1980-05-07

HANSARD CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication from Her Majesty the Queen in response to my letter of April 16, 1980:
Thank you for your message of loyal greeting sent on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Official Report of the House of Commons Debates. The ceremony on May 7 will honour an institution which is indispensible and incorruptible. I appreciate the greetings from all those who are associated with the publication of Hansard in Canada and I express my confidence in the continuing impartiality and accuracy of this institution.
Elizabeth R.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I should also like to inform hon. members that at noon today, in the rotunda of Parliament, I unveiled a plaque which commemorates the first 100 years of Hansard's service to the House of Commons.

Today I had the honour of unveiling a plaque commemorating the centenary of our Official Report known in English as Hansard. That event deserves to be celebrated because it bears witness to a phenomenon that belongs, at one and the same time, to oral and written tradition.
So much has been said in both Houses of our Parliament that it would have been a pity not to keep the text of all speeches which reveal the substance of the concerns of all those who have spoken on behalf of their fellow citizens. From the spoken word, the voices of the illustrious spokesmen of our country have been recorded in writing, thus giving permanence to the words while respecting as much as possible the tone and inspiration.
That move, whose perfection preceded the technology of radio and television, bears witness to the quality of its initiators and of those who have never ceased since to record faithfully the words of our parliamentarians.
From the scribes of antiquity and the transcribers of the Middle Ages, to the faithful recorders of Hansard, there has been continuity in the art, patience and faithfulness which, on your behalf, I want to praise and honour.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, allow me to join you and pay special tribute, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, to the staff of Hansard whose 100th anniversary is being celebrated today.
As we know, the members of that staff record, with considerable spirit, the verbal exchanges in this House and though, on occasion, corrections are requested, in all fairness it must be pointed out today, without-ambiguity statistics prove it- that on average only one word out of 10,000 needs correcting. That is surely a most enviable record for the staff who devote themselves to the Debates of the House, Hansard.
If, occasionally, hon. members ask for a correction, this is truly a very rare occasion because the Hansard staff have always performed their work admirably well. This fact deserves to be stressed on this very special occasion.
Finally, they have contributed in a very direct way in bringing Parliament close to the people by transcribing our deliberations word for word; in so doing, they bring our noble institution closer to the man on the street, thus contributing in a priceless way to the evolution of democracy in Canada. On behalf of my colleagues of the Liberal party and the government, 1 join you, Madam Speaker, in paying a sincere tribute to the Hansard staff from its very beginnings, that is 100 years ago today.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I begin my remarks by noting the absence of our Clerk, Dr. Koester, who is convalescing satisfactorily at home today following heart surgery. I know that Dr. Koester has taken a lively interest in today's commemoration of the centenary of Hansard, and I am sure all hon. members join with me in wishing him a speedy return to health and to service in this Chamber.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I am pleased to join in offering birthday greetings to Hansard on the occasion of its centennial celebrations.

Madam Speaker, it is with deep respect and pride that I pay this tribute to Hansard. Our House of Commons debates staff have provided a unique and essential service to the House of Commons, to the Canadian public and to our democratic system.
It was under the Sir John A. Macdonald government that the Canadian House of Commons established Hansard as an integral part of our debates. In fact, after the appearance of

May 7, 1980
Hansard Centennial Celebration the Canadian Hansard, one of its main supporters was Sir John himself who said, and I quote Hansard as many of us sometimes do in the Elouse:

If we can afford it-and we can afford it-every hon. member who represents a constituency has a right to have his speech reported; for we are all equal here, we are all equally interested and have equal rights and responsibilities; we all have the same rights; the youngest member has the same right as the oldest member to have his utterances as fully spread out in the official report as the Leader of the House or of the Opposition.
In helping to create Hansard, Sir John understood that it would best serve Parliament and the nation by allowing each and every member of this House an equal opportunity to be reported and read. In this sense, Hansard is truly a critical extension of our deliberations here in this House.
Hansard is daily evidence of one of the essential ingredients in our parliamentary democracy-freedom of speech. Hansard helps both to preserve and enhance this important freedom, and I think it fitting that we in this House honour today the major contribution that Hansard and its staff have made to our Parliament and to our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I join with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in paying tribute today to the job which has been done for Parliament and for the people of Canada by Hansard.
In these days we tend to take this institution for granted. Perhaps it is well to remind ourselves that there was not always the practice of letting the people know what was said in legislative halls. There were days when members tried to keep secret what went on in bodies such as ours. But public demand for information, and the public's insistence on the right to know, brought Hansard into being in other countries, and brought it into being in a tentative form early in the life of our Parliament. However, in an official form, under a branch set up by our House of Commons, Hansard began just 100 years ago. We pay tribute to what has been done during those 100 years.
In the few words I am privileged to say, I should like to point out that just as history is people, so an institution like Hansard is people. It has been that way across the years and it is that way today. I know of no service that works for Parliament in which those who do the work are as interested in the job they are doing, are as anxious to know its history and are as concerned about doing an accurate and good job as are the members of the Hansard staff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose I am admitting something, which I do not mind admitting, if I say that on many days a member of the Hansard staff comes to me and asks me what it was like
back ten, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. To me, that is an indication of their interest in the institution and we are indeed honoured to have such a staff with us.
As a matter of fact, they are part of a great tradition. I have known Hansard editors from Earl Young down to Charlie Empringham, who is with us today, to John Robertson, who defied the Speaker-when the Speaker asked him to say something, John refused and walked out-then Newell Price down to Doug Baker, who is our editor today. I have also known a number of the editors of French debates including, today, Mr. H. J. Lacombe.
The Hansard people show their liking for the job by the number of them who are here for a long time. Around here I get teased about having been here for quite a while. What about Eddie Quirk of the Hansard staff, who came to work for the House of Commons 52 years ago? He, of course, is in a great tradition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: When Hansard was first established, there was engaged as an assistant to the Hansard office a Mr. John Boyce. He liked it so well that later on his son Charles became part of the Hansard staff and then moved over to Journals. When I came here in 1942, he asked me if I had ever heard of Arthur Puttee, whom I still knew for he was still alive. He had been a member of Parliament for Winnipeg back in 1900.
Then there was also John Boyce's daughter, Ida Boyce, who used to like to tell us in those old days about ancient experiences, such as trying to cover the Liberal convention of 1919. So these are long traditions. There are persons here today who have spent many years in this service. They are not just employees, not just hands at work, they are part of what we do. We are proud of them and I am pleased to join in the tributes being paid today.
I should like to close by congratulating the associate editor of Hansard, John Ward, on the book "The Hansard Chronicles" which he recently published, and to read the last sentence or two of his book. In the final paragraph, Mr. Ward makes reference to the Right Hon. Sir John S. Thompson and to Sir John George Bourinot. These are his two final sentences:
There was delicious irony in the spectacle of two former Hansard reporters, Bourinot and Thompson, sitting in the chamber within a few feet of each other, the Clerk of the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister of Canada. Who knows what Hansard has yet to offer the nation?


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


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR BERMUDA
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of Mr. Saul M. Froom-kin, Solicitor General for Bermuda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, which I hope will receive the unanimous consent of the House.
In view of the fact that RCMP Inspector James Worrell shot and killed himself last Saturday at his home in Winnipeg following testimony before the McDonald commission the previous week, and in view of the fact that the Solicitor General has expressed his serious concern-shared by all of us-about the circumstances of this suicide, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call upon the Solicitor General to commence immediately a comprehensive inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the suicide of RCMP Inspector Worrell.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the minister of fisheries in Newfoundland has started an interprovincial cod war between the Newfoundland government and the fishermen of Nova Scotia by demanding that Nova Scotian-based companies immediately withdraw their fleets from the northern cod fishery, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans take steps immediateiy to mediate and bring to an end this dangerous conflict and ensure that all Canadian fishermen have access to all cod stocks in Canadian waters.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF DISABLED PERSONS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I am raising a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Canada is on the eve of hosting the Rehabilitation International Congress which will be held at the Winnipeg Convention Centre in June-an event that is a prelude to the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981-and the Government of Canada has neglected to put into operation the Canadian organizing committee for 1981, a project that was well under way before the election, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That the organizing committee for 1981 be organized immediately to proceed with its urgently important work of planning Canadian participation in the International Year of Disabled Persons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROTECTION OF LOW AND FIXED-INCOME FAMILIES FROM INCREASED COSTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, as well, under the usual provisions of Standing Order 43.
What can only be considered to be a policy statement was made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in Halifax over the weekend. It was very disturbing with respect to the denial of any offsetting assistance regarding ever-escalating domestic, commercial and industrial electricity rates, which are already twice the national average- $259 in Charlottetown and $53 in Trail, for the same 5,000 kilowatt-hour package. I move, in view of this statement which denies any assistance to low, middle and fixed-income people:

May 7, 1980
That this government take immediate measures similar to those proposed by the former Progressive Conservative government to protect low and fixed-income families in Atlantic Canada against the unacceptably high increase in electrical costs which will result from this direct and new government policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the federal Department of Tourism has caused to be printed 15,000 travel supplements, supposedly promoting the Atlantic provinces, which have been distributed to households throughout the United States and portray Saint John, New Brunswick, to be in the middle of the St. Lawrence River upstream from Montreal, places Halifax where Saint John used to be, and indicates the province of Nova Scotia has replaced Maine-all of which could adversely affect the tourist industry of New Brunswick and the entire Atlantic region-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That the House instruct the Department of Tourism to publish and distribute to the participating newspapers a travel brochure rectifying the errors and correctly depicting the geography and beauty of the Atlantic region.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Agriculturalists across Canada are alarmed at the implications contained in the Energy Supplies Allocation Board's designation of agriculture as deserving of not higher than second level priority in the distribution of petroleum products. Considering the fact that food production is the final and only imperative for individual and national life maintenance, I move, seconded by the hon. member of Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That this Parliament of Canada instruct the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to place agricultural producers and industries at the highest possible priority as users of petroleum products in any emergency which interrupts normal supplies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In light of the fact that no progress has been made in the intercommunal talks in Cyprus, and in light of the fact that this lack of progress can be principally ascribed to the failure of the occupying power, Turkey, to make any significant concessions or to live up to resolutions passed in the United Nations and supported by Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House calls upon the Canadian government to insist that any bilateral or multilateral economic or military assistance to Turkey be linked directly to that country's willingness to make concessions in the Cyprus negotiations, and calls on the government to maintain Canadian participation in the United Nations forces until such time as the negotiations produce a settlement satisfactory to both sides.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a motion of urgent necessity concerning the hardships being experienced by lessors across Canada who are seeking financial relief in terms of an adjustment to rental payments for Crown-occupied accommodations.
Consideration by the Department of Public Works and the Treasury Board have been ongoing, without arriving at an acceptable solution. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
May 7, 1980

That this House urge the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works to personally intervene in the consultations, with a view to immediately ending the discriminatory aspects of this government policy by including escalation clauses in these particular leases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Having regard to a decision taken by the British Columbia Railway to eliminate less than carload freight shipments and to curtail pick-up and delivery services at major points in northern British Columbia-including such settlements as Fort St. James, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and Fort Nelson-and to dramatically increase pick-up and delivery charges in other centres, and having regard to the fact that this action will result in additional cost and economic hardship in those areas, I move, seconded by hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Minister of Transport immediately exercise his full authority to prevent the curtailment of these services to these communities which rely very heavily on this vital transportation link, and that the minister be required by the House to examine subsidy agreements which exist between his department and the major railways in Canada that offer similar services to rural and northern areas of the country, with a view of offering subsidy payments to the BCR commensurate with those paid to other railways.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESOLUTION ON OIL PRICES WITH PRODUCING PROVINCES- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Saudi Arabian oil company, Aramco Corporation, has commissioned Human Resources Management Ltd., of Calgary, to recruit 1,700 Canadian petroleum and other employees, offering tax-free salaries, paid
vacations, free medical care and free education anywhere in the world for the workers' children, for a two-year tour of duty in Saudi Arabia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to move quickly to reach a satisfactory resolution on oil prices with the producing provinces, so that the companies which find and produce the oil in this country can develop their corporate plans and compete with Saudi Arabia for the skilled manpower which this country needs to achieve self-sufficiency.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada has permitted the importation of radio-active slag in Surrey, British Columbia, possibly with negligence on the part of the companies or on the part of the agency itself, and in view of the fact that there are legal difficulties for a number of residents to sue because we do not have in Canada, as they do in the United States, adequate class action procedures for lawsuits so that a number of residents could sue, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That the government be urged to bring in procedural legislation enabling easier class action lawsuits in federal courts in Canada, and that the government press its provincial counterparts for similar legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that statements made by a member of the Supreme Court of Canada, that legal aid cases are "plugging the courts in all ten provinces", might cast serious doubts on the value of legal aid programs and raise questions about the state of justice in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):

