1980-11-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. A notice from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) appeared in The Globe and Mail on Saturday, November 8, 1980, addressed to the cottage and home leaseholders in Yoho, Banff, Jasper, Waterton Lakes, Prince Albert and Riding Mountain national parks, all located in western Canada. Inasmuch as the announcement continues the harassment of western Canadians using these parks, harassment which has included attempts to cancel arbitrarily federal leases which now take the form of sudden exorbitant land rental increases up to 1,400 per cent, creating hardships on pioneers and senior citizens in particular, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the Minister of the Environment announce immediately that he will consult, as originally promised, with leaseholders in the western national parks in an effort to arrive at a fair and equitable increase, thereby easing the growing feeling of alienation in the west arising from the many arbitrary actions of the Government of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the sales tax on double-glazed and triple-glazed windows was cancelled in the November, 1978 budget, and whereas the stated goal of this government is energy conservation, and it is well known that the installation of double and triple-glazed
windows can significantly reduce building heat loss, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House instruct the government to reinstate the exemption from sales tax for double and triple-glazed windows.


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.


MEASURES TO ASSIST NORTHERN RESIDENTS MEET HIGH ENERGY COSTS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, who are totally dependent on oil as an energy source, are now paying upwards of $2 a gallon for fuel oil in some communities, and whereas there are no provisions in the budget to cushion the impact of escalating oil prices on northern residents, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That the government introduce measures, similar to those presently in effect in the Atlantic provinces, which would help northern residents cope with disproportionately high energy costs.


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.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, there seems to be a basic contradiction between the government's policy and the government's action in the area of foreign investment. The commissioner of the Foreign Investment Review Agency has just completed a trip to Germany to encourage European investment in Canada. This is in direct contradiction of the government's policy of putting all foreign investment proposals under stringent control and review. I

November 12, 1980
move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce make a statement on motions defining more clearly the separation between his control over the policy of FIRA and the apparent independence of action which the commissioner of FIR A enjoys, even to the extent of encouraging German investment in Canada, contrary to the stated government policy of corporate takeovers.


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.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It was reported over the weekend that a senior member of the Prime Minister's staff was called upon to draft the NDP amendment to the government's constitutional resolution because the NDP party has no obvious understanding of the constitutional resolution. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government reveal whether they are now drafting speeches, amendments and policies for the NDP, whether an NDP vote is just another Liberal vote, and that the government reveal the full extent of their relationship with the NDP since the Canadian people are entitled to an explanation whether there will be a full consummation of their relationship.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the Parti Quebecois is trying untiringly to attain its separatist aim by circulating a petition whose avowed purpose is to impede any attempt to renew Canadian federalism.
Whereas the Parti Quebecois is using some associations to circulate that petition.
Whereas the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition signed that petition when he came to my constituency on November 10 last, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el):
That the Leader of the Conservative party explain to the House his invitation to Quebeckers to take part in the referendum, which implied a commitment of the federalist forces to amend the Canadian Constitution, and his support now for the separatist party, which implies the rejection of any opportunity for the renewal of Canadian federalism.


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.


Mr. Clark:: Madam Speaker, is there consent-


Madam Speaker:: No.


Mr. McDermid:: The Liberals said no. The Liberals don't want to hear the truth.


PROPOSED RESOLUTION-ENDORSATION BY &quot;PRAVDA&quot;- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Pravda has expressed endorsation of the Prime Minister's constitutional resolution and in light of the fact that six provincial premiers are to challenge this constitutional package in the courts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That the Prime Minister not follow in the footsteps of his new ally and banish the six dissident premiers to the frozen wastelands of Siberia.


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.

[ Translation]


SITE FOR METHANE TERMINAL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
November 12, 1980

Last week, I visited Gros-Cacouna, the site which had been originally proposed for the LNG methane terminal for the Arctic pilot project near Riviere-du-Loup. While there I met some people from the area. Shortly before the proposal was made by Petro-Canada to the NEB, this proposal was amended to include Canso in Nova Scotia, another possible site for the terminal. It is clear, Madam Speaker, that there is a conflict here between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) concerning this site. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That the choice of the terminal site be referred to the Commons national resources committee in order to ascertain the pros and cons. I beg of both ministers to put an end to their chess game.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), I move:
That this House notes the frequent references made by the government to the S35 a month increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement provided earlier this year, but this House points out that this increase has been completely absorbed by increased rents, increased fuel and other costs, and this House therefore calls on the government to bring in a measure that will provide a further pension increase, it being clear that such a measure will be passed in time for the increase to be included in the cheques our pensioners will receive just before Christmas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Oral questions.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the capacity of the joint committee of Parliament which is considering the constitution to have its proceedings televised. The Prime Minister will know that Madam Speaker has ruled that that decision can be taken only by this House in so far as the House of Commons is concerned. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the intention of his government to take an initiative which would allow Parliament to give what Madam Speaker has called a permissive instruction to the joint committee which would allow full coverage by radio and television of the proceedings of that committee?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I had occasion this morning to listen to the views of various caucus members on this subject. It was concluded that the government House leader would be willing to meet the House leaders of the other parties, as soon as they are ready, to discuss ways in which television might be brought into that committee if agreement can be obtained all around on the way in which it can be done.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we have moved that far, although I think that was a conditional answer given by the Prime Minister. Is it the position of the government that there should be live radio and television coverage of the proceedings of the joint committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe that is a repetition of the same question, and I can only answer in the same terms, perhaps more elaborate if necessary. The position of this party has been for a long while, in spite of the foot dragging by the official opposition, that television should come into the House. The Leader of the Opposition will recall that television coverage in the House be done under very specified circumstances, that there be certain kinds of electronic Hansard, and so on. The answer I gave earlier indicates that our caucus is willing to go in the direction of televising this particular committee if the proper conditions, safeguards and framework are worked out between the House leaders.


Mr. Epp:: What conditions?


John Horton McDermid: Before December 9?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, again we do not have an indication yet that it is the intention of the Government of Canada to recommend full radio and television coverage. The Prime Minister says that their agreement would be conditional. Would the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons what his conditions are?

November 12, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that our House leader is prepared to meet his House leader and the House leader of the New Democratic Party to discuss these conditions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, to discuss what conditions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition surely remembers that when television was brought into the House, it was after a long series of negotiations on many conditions. Some conditions were put forth by his own party. We want objective coverage, something in the nature of an electronic Hansard. We do not want spots. We want to have the equivalent of what takes place in the full House. There are other conditions to be discussed which the House leaders will be able to look at.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
McDonald commission-possible conflict regarding

Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister also relates to a question of constitutional responsibility which needs public airing.
Where there may be a conflict regarding the release of information before a royal commission in this country and the very clear duty and responsibility of a provincial attorney general to prosecute or, at the very least, to have an investigation where serious allegations of a criminal nature have been made, which in the view of the Prime Minister and the government takes paramountcy? Is it the right of a royal commission to decline to release information to a provincial attorney general, or is it the right and responsibility of a provincial attorney general to prosecute?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the question oversimplifies the problem. There are two sovereign governments involved and each has its own responsibility. Speaking for this government, a royal commission was established which has been asked to get to the bottom of the incidents involving the RCMP. The work of the commission is proceeding on course. It will report by next March 31, and as has been indicated many times in this House, the government will take its responsibility with that report.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am curious as to why the Prime Minister, who claims to have a very serious knowledge of the law of this country and constitutional questions, would not answer that question.
My supplementary question to the Prime Minister relates, of course, to the long letter sent to the Minister of Justice by the attorney general of Ontario. Other attorneys general across this country are also seriously concerned about the absence of full and complete disclosure, contrary to an undertaking given by the Clark administration to those attorneys general, of
information relating to very serious allegations of a criminal nature which would be given to them before the release of that information to the public.
I come back to the Prime Minister. Which in his mind has paramountcy when he, his Solicitor General, his Minister of Justice and 1 know that, in relation to the Checkmate matter in any event, in November, 1980, there is very little in those files which relates to national security matters.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to know why I did not answer the first question. The answer is obvious. It was because the Solicitor General had the answer, and it was a perfectly satisfactory answer. We are faced with the problem of two levels of government having different areas of jurisdiction.
I repeat his words. As far as we are concerned as a government, we established a royal commission. We always, both in this House and outside the House, took the position that we would not intervene in the work of that commission, that we would not prejudge issues until the commission had reported, that we would not prosecute witnesses until the evidence was completely in or until the commission itself said that it was prepared to release the evidence. I think that is a perfectly acceptable and justifiable procedure, all the more justifiable, as the House knows, when the Solicitor General a very few days ago tabled an order in council indicating that we wanted the royal commission to bring in its final report by the end of March of next year, five months from now.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. I want to get a little more detail on what I now take it the government has accepted in principle, that is, the notion that there will be both radio and television coverage of the proceedings of the special joint committee on the constitution. Will the House leader confirm that the kind of detail the government has in mind simply refers, for example, to the method of covering the proceedings of the House-that everything that is said by a speaker in the House has to be included, that there be no editing; and, second, that cameras or radio microphones will not be focused on people who are not being formally recognized by the Chair. Is that the kind of detail the government has in mind?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Those are good suggestions, Madam Speaker, and might I point out to the leader of the NDP that last week, when the members of the committee opposed their proceedings being televised, cer-
November 12, 1980

tain concerns were expressed. Some dealt with what the hon. member has just mentioned; others pertained to the application of certain principles such as, respecting the electronic Hanzard, bilingualism and simultaneous translation.
Other matters will also have to be discussed, such as how the proceedings will be televised, the problems of setting up subcommittees. The hon. member will understand that for the sake of efficiency the committee might well decide to break up into various groups with a view to hearing the largest possible number of witnesses; the question might well come up then of which of those groups should have its proceedings televised. That is the type of practical, real problems, which we are not making up, and which will have to be faced. I feel it might be wise for the House leaders to try to avoid them and, ultimately, find an arbitrator who could make the decisions should problems arise.
In concluding, might I say that our favouring, at this time, the televising of the proceedings of the joint committee should in no way be interpreted as a means of delaying, in any way, the work or the report of the committee.


INQUIRY WHETHER REPORTING DEADLINE WILL BE EXTENDED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I am certainly glad the government has discovered that the degree of lighting in the committee will not be too strong to drive out witnesses and has decided to open up the process.
With that aside, I would now like to ask the Prime Minister an important question on the democratic process of constitutional change that is so integral to gaining acceptability in the federal state, not merely the substance of the program. Considering the delay, but not simply the delay, in getting the committee proceedings underway as a result of what happened in the other place, and considering the large number of people and organizations who want to present testimony to the committee, will the government be prepared to extend the deadline for the report of the committee by at least two weeks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 remind the leader of the New Democratic Party of conversations which were held by the House leaders of the three parties early in October. They were to the effect that the dates were flexible. The issue then was-and it remains-how long does this total issue remain before Parliament, before Parliament makes a final decision? My recollection of the negotiations then was that our House leader was flexible as to the number of days or weeks the resolution would stay at second stage before committee, providing we had some view of what would happen at the end. Would there be some agreement to vote on the whole issue within some reasonable time? 1 remember the conversation I had with the Leader of the Conservative party and the Leader of the New Democratic Party in my office the day before cabinet made its final decision as to timing, procedure and content. The problem was
Oral Questions
discussed at that point too-that we should deal with this matter not in haste but with some sense of urgency. The argument I used then and use again was the commitment we made during the Quebec referendum.


An hon. Member:: Were all members heard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I recall the answers of both my interlocutors at the time. If they want to go into it further, I will indicate what was said at that time.


An hon. Member:: Will all members be heard at least once?


John Edward Broadbent: If I understood the Prime Minister correctly-and I was listening with care-he said that he was prepared to extend in principle the time limit for the committee, but he wanted to link that in some way to the final time which would be taken both at committee stage and back in the House in terms of completing the bill. In particular, given the number of people who want to be heard at this time and the importance of us, as a parliamentary group, showing that we are interested in hearing the people of Canada, especially particular interest groups of central concern, is the Prime Minister prepared to say more precisely today what he has in mind, or is he saying that it is something which must be negotiated by House leaders?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am saying the latter, Madam Speaker. I believe the Leader of the New Democratic Party, at least on this point, is agreed with our party that the matter must be dealt with within a certain framework. We discussed that last May and again in early October. I make no secret of the fact that we discussed timing also when I met the Leader of the Conservative party.


Charles Joseph Clark: Very generally.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Very generally. I indicated to them then, and I indicate to them now that we want sufficient time to be devoted to this matter, to the hearing of witnesses and so on. That is why we were flexible in early October, and that is why the House leader is prepared to be flexible now. We are not flexible in the sense that we would prolong committee stage-


Mr. Andre:: Flexible closure.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -if we had some reason to believe that when we reached the final stage we would still be faced with filibusters, bringing us into an indefinite amount of time. I believe that is the position of the New Democratic Party, as I understood it, in a general sense. There was no date agreed upon, but certainly there was an indication on their part which shared our part, that Canada must get on and settle this matter within some reasonable time. This is the context in which the House leader of our party will discuss with his opposite numbers.

November 12, 1980
Oral Questions


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Horton McDermid: The minister has stated in this House that the most severe difficulties are faced by those young people who cannot get their first entry into the job market and that he has to tackle that problem immediately. With unemployment in the 15 to 24-year-old age bracket now at 13.4 per cent, up dramatically since the minister decided to tackle the problem, and with 15,000 more unemployed in September-as a matter of fact, 2,000 fewer employed than a year ago-can the minister tell us how much longer the young people of Canada have to wait for action from this obviously uncaring government?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that since this time last year well over 230,000 jobs have been created in this country. That is a very important fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Furthermore, because of the number of cancellations and cutbacks the hon. member's government instituted, opportunities for young people, women and others to work in direct employment were cut back. We have had to put those programs back into effect, as we have now done, and they are now being implemented and providing a number of new work opportunities.
1 further point out to the hon. member that we have initiated a major task force chaired by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, and a number of assessments are going on in our department to provide the kinds of changes which we all recognize must take place in order to respond to new work conditions in the 1980s. So 1 think we are a caring government. We are concerned about unemployment but, unlike our predecessors, we are doing something about it.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister, who likes to put forward his programs as the panacea for all our problems but which provided only 12'A jobs in my riding where there are 5,000 on unemployment insurance. Hon. members opposite are really doing a great job!
The minister is hanging everything on this committee. Is he telling this House that he is not going to take any action at all until that committee reports but that he will take action on that committee's report and follow its recommendations?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, unlike the hon. member opposite, I would like to have the facts before I make decisions. 1 think it is important when we establish a committee of Parliament made up of members on both sides of the House that we pay them the proper respect and wait for them to bring forward their findings before going ahead and taking major action. That was the purpose of having the committee.
However, in the meantime we have started a number of programs this year which are providing employment opportunities. There are special programs for women in training, a special native training program, and the community development program which replaces the one cancelled by the hon. member's government.


John Horton McDermid: Twelve jobs in my riding.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is that these programs are providing close to 50,000 jobs across this country, which is a very important step forward. We believe it is very essential at this time that we make a very careful assessment of the job market as it will appear in the years ahead and respond to it properly.
I also suggest to the hon. member that in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance two weeks ago an additional $350 million was allocated to deal with job problems and industrial problems in this country, and we intend to be making announcements on that very soon.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the position of Canadian-owned, independent oil companies under the new energy program of the government. One of the objectives of this program is to increase the degree of Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry in Canada, which is an objective we on this side of the House fully support.
However, one of the things which has become quite clear since the announcement of the report is that these companies have stated that their cash flows will be reduced by 25 per cent to 35 per cent, that they will be financially weaker. Many of them are cutting back operations. Some have stated their clear intention to move to the United States and spend their money developing energy resources in the United States.
In view of this, what role does the minister see the Canadian-owned, independent oil company playing in the Canadiani-zation program which has been announced under the national energy program?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian energy program is attaching the utmost importance to the role of Canadian independent petroleum companies. Those who have complained have looked at the taxation side of the budget, but I submit that they have not examined very carefully the very substantial incentive program this budget contains for Canadi-
November 12, 1980

an-owned companies. We have met with several of those companies and their spokesmen. We are reviewing with them the impact of the budget on their operations, and for those companies which are going to explore and carry on activities in Canada I submit that this budget and the national energy program are indeed very much to the advantage of Canadian companies.


Harvie Andre: They don't think so.


Marc Lalonde: I add only that one of the most vociferous opponents of the program, after the hon. member for Calgary Centre who is always speaking, is a man who has been in this country 30 years but has not bothered to take Canadian citizenship.


Harvie Andre: Jim Gray was born in this country. He is more of a Canadian than you will ever be.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, many articles have come out in the newspapers since the announcement of this program calling for lay-offs, redirection of budgets to the United States, cutting budgets within Canada and hiring freezes. These people are not taking these actions without studying the impact of the energy program on their operations. The minister says he has met with a number of these companies and listened to their concerns. When does the minister propose to announce specific action which will take account of and redress the adverse affects of the energy program on the operations of these companies?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the measures announced by the government were contained in the budget. They were approved by this House during the course of last week. I have had meetings with a number of representatives of Canadian companies about certain detailed aspects.


