Standing Orders of this House, which reads as follows:
All matters relating to the administration of the House and the provisions of services and facilities to members shall be deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services on the first day of each session.
In other words, the language of that section is quite clear: this is a matter to be referred also to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order and perhaps I should deal with the last point first, since the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has raised it.
I would submit that what occurred on that evening a couple of weeks ago when the incident took place, was a matter of the privileges of the House. I would say that it would be my view that if any committee were to look into the activities of that evening, it should be the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. What we are dealing with here is the administration of the House as it impinged upon or affected the privileges of members of the House.
I want to comment on something in the statement of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). He said that many bodies around the world-and I guess he was referring to governing bodies, administrative bodies or parliaments-do not police themselves. I would ask you to look at the statement of the hon. member very carefully, Madam Speaker. You did
not refer to it exactly, but it is a time-honoured tradition in British parliamentary democracy that the rights and privileges of all members of the House are upheld by those members, through the Speaker, as the first among equals in the House.
I am not speaking for the government on this matter, Madam Speaker, but for myself. I would certainly consult with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). I would be very wary of any move to adjudicate the rights and privileges of members of this House by an outside body, an outside police force.


Walter David Baker: He didn't say that.


David Michael Collenette: I do not want to get into a prolonged debate, Madam Speaker. Certain things were said by the hon. member for Simcoe North. Perhaps I misunderstood him.


Walter David Baker: You sure did.


David Michael Collenette: I am sorry that his House leader is so irate, but this is a legitimate point that we should all consider and perhaps have further discussions on.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There is disagreement about which committee this matter should be referred to, if it is referred. I think that is hypothetical because the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) who raised the question is satisfied that I will inform hon. members after further inquiry by the Sergeant-at-Arms, with his recommendations on how we can best ensure security measures in this House.
I take the point raised by the parliamentary secretary. I do not remember the expression that I used, but I was a bit leary of suggesting that someone outside the House of Commons might tell us how to do things and I used an expression, quite purposely, that did not say exactly that, because I am not sure. I am sure that we can get advice from a lot of people but I am not sure whether we can invite people to come in and determine what we should be doing.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, November 6, 1980, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
November 7, 1980



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Watson.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2),
I would like to table in both official languages copy of the Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Canada and the government of France.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,027, 1,254 to 1,265 inclusive, 1,399 and 1,400.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: L With reference to the answer to question No. 45 which stated in part, that Cuba has not made ail interest payments on the Canadian $10 million 3 per cent interest loan on time and is presently two semi-annual payments in arrears (a) what steps has the government taken to obtain the overdue funds (b) if the funds are obtained by the time this question is answered, what are the names and job designations of all Canadian officials who contacted Cuba directly or indirectly and who did they contact?
2. If payments are up to date, what are the exact dates that payments were received and the amounts involved?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
Cuba was sent payment notices prior to the due dates for each payment by the Canadian government through our embassy in Havana. Reminder notices were subsequently sent in September, 1979, and March, 1980, when payments were not made on these due dates. All collection efforts were made by the diplomatic staff from the Canadian embassy in Havana. Canadian officials believe that the delays in payments were due primarily to administrative problems within the Cuban
Order Paper Questions
government. After duplicate disbursement statements and a financial status report were sent to the Cuban government, payments were made immediately. Cuba is not in arrears at the present time.
2. The three payments in arrears were paid as follows: $385,267.74 in May, 1980 $298,732.82 in May, 1980 $150,300.62 in May, 1980


[Stage Direction]
Questions Nos. 1,254 to 1,265 inch-Mr. Herbert:
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the government should establish a policy for the Department of National Defence to earmark a fixed portion of its budget to be spent in Canadian industry for advanced technology equipment and research and development so as to provide a reasonable stimulus to its technology similar to that enjoyed by Canada's NATO partners and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the future human resource needs of the industry be audited and that urgent steps be taken to ensure that they can be primarily sourced in Canada and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that restrictions which have developed to technology transfer, primarily with the U.S., should be eliminated by negotiating a return to the spirit of free exchange of technology in international co-operative agreements and an enhanced development of technology in Canadian industry, as a basis for sharing knowledge and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the modernization of the industry's production capability should be increased with government support and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that government procurement should be used as a tool to support the industry and to assist in demonstrating its products to world markets and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the government should institute a policy of spending a fixed minimum portion of its defence capital budget for direct procurement of Canadian designed and manufactured advanced technology products, by reducing any hazard to the defence production sharing agreement, inter alia, by specially selecting work for sourcing in Canadian industry which can meet special Canadian sovereignty needs, e.g., provision of special Canadian operational systems and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the government should provide Canadian industry with funds and/or tax incentives and the opportunity to more directly perform R & D in support of future Canadian defence needs, by spending a meaningful fixed portion of its total budget on R & D in Canadian industry and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the government and industry should take special measures to develop a comprehensive operational support and maintenance engineering competence in Canadian industry, by the Department of National Defence defining and arranging Canadian based life cycle support capabilities at the start of its procurement cycle for new equipment and the government being ready to pay the front end costs to establish the Canadian sources and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the government should give consideration to increasing the allocation of funds for industry modernization assistance and.
[Stage Direction]
November 7, 1980
Order Paper Questions
exceptionally, to extend defence industry productivity program and industry modernization for defence establishments program to routine equipment where more advanced equipment is inappropriate and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the government should seek a renegotiation of the defence production sharing agreement to remove impediments to technology transfer which have developed in recent years and which are against the spirit of the original understandings and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the government should review and reduce restrictions to the export of Canadian aerospace products and services, by seeking to eliminate through MTN foreign tariffs on aerospace products and services and, as a quid pro quo to permanently eliminate the Canadian import duties which are effectively waived on an annual basis and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry recommend to the government in June, 1978, that the government assist industry in reducing the financial risk of entry to major international aerospace programs where this is identified to be in the long-term national economic interest and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The question is derived directly from the report of the Consultative Task Force on the Aerospace Manufacturing Sector. This report was released on June 30, 1978, and its contents are available to the general public. The reaction by the federal government to each of these points was published in "Response of the Federal Government to the Recommendations of the Consultative Task Force on the Canadian Aerospace Industry". This report was made public May 29, 1979.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school at Pasqua/Muscowpetung?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Arc steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. $345,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	The project has been completed.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school at Mosquito Reserve?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $124,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	The project has been completed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Madam Speaker:: As hon. members are aware, there are 59 motions standing on the order paper at the report stage of 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. The Chair has had a cursory look at all of the motions. However, it is my intention to deal only with a few motions for the time being, since some of them were filed as recently as yesterday.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 could be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 5, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20 and 21 could be grouped for debate. However, motions Nos. 5 and 16 will be voted on separately. The question on motion No. 13 will be put to the House and this will dispose of motions Nos. 12, 19, 20 and 21 which are consequential motions.
Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 shall be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 could be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 14, 15 and 18 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 17, 52, 55 and 59, all in the name of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) can be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-6, an act to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be amended in
November 7, 1980


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-6, an act to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 2 by adding immediately after line 12 at page 3 the following:
" 'business of banking' means that business carried on in whole or in part by a bank within the meaning of the act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I report initially that I have consulted with the hon. minister in charge of financial institutions and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), and we have agreed that considering the nature of the debate today on the calling of the first items, motion No. 1 and motion No. 2 are quite rightly joined together for debate. A general review will take place today as well as participation by any and all hon. members who wish to say something about the Bank Act, whether there is provision in the amendments or otherwise, within the 20 minutes allotted to any intervention. But then we come to the specifics of motions Nos. 1 and 2, which are grouped in this debate. The minister, myself, as proposer, and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood shall have a second turn so that we can particularize our attention on these items. That is the way we propose to proceed. Therefore, in that spirit I am quite prepared at the present time to yield my position on the floor to the minister who may wish to give a general report on proceedings to date, and to give a report on the attitude of the government in general with regard to this. He can, as well, reply to any questions and comment upon any other points. 1 will do the same, to be followed by our colleague from Toronto.
Bank Act
Other hon. members can then join the debate in the House this afternoon until four o'clock. On Wednesday next week we will get into the heart and soul of these amendments, unless the general debate contribution dies before that time. I think we can get along quite well and make ready progress on reasonably quick passage of this stage of the legislation.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would like to remove any ambiguity whatsoever about the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) which seems to have the support of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and which 1 am prepared to endorse. We might begin the study of this first motion in a general debate where each member would explain his views as a result of the work of the standing committee.
Once that stage is over, the member for Edmonton West, who moved motions 1 and 2, the member for Broadview-Greenwood and myself might draw the appropriate conclusions which would be strictly restricted to the nature of and comments on the motion. Then we might continue to examine these motions while demonstrating much moderation and temperance and limiting our remarks to the substance of the question with a view to proceeding as expeditiously as possible in the study of this bill. If my understanding is correct I am prepared to agree.


Mr. Rae:: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the arrangements that have been worked out. It is my understanding that the minister will speak now to be followed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and then myself. Other members can then participate in a general way for 20 minutes at the report stage. Following that procedure we will be able to return to the particularities of the amendments which have been put forward with respect to motion No. 1 and motion No. 2. That is my understanding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair understands that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), will be seeking the floor a second time. This can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Bussières: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I commend the hon. member for Edmonton West for his initiative and I also thank the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood for accepting this arrangement. I think this procedure will enable us to

November 7, 1980
Bank Act
shed more light on this massive bill reported by the committee which we are now considering at the report stage.
1 express special thanks to the members of the standing committee who studied this bill. I would not want to go over the background and the maze through which the bill went, but I would simply recall the work stages we have experienced since this Parliament took over the bill. Personally 1 must confess that I felt all committee members had a common will to reach three objectives. The first objective was to recognize the urgency of this legislation and to study it rapidly without, however, neglecting any aspect whatever. The second objective was to keep in mind that as a standing committee we had to provide the people of Canada with the best possible legislation to govern banking institutions and practices in Canada, the one which would most contribute to improve banking operations in the interests of all Canadians.
Of course, we also aimed at ensuring through this legislation mechanisms which would allow these institutions to continue to work in the interests of Canadians, mechanisms which would continue to develop in the interests of economic'growth in our country, mechanisms which would continue to be extremely competitive to ensure that the Canadian financial institutions remain healthy.
Of course, the bill has come back with some amendments at the report stage, but its basic philosophy and underlying principles are still the same. We have added a few amendments, mainly to accommodate special concerns which are shared by the great majority of the members who worked on the standing committee, and I firmly believe that these amendments were made in the spirit that I described earlier, that is, that they aim at improving the bill in the interests of Canadians, the financial institutions and the banking institutions themselves. I am convinced that the amendments made in the committee meet both objectives.
The first amendment which I want to discuss concerns the incorporation of banks. Hon. members will recall that this bill provides a new formula for obtaining the status of bank. This formula will expedite the process. It provides that letters patent can be applied for to be able to use the designation of bank and be subject to the Canadian banking legislation. As I recall, this provision was discussed at length, and our colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West can correct me if I am wrong since he followed this process much more closely than I did. The Senate committee had already suggested this amendment and the hon. member for Edmonton West brought it up several times in the committee. According to this amendment, public hearings must be held when a financial institution applies to become a bank either by obtaining letters patent or by incorporation. The House will recall that our objective of promoting competition and having more institutions in the field of banking motivated the search for an easier process to
be used by institutions wishing to become banks. Some had objected that absence of any public hearing could eventually go against the public interests.
The Senate committee which studied the bill came to the conclusion that some sort of an examination was appropriate. The government therefore accepted an amendment, which was supported by a large majority of committee members, and which provides a mechanism through which the Inspector General of Banks has the discretionary power to hold an inquiry on the issue of letters patent if he believes that such an inquiry is desirable. The inspector general will report to the Minister of Finance if he deems that the objections put forward during this inquiry are justified and deserve a very particular attention from the minister.
There is a second amendment to which I wish to draw honourable members' attention, and which is found in the revised version of Bill C-6 as reported by the committee. It deals with the issuance of licences to foreign banks. The provisions of clause 28 have been lightly changed. During the first five years of operation of a foreign bank in Canada, it will have to have its licence renewed every year. After five yearly renewals, its licence will be renewed for a three-year period. The spirit in which this amendment was put forward, as committee members will remember, was that it would enable the government to implement better both the spirit and the letter of those provisions which relate to foreign bank subsidiaries carrying on business in Canada according to the provisions of the new legislation.
There is a third amendment with which I would like to deal and which was reviewed in committee, that is the provision concerning the claims of particular agricultural producers' groups, the Canadian Agricultural Federation, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, which can be found in clause 178 of the legisation before us, that is section 88 of the present statute, in order to grant priority rights to all agricultural products. Obviously, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was making representations so that herds are covered. We have widened this provision to meet the request of the Canadian Agricultural Federation and at present the provision of clause 178 reads as follows: all agricultural products. Moreover, we have ensured greater protection by adding to the money limit or ceiling a priority protection which is insured up to $100,000. And those honourable members who have followed the debate in committee will recall that this $100,000 ceiling is related to some kind of indexing formula of farm products. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is a most important improvement and I am very pleased to say, as a government member, that we are meeting formal commitments which we made as Liberal members during the electoral campaign.
Another amendment deals with the financial leasing for household effects. And I would be remiss in not reminding honourable members that the debate in committee as regards leasing went to the very heart of the matter and dealt with the
November 7, 1980