May 7, 1980
Oral Questions
That this House direct the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and Minister of State for Social Development to immediately determine whether the allegations respecting legal aid cases in the courts are correct and, if so, take action to ensure that Canadians are properly served by increasing the complement of judges available to try cases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. On Sunday, in Winnipeg, the Minister of Employment and Immigration suggested that there should be consideration given to financing railway relocation in that city by taking money from existing federally-funded programs.
I presume that this proposal has been discussed in cabinet or, at least, in Treasury Board. Would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House which existing programs the government has in mind, and from which existing programs the government proposes to divert funds for the purpose of railway relocation in the city of Winnipeg?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, under the new expenditure management system, with which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is familiar, decisions of this kind must be made within the envelope. The opposition leader is familiar with those procedures and he can assume that they will be carried out.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would assume, from the reply made by the minister, that the funds for the railway relocation in Winnipeg will be diverted from programs that are now in the social and cultural envelope of the Government of Canada; or will they be diverted from the economic development envelope?
I ask this question because a minister who is responsible for a social program announced the economic development initiative. Which envelope is affected, the economic development envelope or the social envelope?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is suggesting, or questioning whether or not we know what we are doing, the answer is yes, we do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I can understand why the minister feels called upon to make that statement of faith, because nobody else in the country believes it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has not indicated from which department the money for railway relocation will come, although I gather that he was saying the money will come. Since the government keeps its word, I gather that it will be to the extent of $100 million, as promised by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On April 25, the Minister of Transport said that DREE might make a contribution to rail relocation in Winnipeg. On May 2, the minister of DREE said that he had "barely enough money to meet his existing commitments". Can the minister tell the House whether or not DREE is now actively considering funding rail relocation in Winnipeg, or has that option been closed?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am considering at the moment how I can redeploy my very limited budget to determine if I can be of some help to that project which has been given top priority by the city of Winnipeg.
1 am also studying the matter of what would be the consequences of the expenditures throughout the rest of Manitoba over the next few years. I am giving the matter very active consideration.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the minister tell the House which existing DREE commitments will be abandoned to take account of the $100 million contribution being contemplated by the Government of Canada for rail relocation in Winnipeg?


Mr. Crosbie:: Explain it to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, 1 am not, of course, considering anything in the area of $100 million.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: What is it, one dollar?


Mr. Lawrence:: No, three railway ties.


Pierre De Bané: The amount I am considering would be extended over the next few years, and in the order of $5 million per year for approximately five years, which would total $25 million.


Mr. Blenkarn:: You mean $25.


Pierre De Bané: Hon. members opposite do not seem to take very seriously the question put by their leader.
May 7, 1980


John Carnell Crosbie: He does not want to take your answer seriously.


Pierre De Bané: Obviously, if that project should be financed it would take the active co-operation of several federal departments as well as the municipal authorities and the provincial authorities of Manitoba. At the moment I am considering whether I could fund the amount of $5 million per year over a five-year period, which would total $25 million.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: There goes your $100 million.


FINANCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Finance. Would he inform the House whether he has been involved in the negotiations to provide $100 million in funding?
I would like to point out to the Minister of Finance that we cannot wait for 25 years, that we can only wait a maximum of IVi years. Two bridges in that city are already under weight restrictions and they will only last another two years. Will the minister give a firm commitment this week on whether or not the government can provide $100 million in funding?
The urgency of the situation is that these two bridges will not last 25 years; they will only last another two years.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member the assurance that the total expenditure allocations or projections will be increased to accommodate this or any other program.
Obviously, this particular program, which is so worthy in the view of the hon. member, was not included in the estimates prepared by the former government. Had it been included, the minister of DREE would not now be attempting to alleviate a problem which had not been met by the former government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to point out to the Minister of Finance that it was his government which ordered this study. This study was ordered by the previous Liberal administration and it was not completed until just one month ago.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That is why there was-
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat.


A. Daniel McKenzie: -no commitment from this government.


Madam Speaker:: Will he ask his question.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Now that the matter of the study has been cleared up with regard to the involvement of the previous government, will the Minister of Finance give some kind of commitment before the end of the week so that we may know where we stand?
We will not have a means to cross the CPR rails, as these two bridges will have to be closed down. Can the minister not see the seriousness of the situation? Will he please give us some kind of firm answer either today or tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has really diagnosed the problem that existed in the former government; it studied everything and took no action.