Mr. Paproski:: What did they say?


Marc Lalonde: Many of them said privately that there were many things they liked in the program, but they do not dare say it publicly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, it is hard to top that one! I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The unemployment figures released today show that there was more unemployment this month than last month and more unemployment this year than last year. It is clear that the government is well on its way to keeping its promise to add over 100,000 to the unemployment rolls in the next year. In light of the minister's statement last week in the House of Commons that the report of the Canadian Council on Social
Oral Questions
Development was-and I am using his word-"distorted", 1 wonder if the minister could also tells us whether he feels that the council's documented view that increased unemployment also means an increase in marriage breakdown, crime, and suicide is also distorted.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 am not making any further comment about that particular report. I said at the time that 1 thought it was a bit far-fetched to relate the budget, as I thought had been done, to a whole series of social disorders. We all recognize the impact of unemployment, but the hon. gentleman ought to keep that problem in perspective, in fairness not only to the country but also to the unemployed themselves. Because as my colleague has pointed out, the total number of jobs in Canada has increased quite markedly over the past year.


John Horton McDermid: For young people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In fact, the increase has been about 2.2 per cent year to year. The unadjusted unemployment level is precisely the same this month as it was a year ago. Furthermore, the performance of the Canadian economy is better than that of the United States. These are a number of encouraging signs which I invite the hon. member to place against the concern we all feel about increased unemployed at whatever level.


Bob Rae: I invite the minister to go to downtown ridings and to areas of high unemployment-there is over 25 per cent unemployment among young people in my riding-and give that kind of complacent statement to young people hanging around and looking for jobs.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. In light of the announcement made today by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the community services program of CMHC will be cancelled entirely, and in light of the fact that the minister in his budget statement announced an increase in taxation by way of an increase in unemployment insurance contributions of $1 billion, thereby, in the words of his colleague, the hon. member for Lincoln, shifting the tax burden from one group of taxpayers to another, those least able to afford it, I should like to ask the minister what is the logic of this at a time when unemployment is increasing?
In the case of the community services program the minister is taking hundreds of millions of dollars-indeed, considering the multiplier effect, taking billions of dollars-out of the economy of our inner cities, and in the case of unemployment insurance taking $1 billion out of the economy at the present time. What is the logic of simply shifting the burden in the case of the community services program on to the provinces and on to taxpayers in another form, and in the case of the unemployment insurance away from one group of taxpayers, those best able to pay, to a group of taxpayers who are least able to pay, that is to say, employees?

November 12, 1980
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, first of all 1 would tell the hon. member that I do not intend to go to him to secure lessons about dealing with the unemployed and understanding their problems. I think if the hon. member took the view that there are others in this House who had as much interest and as much concern about the unemployed as he does, the discussion might become more rational and more logical.
The hon. member asked what the logic is about increasing contributions from both employers and employees. This Parliament adopted a principle that the unemployment insurance fund should be self-financing with respect to most of its activities. That is part of the law, and it was pursuant to that law passed by Parliament that the increased contributions were made, both from employees and employers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the simple logic, Madam Speaker, that 1 ask the hon. member to consider.


DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION OF TAR SANDS PLANTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the urgency of moving ahead with the construction of tar sands and heavy oil plants in western Canada due to the tremendous capital costs and long lead time required for their development, will the minister be seeking an agreement with the Alberta minister of energy to have the province's hold on these plants lifted and this issue separated from the over-all disagreement on oil pricing and revenue sharing from conventional oil, so that these projects can go forward without delay?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we have indicated our willingness to undertake further negotiations and we are certainly quite willing to undertake those negotiations under any format. The one suggested by the hon. member is indeed one we would welcome. I have had discussions over the telephone this morning with my colleague from Alberta-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Marc Lalonde: -and I hope that the discussions will start at the level of officials in the near future.
 * *


ENERGY SUPPLIES ALLOCATION BOARD
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since rationing plans have been drawn up by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board which sets up priorities for supply
in the event of a shortage, apparently food production and food processing have not been included in the priorities but are still under review. Given the fact that agriculture, food processing and food supplies are such important items in the economy, this admission is somewhat shocking. My question to the minister is: where does agricultural food processing fit into the whole supply question, and why was it not included?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Energy Supplies Allocation Board is in the process of drafting regulations. Those have yet to be submitted to cabinet, to the government; I have not seen them either. However, I can indicate to the hon. member that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and his provincial counterparts have indicated that they feel agricultural products should be included in the very top category as being of the highest priority. I understand the board is now studying the question. There have been consultations and, as soon as I have received the recommendations of the board, I shall submit them for consideration to my colleagues, after which cabinet will be called upon to reach a decision. For the time being, cabinet has not done so.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is simply this. Many categories have already been defined, down to garbage collection in some cases. Why has agriculture been left out? Is it an indication of the priority that agriculture has with this government? It is inconceivable that agriculture should have been totally left out. I ask the minister again, why?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that agriculture has not been left out, far from it. The board is now preparing, as I have said before, draft regulations with various categories. I doubt that all those have been published. I shall check with the board to see if other regulations are being planned. But, in any event, those regulations have not been adopted by cabinet. The opportunity must be given to discuss those regulations with representatives of the various industries concerned, including agriculture. When the board has had those consultations, it will be in a position to make proposals to cabinet which in turn will have to study them. In the meantime, those regulations are but proposals. Once again, agriculture will not be ignored, I am sure.

November 12, 1980


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of housing. Today the government cancelled the community services contribution program which affects many communities in Canada. The minister is on record as suggesting that his objective was to have it extended and he promised to find some other way to assist municipalities. Having failed the municipalities of Canada, which will result in a rise in municipal taxes and will create unemployment, not only in the construction industry, which is already in trouble, but in service industries such as sewerage, pipes, etc., just how will the minister meet the commitment and the promise he gave in the House?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, 1 hasten to point out to the hon. member and to other members who have spoken on the subject today that the program, although not renewed for 1981, still carries the commitment of the federal government to pay the sum of $400 million to the end of March, 1982. So that although there is a concern that the impact is immediate, in fact there is a commitment of $400 million to complete the government's program to that point in time.
Secondly, 1 have indicated in a letter to every member of the House today that the government is concerned about the deficit. The Minister of Finance, in tabling the budget papers, gave members of Parliament the priority system of the government in its response to control the deficit. Within that and within the area of responsibility for housing, I have to make certain choices. My choices are that this program, 50 per cent of which goes to soft services such as recreation centres, etc., probably has to stand down in place of some more urgent and better ways of expending federal funds. So in answer to the last question, I am looking at new priorities and new ways in which the federal government can carry out its responsibility to ensure adequate housing for Canadians across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the same minister. It involves the delivery of 282 letters, all of them with the date written in. Is it not true that this announcement was held off until after Monday's civic election so that it would not affect any candidate with Liberal party connections?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the short answer to the question is no. The longer answer is that it was with some difficulty that I was able to have some 280-odd letters delivered even this afternoon.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


CLOSURE OF RURAL OFFICES-INQUIRY WHETHER REVIEW COMPLETED
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It has to do with the Saturday closing of small rural post offices. In March of this year the Postmaster General sent me a letter which indicated a current review was taking place under the auspices of the deputy postmaster general, and that consultations would take place with the Canadian Association of Postmasters and Assistants before a decision would be made. Has this review been completed and has he met with the Canadian Association of Postmasters and Assistants?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the deputy postmaster general has not yet completed his review. However,
I can indicate to the House that discussions have been held with the Canadian Association of Postmasters, but that no final decision has yet been reached, which means that Saturday service will continue.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Postmaster General. I believe he must be aware of the impact that the closure of these post offices on Saturday would have on small rural communities. Would he give an understanding to this House that he will recommend that the post offices in the small rural areas will remain open on Saturdays?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, that commitment has already been made in the House. In reply to a question from a member on this side of the House, I have already stated that no post office would be closed on Saturdays, unless it is the wish of the people, and never without prior consultation. The general rule then is that post offices, especially in rural areas, will remain open on Saturdays.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last Tuesday in this House he accused me of using exaggerated figures. I think that is sometimes a matter of definition.
Earlier today the minister indicated that his employment-creation programs provided 50,000 jobs. Debates in this House in June showed that was 7,000 man-years of employment. Would the minister confirm that his employment creation-programs in this fiscal year will create only 7,000 man-years of

November 12, 1980
Oral Questions
employment for the whole nation, apart from the employment tax credit?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I point-out to the hon. member that the department has a wide variety of employment training programs. They include not only the ones which were announced this spring and summer but those which are already in existence, such as the LEAP program and a variety of training programs. What we indicated to this House was that the combination of tax credit programs and direct employment programs now and in the future are creating upwards of 50,000 jobs for Canadians.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Will the minister share with the House the figures he uses in planning? There is some relationship between the performance of gross national product and the creation of jobs. I would like the minister to tell us what figure he uses in manpower planning to translate performance in GNP to jobs. For example, if the GNP is 1 per cent greater than expected, will the minister tell us how many jobs will result in the Canadian economy? Will it be 75,000, 100,000 or 125,000? What figure does he use in planning?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked a question which would require a very detailed and technical answer. It is an answer which we gave on many occasions during the discussion of estimates and previous bills to engage in a mutual exchange upon. I would like to point out that the philosophy of this government is to target our employment programs toward those who have the greatest need. That is why, in the direct employment program, the largest percentage of money goes to those regions where the unemployment rate is the highest. That is why we think that we get the most use of our resources by helping those areas which have the toughest employment problems to face. That is the basis of the planning we use in our employment activities.


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State and it is with regard to the resignation yesterday of Dr. Shih, the Director of the National Gallery of Canada, who resigned in protest against the failure of the Liberal government to restore a budget cut of $1 million which the previous Tory government had introduced. In light of the fact that the minister plans another budget cut of over $200,000 for next year, and also considering that the National Gallery has lost two directors in less than five years because of this issue, will the Acting Secretary of State please inform the House what action the government plans to take to prevent the collapse of one of our most important cultural institutions as a result of organizational confusion and a lack of funding?


Hon. John Roberts (Acting Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, the factual basis upon which the hon. member based his question is incorrect. The cut which was made by the previous Conservative government, as the hon. member correctly stated, was restored by this government a week ago.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I am left in amazement that Dr. Shih has quit because of the budget cuts, yet the Acting Secretary of State has just now informed us that that particular budget cut has been rescinded. Perhaps my question should have been asked of the Secretary of State and we would have received a more up-to-date answer.
I would ask the hon. gentleman this. Since various governments have promised that the National Gallery will be relocated in new premises-a promise which was made 25 years ago, I believe-and because the National Gallery is over 100 years old and is known and respected throughout the world, will the present Liberal government make good its promise and inform the House when the National Gallery can expect to move into a decent and adequate facility?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the hon. member is confused. The fact is that that matter is under consideration at the present time by the Minister of Public Works.


CANSO, N.S.-POSITION OF MINISTER ON LNG TERMINAL
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It relates to a question which was asked on Friday by the member for Joliette. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion ought to be asked a question about what he said to some reporters recently with respect to the LNG terminal at Canso, Nova Scotia. I thought perhaps the minister would like to put his answer on record at this point.
[Translation}


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I have indeed been questioned by reporters who suggested that since the Canadian government had decided to extend the gas pipeline to the maritimes, Gros-Cacouna would necessarily be put aside as a possible site; Petro-Canada had indeed in the past, indicated its interest in the Gros-Cacouna project and its possible site. The reply I gave them was that this was sheer nonsense since this whole issue would be reviewed in a few months by the National Energy Board and that we would have to wait for the hearings to be held and for the board to make its decision.
November 12, 1980


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately the Minister of Justice appears to have given us the slip, so 1 will direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice, who will be appearing before the constitution committee this afternoon, has previously indicated that he will withhold from Parliament and from the Canadian people the results of three publicly-funded public opinion surveys on the constitution conducted by the Canadian Unity Information Office. Will the Prime Minister of Canada, in the name of freedom of information, be prepared to make available to the Canadian people and to Parliament those three publicly-funded public opinion surveys?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe this is a question which has already been answered several times, but 1 will be happy to take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.


ENERGY SUPPLIES ALLOCATION BOARD
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I wish to go back to the minister of energy with regard to the government's rationing program and the proposal published in the November 8 edition of The Canada Gazette by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. Every sector of the economy is identified by priority of use, either A, B or C, except food and food processing. Supplementary to the questions put by my colleague, the hon. member for Lisgar, one is hard put to understand why garbage collection is in category B if there is no food to collect. Is the review of food and food processing a review as to whether it should be in the top category A or in category B, or is there a consideration, even a remote consideration, for a lower category for food and food processing?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. As he knows, these regulations have been put as proposals. At the present time the Energy Supplies Allocation Board is reviewing the whole situation and has been in touch with the agriculture industry. It will hear further representations on the proposals before it comes to the government and to me as the minister with the final proposal.
In the meantime it should be remembered that these are merely proposals and that any area which has not been mentioned is indeed under discussion and review by the board. I expect that in the next few months I will have a report from this board to take to cabinet. In the meantime these discussions should continue.
Privilege-Mr. Keeper


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, surely the minister must be as concerned as some of us on this side of the House that, after months and months, agriculture has not been dealt with despite the fact, I presume, that agriculturalists were lobbying that board just as much as any other sector of the economy. Can the minister explain the reason why agriculture and food and food processing is the only sector which requires review out of perhaps 30 or 40 different segments of our economy?


Marc Lalonde: At my last meeting with the chairman of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, I indicated the representations which I had received from several members on this side of the House and from the Minister of Agriculture on this very subject. I hope the board will review this subject very carefully. The chairman indicated that indeed the board was having consultations with representatives of the agriculture industry and that, indeed, it was attaching a very high priority and importance to this matter.
The food industry is a huge industry. It covers foods from basic staple foods to lollypops. It is a question of determining whether or not all food items should not be considered on an equal basis or whether or not there is justification for different classifications for different food items. As I understand it, at the present time the board is examining and reviewing this subject. I hope that it will come up with recommendations with which this government and the agriculture industry will be very happy.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the letter which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, placed on our desks. My question of privilege relates to the fact that I feel very strongly that this matter should have been dealt with as a statement on motions. A statement on motions would allow the opposition to respond and ask questions, and I feel the matter should have been dealt with in this manner.
Obviously, there is a great need for this program across the country as indicated by the many resolutions which municipalities have taken the trouble to send to the federal government and to members of Parliament. This matter involves a major shift of financial burden from the federal level to the local community level, the level with the weakest tax base. I feel the matter is sufficiently important because it cuts a major subsidy to the construction industry and jobs in this country.
I feel the subject is one which demands a full debate in this House. It is a matter of information in the sense that we as parliamentarians must know what is going on. It is beginning to appear that what is occurring is simply a shell game in which the government takes money away with one hand by

November 12, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Keeper
withdrawing the community services contribution program and gives out money in the other hand in the form of promises, such as the economic development fund for the west.
I feel I have a question of privilege, Madam Speaker. This government is playing games with dollars and with Parliament. This matter should have been dealt with by way of a statement on motions to give hon. members an opportunity to respond and ask questions to determine what is happening.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is unaware of the fact that two representatives of his party had ample opportunity in committee when the estimates of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation were presented last week. J spent the better part of an hour explaining this particular program.


Bob Rae: Did you announce the program last week?


Paul James Cosgrove: Also, hon. members of the official opposition party made inquiries. I believe the matter was fully canvassed and that both parties had an opportunity of which they took full advantage.
Although I have had little experience with the procedures of the House, I understand that it is a courtesy if a minister makes the material available to each member, as I have done here today. The material outlines the impact of the program in the various constituencies. It should come as no surprise to members opposite or to members over here that I have discussed this matter with many hon. members as it was being considered within the government, during the past two or three months, and received their suggestions.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my comments relate to certain remarks which were just made by the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As the minister is aware, I entered into correspondence with him on behalf of the municipality of Burnaby, the council of which unanimously urged that this worth-while program continue. The minister indicated to me very recently that in fact the government was considering very seriously the continuation of this program.
Had there been any indication that this program might be threatened in any way, I and other members of my party who support this worth-while program would certainly have been in attendance at the committee meeting last week. For the minister to suggest that somehow everything is in order because the committee met and had opportunity to consider this matter and other matters though we had no notice whatsoever that this particular program would be chopped by the government, is completely irresponsible. I suggest and I hope that the minister will take the opportunity to stand up in this House and make a statement explaining why this important program has been chopped and permit members of the opposition to fully question him on the matter.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the implications of the minister's answers in the House today and his answer to the question of
privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Win-nipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper). In answer to a question by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), the minister said there was no reason why this decision was withheld from the House until this time, which implied that in fact no decision had been made until very recently and that it would not have been possible for the government to have released this information before the municipal elections held on Monday right across the province of Ontario.
Now the minister is telling us that in fact he had this information last week and would have released it had he been asked. The minister should clarify his remarks right away because he is indicating that he withheld information from the committee which he had in his possession at the time and that he withheld it until today for purely political reasons.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the House is obviously engaged in a debate. May I draw to your attention Standing Order 15(3) which clearly provides that the minister is not obliged to make a statement.