very nature of leasing and banking institutions. The debate was a long and serious one and it really dealt with the heart of the matter. We were really concerned that the banks might conclude leasing arrangements as regards household appliances or goods, whether refrigerators, TV sets and so on.
Hon. members considered the impact that such a practice would have on the new commercial habits of the small businessmen and also on the use of consumer credit. If 1 remember correctly, and members of the committee will correct me if I am wrong, this was one of the basic concerns of the members. If hon. members who did not attend the committee proceedings, were to read the minutes of the Votes and proceedings they would be convinced of the merit of the concern expressed by committee members in view of the competition which could result for small businesses and in view also of the changes in the fundamental habits of consumers.
In order to lay those concerns to rest, the government amended section 173(l)(j) in order to prevent a bank from engaging in financial leasing of personal property. I believe that the great majority of the committee members were in favour of this amendment. Another aspect of financial leasing which was discussed extensively, once again in principle, is the matter of financial leasing of cars. Therefore, in this instance also the government proposed an amendment to the act in order to prevent banks from engaging directly in the financial leasing of motor vehicles designed to be used primarily on public highways. Clause 173 of the act was amended to prevent banks from directly engaging in financial leasing of motor vehicles holding a permit to be used on public highways and whose gross weight is under 21 metric tons. In this instance again this amendment was introduced as a result of the governments concern over the impact on this market of the participation of the banks. It is quite obvious that in the next few years, major changes will occur in the sale and financing of passenger vehicles or light trucks. However, banks should be authorized to accept these leases as collateral or to buy them or to accept their transfer. Otherwise this would prevent the small and medium-sized car dealers from resorting to a source of financing which they are using at the present time. That is, Mr. Speaker, the significance of the amendment to clause 173 brought in the standing committee.
As a result of the work done by the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, we have learned recently that the contents of Bill C-6 as amended could prevent banks from renting items such as farm, forestry, mining mobile equipment and others, because even if those items are not usually sold by automobile dealers, they may have to be registered in some provinces to travel on public roads.
The amendment which I introduced, and the members of the committee will remember that it was briefly discussed during the last meeting of the committee in October, I believe, is
Bank Act
aimed at preventing banks from renting the kinds of vehicles sold by automobile dealers without going through credit facilities which can be convenient for both the manufacturers and purchasers of special vehicles that are not distributed through automobile and truck dealers.
1 have carefully considered the content and meaning of this amendment so there be no doubt as to its restrictive nature and the fact that whatever opportunities it provides are only intended to deal with specific situations, groups and businessmen who, had banks been denied that kind of financing, would have had serious trouble meeting instalments on their trucks or heavy equipment for lumbering or other types of work.
The amendement takes out the following phrase "which may require licence plates on public roads-"
The phrasing of subparagraph (c)(2), the definition of bank credit company on page 208, paragraph 193(1) in the October new reimpression, which is the one which came out of the committee, adds a definition of motorized vehicles, specifying what types banks will not be allowed to rent out.
The definition of the motorized vehicle includes "used mainly on public roads for the transportation of persons and goods", to the exclusion of such articles as farm equipment which are not primarily used for the conveyance of persons. Specialized equipment is used for felling trees and moving timber rather than to transport people. Heavy construction equipment, for example, is not generally used along public ways or distributed by car agencies but it may have to carry licence plates on public highways, pursuant to the law in effect . in various provinces.
Besides a particular exclusion is made for vehicles which are essentially used on public highways but which are not distributed through car agencies.
This exclusion, Mr. Speaker, deals with trucks used for a particular purpose, for example, fire engines, utility trucks which may be used by such companies as Bell Canada, Hydro Ontario or Hydro Quebec, etc-


Monique Bégin: -municipalities.


Pierre Bussières: -municipalities, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) says, school buses and others, which are assembled by small independent manufacturers, who buy the frame through an agent, of course, mount the equipment, special or otherwise, and then sell the completed vehicle. Those who buy them need the banks to finance that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Was the Chair advised a while ago that each speaker would be allowed only 20 minutes, if I understood correctly?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being one o'clock; 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.

November 7, 1980
Bank Act


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am very pieased to start off this debate this afternoon. Seeing that for the next four, five or possibly six days 1 will have the opportunity to take the floor on a number of occasions, and in view of the increased numbers of members in this House, I have deliberately forgone any opportunities I might have had to speak in the constitutional debate and in the budget debate, because it is just nonsense to think that anyone here can speak as often as he might wish or as he should.
Some years ago we made a stupid mistake-and I underline the word "stupid"-when we increased the size of this House to 282. It should have been reduced rather than increased at that time because there is quite ample opportunity now for members, with the help of their staffs, to take care of their constituency requirements. The communications are much better, and in so far as the chamber is concerned the biggest problem is that more and more people are seeking the floor. That is why every stage of legislation takes longer. All members are equal and, if I may say so, this increased the number of frustrated members on the government backbenches who suffer from ministerial muzzle. I know; I was there. No minister wants backbenchers taking more time speaking on second and third reading or committee stage if it will delay the passage of legislation. Those are the practicalities of the matter, and ministerial muzzle is the biggest disease on the government backbenches.
On May 13 the contents of Bill C-6 were referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the members of that committee got down to work. They did not hear additional witnesses to any extent, because the great hearing of witnesses had taken place on Bill C-15 in the period from late 1978 to early 1979. I find it passing strange that we hear comments from the outside, and read comments in the press, that the review of the Bank Act has been interminable. For one thing, this is written and spoken by people who did not see or experience the previous change.
I went through the government paper which flowed from the Porter commission on banking and the two bills brought forward by the government, the second one of which ultimately passed. Longer public hearings occurred on that occasion, and in so far as the members of the committee were concerned the first series of hearings was educative. The banking system is a very complicated matter, and the act at that time was only half the size of the present one. Unfortunately a lot of this so-called criticism comes from an ignorance of the facts as they exist. I am the only member of the finance committee who had previous experience with the Bank Act. I am referring to the members who actively participated in the hearings and in the process from A to Z. I am not referring to the debate, because there were some other members who had experience.
At that time I warned the government that it was setting too short a time, that the deliberative process would take a certain time. That has happened, and as a result we have a better act. Also we have a better understanding between the government and the opposition. We in the opposition have been able to convince the government to accept certain amendments, and the government has had a better opportunity of perhaps imposing its views upon us. We would say, "Well, we think we were right, but we must reconcile the fact that there is a majority, and get on with it."
We must try to convince the Canadian Bankers' Association that it cannot have everything. My good friend, Bob Macintosh, the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, seems to be irreconciled to the fact that he cannot get everything the association wants. There is a competing interest in the system of financial institutions in the country and we must do the best we can to see that there is a fair shake for consumers, borrowers, depositers, and shareholders in banks and other financial institutions.
We have seen a tremendous growth in the credit union and caisse populaire movement from the position they occupied back in 1966 when we considered the previous Bank Act. We have seen some changes since that time. In some ways I am disappointed at the whole process. As I have indicated before, notwithstanding that Mr. Macintosh says the process started six years ago-it may have started for him then-over eight years ago, in 1972, I suggested to the then minister of finance, Hon. John Turner, that the government should appoint a royal commission to study the question of banking and financial services in this country to provide for our requirements over the next 25 years. That was not done, and the question limped along until a government white paper was produced in 1976. But that white paper on banking was effectively kept away from any committee of the House or any debate in the House until 1978 when it surfaced as Bill C-15. Then we started hearings. At that point we were a year late, according to the requirements of the decennial revision.
As 1 have said before, we were being asked merely to patch up the holes and possibly open a little door here and a little door there. Fundamentally that is still my view about this act. It deals with yesterday and today, but not with tomorrow.
As other hon. members have done, I have seen fundamental changes in banking in the last 12 years. I am not referring to the mere processes, because we are only a short time away from the electronic transferring of funds. The government will become convinced of this, as soon as the Post Office converts into a Crown corporation and the government has to pay the real fee for mailing old age security cheques, pension cheques and various payments. Immediately the government will run to
November 7, 1980

the banks and say, "Please, we need electronic transfer of funds as quickly as possible". The banks have been able to do this in part, but it will be much easier and more effective now that we have the Canadian Payments Association. If the major trust companies so desire, they can become members of the association. They will find it economically possible to participate as full members. Of course the caisse populaire and credit union movement, among their federations and what-have-you, are also able to participate in this payments association. I do not think many of them will have very grave difficulty getting into the electronic transfer of funds. Le mouvement Desjardins is well into the area of electronic equipment at the present time, as are major credit unions. Therefore we will see this.
I spoke in the same way 12 years ago and I castigated the government for their refusal to define a bank in the act. The net result is we have the biggest running sore in Canada at the present time because of the lack of control we have over foreign banks operating in Canada. They operate under provincial charters of one sort or another, or as representative offices, or they are operating out of a suitcase-God knows what. They did not have the courage to face up to the situation and say that money and banking was an exclusive federal jurisdiction. If you can define bank you will define the business of banking, and therefore control over it will exist. I do not know that the stable door will ever be locked again; the horses have all been stolen. The net result is that the amendments to this particular act and all the provisions with regard to foreign banking are sort of trying to catch up, to reach out and get hold of it and see if we cannot bring it under control. We hope that we can.
The most important question which faces us is that of reciprocity. Will the countries of the foreign banks involved permit Canadian banks to operate in their countries under reciprocal conditions? We may end up saying that their banks will not be able to operate in our country unless our banks can operate in their countries. What are the conditions of reciprocity?
What will we do with the great number of well-established organizations that are here in Canada? Some of these institutions have been in operation for over ten years. For instance, the Bank of America has some 39 branches in Canada, if my memory serves me correctly. Those branches do not operate under that name but under another operating name. There are a number of French, Swiss, British and other American banks operating here in Canada, under the control of two or three foreign operations. It is similar to the way in which Canadian banks operate in foreign countries. To try to untangle that pot of spaghetti and sort out the relationships between some of these organizations is proving to be very difficult.
I think we have a rocky road ahead of us. I invite the minister to consult with the opposition and the parliamentary
Bank Act
committee. I ask him not to act on his own, not to go off and rely on the wisdom of the bureaucracy, but to come and consult the committee about some of the changes in the regulations which may be required. I think the minister will be satisfied, especially after this summer's exercise, that the wisdom does not necessarily reside entirely within the bureaucracy of the Department of Finance nor in the inspector general's branch. Even though some of the members at the beginning did not have a detailed knowledge of the Bank Act they were able to make some worth-while contributions toward the solution of some of the problems.
The control of policy resides with the parliamentarians. Policy is the prerogative of Parliament. Parliament has nothing to do with administration. Government establishes what its policy'shall be, but it comes before Parliament for approval. So the ultimate approval of policy resides with Parliament. When parliamentarians make decisions and recommendations with respect to policy, I find it lies very ill on the part of bureaucracy, on its own, to change it.
For purposes of demonstration I have some amendments to put before you. I have had close to 25 years of experience in this House and I am convinced that, for the benefit of Canada as a whole, Parliament must resume more control of policy. We have got a mammoth problem in Canada concerning control by the bureaucracy. My hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands has an article in The Globe and Mail today in this connection. How right she is. Government ministers have told me privately that they feel the same about this, and my colleagues who were in the last government talked ruefully about it. This is the point I want to reinforce. It is Parliament that determines policy in the end. Even if the policy is formulated and proposed to Parliament by the government, it is Parliament in the end which will sanction it.
1 see that my time is at an end on this stage of the measure.
I think the committee did a very good job and I commend the minister. I know he found me a little tough to start with, but once we established our working liaison, shall we say, and were able to understand one another, I appreciated his performance during the committee hearings. As I say, I was a little tough to start with and I think he found that a bit difficult. But this shows the value of a standing committee of this House where the membership is kept constant. We do not have visiting firemen who descend upon us from time to time trying to reinvent the wheel. As the membership is kept constant we are given an opportunity to get to know one another and are thus able to come up with a piece of legislation which we think, although not perfect, is pretty good.
On that basis I have some amendments which I want to put before the House. The government has some amendments with which I agree. These have been negotiated. We will have some views with respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). Some of his amendments have got too much, shall we say, of their ideology. But on the