Mr. Nielsen:: It is your study.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am sure the minister is aware that up until late Friday of last week, Chrysler in the United States was faced with insolvency and that only the intervention of the Michigan state government, in the form of $150 million in grants, saved it from possible bankruptcy.
As a result of meetings in Detroit and Winnipeg over the weekend, it appears as if there is the basis for an agreement between the federal government and Chrysler Canada. Can the minister tell the House, now, whether or not he has been able to determine, as a result of the negotiations, if Chrysler is prepared to put up any kind of job guarantees, either now or in the future, to preserve both the jobs that exist and the jobs that have now been lost as the result of that company closing down its plants in Windsor and in other cities?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, progress was made in the discussions which took place over the last two days, including the very important matter of Canadian jobs which is a priority of this government. I hope that it will be possible for me to make an announcement to the House very soon.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, in order that we not be put in the position of having to learn of these negotiations and their impact long after the fact and long after anything reasonable and sensible can be done, would the minister be prepared to at least acknowledge to the House one of the facts, that the government is prepared to put up in one form or another some

May 7, 1980
Oral Questions
$200 million, and that that money will not be made readily available to Chrysler until such time as it actually meets some of the guarantees with regard to jobs and production in Canada-guarantees which hon. members of this Elouse and members of the Ontario legislature have been asking for over the last six months?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, protection of Canadian jobs has been a priority of this government and myself since the outset of the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What we are prepared to make available for Chrysler Canada will depend on what is agreed to by them on the matter of job guarantees and the other elements we consider necessary. I do not intend that members of the House will learn through other sources of any arrangement that is worked out but, rather, through an announcement by myself through this House.


Ian Deans: A final supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Can the minister explain to the House how it is possible to determine the kinds of job guarantees and to have them included in the agreement, given the massive lay-offs now occurring in the auto industry, ranging upwards of 34,000 people unemployed either permanently or temporarily in the province of Ontario?
Can the minister indicate to the House what proposals he intends to put before Parliament that will not only guarantee the jobs at Chrysler, but will also rationalize this industry and guarantee that there will, in fact, be jobs for the auto workers in Ford, Chrysler and in General Motors in the future?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am glad to note that the hon. member has acknowledged the problems facing the North American automotive industry. We are trying to get the best possible deal for Canadian workers in the light of those problems. He and the House will be able to assess what we have worked out if and when we reach an agreement and it is announced to the House.
Aside from our efforts with respect to Chrysler Corporation, as I have already informed the House, we have been undertaking discussions with the automobile manufacturers with a view to seeking new commitments from them on such matters as jobs, investment, research and development. We have obtained the agreement of the United States government to begin high-level consultations on the operations of the auto pact. I want to repeat, we are seeking agreement that the first meeting for this will take place before the summer of this year.


PROTECTION OF LOW AND FIXED-INCOME FAMILIES FROM INCREASED COSTS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance, in view of some baffling responses he gave to the hon. member for Calgary Centre yesterday to questions about whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was enunciating government policy when, in Halifax, he told Atlantic Canadians that unless he achieved a significantly richer oil deal with the west, there would be no offsetting compensation or assistance for already heavily beleaguered users of domestic commercial and industrial electricity.
I should like to ask the minister, who is also Deputy Prime Minister and, beyond that, is a Nova Scotian-the political boss-whether he contemplates any immediate initiatives to ease the strain and the burden on low, middle and fixed-income people of Atlantic Canada against the higher electricity rates that will result directly from the responses to Nova Scotia of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources earlier this week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman ought to be pleased that we have saved the people of Nova Scotia from the additional burdens that were imposed upon them by the former minister of finance, by not reintroducing the inequitable and iniquitous 18-cent tax on gasoline.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: You should be ashamed of yourself.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, as a Nova Scotian, the minister is not going to be allowed to get away with that. Sometimes one cannot help but wonder whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources set out to blackmail the non-producing provinces in their final war with the producing provinces with respect to an oil rich energy agreement.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. Perhaps if it was to the Minister of Labour, we would get some sympathy for Nova Scotians. My supplementary question is to ask the Minister of Finance to explain to this House why it is that Atlantic Canadians are being asked to wait until the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has an oil agreement with the western oil producing provinces before he can indicate what assistance will be given to the four Atlantic provinces and, indeed, to eastern Quebec-so it is virtually five provinces- with respect to getting them out from under domestic electricity rates that are now running virtually double. I cited $262 for 5,000 kilowatt hours-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
May 7, 1980


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks why it is necessary to wait for an oil-pricing agreement to indicate whether any assistance is to be given to the Atlantic provinces. Ele finds that unusual and unprecedented.
I would remind him that that is precisely what the former minister of finance did, namely, in his budget delineate a price agreement, a so-called price agreement, and indicate that if the revenues were available he might-he would to some extent alleviate the burden on citizens of eastern Canada.
I would point out to the hon. member that since then there have been no increases and, furthermore, the alleviative action proposed by the former minister was an insignificant proportion of the additional burden that he laid upon the people of the province of Nova Scotia. I did not find that the hon. member got up during the campaign to plead in the interests of the people of that province.
Som hon. Members: Elear, hear!