Madam Speaker:: Indeed, now that I have heard a few speakers about this matter I am convinced that there is no ground for a question of privilege. The matter which has been raised certainly has great importance in the eyes of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), but he has started a debate and would like to force the minister to make a statement. I must remind him that the minister is not obliged to make one. He can if he so wishes; that is, if he chooses to use that means to inform the House and other people. But he is not obliged to make a statement. Therefore, I see no prima facie case of privilege here.


POINT OF ORDER
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, my point of order has to do with whether the minister received your permission to distribute these documents in the House of Commons prior to the question period. If so, did you give him that permission?


Madam Speaker:: In answer to the hon. member's inquiry I must say that I saw these envelopes as I entered the House and I wondered why they were there. I understand an inquiry was made of the clerk's staff by a member of the minister's staff who was directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms, who is responsible for pages and in particular for the distribution of documents.
The request was not properly routed. I think it should have been referred to the clerk who usually examines documents
November 12, 1980

before giving such permission. 1 am sorry about this breakdown in communications, but that is exactly what took place. Had the inquiry not been routed to the Sergeant-at-Arms, I am sure it would have been considered, perhaps in the same manner. However, 1 must tell the hon. member that we did not have a chance to consider it.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, some of us have been in this chamber for a number of years. 1, too, am quite aware of what constitutes debate in this chamber. I am aware of the appropriate Standing Orders with respect to the rights and wishes of ministers and "demands" upon positions they take in this chamber or elsewhere, or whether or not they may choose this chamber in which to respond.
I am also aware, first of my right to be heard. Second, I am aware that when a minister of the Crown chooses to respond, he must accept responsibility for what he says.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 must interrupt the hon. member. I determined there was no question of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper). Is the hon. member speaking about the same question of privilege? It seems to me that he is. I thought he was rising on a different question of privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, you have quite successfully interrupted my question of privilege. You know that it is an entirely different question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


J. Michael Forrestall: The argument I am using is the point I want to make. When a minister does rise in his place, he has the responsibility to be honest or to accept responsibility for what he says.
In recent weeks there have been a number of statements. In a recent newspaper article the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), as I understand it, repeated an assurance given to him by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to the effect that the chances of the Strait of Canso becoming the eastern terminus for Arctic LNG movements are ridiculous and absurd. Indeed, as I understand it the language was much more colourful than that.
My question of privilege arises out of a question directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion by my hon. friend from Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). In responding not only did the minister evade the matter, but now through the press he has misled the Canadian people. I cannot question him any further, because he has said that this whole conversation did not happen. On Friday last, as reported in Hansard,
Privilege-Mr. Forrestall
the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not go as far as that but he said "If you want to find out whether I told the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that-." In this connection, I refer to the words of my hon. friend the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
My question is simply this: if I cannot question the veracity, how am I to make proper representations on behalf of my province and my constituency? How am I to respond to the veiled threats-not so thinly veiled-of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who, in fact, said that if we opened our mouths about this question and pursued it, we would stand a good chance of not even being considered for a liquefied natural gas terminal?
You may easily find that I do not have a substantive question of privilege in this regard. Madam Speaker. If you do,
1 am prepared to reserve my right tomorrow to move a motion. My question of privilege, again, is my right to question statements made in this House by ministers. It is my right to receive an honest and truthful answer. If it is politically evasive and 1 am not intelligent enough to get around it, that is my fault. In this case, I have been misled.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, what 1 would like is some honesty in this House. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) misquoted me and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) reminded him of that. The hon. member for Joliette said that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources informed me that it would be completely ridiculous to choose Canso.


J. Michael Forrestall: We cannot believe you any more, Pierre?


Pierre De Bané: This is what the hon. member for Joliette said. I am happy that you agree the hon. member from Joliette misled the House when he made such a statement. It is so easy to read from newspapers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre De Bané: The hon. member has just said that. [Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: You are rocking the boat.


J. Michael Forrestall: 1 will rock the boat.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: 1 shall simply say a couple of words, Madam Speaker. The minister refers to a ridiculous project. 1 think I said in French last Friday that it was completely ridiculous, according to the words I could recall from the newspapers. I just might raise this point again later.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, what 1 said is in the paper but the hon. member for Joliette has misquoted me.

November 12, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Forrestall
1 never said that it would be utterly ridiculous to have the LNG terminal in Canso and 1 have the paper here to prove it. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reminded the hon. member of that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre De Bané: I would like some honesty in this House. I never said that. The hon. member for Joliette has misquoted me and has misled the House. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources quite properly corrected him.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to speak on the same question of privilege or on another point of order.


Roch La Salle: Very well, Madam Speaker. In that case, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) whether he is prepared to confirm that he told reporters that his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) had informed him that the theory of choosing Canso was sheer nonsense. Is the minister in a position to tell us today whether his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did say that, as reported by newsmen?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. No, I do not want to hear the hon. minister twice on the same question of privilege. I think the exchange which has just taken place enabled both sides to specify what was said.
The question raised by the hon. member is obviously not a question of privilege; it is debate; it is expressing dissatisfaction with an answer received in the House. The hon. member can pursue his questioning at question period or at another time. I know he has not been recognized today. I have a list here of those who were not been recognized on Friday when we last sat and the hon. member's name is not on that list. Perhaps he rose earlier than that. At any rate, I will be glad to recognize the hon. member if he rises soon enough in the question period and he will have his turn like anyone else.
I am sorry, but I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table the following documents, in both official languages:
1.	Order in council PC 1980-2915 issued pursuant to subsection 35(1) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as well as the proclamation declaring the coming into force of division II of part II of the said act;
2.	Order in council PC 1980-2916 issued under section 36 of the Petroleum Administration Act, as well as the regulations prescribing maximum prices for crude oil;
3.	Order in council PC 1980-2917 issued pursuant to section 52(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as well as the proclamation declaring that subsection 52(1) of the said act shall come into force on November 1, 1980;
4.	Order in council PC 1980-2918 issued pursuant to subsection 52(1) of the Petroleum Administration Act, as well as the 1980 regulations prescribing prices for natural gas;
5.	Order in council PC 1980-2919 issued pursuant to section 62 of the Petroleum Administration Act, as well as the amendment to part III regulations of the Petroleum Administration Act;
6.	Order in council PC 1980-2920 issued pursuant to subsection 72(4) of the Petroleum Administration Act.
In order to give members of the House easy access to those documents, I would be willing, if it is agreeable to the House, to move that the orders be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. minister. Is it agreed that the documents in question be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I trust it will have been observed by Your Honour that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has already been to the table with notices of motion to revoke two of these orders.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I also wish to advise that we are tabling a notice of motion seeking debate on the proclamation announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). We wish to have this debate and I presume this will follow in the normal course of business, because of the profound impact this action has on both pro-
November 12, 1980

ducers and consumers of energy in this country, and also the severe conflict that has been brought about between the federal government and the province of Alberta.
[Editor's note: For documents referred to, see Appendix A.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,017, 1,430 and 1,581.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	In each year from the inception of the program to date, by province, what amount was designated for the purpose of (a) perpetuating (b) developing Indian culture and art?
2.	In each province, what is the Indian per capita ratio total involved?
3.	For each year, since the inception of the program to date, by province, what was the method of disposition of the artifacts created and what revenue was derived therefrom?
4.	What is the total monetary value of any such artifacts on inventory at the present time and where is such inventory stored?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) and (b)-See list A for funding by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of Indian cultural and artistic activities. Although the department's Indian Arts and Crafts program does serve to perpetuate and develop Indian cultural art, the program's emphasis is, in fact, on the development of business opportunities through the sales of Indian arts and crafts. It would be difficult to attempt a calculation of the total amount of funds expended on this program, as Indian Affairs does not aggregate its various payments relating to Indian arts and crafts in its financial reports. Similarly, other government agencies supporting this program do not maintain separate records of these expenditures. Since the inception of the program in 1969, up to and including fiscal year 1974-75, the following expenditures are estimated to have been made by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development both at headquarters and in regions:
Order Paper Questions
		Total ($000)	
1969-70		910	
1970-71		809	
1971-72		1,425	
1972-73		997	
1973-74		1,384	
1974-75		1,501	
Commencing in	1975-76 fiscal	year, management of the program was central-	
ized to Ottawa and capital and operational funds disbursed			in the following
manner:			
	Total ($000) Headquarters		Regional
		Disbursements	Disbursements
1975-76	2,495	974,000	737,2001976-77	2,908	1,267,600	1,640,8001977-78*	3,200	1,091,450**	2,108,5501978-79*	3,360	900,000**	2,460,0001979-80*	3,360	629,588**	2,730,4121980-81*	3,360	218,419**	3,141,581
'Program under direct control of Indian management, through National Indian Arts and Crafts Corporation (NIACC)
''Headquarters disbursement to NIACC
2.	See list B for per capita breakdown of cultural grants. The actual number of Indian persons, and therefore the Indian per capita ratios involved in the Indian Arts and Crafts program, is presently unavailable. This information, however, is to be provided to the department by NIACC later this fiscal year under the terms of their contribution arrangement.
3.	The method of disposition of the artifacts created under the Indian Arts and Crafts program was as follows:
(a)	Direct from producer to consumer;
(b)	Sale to retailers;
(c)	Sale to wholesalers, both Indian and non-Indian
The department has records only of the revenue produced by
the central marketing service which later became the Canadian Indian Marketing Service. Sales by the CIMS until its closing in 1978 were as follows: $2,275,000.
4.	The only inventory of Indian art the Department of IAND holds is the departmental contemporary Canadian Indian Art Collection, which is presently stored on the 17th floor, Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, 10 Wellington Street, Hull, Quebec. The department is presently undertaking a complete inventory of the collection and will have a total monetary value of the collection by the end of the 1980-81 fiscal year.
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
Funding of Indian Cultural and Artistic Activities by Province-1964-65 to 1979-80-Totals in Dollars
List A
	P.E.I.	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia
1964-65									5,000								
1965-66	-	150	-	3,500	6,900	-	-	1,745	1,0001966-67	-	150	-	20,400	7,000	3,900	-	300	1,0001967-68	-	1,650	-	1,300	10,186	2,200	-	1,200	11,0001968-69	-	500	-	-	25,000	1,300	40,000	16,055	3,0001969-70	-	1.900	4,450	6,850	26,315	4,500	44,600	10,945	7,500
November 12, 1980
Order Paper Questions
PEI.	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia1970-71	4,950	735	26,200	33,684	29,150	72,350	12,500	30,7701971-72	-	8,345	3,895	27,200	52,667	26,376	74,900	77,065	40,2001972-73	3,561	8,881	98,564	282,000	348,700	32,000	495,814	535,971	57,2001973-74	3,600	71,703	131,591	882,035	566,365	32.000	673,485	786,002	332,9381974-75	3,600	146,847	84,998	897,031	875,627	93,820	1,086,988	683,495	643,7221975-76	3,600	146,847	93,824	941,018	1,134,421	389,057	1,137,430	422,452	330,5951976-77	3,600	146,847	91,745	819,341	1,167,368	384,264	1,137,430	506.547	402,8341977-78	3,600	158,193	93,978	253,914	1,197,637	389,414	1,137,430	556,516	458,6431978-79	3,600	164,847	118,106	617,497	1,239,080	421,162	1,137,430	515,203	477,3451979-80	3,600 155,124 89,183 623,574 1,323,831 448,978 Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Funding of Indian Cultural and Artistic Activities by Province-1964-65 to 1979-80-	1,229,181 543,907 -Per Capita Amounts in Dollars	551,793 List BP.E.I.	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia1964-65	-	-	-	.10	-	-1965-66	-	.03	-	.14	.13	-	-	.07	.021966-67	-	.03	[DOT]-	.88	.13	.12	-	.01	.021967-68	-	.38	-	.05	.19	.06	-	.04	.241968-69	-	.11	-	-	.47	.03	1.18	.58	.061969-70	-	.41	1.03	.25	.48	.13	1.27	.38	.151970-71	-	1.06	.16	.94	.60	.81	1.99	.42	.631971-72	-	1.74	.85	.95	.93	.71	1.99	2.56	.811972-73	7.79	1.81	21.11	9.64	6.03	.84	12.68	17.38	1.131973-74	7.77	14.38	27.86	30.02	9.53	.81	16.78	24.73	6.531974-75	7.94	28.51	17.40	29.88	14.45	2.33	26.52	20.97	12.421975-76	7.80	27.96	18.79	30.71	18.40	9.44	26.81	12.59	6.271976-77	7.70	27.37	18.13	26.36	18.47	9.08	26.25	14.77	7.491977-78	7.43	28.83	18.34	8.02	18.54	8.98	25.33	15.76	8.371978-79	7.08	29.30	22.47	19.16	18.78	9.43	24.62	14.19	8.571979-80	7.08	27.57	16.96	19.35	20.06	10.05	26.61	14.98	9.91


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Have any undertakings or commitments been made by the government or the National Harbours Board in respect of the development of Gros-Cacouna on the St. Lawrence River and, if so, what are they?
2.	Have any proposals been made by or to the government or the National Harbours Board whereby Gross-Cacouna will become a terminal or transshipment point for petroleum, gas or bulk products?
3.	What control does the government exercise, directly or through an agency, over the development of Gros-Cacouna and who owns the facilities now in place?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. A general cargo terminal is under construction at Gros-Cacouna. The terminal will provide year-round shipping facilities to accommodate local and regional industries. Dredging of berth approach and turning basin is completed, as well as the construction of the wharf and storage area. A 25,000 square foot shed is being built and should be completed by December, 1980. Transport Canada will assume the administration of the facilities upon acceptance of the certificate of completion. The facilities are owned by the Federal Government and the Department of Public Works has responsibility for the realization of this project.
2. Following a proposal by Misener Holdings Limited to develop a dry bulk deep water terminal at Gros-Cacouna, Transport Canada, Misener Holdings Limited, Havre Champlain Incorporated and the provincial government entered into
an agreement and signed leases on January 31, 1980. Misener Holdings Limited and Havre Champlain Incorporated have proposed a three-phase development program for a dry bulk terminal. A conceptual plan must be completed and submitted to Transport Canada within 12 months of the execution of the agreement. For the purpose of the signature of a lease with the province of Quebec, Phase III has been divided and is now referred to as phase III and phase IV. Gros-Cacouna figures among ports of the maritime region and lower St. Lawrence River under consideration by Trans-Canada Pipeline and Petro-Canada for developing a liquefied national gas terminal. The project is still being studied by the companies.
3. The Government of Canada, under authority of the Canada Shipping Act and the Government Harbours and Piers Act has control over the development of Gros-Cacouna. Pursuant to order in council No. AC 644 of April 5, 1966, and No. 1852 of June 27, 1979, land and water lots have been transferred to Canada by Quebec and Quebec has authorized Canada to lease such land and water lots to Misener Holdings Limited and Havre Champlain Incorporated. Canada is also leasing to Misener Holdings Limited and Havre Champlain Incorporated, certain federal land and water lots for this development, and is committed to dredge the approach channel and turning basin to a depth of forty feet. The cost of the dredging, estimated at $6.9 million, will be recovered from the company over a period of years.
November 12, 1980


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Since 1965, by year, how many high school libraries in Canada were supplied with complimentary copies of the daily Hansard''.
2.	Are copies of Hansard being supplied on a complimentary basis to high schools at present, to ensure that Canada's young people have ready access to the official record of parliamentary proceedings and. if not (a) on what date did the policy change and for what reason (b) what is the present policy?
3.	(a) Are depository public libraries across Canada provided with the daily Hansard on a complimentary basis (b) can high school libraries be classified as depository libraries and, if not, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. Not
available. Copies of outdated subscription lists are not maintained.
2.	No. (a) There was no policy change. In 1979, a review
of the free subscription lists resulted in the deletion of all ineligible persons and institutions.
(b) The present policy is that only persons and institutions listed in appendix F, chapter 335, administrative policy manual issued by Treasury Board Canada, are eligible to apply for depository status.
3.	(a) Yes, when requested.
(b) No. High school libraries do not appear on the list of persons and institutions eligible to apply for depository status, which is contained in appendix F, chapter 335, administrative policy manual, issued by Treasury Board Canada.


David Michael Collenette: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bank Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 7, 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, and motions Nos. 1 and 2 (Mr. Lambert).
Madam Speaker:: The question is upon motion No. 1 of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No!