November 7, 1980
'	Bank Act
whole I think we will come up with a fairly good end. I trust our counterparts in the Senate will be working toward the same direction and that we will avoid any violent clashes or differences. If they do arise I hope they will be readily negotiable so that we can arrive at what will be the passage of this act within maybe five or six days.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on this very important piece of legislation. 1 appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). His summary of the process was extremely accurate. Although I have only spent a few sessions with the committee as of late, 1 appreciate the way in which the witnesses were welcomed and the way in which the entire committee was handled.
As the previous speaker indicated that he will be bringing forward a number of amendments about which he feels strongly, we in the New Democratic Party also have a number of amendments we plan to bring forward on a wide variety of areas in which we feel there are serious problems and limitations with regard to this legislation. Although we are not hesitant to say that our ideology is perhaps reflected in some of the proposed amendments-we are quite proud of that ideology and feel that we are putting the interests of Canadians before the interests of any other groups-we intend to approach this matter in a very serious, positive and vigorous way.	.
If one peruses this extremely detailed document, one question emerges from the papers. One recognizes that the banks of Canada are a part of a much larger system and are to be seen in a national context, but the fundamental question which emerges from the pages of the Bank Act is: just what is the Bank Act attempting to achieve or accomplish? I suspect that if one were to carry out one of the government's infamous polls across the country, one would find that the responses to that question as to just what the Bank Act is attempting to accomplish would be varied.
The reason, of course, is that the act is set within the context of the country, and the country lacks an over-all industrial strategy and development strategy. It begs such questions as, where do the banks fit into the over-all economic development structure of Canada, what role should they play in Canada, what role do the banks have within our industrial strategy, what role should the banks be playing in the patriation of our economy, what is the job of the banks in terms of the rationalization of Canadian industry, what should the banks be doing to improve our balance of payments, what is the role of the banks in ensuring that the small business sector of Canada becomes a vital and vigorous sector of our economy, and what is the role of the banks in this developmental process?
I would be the first one to agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West in his comment that this legislation is not for the future of Canada, that at best it is legislation for the present. Certainly it is legislation of the past. When one considers the tremendous dynamic changes occurring in the financial institutions of our country today, this particular act will be a handicap and will retard the meaningful development of those new structures, new approaches and new techniques. Certainly it will not address the needs of the financial community of Canada over the next decade because of a number of very serious omissions, which the New Democratic Party will be bringing to the attention of the House in the form of amendments over the next number of days.
Also, I must agree with the previous speaker's point that it is still unclear what a bank is in Canada. What is a bank in Canada? As a result of this confusion and the inability to define accurately and adequately what the banks are in the best interests of Canadians, we have foreign banks and a number of subsidiaries coming into the financial picture which will severely restrict the development of a meaningful banking policy for this country.
The objectives of the bill are rather vague. First, the bill says that its objective is to increase competition in Canada. That objective was very clearly stated back in 1967. Another objective is to increase the efficiency of the banking system and to improve the allocation of financial capital to achieve long-range economic development for our country. I suspect that this particular bill will not accomplish any of those objectives.
We can predict with considerable confidence that the process of the concentration of financial power in Canada which has been going on since the 1950s, will continue. Is that in the best interests of nurturing and encouraging a competitive environment? We do not suggest that for a moment. The present system will become less and less competitive. What do we mean by the word "competition"? It is a word which is used in the act and which has certainly been used countless times in committee. Competition means better service and that more services will be provided by the banks to the borrowers.
If competition were real it would mean that the services would be provided at lower costs to the consumer or the borrower. If it were real, it would mean that interest rates would be held down in the competitive environment of our banking system. Competition would be the mechanism which would retard the higher costs of increasing and spiralling interest rates. If competition were real, it would also mean that the profits of the chartered banks would be kept at reasonable levels.
We can probably predict with little question that this legislation will result in increased profits to the banks. My party is not against fair profits, although it is often accused of that prejudice. We like to see people being successful in their entrepreneurial ventures, including the banks of Canada as
November 7, 1980

they exist today, but what is a reasonable profit? 1 do not think that the competition which is the objective of the Bank Act will achieve reasonable profits.
Just today the The Globe and Mail published an article based on a report by Wood Gundy Limited to the effect that the passage of the Bank Act would improve the price earnings ratio of bank stocks by about 100 basic points. The financial community per se is predicting, because of this Bank Act, increases of at least 12 per cent in bank profits. Some agencies are predicting increases as high as 20 per cent, and some are venturing that they could be as high as 30 per cent. Is this what results from increased competition in the bank and financial communities? I suggest that it certainly does not.
One of the things which must be made clear as we enter into this debate over the next number of days is the recognition that chartered banks in Canada exist in a very privileged position, that they are a handful of institutions which make the decisions regarding the future of Canada. The banks decide who will have access to funds for investment, the kinds of investments which they will support, and the kinds of entrepreneurial ventures which they will encourage, nurture and support financially. The banks decide where they will invest their money and where development will occur in Canada. The banks decide whether small business all across the country will be successful or whether they will experience failure, through the kinds of policies which they introduce to assist the small business community.
Because of their privileged position, I suggest that the banks have a responsibility to Canadians; that the banks of Canada have an obligation to be more responsive to the needs of the small business community. To my mind, the legislation before the House today is an excellent example of how the monopoly power of our banks subverts the objectives of the Government of Canada-and I emphasize that, Mr. Speaker-subverts the objectives of our government.
Under the Small Business Development Bond program outlined in the October budget, interest payments on a qualifying small business loan entered into after December 11, 1979, will be treated, for tax purposes, as dividends. As a result, the interest will not be taxable to the corporate lender, nor will it be deductible as a business expense to the small business borrower. Because corporate lenders incur no tax liability on the interest received, they will be able to reduce the rate of interest charged.
The legislation not only provides interest rate relief to qualifying small businesses, but also provides a tax shelter to corporate lenders, in particular the hard pressed chartered banks.
In analysing the relative benefits accruing to small business borrowers and corporate lenders with the proposed SBDB
Bank Act
program under different interest rate regimes, I have been able to make the following observations.
First, if the conventional loan rate formula is prime plus 1 per cent or 2 per cent, then banks charging a risk-administrative premium of 2 per cent or less above one half prime on SBDBs will increase their after tax interest income by a slightly smaller percentage than the small business borrower will have reduced his after tax cost of credit.
Second, if the conventional loan rate formula is prime plus 2 per cent, then banks charging a risk-administrative premium of one half prime plus 2.5 per cent or more on SBDBs, will increase their after tax income by a larger percentage than the small business borrower will have reduced his after tax cost of credit. Or, put another way, the corporate lender will derive relatively more benefit from the use of SBDBs than the small business.
In order to get a better idea of how benefits from the SBDB program are likely to be distributed between small businesses and corporate lenders, I surveyed the average conventional small business loan rates and SBDB rate currently offered by a representative sample of corporate lenders in Ottawa. On the basis of this survey there is every indication that the chartered banks will be charging rates on SBDBs of at least one half prime plus 2.5 per cent or higher in many cases. This will ensure that the distribution of benefits under this program will favour the banks relatively more than the small business borrower. Under this legislation the government has no power to limit the rates charged on SBDBs. The government has no power under this legislation to reduce these rates. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) should change the name of this program to the chartered bank development bond.
When one considers the difficulties faced by the small business community as they attempt to provide leadership in so many ways, one sees that they have extreme difficulties in dealing with the chartered banks of Canada. Recent figures have shown that the major employer in the last few years in Canada was the small business sector with 930,000 small businesses interested in expanding and fulfilling their dreams, interested in developing a better Canada.
In my discussions with this community in the last few months, both in my own constituency and across Canada, one thing has become very clear, that is, when they approach the chartered banks of Canada they feel that they are discriminated against both with the rates offered to them for borrowing and in the way they are treated. I suspect that this is simply an extension of the attitude of the present government toward small business, and that after all the rhetoric is put aside and one looks at the record and the legislation of the country to see who benefits from it-the large corporation or the small businessman-when one looks at the financial structures of the country to see who benefits, one finds that it is almost exclu-

November 7, 1980
Bank Act
sively the small entrepreneur who gets the short end of the stick.
When one studies the Bank Act that is before the House today, one finds that things have not changed very much; that the consumer is still not adequately protected and that the small business sector will still not receive the support and service from the banking community that it so justly deserves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre Deniger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how glad J am this afternoon to take part in the debate on Bill C-6 because the banking legislation is certainly one of the basic statutes of any country. I want to echo the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and say how much 1 appreciated my experience in committee. As a young member who did not enjoy the opportunity of sitting on the various commissions which studied the banking legislation, I learned a lot from the questions, debates and discussions the member for Edmonton West had with the various witnesses and with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer in the House who happens to be interested in our country's financial and economic affairs 1 have indeed gained a lot of experience during the endless hours we spent on Bill C-6, the Bank Act.
As a parliamentarian I am reassured by my experience with Bill C-6 because when we were returned to power last February many people thought that hon. members, at least on this side of the House, would simply rubber-stamp Bill C-6. People were telling us that every aspect of Bill C-6 had been discussed for years and years and that in fact we had nothing to do except endorse it blindly. Mr. Speaker, as a member I was really reassured to see to what extent a committee such as the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs could be non-partisan and so efficient. In light of the very challenging representations made by my colleague from Mississauga South, the hon. member for Edmonton West, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and all the others, I can say that in all the experiences I had since being elected never did a committee seem to me so useful and so efficient. Mr. Speaker, that, of course, does not rule out the ideological quarrels we may have within a committee. I think that the previous speaker made an ideological speech with which I cannot agree of course, but I can certainly admire the conduct of the Minister of State for Finance who did go to the trouble of listening to and approving several amendments, whether from the hon. member for Mississauga South, from the hon. member for Edmonton West or even from myself, Mr. Speaker. That is indeed what the parliamentary system is all about. The member for Edmonton West said a moment ago that perhaps the best solution for Parliament might be to reduce the number of members. If that were the case, obviously I would probably not be here because mine is a new riding.
So I cannot really endorse that suggestion but I can say, however, that if we had more committees like the finance, trade and economic affairs committee I think the House of Commons and Parliament would be enhanced.
I was particularly active in the debate on the question of car leasing to which the Minister of State for Finance referred and I must say how disappointed I was by the attitude of the Canadian Bankers' Association which, as the hon. member for Edmonton West so aptly put it, took offence because it did not succeed in obtaining everything it wanted. Mr. Speaker, in the society in which we live and given our role as parliamentarians, I think that when people express their concerns and make representations they have the right to do so and that is exactly what we have done as members of Parliament. Some people did come to see me and told me their worries. I listened to their stories, I heard the arguments of the bankers and I thought advisable to suggest to the Minister of State for Finance certain amendments about the car leasing provisions.
All members of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs agreed with those amendments. Then the Minister of State for Finance, with the support of the committee members, was successful in convincing cabinet so that we now have amendments which I feel certain will be approved by members on both sides of the House. I find that reassuring, Mr. Speaker. Indeed I believe we are doing an efficient job as parliamentarians and I felt somewhat slighted and insulted when I read in The Globe and Mail of October 28, 1980, that what matters most for a committee in reaching a final decision is the effort made by lobbyists.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what can I say? When someone has a worthy cause to defend I am not influenced by the fact that 1 may or may not have to face lobbyists. Nor am I influenced by the fact that one side is richer or more important than the other. I think that as parliamentarians we all have an active and effective role to play.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I again congratulate the Minister of State for Finance and all members who sat on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. As a young member I have gained some insight into the Bank Act and the hon. member for Edmonton West will surely say that people are taking a long time to get to know this legislation. I hope to continue along this line and that all committees and ministers will have the necessary openmindedness and will continue to be as friendly, as sincere and as devoted to the parliamentary and committee systems as is the Minister of State for Finance.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this act we now have before us has been before three Parliaments. It has had five sets of revisions, including the revision that is now before us. There has been much public discussion, not
November 7, 1980