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO FINANCE VANCOUVER TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as the senior minister in that department. Can he explain to the House how the Minister of State (Trade) was able to announce yesterday in Vancouver a $17 million federal contribution to the trade and convention centre there, when only eight days previously the Minister of State (Small Businesses) said in the House, in response to a question regarding policy, as reported at page 445 of Hansard:
-is now being reviewed within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; we shall be in a position to put before our cabinet colleagues a document for discussion purposes within coming weeks.
Does that mean that $17 million is below the level which requires cabinet approval?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, it simply means that, unlike the previous government, we are able to take quick and correct decisions.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, the minister knows very well that he is concerned with employment. In view of the contribution to employment made by trade and convention centres both during construction and afterwards, will he tell the House when this review of his government's policy, if they have one, on the funding of trade and convention centres will be announced?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, with respect to the other elements of this matter, this is going on now and 1 hope to have something else to announce through myself or my colleagues very soon.
Oral Questions


OTTAWA-CARLETON CONVENTION CENTRE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with respect to convention centres. As he knows, in the national capital area the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has had an application for a long period of time. Since the Minister of State (Trade) was able to go to Vancouver and make an announcement with respect to the convention centre there, or a trade centre there, when will the announcement be made with respect to Ottawa-Carleton; or has the minister decided that Ottawa-Carleton is not to have a convention centre?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, there has been no such decision. We are very aware of the interests of the people of Ottawa-Carleton in this project, and I am confident we will find a way of responding to it, unlike the government of my hon. friend.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. If my friend is honest with the House, he will know that I made an announcement that our government was prepared to make a financial contribution of $9 million to the trade centre and convention centre in this area. That was the commitment of our government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Since the government has been prepared to move Eldorado to the north, and move Parks Canada, or keep Parks Canada in Cornwall-both Liberal ridings-would they be prepared now to make an announcement that they are going to build a convention centre in the riding of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who is a Liberal? Is that an inducement to a decision?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, to indicate the non-partisan nature of our efforts, I want to remind my hon. friend that the Vancouver trade and convention centre, unfortunately, is not in a Liberal riding.


An hon. Member:: There is hope yet.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the visit of Prime Minister Ohira to Canada, and discussions here and on the west coast between the Canadian Prime Minister and the Japanese Prime Minister.