David Michael Collenette: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I understood we would be deferring all the final votes on these-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is in the rule book.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


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


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on motion No. 2 of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
I have three other motions to put to the House.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River) moved:: Motion No. 3
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

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 2 by adding immediately after line 21 at page 3 the following:
" 'cheque' means a bill of exchange drawn on a bank, savings bank, trust company, credit union, payable on demand;"


Bob Rae: Motion No. 4
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 striking out line 39 at page 13 and lines 1 and 2 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"varied as this act provides"


Raymond John Skelly: government cheque should be negotiable free of charge at any financial institution or credit union in Canada. The situation will, of course, change if the Canadian payments association goes through, but at the present time the shareholders of credit unions must pay to cash government' cheques. Therefore, we would prefer to have the free advertising item removed. I hope that will come about.
There are other problems. We are attempting to make Canadian institutions more competitive. It concerns me that there is now a procedure for a registered retirement income fund which is almost the exclusive preserve of the insurance companies. We would like to see other Canadian financial institutions have a greater capability of handling these items. I am sure there was a clear intent on the part of the government to create an opportunity allowing Canadians who had purchased registered retirement savings programs after 1978 to convert them into a Registered Retirement Income Fund.
At present, a person who has entered one of these programs winds up purchasing a fund which at age 70 allows only a very small payment out of that fund. It increases toward age 90. Unfortunately, credit unions, other financial institutions and trust companies are not given equal opportunity with the life insurance companies. This should be changed so that people have an opportunity to purchase more realistic programs. The credit unions and other Canadian financial institutions would be stronger if they were allowed to provide greater service and thereby compete more fully with the banks. Again we are back to the business of a cheque. A new definition of "cheque" would amount to a statement that the government in principle is in favour of these institutions being strengthened and competing effectively with the banks.
The small business development bond is another example of bias. I do not know whether it is deliberate or not. The government is biased against credit unions and other financial institutions in favour of the banks. From examination of the Small Business Development Bond, it appears the banks do not have to pay income tax on income earned. They provide the funds at a reduced interest rate to small businessmen. That is very desirable. They do not pay tax on it. Not only is small business benefiting but also the banking community. We are giving up our taxation capability in order to benefit the chartered banks. Unfortunately the credit union movement does not benefit in the same manner. In the first $500,000 given out, the banks are offered a better deal because of government regulation and legislation which unfortunately attracts customers inside the doors of chartered banks, and for the balance of any funds required they stay with the banks.
There must be an opportunity for credit unions and other financial institutions to compete in that sphere. Again the definition of "cheque" applies here. We want a statement from the government that this very important instrument in the whole financial procedure will recognize the equality between banks and the other very important financial institutions in the
Bank Act
country which the government asked to compete with the banks. Yet, the government has provided no mechanism.
I have mentioned the Registered Retirement Income Fund mechanism in which there is discrimination. I have mentioned the Small Business Development Bond. The government says it wants the other institutions to participate, but it builds a bias in favour of the banks. The simple writing on the bottom of government cheques indicating that they are negotiable without charge at chartered banks is free advertising. Naturally it draws people to the banks. The bias is built into the system.
With the indulgence of Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to another couple of examples. Flopefully the government will recognize this bias and give us some assurance when responding. If it is intended to create more opportunities in this legislation for other financial institutions to compete with chartered banks, hopefully the government will be prepared to give us a sign so that we in turn can give them a sign.
I should like to refer to the Financial Administration Act and the prohibitions built into it. These are fairly important. For example, we are concerned that the Government of Canada prohibits itself under the Financial Administration Act from placing deposits with credit unions and other financial institutions. If those associations and organizations provide services to people who deal with the government, the government should be required to remove that very prohibitive section and to place deposits with those organizations. This would allow those organizations to work and to benefit from the same kind of return as the banks now obtain from funds deposited by the Canadian government.
Basically I am suggesting we should amend this legislation and put clear signals in it indicating that we want equality with respect to the credit unions, banks and other financial institutions so that we are not specifically biasing competition in favour of foreign banks. It is my feeling that this item, just a simple definition of "cheque", would help make clearer the statement within the legislation. I see that my time has run its course.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, not in any way for the reasons outlined by the proposal of this amendment, I wish to argue that a definition of the word "cheque" should be included at this point in the Bank Act.
I used the word "cheque" in my amendment in the definition of a bank. It seems to me that it follows logically the amendment of the hon. member which we are discussing now. The definition of the word "cheque" follows logically and in sequence within this bill. I find extraordinary the mental contortions of the draftsmen who have said that they will put in the definition of a bank. They have broadened the definition of a bank contained in the Bills of Exchange Act by saying that a bank within the meaning of the Canadian Payments Association Act will include a credit union. I invite the minister, who is not a lawyer, to say that part of good law and well-prepared law is that it shall appear clearly. If a person, other than a person who has been exhaustively briefed, were asked by a client for the legal definition of the word "cheque",

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
1 defy the minister to tell me that that person could turn to the Bills of Exchange Act to find a definition of it.
We are dealing with the Bank Act and its very exhaustive definitions clause, which is where I tried to put in the word "bank" and the business of banking. What does agricultural equipment mean? What about agricultural implements, beneficial interest, beneficial ownership, a bill of lading, a branch, a central co-operative credit society, a corporation, a court, crops, farms? Everything in connection with the Bank Act has a legal definition, except the business of banking which is its heart and core.
In my definition of a bank, 1 used the word "cheque". As the minister can readily understand, my definition, on which we will vote in due course, indicates that "bank" means any financial institution engaged in the business of lending money and accepting deposit liabilities transferable by cheque or other instrument. Any trained lawyer will say that is fine, but first of all he would like to know what are deposit liabilities and what is a cheque. The hon. member who spoke before me satisfied that lacuna by his definition of "cheque" in the definitions clause within the Bank Act. For that reason I support it, not for some of the reasons he suggested, but in the logical development of the Bank Act.
In committee I agreed with him that we should have a definition. I supported this idea in committee. But I find it strange that we must go to the Bills of Exchange Act in order to find some reference to what is a bank. It includes every member of the Canadian Payments Association established under the Canadian Payments Association act. What a horse's neck way of defining a bank! Anyone belonging to the Canadian Payments Association is a bank. It is not so.
That is the most convoluted thinking possible, and I will say without any equivocation that it is firmly fixed in my mind that as a result of the discussions and arguments I have had both in committee and in private with regard to this question of a definition of a bank within the Bank Act every effort has been used by government draftsmen to try to get around the logic and the necessity of responding to my arguments.
The actions of the government with regard to this just do not hold water. The government has some idea that somewhere, somehow, some court may some day establish a definition for a bank or what should be the business of banking. We get a half-hearted definition of a bank or a partial definition of a bank in clause 92, which appears at page 447 of Bill C-6, so a credit union is used or brought in to answer the very logical problem put forward by the proposer of this amendment. But it would have been much simpler to have accepted the amendment in its place in the definitions clause without having to go to this convoluted language of clause 92 when no one will really go and look to find whether any definition exists for what is a cheque and whether a cheque is an order for payment drawn on a credit union.
Now that the credit unions can appear within the Canadian payments association, certainly the document which is drawn
by a credit union member and which is a cheque, since it transfers funds from the account of the depositor to a third party, must be defined as a cheque, and therefore the logic in the requirement is quite right. But why do it this way? It is merely, I think, because to do it in the way which would be the shortest and the most logical would be to admit to the logic 1 have been putting forward to the government for these many long months with regard to the definition of a bank and the business of banking.
I am going to support this amendment. Of course, it follows through, because if the amendments which are the subject of my motions Nos. 1 and 2 hopefully carry, then No. 3 must carry. They are complementary, and they would make for a much more intelligent bill than the one before us at the present time. For that reason I wish to support the amendment.
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to go over some of the arguments that I have used before the standing committee to explain why the government is against the proposal made by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) to include the definition of "cheque" in the list of definitions found in the first part of this bill to revise the Bank Act. First, the hon. member for Comox-Powell River used some arguments which, I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), are not really relevant to the definition or to the usefulness of including such a definition in that part of the legislation.
The hon. member for Edmonton West suggested that for the sake of logic, we should try to establish a sort of continuity at the beginning of the bill between the definitions of bank, banking activity and cheques. I should like to tell him that 1 am inclined to agree with him, but that in addition to logic, there is also a matter of method or rather of methodology involved here. But let us consider first the logic. The hon. member will doubtless recognize that the definition itself and the fact that it appears at the beginning of the bill bear witness to the fact that it belongs to the generality, that it is a generic term. One moves from the general to the particular, and the definition of cheque, as has been mentioned, appears in the Bills of Exchange Act, a legislation of wide application which therefore covers to a certain extent the definition in the Bank Act, and is limited by the Bank Act itself. In other words, as far as logic is concerned, the generality of the Bills of Exchange Act provides a general definition for the term "cheque" which applies in this case to the Bank Act, which governs certain types of institutions defined in the act.
It was said there would be a problem, from a methodological point of view, in including strict definitions of bank, banking activity, and consequently, cheque. We got around the methodological difficulty-and the hon. member for Edmonton West or the hon. member for Comox Powell might say it is a distortion, but it is a methodological detour-by borrowing
November 12, 1980

from a text of general application such as the Bills of Exchange Act, where there is a definition of "cheque" and the meaning of the term "bank" is extended to members of the Canadian payments association, and we know the local credit unions, such as the caisses populaires will be covered by this amendment to section 92 of the Bills of Exchange Act.
So to get around the problem regarding powers, another method or another act is used. The caisses populaires and credit unions, being members of the Canadian payments association will meet the requirements that will enable them to have a certain type of activity or wider activities, and the term "cheque" as it appears in the Bills of Exchange Act will apply to those institutions since they belong to the Canadian payments association, which is what the amendment is seeking.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But would the minister not agree that by using section 164.1 of the Bills of Exchange Act we are insisting on the fact that caisses populaires and credit unions are now banks? I say this because this clause states that "bank" includes the members of the Canadian payments association as well as the local co-operative credit unions. When 1 read that the word "bank" includes the members of the Canadian payments association, 1 conclude that this is a definition.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this only seems to be a problem because, as the hon. member is well aware, the Bank Act has a much more restrictive definition which includes only the institutions to which the act expressly applies, while from a methodological standpoint, to cover the opening made to caisses populaires and credit unions by the Canadian payments association, another definition is used for a very specific reason in another act.
I would like to refer to a few of the arguments made by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River which did not concern directly the matter of definition. For instance, 1 do not really see how a definition of the word "cheque", such as requested by the hon. member, would bring about more competition among chartered banks. I believe that, basically, this new legislation promotes competition because it makes it easier for financial institutions to become banks under the terms of the act. Second, it allows many financial institutions for instance, foreign financial institutions, to apply to become banks through letters patent. Third, this legislation creates the Canadian payments association which will enable the caisses populaires and credit unions to get fully involved in the types of activities which were previously restricted to the banks under the Canadian banking legislation or in activities in which chartered banks were more generally involved. I believe that it is basically these three elements which will promote more competition among banking institutions and within banking activities. And even though the definition proposed by the hon. member does not seem at first glance to create any problem within the legislation, it unfortunately does so.
Bank Act
For instance, the caisses populaires come under provincial jurisdiction. Even though they may, if they so request, become members of the Canadian payments association, they do not come directly under the federal legislation as financial institutions, and this is the type of problem that we want to avoid by implementing a different series of definitions for methodological purposes, and the hon. member will certainly understand that this takes nothing away from the competitiveness and the qualities of caisses populaires and credit unions.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is suggesting, 1 think, by moving this amendment is quite simple. He is attempting to define a term which is used in the act without definition at present. I can remember in the committee when we were discussing this matter just prior to taking a vote, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) asking, "Why should we define a term in the Bank Act when that term is not in fact used in the act?" He thought he had come up with the best objection possible to adopting what I would have thought was a relatively simple and uncontroversial definition of "cheque". It was pointed out to him that the word "cheque" is, in fact, used in the Bank Act. It appears, for example, at pages 310 and 311 of Bill C-6, in clause 303, paragraphs (a) and (b). That is just one example and there are others. So what we find is the use of the word "cheque" in the act without a definition, which I would have thought was not something government draftsmen would greatly desire. The definition put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Powell River, is quite straightforward. It simply says that "cheque" means a bill of exchange drawn on a bank, a savings bank, a trust company or a credit union, payable on demand. The reason for putting that in is partly practical and partly symbolic. The practical implications are obvious when we consider that many government cheques and so on should not, in our view, specify that they are simply cashable at a chartered bank or at any of a number of financial institutions of which chartered banks are only one. Credit unions and caisses populaires are others. In our view it makes a great deal of sense, both practical and symbolic, to admit that we have a plural financial system, that we have a Bank Act which does not discriminate against trust companies and credit unions with respect to the use of the word "cheque" and the concept of a cheque and which encourages these financial institutions in their growth. As my hon. friend from Comox-Powell River has pointed out, we are anxious to see the credit unions and caisses populaires treated fairly and not in a discriminatory fashion by the government. So I cannot for the life of me see why we do not accept the definition.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too support the amendment before us. I think it is important for some of the reasons which have been outlined by the previous speakers and also because it would make it possible for the credit unions in this country to operate more competi-
4602

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
tively. The objective of this bill when it was introduced in the House was to increase competition in the banking field. The apparent thrust of that move toward more competition seems to have been aimed at introducing foreign banks to the Canadian climate rather than increased use of the banking institutions and near banking institutions we have here. There is a great need for changes to the act so as to enable this kind of competition to be brought about. How serious is the government about introducing more competition? We look at the bill as it has come out of committee and we find there is no definition of the word "cheque" and no proper recognition of the fact that credit unions can provide a great many of the services which banks provide. Is the government really prepared to consider the institutions which have been developed in this country, namely, the credit unions and the caisses populates? Are their needs to be considered or is it the intention only to consider the needs of the foreign banks? What changes are the government proposing to make to the existing legislation? What changes are they talking about which would bring about equality in the competition?
The competitive disadvantages for credit unions are fairly well known, but I would like to list some of them. For instance, there are the legislative restrictions under the Financial Administration Act which prevent the deposit of federal government funds in financial institutions other than chartered banks. The Canadian Wheat Board Act permits elevator and grain companies, authorized by the board, to borrow from chartered banks but not from credit unions. The Livestock and Livestock Products Act requires livestock commission agents to keep a shippers trust account in a chartered bank but not in a credit union or caisse populaire. The Bills of Exchange Act defines a cheque as a bill of exchange drawn on a bank. This is the kind of thing we are talking about with respect to the Bank Act. We want to make certain that such cheques can be drawn on credit unions and trust companies as well.
There is also the Trust Companies Act, which I understand will be amended in the next six months or so. At the same time, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, which is really complementary legislation, should also be opened up to allow for the broadening of the definition of the powers of a credit union. We believe one of the initial steps necessary to bring that about is to broaden the definition of "cheque" and the institutions which may handle such instruments under the new definition.
As we all know, credit unions have been clearing government cheques and orders at no cost. In some provinces this amounts to a fair sum of money. For instance, in my province of Saskatchewan credit unions provide 40 per cent of the clearings. In Quebec the caisses populaires cleared approximately 13 million items worth more than $2 billion in 1977. Yet credit unions and caisses populaires received no compensation for such work. It is true that the banks do not charge for clearing government orders but, at least, they have access to government deposits. This is something that all of the acts I have mentioned have in common-to specifically prevent the
deposit of government funds in credit unions. So the banks, at least, have the use of approximately $6.7 billion in deposits, which provide a considerable source of compensation in lieu of the services rendered. These are some of the reasons why we think we should begin by amending the Bank Act, to define a cheque and to include the credit unions and trust companies. We think it is an important beginning.
We also believe that further clean-up work should accompany this kind of change. We see it as an important beginning to reintroduce true competition in the made-in-Canada banking business. The credit unions and caisses populaires grew up in this country and we think that if we are to broaden and encourage competition in the banking business this is the one place we should start. We should broaden the definitions in the Bank Act so as to allow credit unions and caisses populaires to operate on the same basis as banks when it comes to clearing cheques.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will make a few comments on this particular definition. First of all, we on this side of the House have very little dispute with the hon. members' comments with respect to the credit unions and caisses populaires and their functions in the future financial system. The unfortunate thing is that much of what they have said is totally irrelevant to what we are talking about here, because this particular definition must be considered within the context of the act to which it relates. The act to which it relates is the Bank Act.
Unless hon. members opposite are willing to say that caisses populaires, credit unions, trust companies and savings banks, other than in the form of the Quebec Savings Banks, are in fact banks and therefore must be regulated under this act, then I would say that such a definition should in no way refer to institutions which are not related to the act to which the definition applies. The Bank Act relates only to banks and these other institutions are not a part of that and are not regulated by it.
The hon. member opposite said that a cheque should be defined and that credit unions, caisses populaires and trust companies should be allowed to issue cheques or have cheques drawn against their deposit liabilities. If that is the case then the proper place to do that is in a much more general statute which deals with the nature of bills of exchange. Lo and behold, on page 447 of the legislation before us this is precisely what the government proposes to do. It defines a cheque as a bill of exchange and includes, within that definition, bills of exchange drawn on and payable on demand from institutions other than banks. It does that in a direct way by simply saying for the purposes of the Bills of Exchange Act and for the purposes of this part of the Bills of Exchange Act a bank includes those institutions. That certainly does not mean that for the purposes of the Bank Act a bank includes those institutions. As a result, it is totally ludicrous to put a definition into the Bank Act which includes a reference to those very institutions that are not included as banks.
November 12, 1980