only from the Bankers' Association but others. It has been mentioned here today they were not entirely successful because the number of changes that have been made, as far as that group is concerned, are a bit restrictive. We have had a number of public representations from all across Canada and the input has been most appropriate to the statute.
What we have now before us is a fairly good act. I notice we have 59 amendments presently on the order paper, which indicates the complexity of the statute, and some things must be changed before the act is passed. The 59 amendments we have are nothing compared to the many hundreds of amendments which were dealt with by committee in this Parliament, and by the previous committee in the Thirtieth Parliament. What we have done is taken a statute and refined it again and again. This bill is at report stage now for final refinement, if you want to put it that way. But by comparison what we have done on the constitution is unfair. Public input was limited; debate in this House was limited; the chances of doing something and getting proper public input were definitely limited. If the constitutional debate had had the discussion and the input which this act has had, then 1 think one would find a great deal of consensus. In fact one would probably find a majority consensus, but without that one gets dissension, distrust, and division.
I spoke on second reading of this debate. Most of the problems I spoke about in committee have been solved, with one or two principal exceptions. For a moment I want to speak about motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Those motions go to the very essence of the problems that we still have before us in dealing with the banking system.
The act as now before us does not define what a bank is. Nor does this act define what the business of banking is. It does not define, as suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) in his amendment No. 3, what a cheque is. Those are fundamental things.
I am concerned when we do not define what a bank is in a bank act. This is an act to define the business of banking, which is supposed to be dealing, controlling and directing what banks are to do in our society. Whenever we speak about the transferring of money from one institution to another or from one person to another through a simple instrument as a cheque, we do not even define what a cheque is. It seems to me almost ridiculous that such definitions are not included. Even at this final stage I implore the minister to reconsider amendments to the act that would go to this essential problem as proposed by the hon. member from Edmonton and the hon. member for Comox-Powell River.
The problem is great because we have found over the past 12 or 14 years that the business of banking and of what the banks do keeps changing. There was no thought 12 or 14 years ago that the banks would be involved in leasing. We had enormous problems in the committee trying to cut down the banks' activity in these areas. We found the banks were almost becoming the merchants of automobiles, in particular the Royal Bank, at one point in time. We were afraid the banks would become merchants of every form of household goods
Bank Act
that one might have. The banks would do that by owning the goods and leasing them out. Therefore, we had to be very careful. We drew up amendments to the proposed legislation. They carried in committee and seriously restricted the banks in these fields.
We had representations from companies involved in data processing. It became clear through those representations that the banking business had all of a sudden decided that computer programming and data processing were the kind of thing they would like to get into. So the banks were on the verge of deciding they would become the big data processors for all of Canada. The existing data processing industry would be swallowed up and be part of what they would call "their business' .
At second reading 1 read a little lyric or poem, which I will read again as follows:
Through the open window's space Behold, a camel thrust his face.
'My nose is cold,' he meekly cried,
'Oh, let me warm it by thy side'.
The camel has been getting into far too many activities. That is what has happened. It is also one of the concerns we have. That is why we want banking and the business of banking defined. The camel wants to get into other things and become a merchant and a manufacturer. Somewhere along the line we have to restrict the activities of banks to the field which they are in traditionally, namely, that of facilitating the movement of goods between people through the medium of exchange of money. 1 am speaking of the savers, the lenders, and the commercial money in our society. That is what the banks are there for. The banks are not there to do whatever comes into their minds or become as big as their minds would allow. As my hon. friend from Edmonton West says:
'bank' means
(a)	any financial institution engaged in the business of lending money and accepting deposit liabilities transferable by cheque or other instrument, or
(b)	any financial institution engaged in the business of lending money raised in Canada through the acceptance of deposit liabilities-
He goes on to exempt certain financial institutions from the restrictions of the Bank Act. I call to the attention of the House paragraph (g) of the amendment which would restrict financial companies to 75 per cent Canadian ownership.
There are a number of interesting concepts in this bill. In view of the foreign ownership of banks in our country, it was decided to make some sort of arrangement for reciprocal banking privileges, largely, I suppose, on the basis that it is in the interest of Canada that our national banks become international banks and this so requires some sort of reciprocation with foreign companies wishing to operate here. That is fine, but it must be controlled, and there is an attempt in the bill to control it to 8 per cent. If it can be controlled at 8 per cent of domestic assets or domestic business of foreign banks in our country, I would applaud that. We have suggested, however, that perhaps this is not realistic. There is an amendment before the House which suggests that perhaps it could be 10

November 7, 1980
Bank Act
per cent. But if the government thinks that it can control the banking business at 8 per cent, that is appropriate.
A number of the amendments before us deal with consumer and corporate matters. Amendments on consumer matters have been introduced by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). These amendments tend to seek to control the activities of banks in particular. It is my feeling and, I think, the feeling of this party, that such provisions should not be in the Bank Act but rather should be contained in general commercial legislation and that we should have a new interest act in Canada which would control all lending institutions with respect to how they make disclosure, how they calculate their interest, and the like. There is a need for such legislation largely because there are other financial institutions in this country apart from banks. The calculation of interest and the disclosure of contract terms should be introduced in other legislation and not be inserted into the legislation we are considering at this time. These matters should specifically be dealt with in this new act, matters pertinent only to banks and to a broad range of corporations which are in the money business.
A number of representations have been made since the conclusion of the committee's sittings. Representations were made by the Continental Bank, and I commend to the minister motion No. 42 on the order paper which would give relief to the Continental Bank, the Northland Bank, the Bank of British Columbia and the Consumer and Commercial Bank from the strictures which we sought from the minister concerning the reserve requirements for those smaller banks. The minister will recall that reserve requirements were eliminated and that as a result of the study of the whole matter of trust companies, an amendment was made to section 208(d). It may well be that for the smaller banks, the ones under $3 billion, some relief should be given with respect to reserves.
It is important also that at this stage of the debate the minister give us a commitment, as he did to the committee, that he would introduce a new loan and trust companies act and that in accordance with our suggestion regarding reserve requirements he would amend the Bank Act and change the reserve requirements. All of us here know how long it takes for new legislation to be introduced. Indeed, the minister suggested in the committee back in June that he would have a loan and trust companies act before the House in the fall. Well, fall is fast going; it is just about gone with the snow flakes we see around us, and we have not seen that legislation introduced as yet. I suspect it is not yet in shape to be introduced. Perhaps the minister might comment on that aspect but it is an important piece of legislation which should be introduced and studied to ensure that the trust companies, those engaged in mortgage lending and so on, have their powers broadened or changed so that the kind of competition which should exist in our financial institutions is retained in view of its importance for the commercial health of Canada.
We have before us also an amendment of my good friend, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) with respect to
a matter involving what I would call the Grindley Bank amendment in motion 51. I would commend this to the minister as well. It is a motion which would solve a problem which I understand is a unique one, much the same as the problem which the minister had in his amendment concerning the amalgamation of the Continental Bank and IAC Limited. Those are special amendments which perhaps only help one institution, but in a complex banking system, a system which we want to improve, problems were caused by reason of the fact that we did not define the business of banking with respect to foreign banks operating here; we did not prevent people from using the word "bank" in their provincial incorporations, and so on. These problems have arisen over the last 12 or 14 years, and the amendment in motion 51 might well solve the problems which bringing all foreign banks into the act would present.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, we have before us an excellent piece of legislation. With some of the amendments that are here and which I would recommend to the minister, and further amendments which the minister and his staff have added, this legislation should be passed quickly. I was unhappy when my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) suggested six days, though certainly he has been around bank acts longer than any of us. It would be gratifying if this legislation could be passed faster than that.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say a few words in introduction to the number of motions which our party has put forward with respect to the Bank Act. I would like to say, in introducing these remarks, how much I appreciate the efforts of the minister to take the time to consider the proposals we have put forward. I cannot say that I am happy with the substance of his acceptance, but when it comes to the process, I must say I have been impressed by the minister's willingness to deal seriously with the proposals we have put forward and to attempt to recognize the merits of what we have had to say. I hope that something of the minister's spirit and character will also be a characteristic of the government's attitude with respect to a number of other items which are currently being discussed.
With respect to the Bank Act I think the position of our party is clearly on the record. We have had a number of discussions in this House and in committee with respect to this act and the extension of other acts, so 1 do not think there is any need for me either to recite the same poems I recited before or the same examples I recited before. I think it is sufficient simply to say that in my view, and as expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the difficulty with this kind of legislation is that it suffers from what Marshall McLuhan has described as the rear view mirror syndrome many of us have. Instead of looking forward to the problems which in a sense are simply here today in a very small and growing form and seeing where these tendencies will take us, there has been a tremendous tendency in this legislation to look at problems which grew up in the
November 7, 1980

early 1970s and late 1960s and to respond immediately to those rather than to look at the broad framework for the future.
1 think there is an illusion that our banking system is competitive. It is one of the great organizing myths of our time that we have a competitive banking system. The fact is, we have an intensely monopolistic banking system with a very few large and powerful institutions dominating the marketplace. We have the illusion that somehow our banking system is a kind of bazaar where there is relative equality between borrowers and lenders. That is one of the great illusions of our time. Because we are convinced that that is an illusion, the thrust of the amendments we have put forward is, on the one hand, to recognize the necessity of direct public involvement and regulation of what has become a highly concentrated industry and, on the other hand, to provide for competition wherever that is possible. 1 refer to competition in the sense of providing protection for those industries, individuals and competing institutions who do not have the market power of the banks and protection for those consumers, small businessmen and farmers, who when dealing with banks do not deal with them in a relationship of equality. In a sense that is the philosophical basis on which we approach the question of the Bank Act.
Mr. Macintosh is the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association and former vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia. He is a very articulate and capable spokesman for the banking community. He has been engaged in a program of organized sour grapes about the Bank Act. He has been saying that somehow the House of Commons finance committee has simply responded to the loudest voices, that we have not heard the voice of the banks, that he now has to resort to going to the Senate in order to get the kind of hearing he thinks the banks deserve. One can only say to those like Mr. Macintosh that the largest, the most persistent, the loudest, the most aggressive, the most omnipresent and the most persuasive lobby in this country is that of the Canadian Bankers' Association.
On his retirement, President McLaughlin gave an interview in which he said proudly that he could pick up a telephone and get hold of any member of Parliament he wants at any time, that all he has to do is look down the list to get access to information and that at the flick of a finger he knows any member of Parliament's banker, his local bank manager, where he banks and how he banks. These are the defenceless virgins who are coming before us and saying, for example, that the Federation of Automobile Dealers has taken unfair advantage of the House of Commons finance committee, that the Cattlemen's Association has somehow bludgeoned 21 members of the finance committee into accepting its amendments, that the data processors had somehow managed to thrust themselves upon the finance committee and that the Canadian Bankers' Association has retreated because of the power of those lobbies. Who is Mr. Macintosh trying to kid? No entreaties have been more persistent, no group has been more constantly present at every single meeting of the finance committee and no one group has been more persistently on the
Bank Act
telephone than the Canadian Bankers' Association. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stated last spring, the association was so desperate that it even invited me to lunch last spring to discuss the Bank Act.
My job requires me to do many things-