May 7, 1980
Oral Questions
There appears to be a deal to sell northeast British Columbia coal to Japan-a ten to 15-year contract involving five million tons of coking coal annually for Japanese steel mills. Can the minister tell this House how this coal deal fits into a Canadian industrial strategy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the government of British Columbia has been putting forward the necessity of developing the very extensive coal reserves of that province. Obviously, we would want to co-operate with the government of that province or any other province in the development of its natural resources. For that reason, we have been supportive of the efforts of the government of British Columbia.
I do not know the details of the negotiations, but certainly the Prime Minister of Japan expressed an interest in this particular aspect of our commercial relations. I do not have the details as to whether contracts have been negotiated, at what price, and in what volume. Certainly, these factors will have to be considered in entering into any joint support with that province.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The minister knows, as I do, that the industrial strategy was mentioned in the throne speech. As I understand it, it is the building up of the manufacturing and secondary industry base, rather than just exporting raw materials.
Let me ask this as a supplementary. The minister may not know the details of the negotiations, but I suspect he had a hand in preparing the positions, as Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the House whether the Canadian government, in the dealings with the government of Japan, asked the government of Japan-in return for Japan's access to British Columbia's ample energy reserves-whether there was any commitment, or trying to get a commitment by the government of Japan to facilitate access to Japanese markets for Canadian industrial goods?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the effect of the Canadian discussion with the prime minister was to impress upon him the opportunities that were available in Canadian manufacturing, especially in high-technology industries in Canada, obviously with an effort to secure greater access of Canadian products into the Japanese market. That is the gist of the approach that was made.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, would the Minister of Finance advise the House if and when he consulted with the provincial treasurers of the provinces affected by the Public Utilities Income Transfer Act as evidenced in Bill C-24, or has he continued the lamentable
practice of his predecessor, now the Attorney General, in unilaterally amending the agreement?
Will he advise the House, as well, why the provisions are being made retroactive for over a year? Also, under what authority has there been a reduction of funds transmitted to the provinces, resulting in the utility companies increasing their rates up to 6V2 per cent to their consumers in the province of Alberta?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that the reduction in the transfer contained in the legislation was the result of the expenditure exercise undertaken by the government in 1978, which resulted in a reduction in expenditures of $2.5 billion. Because about 20 per cent of total expenditures were transfers to the provinces, it was felt necessary to have that source of expenditure reflected in the reductions. We made changes in the equalization and the public utilities transfers.
The former minister of finance did have consultations with the ministers of finance at that time. In fact, as a result of those consultations-as I recollect-the extent of the proposal was changed to take into account the views of the provinces. The hon. member will realize that these particular savings have already been reflected in the expenditure plans both of this government and the former government. On the legal point, I would like to look into that further.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, might I check with, or have the minister consider that his predecessor advised the provincial treasurer of Alberta over the telephone of his intention to carry out this change. It was a unilateral decision by the Government of Canada in an agreement with the province. However, subsequently, and before discussing the matter further in this House, in answer to questions by myself he did negotiate with the provincial treasurer to arrive at 50 per cent.
Again, I come to the point. What is the authority for reducing the funds before the amending legislation is passed by this House? This is not merely a transfer, but something that is subject to legislation. I invite the minister to tell us, because he must know why. What was the legal basis for the cut-off of funds earlier this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 
EMPLOYMENT
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On February 20 this year, the Economic Council of Canada published a report entitled "The Evaluation of an Alternative Unemployment Insurance Plan".
The minister, having read the report, will know that the effect of the implementation of this plan would adversely and disastrously affect many thousands of working wives. I would like him to now offer a commitment to the House that he and his officials have rejected the plan and the principles in it.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, the unemployment insurance plan is under review. There are a series of terms of reference as to the nature of the study. I have already stated publicly that we have rejected the concept of two-tier benefits which, in fact, was included by the previous government in its review. Therefore, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we do not include that recommendation by the Economic Council which, in fact, was accepted by his government as part of their terms of reference.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister who, I say with respect, did not deal with this report. This report does not deal with the two-tier system; it deals with the question of the evaluation of benefits for working wives. It says that if the plan goes into effect, working wives will find their income benefits diminished, their dependency increased and the discrimination that they already suffer enhanced.
The principles contained in this one deal with working wives. With regard to this report, will the minister be more forthcoming and tell us what he feels about the principles in the plan? If he has not read the plan, will he kindly indicate that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I have read the plan. 1 have already told the hon. member that we have rejected the concept which was accepted by his government of looking at the family unit, or household, as a basis for the insurance principle. I stated publicly that the insurance principle was based upon the individual, and that would be the basis of the review.


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In view of the enormous support from the public, municipalities, MLAs and MPs in northern British Columbia for a full public inquiry, and in view of the fact that the B.C. government has now
Oral Questions
refused use of the public Inquiries Act to examine the Kemano II flooding proposal which may cost the public hundreds of millions of dollars and the 30-year old water licence, will the minister utilize the Inquiries Act, in conjunction with the province of British Columbia, to examine all implications of the Kemano I and II energy projects?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: When I was in British Columbia a few weeks ago, I was told by the B.C. government that no formal proposal had been received for development of Kemano II or the completion of Kemano I.
However, my department has met with the authorities of the Aluminum Company of Canada and indicated that water flows would have to be maintained in accordance with the legislation passed unanimously by this Parliament, and that we would want to see their plans when they do come up with a firm proposal. I have not seen a firm proposal as of now; one may have been received within the last few days.


James Ross Fulton: In view of the fact that it is 30 years since the 1950 water licence was granted, and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been incapable of regulating and getting agreement on flows in such rivers as the Nechako, and the fact that the provincial approach to this multijurisdictional situation has proven disastrous historically and is inadequate in the public interest, will the minister at least go on record today as supporting, once Alcan comes forward with the new plan, an inquiry under either federal or provincial inquiries legislation?