The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has indicated that this definition is consistent with his definition of a bank. I would suggest that it is not perfectly consistent with that definition because in that definition of a bank it says that a bank is an institution that draws or issues cheques or accepts cheques against their deposit liabilities. But below that particular portion his definition is that qualification that a bank does not include credit unions, caisses populaires, trust companies and companies covered by the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. If they are not included, then why are we saying in the definition of a cheque, which comes in earlier, that in fact they are included? So the two are totally inconsistent.
I suggest that the government's approach of using the broader statute, which is the Bills of Exchange Act, as the vehicle for defining what a cheque is, so that institutions like credit unions, caisses populaires, trust companies and others can participate in this financial system using vehicles such as cheques, is the appropriate way of going about this. It certainly makes no sense to put a definition in the Bank Act which refers to institutions which are not banks and are not covered by the Bank Act. This being said, I would suggest that the amendment be defeated.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this subject. I fear that the consequence of the amendment if accepted would be something the mover of the motion does not want. If this is brought in under the Bank Act, then trust companies which are presently not charging for their cheques and giving a service that the public appreciates, would start charging for every cheque that they issue, as the banks are doing today. That is what I fear. Today the trust companies are doing very well. They are providing a very excellent service, as are the credit unions. I do not think we want to get them tied into the same organization as the banks, where they would become nothing more than banks, the result being no competition for the benefit of the working people. Mr. Speaker, I really cannot see the merit in the amendment, as proposed.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friends have mentioned, this amendment deals not only with practicalities, but with symbols. It acknowledges a principle in which I and hundreds of thousands of people in this country have believed for a long time. It is not just a case of people working for money, but of money working for people. I would like to inform the hon. member opposite who has just spoken that 60 per cent of all cheque clearing in the province of Saskatchewan is done through the credit union movement and that the other 40 per cent is divided among trust companies, chartered banks, etc.
Dealing with credit unions comes from a tradition of long, bitter experience with banks, trust companies and finance companies. In fact, there should be a law against any finance company using the word "beneficial" because it is a total contradiction when one looks at the way in which they operate.
Bank Act
The credit unions of Saskatchewan were the first, ahead of the chartered banks, trust companies or other financial institutions, to institute computer automatic bank tellers. Since the credit unions clear 60 per cent of all the cheques, surely the definition of cheques as they are handled and printed by credit unions, should be included in the Bank Act.
I have here my cheque book. The contents are called cheques and they are printed by the Sherwood Credit Union Limited, Regina, Saskatchewan. I do not deal with banks. It seems to me that whether it is a case of my clearing a cheque or a case of half the population of Saskatchewan clearing its cheques through credit unions, they should damn well be recognized as such in the Bank Act. The story of why I now deal only with credit unions began when I was a young married man with a job and three kids, owing bills all over town and trying to raise my first loan. The banks and finance companies would not lend me a nickel unless I owned some property such as a house or a farm. They wanted to know my assets when all I had was my salary and my good name. A credit union came through and helped me out within a matter of 20 hours, and I have never been to a bank since, nor do I have any intention of ever going to a bank.
What we are talking about is money working for the people, not just people working for money. I hope the government will reconsider and accept this amendment because it will do no horrendous damage to its idea of what should be banking legislation for Canada. However, it will finally give full and proper recognition, which is long overdue, to the day-to-day practice of credit unions and what is occurring in Saskatchewan and Quebec, the provinces where most credit unions and caisses populaires are found.
In fact, I hope credit unions become so abundant that some of the chartered banks and other private financial institutions gradually disappear. What they do, and the way in which it is done, are irrelevant to the needs of people when it comes to money working for people. The introduction of automatic bank tellers means that the several thousands employees of the federal government in Saskatchewan can go down to their credit union lobby and deposit a government cheque after normal banking hours. Credit unions have made use of the latest technology and it is working marvellously well.
I. do not see any reason why, when there are areas such as Saskatchewan and Quebec in which the overwhelming majority of financial transactions by ordinary people occur with credit unions and caisses populaires, there should be no recognition given to credit unions in the Bank Act. What is the government worried about? If it wishes to amend some other legislation or include the matter in some other legislation, then that is fine.
Credit unions are people's banks. We call them credit unions because we think it is a much better term. Credit unions evolved because hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country had bitter experiences with banks in the strictest sense of the word. They were formed by the people. Credit unions did not come out of Bay Street in Toronto or James Street in Montreal; they came out of the people.

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
Credit unions print their own cheques. They are cheques in fact, if not in law, so why do we not provide some kind of recognition by putting in place a symbol of what is a fact in this country? People from all walks of life, small businessmen, farmers, workers, old age pensioners and so on, bank at credit unions. I invite hon. members, particularly those on the government side who have dealings with the Bank Act, to visit the approximately ten branches of credit unions which thrive in the little city of Regina. They will see what credit unions mean to the people of that city and how these institutions operate.
The amendment proposed by my colleague, does nothing more than to bring up to date what is practice and tradition for several millions of Canadians from coast to coast. It is a practice which is growing in every province and region of this country. I do not understand the reluctance of the government to recognize this reality, face up to it and include my colleague's amendment in the Bank Act. Surely, the experience of the credit union movement, which 1 am sure has been brought to the attention of many hon. members opposite, with regard to the clearing of cheques by central banks, the kicks in the teeth it received from the banking association over the years and the attempts of the banks to discriminate, inhibit or make more awkward the operations of credit unions and caisses populaires to deal fully and completely with every aspect of a member's financial dealings, must be recognized in an updated Bank Act.
1 do not understand the obfuscation put up by the hon. gentleman across the way a few moments ago. 1 do not understand why he has not recognized that the Bank Act, the primary financial legislation of this country as it pertains to financial institutions, should cover the point made by my hon. friend who moved the amendment. When I use the word "symbolic", 1 do not mean it lightly. It is a very important and serious symbol to many people in this country. Even if in most instances it is a minor detail and means little or nothing in day to day practice, the fact that it is there means a great deal to a lot of people.
I hope the government will reconsider and that the minister and his colleagues will say, "What the heck, there is no harm in having this." There is no harm to whoever it is they are trying to help. There is a benefit to the credit union and the caisses populaires employees of this country contained in this amendment. We do not move the amendment lightly nor without a great deal of consultation with our friends in the credit unions and the caisse populaire movement. We would not, and we do not, move it just on our own. This is not just socialist dogma, Mr. Speaker. It comes from people across party lines-in my province anyway-who say they want this sort of thing in the Bank Act. I hope the minister will reconsider and say it is all right, that he does not think it does harm to the government's bill. They may still wish to disagree but it may not mean that much to the credit unions and caisses populaires in Canada. He might be right in that; I do not know, but surely we could agree it will not do any damage to
the legislation. Its passage may or may not be helpful to the credit union movement in this country.
On those grounds alone, Mr. Speaker, if for none of the other reasons that I have illustrated, I hope the government will accept this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).
All those in favour, please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion No. 3 negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 4 of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is quite simple. We take a different view from that of the government with respect to the process of incorporation. One of the things this act does is to allow a process of incorporation to take place without requiring parliament itself to authorize a particular charter. I say to the minister that we would be prepared to withdraw this motion if he would be prepared to reconsider his position on motion No. 6. In other words, we made some progress in committee when we accepted the amendment from the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) dealing with the question of the right of the Inspector General of Banks to hold an inquiry concerning the incorporation process.
The minister will recall that the hon. member for Edmonton West was concerned, and we supported him, that if we are going to move from a process of parliamentary charter to a process whereby incorporation of a chartered bank would become very much like the incorporation of any other public company, there should be at least some kind of hearing process. I have said to the minister on a number of occasions that if this legislation is passed as is, it will be easier to establish a chartered bank in Canada than to obtain a liquor permit in the province of Ontario.
The process by which one incorporates under the amendments put forward by the government does not require that the inspector general hold a hearing when he receives an objection,
November 12, 1980

but it gives the bureaucracy the right to decide whether the objections are of any importance and gives the inspector general the sole right, without having to hold a hearing, to determine whether the bona fides of those wishing to obtain a charter have been established.
In light of this, we would prefer a process whereby Parliament has a greater degree of control over the chartering of banks. We would prefer a continuation of the system whereby Parliament itself charters banks and each individual bank is subject to the strict scrutiny of Parliament and a parliamentary committee.
If this is not acceptable to the government, we are prepared to withdraw that motion and put forward the other motion. That is, if the government is not prepared to accept that principle, then at least require the inspector general-not to hold a hearing with regard to objections that have been made on the chartering of a bank-but to hold a public inquiry. Motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) specifies that the inquiry shall be held in public, that upon completion of the inquiry the inspector general shall report his findings to the minister and that the minister shall make such report available to the public within 30 days.
In granting a charter to those who are determined to create a bank, one is, in fact, granting an extensive licence-a licence which in my view has far more impact on the public than a liquor license permit or a television station licence or any of a number of other activities. Yet the government tells us that there is no requirement to hold a public hearing at which objections can be heard in the case of chartering our banks.
This is not astonishing, because I know the faith the Liberal party has in the bureaucracy, and I know the lack of faith the Liberal party has in the concept of due process yet it is surprising to me, having regard to the advances in administrative law we have seen over the last 15 years in Canada, during which the courts have said, for example, that there is a duty of fairness, a duty to hold a hearing by all sorts of institutions when previously there was no such requirement. For example, it is no longer possible for a police officer to be deprived of his job without the right to a hearing; hospital boards, liquor licence tribunals, rent review tribunals, workmen's compensation boards, expropriation boards or any administrative institution established under the jurisdiction of the provinces or the federal government are subject to a requirement to be fair. There is a requirement to protect the public interest. There is a requirement to allow objections to be made. Authorities planning to build a public highway in the province of Ontario go before the municipal board. Every city that is involved in putting forward an official plan knows that people can make objections to it.
Mr. Speaker, I have more right with respect to the process of objections and the requirement of a public hearing to stop my neighbour from parking his car on his lawn than I have as a citizen of this country or a financial critic of this party, to question the bona fides of those who propose to establish a chartered bank. Yet the implications of the one decision are
Bank Act
much more vast and carry a far greater impact on the public than the question whether my neighbour can park on his lawn. It is amazing that the government can carry on in this way, just by a process of convincing themselves that there is no need to worry and that the bureaucracy can take care of everything. On other occasions the parliamentary secretary has said, "We do not want any yahoo coming in and objecting so that we will have to hold an inquiry." That is the typical Liberal attitude to objections from the public-that the public is necessarily illiterate; that the objections necessarily come from people who do not know what they are talking about and that the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada do not need to hear from those who object.
The Liberal party's attitude reminds me of the church before Vatican II. That is about the stage of their development. There is clearly a need for a Vatican II on that side of the House. There is clearly a need to let some light in, to let a little air in by having a public inquiry and not just, as the hon. member for Edmonton West has said, if the inspector general decides it might be worth while to give responsible citizens of Canada the chance to find out who the people are who want to establish a chartered bank, what their bona fides are, in which areas they plan to specialize, where they expect to gather their business and where they intend to invest in the future of Canada.
These are legitimate questions for Canadians to ask, Mr. Speaker. If we are not allowed to ask them in Parliament any more-and apparently such will be the case as a result of this act-then I think we should at least require the inspector general to hold a hearing and see that justice is done when a licence is granted to people to conduct a banking business, just as justice is required when licence is given to carry on all sorts of activities which give a substantial and substantive right to groups of individuals to engage in business in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this question of the inquiry started out as a result of representations I had made. My views were coloured, first of all, by recognizing early on that there should be an alternative procedure to the road to Calvary which incorporators of banks were made to travel under the previous procedure of a private bill. I defy anyone to devise such a tortuous, expensive and frankly unnecessary system as the incorporation by private bill. All it took was two or three members, who were ideologically opposed to banks, to totally hamstring a legitimate operation and over the years, I saw that happen. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) has never been aware of the thousands upon thousands of unnecessary expenses which were piled upon incorporators of banks in the past due to frivolous, and I would say, purely ideologically and devilishy inspired interference in the normal parliamentary process.
It was scandalous the way the parliamentary process was abused on certain occasions. Therefore, that method had to be eliminated. Now comes this proposal that a bank may be

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
incorporated, with all the other requirements, merely by letters patent. I insist also there should be some form of parliamentary control, if necessary. I have had experience of one or two incorporations, but if more light had been cast upon them in the early stages, as there was subsequently through probing questioning by members of the finance committee, the incorporations would have proceeded much more smoothly and regularly.
The amendment which appears as No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood imposes a statutory obligation upon the Inspector General in the event of any objection-he does not say any valid objection. The world's greatest kook, or the most irresponsible, could object-and we know we have them. Anyone acting on a whim or for competitive purposes who wished to stall the application would merely have to file an objection with the inspector general who would then be bound to put the process of a public inquiry under way.
On the other hand, there could be valid objections. If members of the party of the sponsor of this amendment feel that any representations they might make, for example, against the incorporation of any particular bank, were not to be treated as valid or serious, and could be passed over casually by the Inspector General of Banks, then they place themselves perhaps in the right place at the right status. However, if they are going to be serious-and I am not necessarily saying they are not-and have a valid objection, on the basis of information, on the grounds that certain incorporators of a proposed bank were not persons of the quality required, or that there was some doubt about the source of funds, or for any number of valid reasons, they would have to come up with the proof. Mind you, they would have to realize that in making such allegation they would have to put their money where their mouth is. But that happens to anyone.
Let us look at the procedure to be followed by the inspector general and the minister under those circumstances. It must be remembered that under the letters patent procedure the application is filed and there are certain statutory requirements as to capital, the number of persons, the quality of those persons, and so on. The inspector general, of course, has sources by which he can make investigations about the character and backgrounds of the persons concerned. Let us assume that the applicants meet all those requirements. The Inspector General then has to make a recommendation to the minister, after which the further steps of incorporation can take place if all conditions are met. But if there were either verbal or written objections which appeared valid, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the Inspector General and the minister would insist upon a public inquiry. Take the possible case of either the Inspector General of Banks or the minister failing to recognize the validity or the seriousness of an objection and just issuing the permit. Subsequently the fact that there were valid objections to the permit to commence business would surface. Both individuals concerned would, I think, find themselves fired for dereliction of duty.
I know very well that the minister responsible for financial institutions would under no circumstances, if there were the slightest doubt, fail to hold a public inquiry. Therefore, I feel that by granting this discretion to a responsible official, by, in fact, imposing a duty on the minister in question to really have a hard look at the circumstances, we are protecting the public. Incidentally, we are also possibly protecting the incorporators who could find themselves facing malicious charges or malicious information. We cannot understand the motives of men at all times. Let us assume in this case that an application is made and there comes into the hands of the Inspector General or of the minister in question a letter or letters making certain allegations of a spurious nature. Pray, how could the minister, the Inspector General or the individuals involved disprove these spurious allegations? They may be smears or allegations as to past criminal records or bankruptcies. Not one of those individuals would have a venue to correct the record.
The Inspector General cannot do those things which he is not authorized to do. Neither can the minister. How would the record be cleared except by way of a public inquiry with the persons who make the allegations put on the stand to prove what they had said. To that extent I think there should be a public inquiry of the nature I proposed. I am told that concurrently a similar proposal was made in the Senate. I had no contact with it. I am glad the government saw the value of the proposal on the basis of the arguments advanced, not only to protect the public in the appropriate case, but to protect the minister and the Inspector General of Banks as well as those who would make a proposal under the act to incorporate a bank.
Therefore, the amendment incorporated in the bills reported is far superior to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). I understand his motives, but I respectfully differ from him in that his amendment would lay the operation of the act open to a great deal of mischief.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it seems we have slipped from motion No. 5 to No. 6 in the course of general consideration of a couple of amendments which would apply to the kind of principle we are attempting to get at. The first is basically the proposal which would remove from Parliament the right to consider the incorporation of a bank. My hon. friend outlined fairly clearly some of the dilemmas there.
It concerned us in committee that this is yet another removal from Parliament of a power exercised over very strong influences in our society. It is acknowledged that banks are very powerful players in the economy of Canada. What they do will shape all our lives. We are not dealing merely with a parking fine or the implementation of a by-law respecting the running of fences in a municipality where people are accorded the benefit of a public hearing. We are dealing with the removal of yet another right from Parliament to consider and provide input on very powerful players in our economy.
November 12, 1980