Walter David Baker: And eating is one of them.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) points out that eating is one of them. Let us be under no illusions. This is not a Bank Act, unfortunately, which is antithetical to the interests of the banks. This is a Bank Act in a sense which simply in the mildest way possible attempts to say to the banks that they cannot have absolutely everything they are asking for; there are some limitations on the market power the banks are going to be allowed to exercise. In our view the limitations are very important but not as large as we would have liked them to be. Nevertheless, they are necessary.
In the case of automobile dealers, as has been pointed out by other speakers, why in the name of goodness should we allow the banks to get into the business of leasing cars? Why should that become a part of the business of banking? I feel equally strongly, as do other members of my party, about a very successful, growing-I am speaking of what it will be like ten years down the road-and increasingly important sector, the data processing sector and the computer industry dealing with payroll, accounting and a number of financial services which are provided to business. In our view the banks must be very carefully and strictly regulated in that field.
Mr. Macintosh mentions it as being one of the most important sectors, and he urges that they be allowed to continue to stay in this field. We are not happy with the regulations which have been put forward by the Department of Finance because we feel that those regulations give too broad a power to the banks and do not give sufficient protection to a growing Canadian industry. The answer always given by the banks to these criticisms is that they can provide the best and most competitive system and that all that we are doing by giving an advantage to credit unions or to the automobile dealers or to the data processors is subsidizing inefficiency. That is their argument. Their argument is that the wider public interest will be served by the provision of the most efficient and least expensive service. On many occasions when Mr. Macintosh has presented this argument before the committee-and I would like to leave this argument on the record in terms of our perspective-I have said that the public interest is not simply defined by having one, two or three large and extremely powerful financial institutions providing every single kind of financial and economic service to the consumer. In the short run that may provide a cheaper service, but one also has to ask whether the elimination of whole sectors of our economy, the takeover of smaller Financial institutions and the removal of all the market power and ability of small businessmen in the car-dealing field and in the data processing field is really in the public interest. Would it not be in the greater public interest to have a diversity of institutions providing information and services to the consumer, and should we not be striving in our

November 7, 1980
Bank Act
Bank Act, as I have said, to provide for a degree of government involvement and regulation which guarantees the protection of the consumer in one instance and a genuinely competitive system with trust companies, caisses populaires and credit unions providing competition with the banks on the other? With regard to this last point, 1 think there is another major illusion. Introducing the foreign bank provisions of this act, as hon. members know, allows foreign banks up to 8 per cent of the total assets of Canada's banking system. The argument has been made that this is one key way of allowing for greater competition in the system. We can look at the difficulties faced by the Continental Bank and we can look at the amendments presented by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) with respect to small banks and their reserve requirements. We agree with those amendments, because if we are to provide for a genuinely competitive system and in fact encourage the growth of smaller Canadian banks, then in a sense we must give some market advantage to those groups. If we are genuinely concerned with this problem, then it may well be that the government reserve policy will have to be sufficiently lenient and discriminating-I am not saying discriminatory, 1 am saying discriminating-to allow for the growth of banking institutions which will provide for perhaps more specialized services to particular sectors of the economy, but subject to federal control and regulation, with guarantees of at least ownership being fairly widely dispersed and so on.
As we know, foreign banks will very quickly get to the 8 per cent limit. Indeed, to my regret I predict the House will be requested by the government to increase that limit during the life of this act. The implication is that foreign banks will come in and take over the business of foreign subsidiaries of companies working overseas. In a sense they will skim off that business from current Canadian banks. Having, in a sense, occupied that 8 per cent, we will not be in a position to encourage the formation of smaller Canadian banks, whether they be the Crown banks which our party discussed in committee, trust companies or other financial institutions which decide to become banks.
In summary, there are two main problems with the Bank Act before us. It does not recognize the need to increase the power of the government to regulate the banking industry, and, to be polite, it provides for insufficient protection of the public interest. For example, it indicates that there will never be Crown banks, that no public servants can serve on the boards of directors of banks, and that banks will continue to be allowed to set whatever interest rates they wish without any intervention by government. Those are all examples of inadequate protection of the public interest. Also the act fails to provide for real and genuine competition, from the points of view of other institutions, other industries and consumers.
In closing I should like to refer to one amendment-I know the minister has stepped out of the House for a moment, but I have spoken to him about this many times. I know there are other members of the House who are equally concerned with the principle contained in the amendment. If the government
rejects all the principles of consumer protection and financial disclosure-they have accepted some but rejected others- they should think again about the following item. I am referring to the fact that we do not require banks which are engaged in over 35 per cent of their business overseas, in substantive and major dealings with foreign countries and the agencies of foreign countries to inform the Canadian public on an annual basis as to the number and size of their loans. The principle of confidentiality has been abused to prevent consumers and other various interested groups from knowing exactly the foreign policy of our banks. We have many examples of where it would be useful to know the domestic policy of our banks. For example, if the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce lent the amount it is reported to have lent to Massey-Ferguson, it is no longer a matter of confidentiality. It becomes a matter of concern to the governments involved in the negotiations, to consumers concerned about where they will bank, how they will bank and the wisdom of carrying out policies where such a large share of assets is tied up by one company. If the domestic policy is unsatisfactory, the foreign policy implications are tremendous.
All our banks are engaged on a day-to-day basis with loans of a huge size to countries all over the world. When this happens it has implications for Canada's foreign policy and those people who are deeply concerned about the internal policies of those governments. I am referring, for example, to the governments of South Africa, Chile, Eastern Europe and cases where internationally syndicated loans are arranged through large companies.
I see Mr. Speaker about to rise to his feet. This is one amendment which the government could well accept without for a moment moving away from the basic principles contained in the act. In fact it would merely extend principles already accepted in committee, in other words that, there is a right to know on the part of every consumer and an obligation on the part of these companies to divulge all their financial information on as full and fair a basis as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is consulting with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in my confusion I thought the minister would speak before me but if he wishes to close the debate, that is fine.
I wish to turn to the second half of my stint this afternoon and deal with amendments 1 and 2. I think it is quite clear that the House should have a clarification of what I have in mind for motion No. 1, which is the definition of a bank.
November 7, 1980

1 have been astounded over the past many years, first of all during the revision in 1966 when the then minister of finance, Mitchell Sharp, and the then Inspector General of Banks refused an invitation to define the business of banking. At that time the act did not use the phrase "business of banking" as it does in this present version. As a lawyer it seemed to me incongruous that here was an act containing prohibitions against anybody setting up as a bank, yet they refused to define a bank in that act. In commercial practice as a lawyer, when clients came in and asked what they could or could not do under a statute, I took one look at the statute and told them that the limitations on the business contemplated was this or that. That is the purpose of a statute. Now we have one of the most important statutes in this country before us, one that is singular in that it has a sunset period. It is an act that defines what can and cannot be done. But it refuses to define what a bank is. It merely says that a bank is a bank under the act. Perhaps it is a secret among the bureaucracy. I cannot understand it, nor can my lawyer friends, whether they were members of the committee or witnesses before it.
1 have a whole series of references to testimony given by those appearing on behalf of the Canadian Bankers' Association and many others. I know the governor of the Bank of Canada privately would love to have the definition. He says: Well, we are getting along without it, so why rock the boat? Of course, the governor of the Bank of Canada could not criticize the government on this point.
When clients come in to see a Canadian firm of lawyers and say they want to carry on a business and want to know if we will be deemed to be a foreign bank, they set out their operations. Then we look to the definition of what is a foreign bank. On page 4, at line 39, we find the definition of "foreign bank". It says:
"foreign bank" means a corporation, association, partnership or other institution incorporated or established by, pursuant to or in accordance with the laws of a country other than Canada, or a department or agency of the government of a country other than Canada or a political subdivision of such a country, that
(a)	is a bank according to the laws of any country other than Canada where it carries on business.
Presumably the law of that country of incorporation will be sensible enough to determine what a bank is. We, in Canada, cannot do it. The definition, under (b), continues:
(b)	carries on a business in a country other than Canada that, if carried on in Canada, would be wholly, or to a significant extent, the business of banking,
We ask: what is the business of banking? At present in Canada a lawyer would have to say to his client: I cannot tell you because there is no business of banking defined in this act. As Canadians, we cannot tell you what our Canadian Bank Act defines as the business of banking. I find that extraordinary, Mr. Speaker.
I now move to section 6 of the act, in which the government compounds the nonsense of the absence of a definition of the business of banking in the clause which extends the life of this act. Section 6 appears at line 21 on page 13 and says:
6. (1) Subject to this act,
(a) if Parliament sits on at least 20 days during the month of March, 1991, each bank may carry on the business of banking until the first day of April, 1991, and no longer;
Bank Act
In subparagraph (b) there appears the phrase "business of banking" but there is still no definition. Then we go to section 302, which deals with foreign banks. I am reading from page 306 at line 4:
302. (I) A foreign bank shall not, directly or indirectly,
(a) undertake any banking business in Canada,
Mr. Speaker, I invite you to enlighten me and to tell me what that means when there is no definition provided as to the business of banking. I suppose one could resort to that Solomon-like statement attributed to a judge of the Court of Appeal in Manitoba who was reported to have said: Banking?
Is that what bankers do? The Supreme Court of Canada in a recent case involving the Canada Labour Code and a trust company decided that since the trust company was not a bank it did not fall under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code-banks come under the Canada Labour Code but trust companies do not. That is the sole distinction as to the business of banking.
I do not know how many times I have done this, but again I am moved to refine it further-and I am not wedded to the words themselves. If anybody can come up with better phraseology they are welcome to try. I would submit to hon. members that we can get around this problem here by defining what is meant by a bank. I am susceptible to all of the political weak-kneeism and wet-noodle-backbone attitudes that may have been expressed by the federal government in the past, and at the present time, when they refuse to face up to the proposition that money and banking is under their exclusive federal jurisdiction. But some provincial governments, because they have incorporated trust companies or financial companies-just merely incorporated them-say they have jurisdiction over their operations. My foot, they have! Provincial governments incorporate aircraft companies, broadcasting companies, grain companies, but they do not have a thing to say about their operations. Therefore, these provincial governments should have nothing to say about near banks and their operations within the field of money and banking. The provinces have waltzed in and, shall we say, by default on the part of the federal government, have gone into the field of money and banking to the extent that chartered banks now only have 65 per cent of their money on deposit. Thirty-five per cent of the money on deposit is outside the purview of the bank, when the constitution says that 100 per cent should be within its purview.
Credit unions are incorporated. They can be incorporated under provincial legislation, but once they step into the business of banking they are in the area of federal control. Similarly, if a co-operative engaged in the business of aircraft wanted to fly its own plane, it would have to apply to the federal government for licences for the aircraft, for its air worthiness, for radio transmission and all the other purposes of operating that aircraft. So why should a credit union engaged in the business of banking not be subject to the same regulations or similar regulations under the Inspector General of Banks?
4570

November 7, 1980
Bank Act
Although the credit unions do not share that view, it is my view. The credit unions have a number of advantages. When the credit unions began, they were not nearly as strong as they are now. One of their strongest pleas for some of the advantages they now hold was that they were the small man's bank, that they were there in lieu of mortgage companies, trust companies and banks. Strangely enough, credit unions now have their own mortgage company, trust company, and I hear they have now formed their own auto leasing company.
Now that the banks have been pushed out of auto leasing, the credit unions have stepped in. The whole point of removing the banks from that industry was to protect the automobile dealers because it attacked the heart and soul of their business. It was not for the benefit of credit unions. I am sure hon. members on the government side have never heard of this development. Certainly there was no letter written or word given to any member in the official opposition with regard to that particular development. I am not trying to fault the credit unions, I am merely trying to illustrate the lack of logic.
I say that a bank means, (a) any financial institution engaged in the business of lending money and accepting deposit liabilities transferable by cheque or other instrument or, (b) any financial institution engaged in the business of lending money raised in Canada through the acceptance of deposit liabilities or the issuance of securities, but does not include any financial institution incorporated as a credit union, caisse populaire and federations of such or any other co-operative credit society. So I have grandfathered them. That should satisfy those people who feel credit unions should operate under exclusive provincial control even though they are engaged in the business of banking.
A bank also means, (c) any financial institution subject to the Quebec Savings Banks Act. That is perfectly right because we have an act to cover that situation. Next, a bank is any financial institution wholly owned by the federal or provincial governments or treasury branches or offices thereof. There is the Ontario Savings and Loan Association and there are the Alberta Treasury Branches. There may be some other institutions of which I am not aware which would be covered under this particular exception.
A bank is any financial institution incorporated as an insurance company within the meaning of the Canada and British Insurance Companies Act. Again, that is just to make sure that somebody inadvertently does not get caught up as a bank. Finally, I say that a bank is any financial institution incorporated either federally or provincially as a trust company, mortgage and loan company or a finance company with more than 75 per cent Canadian ownership and where no foreign individual or associate individuals or groups own more than 10 per cent of the voting shares.
I made that particular exemption deliberately because that last paragraph would catch foreign banks operating in the country in a great number of cases because the only exemption is for companies or institutions incorporated federally or provincially as a trust company, mortgage and loan company or finance company. There are a number of trust companies
which are subsidiaries to American banks as well as banks of other countries. The finance company Finance America is a subsidiary of the Bank of America. I refer to companies which have more than 75 per cent of Canadian ownership because that is what we insist on for our Canadian banks. There would be a limitation of 10 per cent for any individual or associated shareholder.
That is what we require of the Canadian banks and, yet, I find an inexplicable reluctance on the part of the government to accept this amendment. Logically, the minister does not have a leg to stand on because there is no lawyer who will say that this is a sound piece of legislation. The legislation insists on using the term "bank" and "business of banking" but refuses to define that term. I have defined it and I am satisfied with the definition. I invented the definition with a number of groups and they themselves say the language is good. Somebody may find something better, but I defy any lawyer or any member of the government side to tell me that in an act like the Bank Act one does not require a definition of the "business of banking".
How would the government advise a client as to what is permissible to a bank and what is not permissible to a bank? This is a point upon which I insist that I am right. I know some people say I get pretty tenacious about some of my own opinions, but this has been consistent, and many of the members of the committee privately share my point of view. I also know that this point of view, that one must define banking, is shared by many people on the outside.
One has to define banking. How are we going to assist the federal court or the Supreme Court of Canada in deciding matters under the Canada Labour Code if we refuse to define banking, if we refuse to define what institutions are banks and which are not banks? Therein lies the jurisdiction.
Then there is the matter of the case in Manitoba. Does the minister feel the judgment of the court there resolved the problem in any way when the judge said that the business of banking is what bankers do?
I most earnestly urge the House to consider this amendment and that which follows. One says what a bank is, and the other one says that the business of banking is that carried on within the meaning of this act as defined.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, there are two views of what we can do, one of which has been stated by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in his amendments. The other is the view of the government.
The view of the government is that basically, we define the general field of banking by virtue of the act but, because of the difficulties of attempting to find a definition of a bank which is under federal legislation-and this is the whole constitutional problem which lies behind this difficulty-beyond that, there is no need to set out a precise definition of banking and that in
November 7, 1980

fact to have a precise definition would cause more problems than it would solve.
1 simply want to refer the minister to the case to which the hon. member for Edmonton West refers, Computer Services Limited and Comcheq Services Limited versus the Toronto Dominion Bank which was decided by Mr. Justice Monnin in the decision for the majority of the Court of Appeal on November 22, 1979. 1 am afraid I do not have any other citation for that case. I only have the original of the decision. As the minister is no doubt aware, this case is under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The difficulty that I think Mr. Justice Monnin's decision gives rise to is a very real one-and this perhaps speaks directly to motion No. 2 proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West. The judgment of the trial court was that banking is what banking activity is described as in section 75 of the old act. But Mr. Justice Monnin is saying, no, that is not true. The judgment reads in part:
I do not think that this is a correct statement of the law. Parliament never intended to establish a fixed or restricted definition of banking by enumerating clauses (a) to (d) of section 75. Banking must have a much broader meaning.
It goes on to say:
All the textbook writers on banking confirm this statement that there is no exact definition of a banker or a bank. In fact and in practice, banking is what banks do for the carrying on of their business; what they do can vary from decade to decade and from century to century.
He goes on to find that the computer payroll service and something called the "compucount" which is a kind of accounting service provided by the Toronto Dominion Bank in the city of Winnipeg, is something that banks do, and therefore is part and parcel of the business of banking.
The amendment, motion No. 2 proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West, may seem unnecessary. Some members may ask, what is the big deal? Because it simply reads as follows:
'business of banking' means that business carried on in whole or in part by a bank within the meaning of the act.'
There is a real difference between that concept of the business of banking, the concept contained in the judgment of Mr. Justice Monnin, and, if I understand the position of the government, the philosophy that in a sense underlies the new act; that is, that banking is what bankers do; that there are specific prohibitions contained in the act which prevent bankers from doing certain kinds of things but apart from those specific prohibitions there is no limitation on what a bank can do.
For the reasons which 1 outlined earlier with respect to the market power of the banks, the effect of new technologies on smaller companies and the banks' tremendous ability to use these new technologies and introduce them in ways that might not have been anticipated, I think it is better for this Parliament to err on the side of limitation. In other words, it is better to have a specific prohibition in the beginning of the act which says that banking is what bankers are allowed to do under this act and nothing else, rather than to follow the broader concept
Bank Act
of banking contained in the judgment of Mr. Justice Monnin and contained, I think, in the general thrust of the legislation.
The hon. member for Edmonton West mentioned a number of examples. I want to refer to clause 174(2)(j) which deals with data processing services. It seems to me that unless we have a definition at the beginning of the act which limits banks to specific services provided for in the act and nothing else, that it is precisely in a field such as data processing that we will find the banks, judging from speeches as the one made in Toronto on November 3, by Mr. Macintosh, becoming active.
I want to indicate in a general way that we are in favour of the principles of the amendments presented by the hon. member for Edmonton West because unless we restrict the definition of banking to what is specifically allowed in this act on a ten-year basis, we are giving a blank cheque to the banks to engage in all sorts of activities which we may not anticipate in this year, 1980.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I should like to find out whether there is unanimous consent, for I would require not more than four or five minutes to complete my remarks. Perhaps we could dispose at the same time of motions Nos. 1 and 2, should hon. members unanimously so decide.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the minister four or five minutes in which to make his comments on these items before proceeding to private members' hour?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I assume that if it is necessary, that a provision would be made for the private member to have time added past six o'clock so that he would have the full hour for his bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. It is clear that when considering a definition, one could see it from various perspectives. The first one, I suggest, is that of universality, which establishes a definition under the strictest principles by indicating the type and specific difference.
I believe every hon. member in the House can see that attempting to define banks and banking activities in generic and specific terms would condemn us to entering the constitutional imbroglio of the various jurisdictions in the field of financial institutions. The hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae) pointed that out, and the many exceptions the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) added to his own definition, indicate clearly that he wanted to avoid the trap a rigourous definition would set and in which we would inevitably fall.

November 7, 1980
Broadcasting Act
Another type of definition. May 1 be allowed to point out that one of the rules of definition demands that the definition be clearer than the defined. On examining the list of exceptions in the definition, we find more confusion in the "defined" than in the object to be defined or in the nature of what is to be defined. I see Professor Pepin smiling; I trust 1 am not stretching my sophisms to the extent of troubling his Thomis-tic mind.
We have adopted the aspect of the definition that is functional. We say: a bank is an institution which, either through letters patent or incorporation, can operate within a specific framework. That framework is defined by the legislative text known as the Bank Act. Banking activities are the activities of the institution defined as a financial institution operating under this act. In part V, on page 164 of the bill, banking business is said to be the operations and powers of the financial institution known as a bank under the first definition. 1 feel "therefore" that the object of the concerns of the hon. member for Edmonton West is covered, though not covered in the same way. It is not done as rigorously as the hon. member would have it, precisely to avoid the obvious pitfalls on the constitutional level. That is why 1 move that the House reject motions Nos. 1 and 2.


Walter David Baker: Four o'clock!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 16, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 17, standing in the name of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), stand by unanimous consent ?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 18, standing in the name of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 19, standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall order No. 23, standing in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BROADCASTING ACT
A. Daniel McKenzie: that Bill C-224, to amend the Broadcasting Act, (Educational use of programs) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable school boards to tape radio and television broadcasts for use in schools at a cost that is not prohibitive without incurring liability for copyright infringement.
To this end, the bill would empower the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission to require the necessary contractual arrangements to be worked out between stations and networks on the one hand and authors and artists on the other.
We have had considerable correspondence over the last eight years with regard to this bill. We have had federal government support for allowing schools to obtain these educational films, but we have met with very limited success.
I have had correspondence from the following schools, universities and others across Canada supporting this bill and asking the federal government for help: The Prince Edward Island Teachers' Federation; the St. James-Assiniboine School Div. No. 2 of Winnipeg; The Board of Education for the city of North York; the River East School Division of Winnipeg; the Manitoba Teachers' Society; the Canadian School Trus-
November 7, 1980

tees' Association; the Niagara South Board of Education; School District No. 63 (Saanich) Sidney, B.C.; the Separate School Board of Metropolitan Toronto; The Manitoba Association of School Superintendents; Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario; the Canadian Teachers' Federation; the School Trustees' of Greater Victoria, and the University of Alberta. As well, individual teachers and school trustees have asked for assistance in having the subject matter passed to committee. The Canadian School Trustees' Association has written to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) asking that this bill or the subject matter be referred to committee.
After years and years of discussion about the use of television programs in our schools and universities, it is time interested groups, such as the Canadian Schools Trustees' Association, teachers associations and other groups be permitted to come to the committee where the problems on all sides can be ironed out.
In a letter from the Canadian School Trustees' Association to the President of the Privy Council, it is stated:
For eight years, the bill has been considered and always voted out; but only because of the usual procedures of the House with respect to private members' bills that originate outside of the government. The bill has never had real consideration before a committee of the House, even though we have good reason to believe that members of all parties in the House would normally be prepared to support the bill. Seven years ago, there was an opportunity made available; but even though we brought people from across the country to appear before the committee, the meeting of the committee lacked a quorum because of traumatic events in the House; and we were never heard, including others, such as representatives from the Canadian Teachers' Federation.
The government said that if I withdrew the bill, it would allow the subject matter to go to committee. It went to committee. School teachers and school trustees from across Canada came to the meeting, but no Liberal members showed up, which I found most insulting. 1 hope we are not going to have similar treatment here this afternoon for Canada's educational system.
We are now making a special appeal to have the bill go before the committee again so that all concerned can make their views known to members of Parliament for a judgment based on more information.
The letter from the Canadian School Trustees' Association continues:
Progress has been made in Great Britain and the United States toward off-air taping of programs for educational, non-profit use; but here in Canada, we are still at square one. Students in the classrooms are the real people affected; and this is regrettable at a time when taping off-air privileges could have a significant impact on making students more aware of their own country.
It seems very little to ask to have the bill or the subject matter go to committee. Also, the executive director of the Canadian School Trustees' Association, Mr. C. H. Witney, has written a letter to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) in support of the bill or the subject matter to being referred to committee. He has pointed out that in the United States representative Kastenmeir, chairman of the judiciary subcommittee of the House of Representatives, held hearings to discuss the off-air taping issue. On April 3, 1979, and ad hoc committee was created to set fair use guidelines. This committee in the United
Broadcasting Act
States consisted of representatives from the major networks, unions, guilds and education. That is what we are asking for in Canada but we are at a standstill.
1 have further comments from interested parties. The advisory committee of the Toronto Metropolitan Separate School Board, in a brief prepared for the director of education, says the bill "would bring a welcome extension to the use of video tape recordings in our school system." In their brief they state:
-"radio or television program intended as part of the curriculum of elementary or secondary schools . . ." may eliminate some excellent programs. The program "Man Alive" would be excluded by this definition and yet it is the program most frequently requested for video taping. Also, to deny the video taping of newscasts would restrict teachers who could use this as part of the curriculum. For example, in the grade 9 history course the topic of French-English relations is taught and there would be useful information contained in newscasts.
Serious legal problems have arisen for some schools across Canada and proceedings have been instituted against 14 CEGEPs, that is post-secondary educational facilities in the province of Quebec. They are being sued by a group representing artists and producers. The suit attempts to recover $990,000 for the illegal reproduction of audio-visual tapes. The CEGEPs are being sued for institutionalized fraud, and it is obvious that changes to the copyright legislation are necessary. The best place to discuss these changes would be in committee.
I see we have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) here this afternoon who, I understand, will be bringing in some changes to the copyright legislation. I hope he will be introducing this legislation shortly as it would certainly assist our schools in obtaining educational films. School divisions in British Columbia and Manitoba have also been threatened with lawsuits, Mr. Speaker, so you can see that it is time we came to their rescue.
In July, 1975, in Britain the BBC and the ITCA permitted schools and other educational institutions to record educational programs off-air for later use in schools. It was necessary for these two agencies to make appropriate arrangements with certain performers, unions and holders of other relevant rights. This was not thought to be an insurmountable problem for the networks, school authorities and the government of the United Kingdom. I think it is a problem we in Canada can solve with just a little effort, the first step being the referral of this bill to committee for further study. I hope we will receive a favourable response from the government this afternoon.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my party and I tend to support the bill in principle. We would like to see it go to committee for further discussion, and we hope members on the other side will not see fit to talk it out, for a very good reason.
First, it is a very important piece of legislation which could potentially improve the scope of education in the schools and colleges of our country. Second, I do not know how many members realize how greatly the use of video tape recorders has spread. I have some statistics here which show the prolifer-