I have heard members on both sides stand up and say that this is of no consequence. In fact, when the government presented its original proposal, it wanted the inspector general to look at the circumstances, make recommendations to the minister and that was all. Parliament was no longer to have the responsibility. This was to be the procedure, they said. Very quick, very neat. On behalf of those who are trying to glean information from the government and ministers opposite,
I say, shame. Members across the way know the kind of record which has been established over the last year and, indeed, since the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power, yet they allow the erosion of yet another power of Parliament.
I am a new member of this institution. Since roughly 1968-69, the power to effectively control the estimates of the government has disappeared to a committee. The committees themselves have been hamstrung. Millions are spent on issues and items that cannot be properly examined because of a deliberately structured device to remove from Parliament the opportunity to consider them. Here is another example of erosion. It is being resisted by members who for more than ten years have fought against the government, the Prime Minister and some ministers about the erosion of the rights of Parliament.
The Inspector General of Banks is not responsible to the Canadian people for what goes on in the banks. It is the minister and the elected representatives here. We are responsible. We were sent to this Parliament to consider such matters. However, I see members of the official opposition allowing yet another erosion of the power of Parliament. This is of serious concern.
I mentioned our concerns about the Prime Minister. They deserve stating again. He has not played fair ball with the people of Canada in some of his actions. I call to the attention of hon. members the changes in our rules which had to be bashed home with closure. When they changed the rules, they removed the estimates and allowed Parliament to be hamstrung. I also recall the War Measures Act. In retrospect, the leader of that party stood up after it was over and stated he regretted the fact he had supported it at the time. That was a product of actions by that government, that Prime Minister and those ministers.
There is also the issue of the anti-inflation legislation. They made a commitment to the people that they would not introduce it, but once in power they jammed it through. That attitude is also reflected in the proposal before us. It is the erosion of another power of Parliament, and I am seriously concerned about it. The other day we sat through the closure motion. The government is not opposed to using closure, removing the powers of Parliament. We were seriously concerned about that. I congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for individually overcoming a very serious dilemma. The government in fact accepted it. It now lacks a single thing. Although it is a lesser solution, our amendments overcome it. The power is still largely removed from Parliament.
Bank Act
On the other side of the coin, the Inspector General has the discretion not to hold a public hearing "because there are kooks out there". What disturbs me is that over the years the government has said that the kooks are those who disagree with it. We all know where dissent is in a democracy. It is a very healthy procedure. It will not tie up or hamstring the business of this country to have people with serious concerns write those concerns down, submit them and have them considered at a public hearing.
Kooks are not going to be supported by large numbers of the public. People have the right to bring forward serious concerns about these powerful institutions. A major concern is that this procedure is not open enough. Second, there is an attitude which has been prevalent with this government-I do not think anyone here can deny it. They hold information very closely. They somehow feel it is not the right of Parliament and Canadians to have information. When it comes out, they feel it is politically damaging, and that is worse than providing the information. This provision still allows the basic offensive nature of the previous proposal put in by the government. Perhaps that is why it is there in only half its form, because it still gives the Inspector General of Banks the authority to do this. He can give notice to the minister involved, and the minister can say, "Do not do it". If we follow the legislation, we will realize that it has been removed now from the control of Parliament. Essentially we are faced with a continuing erosion of the powers of Parliament. Also we see a controlling of the entire process of incorporating banks by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who undoubtedly will direct the Inspector General of Banks. We are very concerned about this particular item.
Allowing the amendment we have proposed to go through will broaden the very constructive amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) so that the government cannot compel the Inspector General to put it aside and say, "No, we do not want to expose it to the public". It compels the Inspector General, upon receipt of an objection, to hold a public meeting and allow concerned individuals to express their concerns in front of the press and in front of the people. Although the matter has been removed from Parliament, it is still compelled to remain within a public forum. No one in the House would disagree that banks are among the most prominent players in the economy. Foreign banks are among the most powerful institutions in the world, especially considering the leverage they will have over us.
This incorporation procedure is one of the most important issues of this act. Acceptance of our proposal will not harm anyone. The only objection was the one raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that perhaps a kook will submit an objection and therefore we should put a provision in the legislation giving absolute discretionary power to a public servant who in fact is manipulated-a poor choice of words- or guided by the Minister of Finance. Perhaps I will reselect that word.

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
If the House is prepared to accept our amendment, certainly no harm would follow. We will not see the banks hamstrung. They will not come streaming forward in droves trying to incorporate. We will not see the whole procedure hung up. In fact, there will be very few incorporations over a period of time. People will approach this new procedure very cautiously.


An hon. Member:: It only takes one to go down.


Raymond John Skelly: It only takes one to go down. I think we will see a very slow and easy incorporation procedure. If our amendment was adopted, these organizations would be required to go in front of the public when there was an objection. Certainly they cannot come before Parliament any more, but they could be made the subject of public scrutiny. There is no harm in that, despite the fears of the hon. member for Edmonton West.
I urge members of the House to accept this amendment. They are prepared on any municipal project to allow municipalities to hold public hearings, to allow the citizens to participate or at least to be informed about the decision-making and to register their objections so that concerned elected officials will know about them. This is not inconsistent with the legislation. The government is prepared to do it on sensitive environmental questions. I believe that on sensitive and serious economic questions affecting the way the economy will develop, who will control it and what are their objectives, we should allow the procedure to become public and not allow the government at will to suppress knowledge.
I urge members of the House to support this one small amendment which would allow the entire incorporation procedure to become a public process. If it does not happen, we shall not only be allowing the government to remove one further power from Parliament, as it has so many others, making this institution less effective in expressing the wishes of the people, but we shall also be depriving the public of the opportunity of having these powerful economic players appear before it on items of serious objection.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I have listened to the debate, to the points made both by my hon. friends and by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I was struck by the unusual position put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West. We are suggesting the provision of even a greater amount of protection for the public.
In order to understand the nature of our proposal, one must appreciate that members of the public have infinite confidence in the banking system. When they put their money in the bank, whether by way of purchasing shares or by deposit, they are confident in the belief that the banks operate under federal law which is written in such a manner that it is virtually impossible for the bank not to operate in a fiscally responsible way. When the hon. member for Edmonton West made his comments, I was struck by the confidence which he placed in the public service. He said that there may be some frivolous intervention. I draw the conclusion that because there may be some frivolous intervention, the public will get less protection
than it might otherwise be entitled to. The hon. member mentioned that it might be more costly to do it the way we are suggesting; because there may be an additional cost, the public are to have less protection than it might otherwise be entitled to. Because the member has confidence in the public service of today, he is saying in essence that the public of the future will have less protection than it might otherwise expect and heretofore has been entitled to.
Turning from banks for a few moments, I should like to look at the problems within financial institutions in general. Look at what happened in the most recent Astra Trust case-I want to point something out by way of example. I see the minister shaking his head. I am not suggesting a parallel can be drawn, but I am suggesting we ought to be encouraging a far greater degree of public scrutiny within all financial institutions, rather than lessening the degree of public scrutiny. I see the minister is now shaking his head affirmatively. He can understand why I draw that comparison, he can understand what I am driving at. In the case of trust companies, at the moment they are subject to approval, albeit provincial. There is a certain amount of federal involvement, but primarily it is provincial. People who had put their life savings into something they believed was protected by law discovered the protection was not worth the paper upon which it was written. There was no public hearing process in advance of that trust company being given the authority to conduct business and no mandatory process for advertising and public participation about which we are talking. If we take that extreme case today and extrapolate it over the next ten or 15 years, we would almost assuredly come up with the thought that a similar kind of thing could well occur within the banking structure.


Bob Rae: The Bank of Western Canada.


Ian Deans: My colleague mentions the Bank of Western Canada. A similar kind of thing could well occur within the banking structure under the system which is currently being proposed by the government and supported by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
What we are talking about is a guarantee that there will be the opportunity for public participation in perhaps the single most important area of the economy a guarantee that the sort of thing which happened to Astra, Reymor and the people who put their money there could not happen within the banking system. We are suggesting that if we adopted these simple amendments to ensure a public hearing, there would be scrutiny and an opportunity for the public, and those who might have knowledge, to take part in the process, thereby taking a step toward guaranteeing that this kind of failure and consequent hardship could never occur.
I ask the minister not to be impressed by the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West that, because on an odd accasion there might be someone with frivolous intent who would attempt to subvert the process we would put other people in jeopardy over the course of years ahead, or that just because it might cost those who are asking for incorporation a
November 12, 1980

little more in terms of the dollars they would have to invest in order to go through the public hearing process we should run a risk unnecessarily. It was suggested that people might invest on the assumption that the government's guarantee stands behind a financial institution and that somehow or other, because it may cost a little more to go through that process, members of the public should have less protection in the future than that to which they are presently entitled, or, for that matter, because today's public service is working well and can be trusted with the responsibility this necessarily will always be the case in every instance.
We must write the law to protect the public, not the incorporators from a frivolous intervention, a costly hearing or from a civil service from which they need no protection. We must protect the public from situations which, at this point, we think might not occur but which, however, could well occur under the current legislation. That is what we are asking for, and it is simple. We are not talking about hearings every day of the week for the rest of our lives. We are not talking about incorporations being requested and applied for by the hundreds. We all know that this will not happen. We are talking about a reasonable number of hearings which will be held because we are committed to making sure that not just the banking structure but all of the financial institutions have to submit to the most rigorous set of requirements and present themselves before the public in order to justify the contention that they should be permitted to operate within the financial structure of Canada. That is what we are suggesting, and we are saying that this kind of amendment means further protection.
It is not just further protection; it is necessary protection. I am not suggesting for one moment that my comments are any more meaningful than those of anyone else, but in the light of these observations can the minister not see that we are courting potential danger in the future, that we are leaving a door open for failure in the banking system which we need not leave open? Rather than opening that door we should be closing other doors in an effort to protect the people of Canada who for some reason have great trust in the political system and believe that "guaranteed by the Government of Canada" means something. That is how they feel about banks. Incidentally, that is also how they felt about trust companies until fairly recently. For some reason they thought that because they were incorporated and given licences to operate by the government, the government would be looking into them with such care that there could be no way they could be ripped off by unscrupulous dealers. Unfortunately, the minister knows that has not been the case. I would have thought we would be moving to a more carefully thought out and more restrictive method of reviewing entry to the financial system of Canada rather than opening it up and leaving things to chance.
I therefore ask the minister in good conscience if he will not consider the representations made by both of my hon. friends and say, "Yes, you are right, there is, in fact, the chance that we may slip up, so let us close the loophole".
Bank Act


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing motions 4 and 6. I will first speak on motion No. 4 presented by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). The effect of this motion would be to block one of the two avenues now open to an institution aiming at becoming a bank in the present sense of the law, since clause 7(a) states that an institution that wants to become a bank can still proceed through incorporation by Parliament as we do now and another option is added which is to proceed through letters patent. Motion No. 4 suggested by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood would do away with this second possibility, namely, to proceed through letters patent.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) say that the bill proposes to remove completely, from the process whereby a financial institution obtains the status of a bank, the right for Parliament to examine that incorporation. In fact, we are adding one more possibility, while keeping, as I pointed out before in subclause 7(2), the possibility of incorporation by both Houses. If that procedure is chosen by an institution, it is well understood that the public parliamentary examination now in current usage would apply.
However, another means is being put at the disposal of those institutions desirous of obtaining bank status and of falling under the jurisdiction of the federal Bank Act, and that is letters patent. For the first time, the Bank Act provides truly wide possibilities, which this really is, in the procedure allowing a financial institution to accede to bank status.
Much has been made in the course of our debate of certain public examinations. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) made much of the procedure those institutions will have to follow.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware-or they will learn when they read clauses 12 and others following on page 18 of our bill-that before an application is made under subclause 7(1 )(b), a notice of intention to apply for the proposed letters patent and to operate as a banking institution under the Bank Act shall be published by the applicants for a period of four consecutive weeks in The Canada Gazette and in a newspaper published at the place where the head office of the bank is to be situated. That is the first stage.
Any person, as mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton West, who has objections to the granting of letters patent to the people who have thus applied for them may write to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) or the Inspector General of Banks to advise them of his or her concern and request a public inquiry.
If we consider the procedure which appears in the text the committee submitted to the House, namely the amendment to clause 12, on page 18, which was largely based on the proposal made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, we note that
4610

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
the only difference between the wording of subclauses (2), (3) and (4) and motion No. 6 proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River appears in this part of the motion, and I quote:
(c) the minister shall upon receiving the report make such report available to the public within thirty days.
Already the committee, in its report to the House of clause 12, recognized the right of the Inspector General, for specific reasons, to ask for a public inquiry. Clause 12, page 18, states that on completion of the inquiry, the Inspector must report his findings to the minister. The one thing which is added is that the report must be made public. Mr. Speaker, I think that if we take a close look at clause 7, subclauses (a) and (b) and at all of clause 12, we see that there is always a possibility for Parliament to discuss the matter if an institution chooses incorporation before the two Houses of Parliament as set out in clauses 7(a) or if it chooses to proceed by way of letters patent according to the new provisions proposed by committee, then there is always the possibility of a public inquiry should it be deemed necessary by the Inspector General. I think we should keep those two mechanisms since they protect the public well and since there is to be a thorough investigation as to the integrity of the individuals who will be creating a new institution which is to function as a banking institution. We must also remember, as the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) pointed out I believe, that the purpose of the act is first and foremost to protect the common good, to ensure that the Canadian public is well served, properly served, faithfully and honestly served by the institutions operating under the Bank Act. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we reject motions Nos. 4 and 6.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Rae) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: We are now on motion No. 6. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 5, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, and 21 are grouped for debate.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 5
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 striking out lines 19 to 24 at page 14.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 12
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
(a)	striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 95 and substituting the following
therefor:
"each shareholder is an offi-"
(b)	striking out lines 16 to 21 at page 95.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 13
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 striking out lines 18 to 32 at page 96 and substituting the following therefor:
"Her Majesty in right of Canada or in right of a province or an agent of
Her Majesty in either such right is not included within the expression 'person'
as used in those sections."


Bob Rae: Motion No. 16
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 12, 1980

clause 2 by striking out lines 7 to 10 at page 99 and substituting the following therefor:
"the government of a foreign state or".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 19
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 striking out lines 16 to 18 at page 102 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) an".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 20
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 triking out lines 30 to 32 at page 110 and substituting the following therefor:
"shares of the bank to a financial".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 21
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 striking out lines 46 and 47 at page 110, lines 1 to 16 and lines 36 to 47 at page 111, lines 28 to 47 at page 112 and lines 1 and 2 at page 113.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motions Nos. 5, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20 and 21.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on motion No. 5. That motion deals with the section of the act which specifies to whom letters patent incorporating a bank can be issued. Clause 8 reads as follows:
Notwithstanding subsection 7(2), letters patent incorporating a bank shall not be issued
(a) to Her Majesty in right of Canada or in right of a province, to any agent or employee of Her Majesty in either such right, or to any corporation owned or controlled by Her Majesty in either such right;
I find it ironic that the government would be taking such an ideological position with respect to the next ten years in our banking legislation. I do not see why the government should rule out of court the question as to whether or not a province should be allowed to incorporate a chartered bank-and I will come to the reasons why that may be a very good idea-or why the government should not be allowed to establish a Crown bank if it were found to be one way of increasing competition in the absence of competition coming from other sectors, or if it is found to be one way in which the government can reorganize its granting of concessionary or other special kinds of loans to a number of special interest groups, such as farmers, small businessmen, people involved in housing or others.
I want to deal with each of those two points. The first is with respect to the ability of the provinces to engage directly in the business of banking by incorporating a federally chartered bank. It is one of the realities in our country that our largest chartered banks, the "Big Five" as they are called, which have such a stranglehold on the banking business and indeed on
Bank Act
many aspects and many parts of capital markets today, are regarded by many Canadians as the representatives of a particular part of Canada, as simply being institutions for the benefit of central Canada which, in a historic sense, have sucked up savings from Canadians right across the country and largely to the profit of those who live in central Canada. Indeed, I think it is one of the perceptions of our country which has a detrimental effect not only on our financial life but also on our political and social life. As a result of the boom in oil and natural gas in western Canada it is no longer the case that the west is without economic resources. Indeed, it is the fastest growing part of the country, economically, and the economic power of the west which is growing very rapidly. It is growing so rapidly that the province of Alberta has developed a heritage fund worth somewhere in the area of $8 billion at the present time. The value of the fund grows daily and it will be further increased by the additions to the price of oil and gas which have just been tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
One of the key questions is that of the fiscal imbalances which these revenues create in our economic system, the fiscal relationship between the federal and provincial governments. It is one of the intractible problems of the decade and one of the great challenges of the 1980s. It has become unrealistic to say to the government of Alberta, or to the people of Alberta: you can create your credit unions and your provincial savings offices, which function in a sense as savings banks for individual Albertans, but you're not allowed to become directly involved in the business of chartering a bank. I find it hard to understand how a party which prides itself on being pragmatic and responsive to events and on being one which does not take any ideological position, would say that under no circumstances will provincial governments be allowed to incorporate federally-chartered banks. The ironic consequence of taking this ideological position will be that the federal government will have less control over capital markets than would be the case were they to allow the provincial governments to become directly involved in the federally-controlled and legislated business of banking. I am thinking particularly of the provincial government of Alberta, but it could be the provincial governments of Saskatchewan or British Columbia. I find it ironic that the federal government, a Liberal government, is requiring that the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia-indeed, any provincial government-establish not federally-chartered institutions but provincial institutions. For example, six or seven years ago, when Mr. Barrett's government wanted to establish a financial institution which would reflect the needs and demands of the economy of British Columbia and which would be able to deal directly with the problems of small businesses and consumers-problems which were not being dealt with by the chartered banks-he was not able to establish a federally-chartered bank. Instead, he was required to establish a provincially-incorporated trust company. I find it ironic that because it is taking an ideological position with respect to the formation of Crown banks, wheth-