November 7, 1980
Broadcasting Act
ation of these machines. They are not really confined to homes, radio stations or television stations. They will be used in schools and other institutions, and they are already. So what I am saying about the hon. member's bill is simply that the use of apparatus of this kind is going to spread and copies are going to be made of intellectual properties anyway. They are being made at present and there is nothing that we or anyone else can do to stop this technological advance. It is unstoppable. It is somewhat akin to the technology associated with satellites and earth stations, and we will have to adjust our legal system to become more consonant with the new technology. If we do not do that, what will happen is that we will see a tremendous growth in this kind of under-the-table illegality which already has occurred with print material where you have a vast amount of copyright material of "someone's intellectual property", either that of the creator or of the publisher. At the moment, schools and colleges are running these off by the hundreds on Xerox machines and on various types of ditto machines, and publishers and various other companies which have some rights so far as these properties are concerned are at a loss to know what to do.
Certainly there is occasionally an attempt to bring a suit, to make an example of some institution or of some individual, some school teacher or high school bandmaster who wants another second flute part and Xerox's copies from the original. It is precisely the same thing as will occur now with different material in the video taping. The recorded form, for that matter, is also something that has been going on for some years. People have been taping recordings for years. With this sort of bootlegging or private taping, nobody, neither the publisher nor the composer or creator, gets any kind of benefit.
Surely if it is done in other countries, it is not beyond our intellectual capacity to make some kind of arrangement, as we have with the radio stations through CAPAC and BMI, for a performing rights fee based on the volume of the radio station or the percentage of his gross. It does not seem to me to be impossible to work out a system of fees and charges which could apply to institutions so that the publishers or the owners of those rights could get something out of it. You might as well legalize it and organize it rather than allow it to go on and proliferate in an illegal, pirate way as it is today.
Certainly it is complex, extremely complex. Although this bill mentions only the Broadcasting Act, what is involved more deeply and more intimately is the copyright aspect. The hon. member did mention that. The Copyright Act amendments are something we tried to bring in here in 1971 when the present Madam Speaker was not yet a member of Parliament. I recall first meeting her at the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when it was studying Bill S-9 which was attempting to ask for copyright amendments so that performance fees could apply to the replay of records on radio stations. The idea was that the money would go to the composer and the publisher, but the performer himself on a "hit" record, if he was a back-stop musician, would get some benefit. That attempt failed ultimately, and the minister then became minister of state partially responsible for the Copyright Act, or
closely associated with the minister who was responsible at that time. Nothing has happened since in that regard. There are complexities here, but if other countries could solve this problem, it seems to me it would not be beyond Canada's ability to do the same thing. I therefore support the hon. member's representation and hope that it goes to committee so that it can be thoroughly examined. I do not think there is any threat to anybody's ministry or anybody's ego in this thing. There should be more of this kind of non-partisan examination of issues such as this, which are not associated with any political party, in an attempt to solve a particular problem faced by groups of institutions and hundreds, if not thousands, of young people.
Let me give the House some indication of the growth in the past four years of these video tape recorders or cassette recorders. There are many of them. There are different types, but that is not important at the moment. I am quoting from The New York Times Magazine of August, 1979. It says the following:
But in the past four years, hundreds of thousands of viewers have acquired video cassette recorders (VCRs). By plugging a VCR into their television sets, people can record any program they choose for later viewing. Firms such as Sony and Matsushita (which distributes its VCRs through (RCA) dominate the American market, and their cassette machines are being exported from Japan-
And get this, Mr. Speaker.
-at the rate of 100,000 a month.
It goes on to say how these things are used. Sure, they are used in homes. They are going to be used in schools. They are used in schools. Video casette players are available to schools, colleges and individuals, and they are now down to the price of $400 each. It is estimated that by 1988 there will be a penetration in the homes of the United States to the extent of 40 per cent.
We are dealing with this matter now, and no amount of stalling or foot-dragging will change anything at all. All we will do is make criminals or illegals out of many people who through their own honest efforts will attempt to use the new material and technology. I really do not want to become involved with some sort of conflict with the law.
I congratulate the hon. member for putting this motion forward. I congratulate members of the government and the minister for listening so attentively and politely. I hope I have made some contribution. I hope I have given the House a glimpse of the immensity of the problem and also the immensity of the challenge. I support wholeheartedly the hon. member's bill as well as his request that we have a look at this in committee, because it needs to be done.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the two previous speakers, and I am happy to add my contribution to this debate. The two previous speeches seemed to be practical, detailed and down to earth, but I have spent the past 12 years of my life in book publishing, and I have heard all these ideas before. They
November 7, 1980

are old ideas recycled around new machinery, and they are ideas which have been debated thoroughly, and thrown out, in other areas.
In effect, what we are looking at here is a threat to individual property. We are looking at a bill which asks us to consider theft which is a little more difficult because it is intellectual theft and not the actual removal of physical property.
Let us look at the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). He gave us a long list of people who support his ideas. Included in the list were teachers, college professors-all consumers. There were no writers, no artists, no producers, no designers and no publishers. Just consumers. 1 could put together the same kind of list for free food, but I would have a hard time getting a farmer to sign the list.


Mark Willson Rose: Read the bill.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Copyright exists for very specific reasons. It exists to protect property and to ensure that people will get recognition and payment. The book industry, newspapers, the music industry, arts and films take copyright laws very seriously because all these people own their material, and they want payment for it. They want protection against its misuse, and they want recognition of their own artistic and creative inputs. When we come along and try to exempt people from copyright laws, we are taking away from the creators of those materials the rights they quite properly now enjoy.
As I mentioned, I have experience in book publishing, and I have seen this happen time and again. I remember a case in British Columbia in which the teacher's federation Xeroxed an entire book and then sent copies to the publisher. I remember in my own publishing company specifically putting on a map the information that the customer could Xerox the map but that the rest of the book was protected from such reproduction. As we look at the arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, we find the same ideas being discussed around more and more sophisticated technology.
The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) was quite right in saying that this technology is spreading, but he was wrong when he inferred that we should condone the practice that is spreading with the technology. Because the bootlegging is happening, in his opinion we should okay it. Car theft is happening as well. Should we okay that? We did not okay horse theft, and when the technology improved we did not okay car theft. We could use the same parallels here. In this bill we are asking artists and writers to subsidize municipal taxpayers. We are saying that schools and colleges do not have enough money to afford materials which they somehow justifiably deserve, and so the writers, publishers and designers, those who spent their time, their thought, their intellect, their money and their labour, are the people who should subsidize the taxpayers. And that harsh fact is hidden by dragging in legions of small children and earnest teachers who somehow deserve access to this material free or cheap.
Broadcasting Act
I am sympathetic to the idea that we need more money for educational materials at all levels of our school system. I am also sympathetic with people who succumb to temptation because the technology is there and it is easy to reproduce the material. But I also know, despite my sympathy, that these are quite separate issues, and I feel determined that we should be protecting the people who give us the materials in the first place.
It should be clear that the right to take away property is not the correct route to raise cash for our school systems. I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine would voluntarily give away half his back yard because somebody wanted to build a new school next door and did not have quite enough room. He probably would not give away his car if the school needed a new bus. And we should not ask people to give away their films, their newspapers, their paintings or their books just because enough cash cannot be raised this year from local taxpayers.
In fact, if we look at the consequences of the sympathetic approach the hon. member has taken, we will see that it is actually counterproductive. Perhaps in the short term he would have more materials than he could reproduce on his VTR or on his Xerox, but in the long term he would have fewer materials. Who would do anything remotely useful for a school if it was likely to be stolen from him at the school? We would find-and this pattern has been occurring in book publishing and it would occur again in films and television-that people would somehow just avoid servicing the school market because they would not be getting a proper return for their labour, their investment and their thought.
I congratulate the hon. member. Everyone wants good schools. In fact, I have a niece and a nephew who attend schools in his riding, and I am most anxious that they be good schools. We all want ample materials in those schools, and again, because of my family ties, I want very good materials in the schools in his riding. The people to whom we should be talking are not the artists or the producers. We should talk to Mr. Sterling Lyon and tell him to quit cutting taxes and to supply the schools properly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is where the money comes from, not from the producers. If the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine takes the long-term view and does some homework, he will find out that it is really an old argument. He can go all the way back to the days of Mark Twain and find that some of his books were actually pirated and published in Canada before they appeared in the United States. The fact that it was done in the days of Mark Twain was a strong enough argument for Canada eventually to set up good copyright laws. I do not think we should start backing away from that now just because we have new machines and it is easier to infringe. We should remind people that if they will not steal a physical piece of property, they should not steal an idea. Instead, we should take the sentiment in this bill and redirect it.

November 7, 1980
Broadcasting Act
When the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) comes here and asks for more money for some of his good programs to help creative people, we should give him that money. When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) comes here and asks for more money to create markets, we should give him those opportunities. When our artists and producers come to us asking for protection and recognition, we should respond to their requests as well. When we and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine start doing this, we will find in the long run that there are cheaper and better materials in the schools.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am pleased Mr. Speaker did not recognize me before the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), he added a dimension to this discussion which has not hitherto been presented on eight occasions since the motion first appeared on the order paper and went through its annual pilgrimage in the House. Obviously the hon. member is a lobbyist for the book publishing business. We have not had the benefit of that interesting viewpoint until now.
We are faced with a real problem, and I do not think any perspective should be accepted as the only one. I express admiration for the manner in which the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) sponsored this bill. He introduced it reasonably and has persisted over eight years in bringing it before the House. 1 have had a similar experience in sponsoring a private member's motion for almost as long to set up a committee on the disabled. Finally we have achieved our goal in that regard. We are working very constructively and creatively in a non-partisan manner to deal with the problems of the disabled community.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You will get the report from Transport Canada next week.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Oh, good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not say "good" until you have seen the report.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is something we were not able to obtain before. I hope hon. members heard the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). We have been attempting to get some action in the area of transportation for the disabled. This is good news that we have received this afternoon.
The sponsor of this motion is only asking that it be referred to a committee. It must be referred to a committee. We have heard the viewpoint of publishers expressed by the hon. member for Mississauga North, the viewpoint of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) who is a teacher with many years of experience, and the very constructive presentation of the mover of the bill.
The tragedy is that this matter was referred to committee on a previous occasion, but because of the exigencies of the
business of this House, there was no quorum in the committee and it could not proceed with its business. As the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine said, there were no Liberal members present at the committee. Whether that was deliberate or due to circumstances, we do not know. But, he received the approval of the House and of the government, and let us hope it is renewed before we finish our discussion this afternoon.
We are living in a time when information is expanding explosively. This phenomenon has been occurring for the last 30 or 40 years. Actually we were much better off in making audio-visual information available to educational institutions a couple of decades ago than we are now. In the past two decades we moved into the area of television communication and now we are moving toward Telidon communication. In the not too distant future everyone will have a machine in their homes through which they will be able to communicate with the community and the world at large. This invention is sponsored by the Government of Canada. The government has not yet sorted out the politics arising from this new magnificent technology, and what we are discussing today is a step in the right direction, if the subject is allowed to go to committee.
What will we do when Telidon is developed by the Government of Canada in collaboration with the private sector, Northern Telecom? We will be able to sit in our homes and bring in information of all kinds. What will the book publishers do about it? Telidon will have access to library resources all over the country, to satellite information, to electronic funds transmission, to electronic mail transmission and the whole business. This technology will require major changes in existing legislation and will result in the implementation of various new pieces of legislation. The bill before us is only asking for a reference to committee where we can grapple with one small segment of the total picture.
Obviously the hon. member for Mississauga North has not read the bill; his speech must have been prepared for him. If he had read the bill, he would have realized that clause l(vii) on line 26 reads:
-provisions respecting royalties payable to such authors or performers-
The whole idea is to make contractual arrangements. This is the emphasis of the bill. It would make it possible for royalty provisions to be payable to authors and performers. There is no desire to steal, as the hon. member for Mississauga North implied. There is no desire to steal or to avoid the necessity of making a reasonable contribution. This is what is being done now, as the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody told us. When Telidon comes on-stream it will be done in every home. It is to regularize and legalize what is already being done.
I say we have gone backwards in this regard. When I was in the educational field there used to be some interesting activities designed to inform the citizens of Canada, through audiovisual means, of some of the great events that were taking place at that time. This kept Canadians informed on current affairs. The two programs of which 1 speak were "Citizens
November 7, 1980