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
er they be provincial or federal, a Liberal government should be guaranteeing that the recycling process take place, which is so critical, is going to take place entirely outside federal jurisdiction. It is a phenomenon which is, indeed, passing strange.
It is also a strange phenomenon that the federal government would be tying its hands in this way by saying that under no circumstances will we consider in the next ten years the possibility of forming a federally-chartered Crown bank. I say this because ministers opposite has often said they pride themselves on their lack of ideology with respect to the formation of Crown institutions. In fact, they have nationalized whole areas of economic life. The Conservative party did precisely the same thing. It makes me smile to hear Conservative friends on my right mounting opposition to any direct federal or government involvement in the economy when it was a Conservative government which created such institutions as the Bank of Canada and the CBC.
It was the Liberal government which authorized the takeover of de Havilland and which created many Crown corporations from Polysar to Polymer and countless others. Now they are telling us that this kind of Liberalism is dead and is being replaced by a more hard line kind of Conservatism which means they are not going to become involved in the economy in this way any longer. They say this in spite of the variety of consumer services provided by our chartered banks, whether in fact the chartered banks are providing the services they could provide to small business, farmers, or consumers right across Canada or whether they are providing the services they could to fishermen in Atlantic Canada or to northern communities which are essentially isolated and without financial institutions. The federal government is saying that under no circumstances will it ever consider the possibility of creating a federally-chartered institution, at least for the life of the Bank Act. Frankly, I do not see the logic of the government's position, other than to suggest that it is a purely ideological one. Ministers over there are not prepared even to consider the possibility of allowing provinces to get involved in their banking institutions and to play as great and as active a part in the financial life of the nation as central Canadians have played for the last hundred years. I find it passing strange that they would be tying their own hands at a time when a great many Canadians are asking questions with respect to the services being provided to them by the largest chartered banks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I must say something at this point because all the other amendments I have go further than the strictures in the act. The act does not allow a federal or provincial government to incorporate a bank under a letters patent process. That is the section which is being amended. The objective of the amendment is to delete that prohibitive clause. On the other hand, in the act there are already provisions which allow a government to participate-up to 25 per cent-in the incorporation of a bank. That is a grandfather proposition. It was a pay-off.
There was the WEOC Conference in Calgary some years ago. It pre-dated the Hon. John Turner leaving the government, so it would be about 1973. To please Mr. David Lewis and the NDP, as well as Mr. David Barrett, the Premier of British Columbia, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that the Bank Act would ultimately be amended to allow for the incorporation and establishment of a chartered bank in British Columbia. Subsequently, but without the knowledge of Mr. Turner, the Prime Minister broadened this to actually purchasing an interest in an existing chartered bank.
[ Translation]


An hon. Member:: You could speak-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If a government member wishes to take part in the debate, he should also rise. He can understand me, we are in a bilingual country and since most people in my area are English-speaking it is natural for me to speak to them in English. However, if the member wants me to do so I will take up the time of the House and repeat everything I say. In that specific case, since I am dealing with a rather Anglophone issue, I will speak in English.
In an attempt to please British Columbia, the intent was to allow that province to buy into an existing bank, much to the horror of the then minister of finance. When the Bank Act came down with a white paper, fortunately reason had prevailed and the reference to purchasing an interest in an existing bank had disappeared. It was due mostly to the fact that by that time the heritage and trust fund had begun. It was obvious that if the province of Alberta were so minded, it could likely go out and buy the control of any chartered bank in the country. Economically, for all the reasons in the world-and I do not have to repeat those reasons which I put on the record at the time of the incorporation of the Bank of British Columbia and subsequently-I am unalterably opposed to the Government of Canada or to the government of any province having any interest in a charter bank.
According to this legislation, governments are allowed to become involved in new banks, not the existing banks, up to 25 per cent after a period of time. Governments would even be in better shape than any other corporate shareholders whose maximum involvement can only be to the extent of 10 per cent. There is a conflict of interest. With a holding of that size, a government as a shareholder would be entitled to one or more directors on the board. At that point, the government would have direct access to the business affairs of all the clients of that bank. Suppose the bank had interests beyond provincial boundaries and proposals were put forward by a particular client for financing an expansion either in one province or another. It would come to the attention of the government-appointed directors that a business proposed to borrow money from the bank to assist it in establishing a business in other than the province which had a share in that bank, at which point the squeeze can be put into effect-the government could insist that the development take place in that particular
November 12, 1980

province, all other things being equal other than, shall we say, the location of a particular resource or raw material.
Each of the provinces has a department of industry, trade and commerce, and it is up to those departments to illustrate the advantages to industry of locating in the particular province. It is up to that government through such a department or departments to put legislation on the books which will offer to the public generally incentives to establish a business in that particular province. Certainly, it should not at any time be within the powers of any government to use the leverage which it will have on the board of directors of a bank to direct investment into or out of a particular province under a "beggar thy neighbour" policy.
I cannot for the life of me see how that could be just in any instance. Therefore, it is my view that chartered banks should continue to be allowed to move across the country without the permission of the government or the Inspector General of Banks, establish branches at their own volition without the permission of any one and move into or out of any province without interference from government.
Many people say the government should have the right to interfere. Mr. Speaker, government influence is far from benign. We have seen examples of government influence which has been wrong, punitive and damaging. The history of this country can give many illustrations. Man's motives, when he gets into government and into power, are not necessarily the most pure at all times. Power which rests within government must not, in the type of economy and society which we in Canada want, move into our financial institutions. I do not mind savings and loans associations being organized under the aegis of government. They are like a post office savings bank.
Personally, I would much rather see the Alberta treasury branches brought under the operations of the Bank Act as a private bank-I say private as opposed to being publicly owned by the province. It is only in recent years that the treasury branches have been successful, but they could be more successful given the privileges of a chartered bank. Of course, treasury branches carry on certain activities which are not allowed to chartered banks, and I agree that this is an anomaly.
However, the situation does not justify inserting into the Bank Act, the privilege of allowing governments to invest in existing banks or to participate in the creation of new banks whether by private bill or by letters patent. I have referred to this question generally, because many of the amendments under my name are frankly consequential in a number of sections. These amendments attempt to wipe the slate clean, once and for all, of government being able to enter banking. I oppose amendment No. 5 which is before us. In due course, I will commend to hon. members the amendments which I have put forward and which would eliminate entirely any government interest in any chartered bank. As far as we know, the shares in chartered banks may be owned at the present time by trustees of government pension funds, but not directly because there are disabilities on directors.
Bank Act
No government wants to own shares in a bank unless it can have directors. That is the nature of the beast. It insists that if it is going to put up some money it shall have some say. No one can gainsay that. As a matter of fact, the justification for allowing governments to invest in chartered banks is so that they may appoint directors-so that governments may have a say and influence on the direction of their affairs. I do not think that is what we want in Canada, and I would so move.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment. I have the highest regard for the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), for his knowledge of banking and so on, but there are one or two points which I think are relevant.
First of all, I believe that a government, whether federal, provincial or municipal, has a responsibility to reflect in its policies the thinking of the people who elected it. If some time in the future the people of a province were to elect a government with a very definite mandate to get into the banking business, that government would be unable to do so because of the laws passed here. In my view that is not a democratic procedure.
1 should also like to speak to the question of freedom of choice. I think governments should have some freedom of choice also. While there is much to be said on both sides, I feel that a strict mandate prohibiting a provincial government, for instance, from going into the banking business really amounts to the federal government telling the provinces what is or is not good for them. Provincial governments should be able to carry out the dictates of the people who elected them and not have to do what a senior government says they can or cannot do. I do not agree with this omnipotence of the federal government. I think the people are omnipotent.
If the people of a province are so dissatisfied with the chartered banking system that they ask the provincial government to go into the banking business in competition, I do not see anything wrong with that. It would be acting as a government, not just looking into people's records. There is much to be said for the remarks of the hon. member regarding directors.
I should like to mention one or two points which make me suspicious of the provision that provincial governments cannot enter the banking business under any circumstances-whether 95 per cent of the people of a province wants it to establish a bank in competition or not. That cannot be done-because an act of the federal government says it cannot be done. I do not like that type of procedure, Mr. Speaker. Surely a provincial government should be in a position to carry out the wishes of the people who elected it. It should not be subject to some other power telling it that it cannot take such action.
I remember the early depression years in Alberta, in 1935- I was not a member of the legislature at that time. The government of the day was elected on a very anti-bank feeling. The people were very unhappy with the banks because during the depression years they withdrew credit right and left. Many

November 12, 1980
Bank Act
companies were put into bankruptcy and, as we used to say, there was hunger in the midst of plenty.
Those banks were not operating in accordance with the wishes of the people and so the people were unhappy. The result was almost a landslide victory for the party that proposed to change the banking system but, unfortunately, it could not get a charter from the federal government to form a bank. Instead, it formed what were known as the treasury branches. The reason it wanted a bank was that it could have the privilege of arranging for the expansion of credit, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West. If you hold so many dollars in the Bank of Canada you can expand that and lend, I believe, up to 14 times the amount. This gives the bank tremendous avenue for making money or for service, whichever way you want to look at it.
The treasury branches could not do that, however. They could not lend the money of the depositers under the provisions contained in the Bank Act of that time. Each customer had to sign a statement giving permission to lend their money and so the treasury branch came into being. It is a pretty profitable institution today.
Had the treasury branches been subject to the provisions of the Bank Act, however, then last year the provincial government of Alberta would not have been able to offer the tremendous benefits of reduced interest to the farmers and the developers of that province.
Sometimes people wonder why industry has prospered in Alberta. One reason is that the provincial government provided for loans to be available from the treasury branches and not at an exorbitant rate of interest. They had the freedom to do that because they did not have to abide by any rules set out by the Bank of Canada as did the chartered banks. As a result, many people left the chartered banks and went to the treasury branches.
To tell someone that they cannot form a bank is to do things by the backdoor. Had the treasury branches been formed in the same way as a chartered bank there would have been
advantages and disadvantages. They would have come under the rules that apply to all other banks but they would have been able to expand their credit. Today, that expansion of credit could be a tremendous thing for any province or any country.
We have to look carefully at exactly at what we are trying to accomplish, Mr. Speaker. What harm would there be if the province of Ontario wanted to establish a bank in competition with the other banks? We say we want competition, so would it not be just as well for the people of Ontario, through their government, to form, say, the Bank of Ontario, and then expand credit in the interest of all of the people of the province instead of just those who happen to be the shareholders of a bank?
Let me give an illustration, Mr. Speaker-this is not in the banking field but it is something similar. During the depression years premiums for fire insurance on homes in Alberta became exorbitant. Hundreds of people could not take out insurance, as a result. The government of the day was not socialist but it offered to form an insurance company in competition with the other insurance companies because it thought it could be done at a reduced rate. It was done, and the Alberta Insurance Office came into being. It was swamped with hundreds of thousands of applications. It did so well that all the insurance companies had to reduce their rates in order to stay in business. It was competitive, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that the House will be sitting tomorrow morning between the hours of 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. for further consideration 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.
It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock pursuant to an order made Wednesday, November 5, 1980.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
November 12, 1980


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
(See p. )

[Stage Direction]
P.C. 1980-2915 28 October, 1980
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to subsection 35(1) of the Petroleum Administration Act, being Chapter 47 of the Statutes of Canada, 1974-75-76, is pleased hereby to order that a proclamation do issue declaring that Division II of Part II of the said Act shall come into force and have effect upon, from and after the 28th day of October, 1980.
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Registration Division, Ottawa, October 28, 1980.
I hereby certify the within to be a duplicate copy of the original Proclamation dated 28th October, 1980 declaring that Division II of Part II of the Petroleum Administration Act shall come into force and have effect upon, from and after the 28th day of October, 1980.
L. McCANN Deputy Registrar General of Canada
EDSCHREYER Canada
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
ROGER TASSE Deputy Attorney General
TO ALL TO WHOM these Presents shall come or whom the same in anyway concern,
Greeting:
Proclamation
Whereas in and by subsection 35(1) of the Petroleum Administration Act, being chapter 47 of the Statutes of Canada, 1974-75-76, assented to on June 19, 1975, it is provided that Division II of Part II of the said Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation;
And Whereas it is expedient that Division II of Part II of the said Act should come into force and have effect upon, from and after the 28th day of October, 1980.
Now Know You that We, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation declare and direct that Division II of Part II of the Petroleum Administration Act shall come into force and have effect upon, from and after the 28th day of October, 1980.
Of All Which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.
In Testimony Whereof, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness: Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Edward Richard Schreyer, Chancellor and Principal Companion of Our Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Military Merit upon whom We have conferred Our Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
At Our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this twenty-eighth day of October in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eighty and in the twenty-ninth year of Our Reign.
By Command, GEORGE POST Deputy Registrar General of Canada
P.C. 1980-2916 28 October, 1980
Whereas no agreement has been entered into pursuant to section 22 of the Petroleum Administration Act, with the Government of the Province of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba.
Therefore, His Excellency The Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to section 36 of the said Act, is pleased hereby to make the annexed Regulations prescribing maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil that are produced, extracted or recovered in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and that enter into interprovincial trade or that are mixed or blended with crude oil that has been acquired for movement out of the province where it is produced.
November 12, 1980

[Stage Direction]
Short Title
1.	These Regulations may be cited as the Crude Oil Pricing Regulations.
Maximum Prices
2.	In respect of crude oil that is produced, extracted or recovered in the province of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba and that enters into interprovincial trade or is mixed or blended with crude oil that has been acquired for interprovincial movement from the province where the crude oil is produced extracted or recovered, the maximum prices set out in sections 3 to 6 or derivable from section 3 shall apply.
3.	Except as provided in sections 4 and 5, the price per net clean cubic metre of crude oil having a density at 15dC of eight hundred fifteen kilograms per cubic metre or less, and containing less that one gram of sulphur per kilogram, shall not be more than $108.75 as at the Edmonton, Alberta, terminal of Interprovincial Pipe Line Limited and the prices of all crude oil that were derived or were derivable from or related to the price of the said crude oil prior to the making of these Regulations shall continue to be derived from or related to the price of that crude oil according to the practices of the trade prevailing immediately prior to the making of these Regulations, including practices related to the establishment of differences in price on account of variances in density, sulphur content, location and the establishment of prices for mixed streams of crude oil except that, where in any month after the making of these Regulations, a gathering charge or transportation toll applicable to any particular kind or quality of crude oil to which this section applies, is established or amended, the gathering charge or transportation toll as established or amended shall be added to the maximum price for that quality or kind of crude oil or shall be substituted for the charge or toll applicable to that quality or kind of crude oil immediately prior to the making of these Regulations, when calculating the maximum price for that quality or kind of crude oil.
4.	The price for natural gasoline or condensate per net clean cubic metre shall not be more thatn $115.05 as at the Edmonton, Alberta, terminal of Interprovincial Pipe Line Limited.
5.	The price for any hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons per net clean cubic metre that is produced by extraction from oil sands and is not a refinery oil product within the meaning of section 26 of the National Energy Board Part VI Regulations shall not be more than $111.90 as at the Edmonton, Alberta, terminal of Interprovincial Pipe Line Limited, excluding any compensation paid or payable in respect of any
such hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons pursuant to Part IV of the Petroleum Administration Act.
6.	The maximum price per net clean cubic metre for any crude oil not specified in section 3, 4 or 5 or derivable from section 3 shall not be more than $115.25 at the point of sale before its transmission or transportation out of the province in which it was produced, extracted or recovered, less any gathering charge or transportation toll from that point of sale to Montreal.