Forum" and "Farm Forum". These were sponsored by the CBC and excellent information was published by them and distributed. The National Film Board supported this educational activity by establishing a network of film councils across the country. These films were available free of charge. They were films on all sorts of topics of educational value to the schools, colleges and universities of this country. This service is no longer available because of the advent of television. Canada has not come to grips with that problem. As a result, our students and our citizens are being deprived of a very important and necessary source of information. The United States are ahead of us in this regard. They have the Public Broadcasting Service which is privately-funded and doing an excellent job of providing educational programming. It makes the programs available to schools and educational institutions. The CBC could do this, as it used to do with "Citizens Forum" and with "Farm Forum", backed up by the audio-visual services of the NFB.
I want to make one further point. I have already made reference to the fact that it took eight years to get some action on behalf of the disabled community by bringing a motion repeatedly before this House. I hope we will have the same response from the government spokesmen this afternoon who will rise and say: Yes, let it go to committee because we have a real problem here.
I also hope that the government will move quickly in the area of copyright because copyright provisions at the present time make it impossible to serve our schools and universities with audio-visual material. This also applies in the area of the disabled. Some radio stations have tried to provide a reading service for the blind and visually impaired. They cannot provide such service. They are willing to provide the service but they cannot do so because they are prevented by antiquated copyright legislation. Let us move forward in this direction. Let us see what can be done to change our out-dated copyright regulations so that urgently-needed services of the audio-visual educational kind can be provided to our schools. I mention this particularly for the benefit of the member for Mississauga North, so that publishers, writers and creators can be adequately compensated. I am sure there is no one, no author, no creative person in this country who wants to deny the young people of Canada in the schools the benefit of what they have created.
This bill is asking for amendments to the legislation which will make it possible to provide the royalties. Let us move forward in that area. Let us move forward in the area of copyright. Hon. members know that the government has, in the past decade or so, been talking about this for almost as long as amendments to the Bank Act have been talked about. Let us do it. Let us move this excellent piece of legislation into committee and get on with solving this urgent problem. New situations, new circumstances and new legislation will be required in order to come to grips with the impact of the revolution in technology-as Alvin Toffler calls it, the "new wave".
Broadcasting Act


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I take the floor, first, as the member for Mercier and, second, as former chairman of a regional school board and present trustee of the same school board. I would remind my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-Assiniboine that 1 shall be meeting my colleagues tomorrow at which time I shall have the opportunity of consulting them in that regard.
However, after having been active in the school system for five years, this is the sixth year of my term, I must say that this bill in no way meets the needs of Quebec school boards, and 1 am surprised that a Manitoba colleague can introduce a bill that trespasses on so many rights, individuals and bodies. In any event, 1 think this bill, as we say in French, is "stuffed" with good intentions, but as hell is also, "stuffed" with good intentions, I doubt that is the purpose of this bill.
1 must also remind the House that, in this bill, we deal with a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the Superior Council of the Ministers of Education, which means that we are dealing directly with a matter of provincial jurisdiction. As far as I know, and with regard to the allegations of my colleague for Winnipeg- Assiniboine, I have not heard that the ministers of the superior council made any request to the effect of changing our federal laws to authorize them to glean so-called educational programs from both public and private television networks. However, I see that my colleague extends the matter to television programs in section 3(2), which I quote:
-and any television program dealing primarily with history, science, the arts and current affairs, but does not include a newscast.
In other words, almost 90 per cent of all television programs produced can be used and taped by the minister of education network.
I believe my colleague and other hon. members would be well advised to see just what is now available to the ministers of education in the field of educational films. With this in mind, I brought my colleague for Winnipeg-Assiniboine a repertory of films on the penal code, published by the department I represent as Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Now it would have access to hundreds of films and refer the said document to the Manitoba Department of Education and make available to thousands of young people an extremely well prepared documentation from various sources at some ridiculously low prices and often free of charge. However, I do not intend obviously to give a lecture on the excellent films produced by the National Film Board of Canada which come under the jurisdiction of the federal government and which also make available to school boards some high quality films also at set prices or even free of charge. Therefore, I think that school boards are very well served by the Canadian govern-
4578

November 7, 1980
Broadcasting Act
ment as far as the production of educational films is concerned.
I wonder about the basic subject matter of Bill C-224, a bill practically authorizing the broadcast of all television programs throughout Canada. The member did not put any limitation in his bill about the programs originating in the United States since it is rather easy to gain access to the American production in Canada. Therefore, in my opinion, while the bill is full of good intentions, it does not surely attain the objectives sought by the member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).
Furthermore, as a school trustee and as a member sitting on a school board in my riding and accountable in another riding for another school board to which I have sent the reference book 1 mentioned earlier, 1 must say that I am surprised that there could be so much interference with the rights of all the people involved.
In fact, I am thinking of the authors, namely, the people who created those television programs; I am thinking of the producers and all the teams who participated in the production of those programs. I am not questioning the judgment of school boards in selecting programs which could be of some interest for those students. However, I believe it is not within the federal government's jurisdiction to initiate such action and to make available to the provinces material qualified as school and educational material, without their specific request.
Besides, I find it rather strange that a Progressive Conservative colleague normally so concerned with the welfare of private enterprise should propose now an almost socialist oriented bill. In fact, mention is made in this bill to cover rights which have been respected and if they have not been respected as they should, as mentionned by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) I do not see why we should try to make legal things which are being done illegally at the present time and if there is any need for putting teeth in the law I think that would be the right course to follow rather than making things legal by interfering with the basic rights of artists and authors. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the arts, as you no doubt know, it is extremely difficult for an artist to become known, to earn a living, to have a decent income in order to feed a family and in the long run to enjoy a decent living as a Canadian citizen.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine suggests, is for a federal control over television broadcasts and to offer them at a reasonable cost. I am sorry, but I do not think that it is the responsibility of the Canadian government to set a reasonable price for those broadcasts. At the present time, I believe that most of the programs shown on televison networks are available to all provincial governments which may, if they wish, obtain copyrights in order to show these programs in educational broadcasts. Therefore, I do not see how a member of the Progressive Conservative Party could allow such government interference in private business or in matters which come under the jurisdiction of another level of government. In fact, although I have not inquired about the situation in Manitoba, I know very well what services are offered in Quebec and in Ontario with regard to educational broadcasting and I must say that in Ontario the programs are of excellent quality. Not only does that province have access to Canadian productions but there are exchanges with countries of the European community, on a regular basis. Furthermore, beside those exchanges, the Ontario and Quebec governments have made joint efforts to produce educational programs, to which quite often participate our national radio and television network, but which are initiated by the provincial governments and which come under their own jurisdiction.
So, I do not see why my colleagues are up in arms on a constitutional motion which does not temper with provincial jurisdictions and I do not understand how a bill may be brought to the floor of this House, and have such an impact in a field which is strictly under provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, coming back to article 2(4) which states: "Notwithstanding the provisions of the act on copyright, copy, retention and utilization of a broadcast in the expected way, are deemed not to constitute infringements on copyright".
I protest, Mr. Speaker, such a clause which makes it possible to infringe upon copyrights. We know, as my colleague from Mission-Port Moody said earlier, that protecting copyright is no easy task and since that problem is to be tackled, I think the government will not hesitate to adopt such a measure. However, I think it is rather strange that a party so concerned with individual rights, a party which loathes social legislation, a party whose philosophy has always been based on the individual, should deny this very individual, who is the author, the opportunity to discuss his own copyrights, to set up his rights himself to negotiate them freely with television stations as well as denying him the opportunity to pass contracts involving retransmission.
By the way, the provinces can now have access to the whole Canadian government production through the educational network, for a nominal cost or for an amount which covers only the technical cost of production. Therefore, it seems very odd that such a provision be included in a bill which is supposed to aim at child education.
I must say that if my colleague is so concerned with the education of his children in his province, I offer him to share with the director of educational services of Le Gardeur School Board, on which I still sit, as a matter of fact, all resources which we have as regards bibliographies and films which could be put to the disposal of school-boards. Besides, I must say that as productions are made both in English and French in Quebec, his province would surely benefit from their use.
In addition, I have not heard the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine say in his speech that he had consulted
November 7, 1980

organizations as important as the Union des artistes or any other union concerned by the matter, and I believe that in such an important area, this is one of the basic things which must be introduced if we want such a legislation to take form and become statute.
On the other hand, 1 turn to the assertions of my colleague who was speaking earlier about Telidon, advanced technology, the opportunity to broadcast all kinds of documents through television. I do not think this government which has precisely presided over in the technological innovation in the telecommunication field, which, finally, has spent for many years huge amounts on research in this area, should deny the opportunity to use such advanced technological tools.
However, in spite of gossips and scandal-mongers, I must say that this government is anxious to respect members of the education superior board, their needs, their viewpoints, and if the latter make application to acquire such aids, 1 suggest the Liberal government could sit down and discuss the matter. But 1 believe that this legislation, as a matter of fact, represents a considerable infringement not only in the right of provinces, not only on the right of individuals, but it doesn't trust those who assume responsibility in this area.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if I had to sum up the matter, I would say that this legislation is paternalistic in a way. As a matter of fact, it would like to dictate conduct to school-boards and tell them how to use their educational aids and where to find them. Finally, credit would certainly be last where credit would be due. Personally, speaking this time as a mother of three children, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the findings of Statistics Canada, namely, that children are spending by far too many hours watching TV, and that all those who are interested in the issue, whether as teachers, psychologists or associated specialists, are indeed very concerned about this situation.
[DOT] <1700)
Before introducing such a bill and instead of allowing the students to have access to more hours of television under the pretext of education, we should perhaps look for innovations more in agreement with personalized education, with a type of
Broadcasting Act
education where the child is no longer treated as an object, but rather as a human being.
Mr. Speaker, the technology of television can be used well, and I believe that certain provincial governments-since I cannot give a summary of the situation throughout Canada- are now putting educational television to very good use. However, it is not by making available hundreds of hours more of programs that we can solve the problem of education for Canadian children. I believe that, at the present time-and my colleague can correct me if I am wrong-we have all the technical material that we need and the problem of education is not related to a lack of educational books or of technological aids available to school boards, but rather to the values and the system itself, to the children in our schools who have been ignored in the last few years and treated as numbers.
Mr. Speaker, we have tried in our school-board to give back to our students a quality of school life which is concerned less with the teaching environment and the quality of the building itself than with the quality of the teachers and personal contacts with each student, which aspect has been somewhat ignored in recent educational reforms.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-224 pretends to be aimed at education but, in fact, it only represents interference by the federal government in an area which comes nearly completely under provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support such a bill since I believe that by restricting this action to educational television, we would be opening the door to much greater dangers. Indeed, my colleague must know that we have throughout Canada community television stations which could also claim the same rights and say that, to educate the public in general, they want to take over these programs, and this would provoke a chaos which would benefit no one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being after five o'clock, pursuant to an order passed on Wednesday, November 5, 1980, the House stands adjourned until next Wednesday at 2 p.m., in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, November 12, 1980