[Stage Direction]
(This note is not part of the Regulations, but is intended only for information purposes.)
These Regulations prescribe maximum prices for the various qualities or kinds of crude oil produced, extracted or recovered in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba that enter into interprovincial trade or that are mixed or blended with crude oil that has been required for movement out of the province where the crude oil is produced, extracted or recovered.
P.C. 1980-2917 28 October, 1980
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to subsection 52(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, being Chapter 47 of the Statutes of Canada, 1974-75-76, is pleased hereby to order that a proclamation do issue declaring that subsection 52(1) of the said Act shall come into force and have effect upon, from and after the first day of November 1980.
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Registration Division, Ottawa, October 28, 1980.
I hereby certify the within to be a duplicate copy of the original Proclamation dated 28th October, 1980 declaring that subsection 52(1) of the Petroleum Administration Act shall come into force and have effect upon, from and after the 1st day of November, 1980.
L. McCANN Deputy Registrar General of Canada

[Stage Direction]
Canada
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
ROGER TASSE Deputy Attorney General
TO ALL TO WHOM these Presents shall come or whom the same may in anyway concern,
Greeting:
Proclamation
WHEREAS in and by subsection 52(2) of the Petroleum Administration Act, being chapter 47 of the Statutes of
November 12, 1980
Canada, 1974-75-76, assented to on June 19, 1975, it is provided that subsection 52(1) of the said Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation;
And Whereas it is expedient that subsection 52(1) of the said Act should come into force and have effect upon, from and after the first day of November, 1980.
Now Know You that We, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation declare and direct that subsection 52(1) of the Petroleum Administration Act shall come into force and have effect upon, from and after the first day of November, 1980.
Of All Which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.
In Testimony Whereof, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness: Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Edward Richard Schreyer, Chancellor and Principal Companion of Our Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Military Merit upon whom We have conferred Our Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
At Our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this twenty-eighth day of October in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eighty and in the twenty-ninth year of Our Reign.
By Command, GEORGE POST Deputy Registrar General of Canada
P.C. 1980-2918 28 October, 1980
Whereas an agreement with the Province of Alberta was entered into under section 50 of the Petroleum Administration Act;
And Whereas the said agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties in the said agreement as of October 31, 1980.
Therefore, His Excellency The Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to subsection 52(1) of the Petroleum Administration Act, is pleased hereby to make the annexed Regulations prescribing prices for natural gas produced, extracted, recovered or manufactured in the Province of Alberta that enters into interprovincial or international trade, effective November 1, 1980.

[Stage Direction]
Short Title
1.	These Regulations may be cited as the Natural Gas Prices Regulations, 1980.
Interpretation
2.	(1) In these Regulations,
"cost of transportation" of natural gas moved from one place to another, means the aggregate of the costs of transmission and metering and all other costs associated with such movement of natural gas;
"imputed Alberta border price" of natural gas produced, extracted or recovered in the Province of Alberta and delivered to the border of that Province means 177.565 cents per gigajoule;
"international border price" of natural gas produced, extracted or recovered in the Province of Alberta and delivered at various points on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States for consumption outside Canada means the Canadian dollar equivalent, calculated in accordance with the conditions of the applicable licence, of
(a)	417 cents in United States currency per gigajoule, with respect to natural gas exported under the authority of Licence No. GL-1, GL-3, GL-4, GL-5, GL-6, GL-16, GL-17, GL-18, GL-19, GL-20, GL-24, GL-25, GL-28, GL-35, GL-36, GL-37, GL-38, GL-39, GL-41, GL-43, GL-52, GL-54, GL-55, GL-57, GL-60 or GL-61; and
(b)	340 cents in United States currency per gigajoule, with respect to natural gas exported under the authority of Licence No. GL-29.
(2) Each zone referred to in the schedule is an area of Canada comprising a zone proposed by TransCanada PipeLines Limited in its application to the National Energy Board dated August 14, 1969 and approved with modifications by the National Energy Board by Order No. TG-1-73 of May 10, 1973.
Prescription
3.	the prices for natural gas produced in the Province of Alberta that enters into interprovincial trade for sale in Canada outside Alberta are, in Canadian currency, as follows:
(a)	for natural gas sold by TransCanada PipeLines Limited for consumption in Canada in a zone set out in Column 1 of the schedule, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border price and the transportation rates set out opposite that zone in the column of that schedule that is applicable to the type of service under which the gas is sold;
(b)	for natural gas consumed by TransCanada PipeLines Limited as fuel or for other uses, including any gas lost during transmission, the imputed Alberta border price;
(c)	for natural gas sold by TransCanada PipeLines Limited to ICG Transmission Limited at Spruce, in the Province of
November 12, 1980
Manitoba, for export under Licence No. GL-28, the international border price less the cost of transportation on the ICG Transmission Limited pipeline from Spruce to the international boundary between Canada and the United States of America near Sprague, in the Province of Manitoba, which cost is a monthly demand charge of 3,209 dollars;
(d)	for natural gas sold by TransCanada PipeLines Limited to ICG Transmission Limited at Spruce, in the Province of Manitoba, for export from Canada and re-import into Canada under Licence No. GL-30 and for subsequent reexport from Canada under Licence No. GL-29 at Fort Frances, in the Province of Ontario, the international border price less the aggregate of
(i)	the cost of transportation on the ICG Transmission Limited pipeline in Canada, which cost is a monthly demand charge of 59,678 dollars,
(ii)	the cost of transportation on the Inter-City Minnesota Pipelines Ltd. pipeline in the United States, which cost, in United States currency, is a monthly demand charge of 13,190 dollars, and
(iii)	a commodity charge of 0.171 cents per cubic metre delivered.
(e)	for natural gas sold
(i)	by TransCanada PipeLines Limited to Niagara Gas Transmission Limited for export under Licence Nos. GL-6 and GL-55,
(ii)	by TransCanada PipeLines Limited to The Consumers' Gas Company, which gas is subsequently sold by The Consumers' Gas Company to Niagara Gas Transmission Limited for export under Licence No. GL-6, and
(iii)	by The Consumers' Gas Company to Niagara Gas Transmission Limited under an agreement dated October 31, 1975 between those two companies,
the international border price for gas exported under those licences less the cost of transportation on the Niagara Gas Transmission Limited pipeline from Cornwall to the international boundary between Canada and the United States near Cornwall, such cost being the average cost of transportation calculated in accordance with the contract dated January 2, 1968 made between Niagara Gas Transmission Limited and St. Lawrence Gas Company Inc. and approved by the National Energy Board;
(/) for natural gas sold by Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Limited to Saskatchewan Power Corporation at the point of interconnection of the facilities of these two companies near Beacon Hill, in the Province of Saskatchewan, which cost is a monthly demand charge of 1.959 cents per cubic metre for 1048.1 thousand cubic metres of daily demand;
(g)	for natural gas sold by Many Islands Pipe Lines Limited to the Saskatchewan Power Corporation at the point of interconnection of the facilities of Mid-Continent Pipe Lines Limited and the facilities of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation near Hatton in the Province of Saskatchewan, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border price and 0.00088 cents per cubic metre, being the cost of transportation on
that portion of the Mid-Continent pipeline in the Province of Saskatchewan;
(h)	for natural gas sold by Many Islands Pipe Lines Limited and Saskatchewan Power Corporation to TransCanada Pipelines Limited at Success, in the Province of Saskatchewan, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border price and
0.126 cents per cubic metre, being the cost of transportation on that portion of the Mid-Continent pipeline in the Province of Saskatchewan and on the facilities of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation pipeline connecting with those of TransCanada Pipelines Limited;"
(/) for natural gas sold by Consolidated Natural Gas Limited to TransCanada PipeLines Limited at a point in the Province of Saskatchewan near Burstall, the imputed Alberta border price;
U) natural gas sold by Consolidated Natural Gas Limited to Greater Winnipeg Gas Company at a point in the Province of Saskatchewan near Burstall, the imputed Alberta border price;
(k) for natural gas sold by Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., to Gaz Metropolitain, Inc. at a point in the Province of Saskatchewan near Burstall, the imputed Alberta border price;
(/) for natural gas sold by Many Islands Pipe Lines Limited to Saskatchewan Power Corporation at a point in the Province of Saskatchewan near Merid, the imputed Alberta border price;
(m) for natural gas sold by Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd. to Columbia Natural Gas Limited at various points of connection between the facilities of Alberta Natural Gas Company and Columbia Natural Gas Limited in the Province of British Columbia, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border-price and the average cost of transportation in the Province of British Columbia to the various delivery points on the Alberta Natural Gas Company pipeline, incurred during the month of the sale of the gas and calculated in accordance with Order No. TG-1-80, issued by the National Energy Board;
(«) for natural gas sold by Westcoast Transmission Company Limited to Columbia Natural Gas Limited at various points of connection between the facilities of Alberta Natural Gas Company and Columbia Natural Gas Limited in the Province of British Columbia, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border price and the average cost of transportation in the Province of British Columbia to the various delivery points on the Alberta Natural Gas Company pipeline, incurred during the month of the sale of the gas and calculated in accordance with Order No. TG-1-80, issued by the National Energy Board;
(o) for natural gas sold by Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd. to Inland Natural Gas Co. Ltd at the point of connection of the facilities of Alberta Natural Gas Company and those of Inland Natural Gas Co. Ltd. in the Province of British Columbia near Yahk, the aggregate of
(i)	the imputed Alberta border price,
(ii)	a peaking service charge in respect of the volumes
delivered in each month equal to thirty per cent of the
price paid by Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd. to
November 12, 1980
acquire that gas in the Province of Alberta in each month from the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, and
(iii)	the cost of transportation in the Province of British Columbia on the Alberta Natural Gas Company pipeline, incurred during the month of the sale of the gas and calculated in accordance with Order No. TG-1-80, issued by the National Energy Board;
(p) for natural gas sold by Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd. to Westcoast Transmission Company Limited at a place on the international boundary between Canada and the United States near Kingsgate, in the Province of British Columbia, the international border price;
(,q) for natural gas sold as peaking service gas by Trans-Canada PipeLines Limited to Niagara Gas Transmission Limited at Cornwall, in the Province of Ontario, for export under Licence No. GL-6, 15.497 cents per cubic metre plus the aggregate of the transportation commodity rate and the transportation demand rate for Contract Demand service in the Eastern Zone as specified in Schedule 1 and the imputed Alberta border price;
(/[DOT]) for natural gas sold by Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Limited to Saskatchewan Power Corporation at the point of interconnection of the facilities of those two companies near Smiley, in the Province of Saskatchewan, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border price and the cost of transportation on that portion of the Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Lmited pipeline between the Alberta Saskatchewan border and Smiley, Saskatchewan, which cost is a monthly demand charge of 0.035 cents per cubic metre for 481.6 thousand cubic metres of daily demand;
($) for natural gas sold after October 31, 1976, by Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Limited to Saskatchewan Power Corporation at the point of interconnection of the facilities of Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Limited and the facilities of Saskatchewan Power Corporation near Unity, in the Province of Saskatchewan, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border price and the cost of transportation on that portion of the Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Limited pipeline in the Province of Saskatchewan, which cost is a monthly demand charge of 0.522 cents per cubic metre for 835.7 thousand cubic metres of daily demand;
(/) for natural gas sold by Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd. to Westcoast Transmission Company Limited at the point of connection of the facilities of Alberta Natural Gas Company and those of Inland Natural Gas Co. Ltd. near Yahk, in the Province of British Columbia, for export under Licence No. GL-41, the international border price less 0.600 cents per cubic metre, being the cost of transportation on the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited and Inland Natural Gas Co. Ltd. pipelines from Yahk to the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Huntingdon, in the Province of British Columbia;
(u)	for natural gas sold as fuel by Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd. to Westcoast Transmission Company Limited
under an agreement dated January 17, 1977 between those two companies for delivery at the point of connection of the facilities of Alberta Natural Gas Company and those of Inland Natural Gas Co. Ltd. near Yahk, in the Province of British Columbia, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border price and the cost of transportation in the Province of British Columbia on the Alberta Natural Gas Company pipeline, incurred during the month of the sale of the gas and calculated in accordance with Order No. TG-1-80, issued by the National Energy Board;
(v)	for natural gas sold by TransCanada PipeLines Limited to Gaz Metropolitain, Inc. at the point of connection of the facilities of those two companies near Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, for export f.o.b. Gaz Metropolitain, Inc.'s liquefaction plant in the City of Montreal, under Order No. GO-2-80 issued by the National Energy Board, the international border price for gas exported under Licence No. GL-19;
(w)	for natural gas sold by TransCanada PipeLines Limited to Saskatchewan Power Corporation at Unity, in the Province of Saskatchewan, under an agreement dated the 30th day of June, 1972, as amended, between those two companies, the imputed Alberta border price;
(x)	for natural gas sold by TransCanada PipeLines Limited to Gaz Metropolitain Inc. at the point of connection of the facilities of TransCanada PipeLines Limited and those of Gaz Metropolitain Inc. near Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, under an agreement dated February 15, 1977 between TransCanada PipeLines Limited and Gaz Metropolitain Inc. and approved by the National Energy Board, the aggregate of the imputed Alberta border price and the transporation commodity rate for Contract Demand service in the Eastern Zone as specified in the schedule;
(y)	for natural gas sold by Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd. to Sulpetro Limited at a point in the Province of Saskatchewan near Burstall, for export under Licence No. GL-57, the international border price for gas exported under that Licence, less the cost of transportation on the TransCanada PipeLines Limited system in respect of the volumes delivered in each month for export under that Licence, which cost shall be based on the monthly demand rate and the transportation commodity rate per cubic metre of natural gas delivered as set out in the schedule to the Sulpetro Limited Export Price Order, and
(z)	for natural gas sold by TransCanada PipeLines Limited to Consolidated Natural Gas Limited at a point in the Province of Saskatchewan near Burstall, for export under Licence No. GL-61, the international border price for gas exported under that Licence, less the cost of transportation on the TransCanada PipeLines Limited system in respect of the volumes delivered in each month for export under that Licence, which cost shall be based on the monthly demand rate and the transportation commodity rate per cubic metre of natural gas delivered as set out for Licence No. GL-61 in Schedule I to the TransCanada PipeLines Limited Export Price Order.
[Stage Direction]
November 12, 1980
1.	Imputed Alberta border price - e/GJ
2.	Transportation Commodity Rate - $/103m3
3.	Transportation Demand Rate - $/103m3/mo.

[Stage Direction]
COLUMN I		COLUMN 11	COLUMN 111
			Small
		Contract	General
Zones	Demand	ServiceSaskatchewan	1	177.565	177.5652	.803	5.2123	53.64	Manitoba	1	177.565	2	2.379	3	158.44	Western	1	177.565	2	3.861	3	257.33	Northern	1	177.565	2(a)	6.016	2(b)	6.016	3	400.58	Eastern	1	177.565	2	7.676	3	504.63	COLUMN IV	COLUMN V	COLUMN VI	COLUMN VIIAuthorized	Annual	TemporaryOverrun	Contract	Peaking	WinterInterruptible	Quantity	Service	Service177.565	177.565	177.5652.787	71.220	26.040177.565	177.565	177.5656.819	71.220	26.040177.565	177.565	177.56510.669	71.220	26.040177.565	177.565	177.56516.062	71.220	31.33021.210	71.220	31.330177.565	177.565	177.565	177.56517.732	21.467	99.460	33.100(a)	NDA - Northern Delivery Area(b)	SSMDA - Sault Ste. Marie Delivery Area.

[Stage Direction]
(This note is not part of the Regulations, but is intended only for information purposes.)
These regulations prescribe the prices at which natural gas produced, extracted, recovered or manufactured in Alberta that enters into interprovincial or international trade is to be sold on or for delivery in any areas or zones in Canada and outside Alberta or at points on the international boundary of Canada.
P.C. 1980-2919 28 October, 1980
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to section 62 of the Petroleum Administration Act, is pleased hereby to amend the Petroleum Administration Act Part III Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1261, in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
1.(1) All that portion of subsection 3(1) of the Petroleum Administration Act Part III Regulations following paragraph
(d)	thereof is revoked and the following substituted therefor: "those costs and charges shall be the Alberta cost of service with respect to the gas and the movement of the gas as defined or determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Act of the Province of Alberta or the Natural Gas Price Administration Act of the Province of Alberta, whichever Act is applicable."
(2) Subsection 3(2) of the said Regulations is revoked and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) In paragraph (l)(a), "contract field price" and "regulated field price" have the meaning given those expressions in the Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Act of the Province of Alberta or the Natural Gas Price Administration Act, of the Province of Alberta, whichever Act is applicable."

[Stage Direction]
(This note is not part of the Regulations, but is intended only for information purposes.)
This amendment adds a reference to the Natural Gas Price Administration Act of Alberta.
November 12, 1980
P.C. 1980-2920 28 October, 1980
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to subsection 72(4) of the Petroleum Administration Act is pleased hereby to revoke
(a)	Petroleum Classes Designation Order No. 2 made by Order in Council P.C. 1978-3825 of 21st December, 1978;
(b)	Petroleum Classes Designation Order No. 3 (Temporary) made by Order in Council P.C. 1979-2116 of 2nd August, 1979; and
(c)	Petroleum Classes Designation Order No. 4 made by Order in Council P.C. 1979-2577 of 27th September, 1979.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 13, 1980