Roméo LeBlanc: I would want to consider the implications of the hon. member's suggestion. I am favourably disposed to a full public discussion of this issue. It is for this very reason that we amended the Fisheries Act to strengthen it in the case of developments which affect, not the fish directly but the spawning grounds and the habitat without which there is no fish resource.


CFL-ALLEGED VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for amateur sport. Recently, the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League cut Scott Mallender, an outstanding Canadian quarterback from the University of Windsor, without so much as a try-out.
Bearing in mind, also, the recent decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission as far as Jamie Bone was concerned-they upheld Jamie Bone's contention under the Canadian Football League's designated rule-could the minister tell us whether he is planning to take any action to see what

May 7, 1980
Oral Questions
can be done about these apparent conflicts with the laws of Canada?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: 1 can assure the hon. member for London West that I am profoundly concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -about the unfairness of the Canadian Football League's bylaw which certainly appears to discriminate against Canadian quarterbacks. Other splendid football players from our colleges are able to play professional football in this country, but the quarterbacks under this rule seem to be subject to discrimination.
My department has been studying the matter for some time, and 1 intend personally to contact the commissioner of the CFL to discuss with him some existing Canadian laws which I think bear on the matter and try to convince him that this bylaw should be removed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for CMHC. Can the minister confirm that CMHC has been forced to provide for losses of $176 million as a result of sales of properties acquired as a result of foreclosures and quit claims under AHOP?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1 am
unable to confirm the actual amount to which the hon. member has referred. No doubt the failures under that plan are part of the larger failures which the corporation is experiencing in greater amounts last year and again this year. It goes without saying that we are in tight times, and there is that experience. It is also fair to say, as 1 have indicated, that AHOP is part of that experience.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I have a copy here of the 1979 annual report of CMHC-the letter of transmittal was sent to the minister on March 10. I wonder whether the minister has read this report and, if so, whether he can confirm that the figure I have just quoted was taken from page 28. The $176 million figure would be enough, if it were spent, to buy $50,000 houses for 3,250 Canadian families.
Can he confirm that in addition to that $176 million, CMHC has also had to absorb losses on subsidies paid in the form of loans under AHOP and on home owner grants given to people who have assumed houses under AHOP? In other words, is the total sum likely to be considerably in excess of $176 million?


Paul James Cosgrove: The hon. member has the report in front of him. I do not quarrel with the figures. The point I made was, that report is not up to date. The experience this year has been complicated and there have been further losses. The mortgage insurance fund, through the sale of properties that are coming back into the fund as the result of defaults, is meeting some of those claims.
The corporation has come to the government, as it went to the previous government, for assistance in meeting some of those losses on a temporary basis. But the fund is in good condition, the corporation reports that they think they will be able to replace the borrowings from the government within a two-year period, and I would think it is the business of the fund to ensure that those experiences-which for the first time have been the experience of the fund-will be met by the corporation's program.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Now that we know of his concern for one unemployed person, perhaps we could get clear from the government, now that 22,000 people have been laid off in the auto industry, not to mention the hundreds of thousands affected in the small and larger communities they live in-shoe clerks, grocery workers, or whatever-and while the government fiddles on that question perhaps the minister would advise us what programs he is recommending to cabinet to deal with the ever-growing crisis in unemployment in this country?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I thank the hon. member for his question and I compliment him on his first question on labour after being designated as the labour critic for the official opposition.
I want to say to him that he will be aware, of course, that many of the provisions for unemployment in this country now fall under the Department of Manpower. In relation to the responsibilities of the Department of Labour, I can tell him that in co-operation with other government departments we have monitored developments affecting the auto industry generally, and the auto workers in particular. An interdepartmental task force recently investigated the situation in the Windsor area and officials of my department are aware of any pending lay-offs.
At the present time, most of the auto workers are still entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, and as for workers in the Windsor area, the hon. member will be aware the period was recently extended and that they are not required to work for a shorter length of time to re-establish the UI benefit claim. The forthcoming government decision regarding Chrysler Limited will further clarify the need for potential assistance programs for the auto workers.
May 7, 1980


John William Bosley: We now learn that the Minister of Labour knows all about unemployment. What we really need to know is, what is he going to do about that problem? Might I ask him this supplementary question, however? Last week, in a public forum in Halifax, he indicated he was spending the vast majority of his time dealing with matters related to Nova Scotia-Sysco and Michelin, matters of that sort which we thought were in the purview of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Could he clarify whether his intent is to succeed in his ambition to succeed the Deputy Prime Minister, or whether he will do the job all across this country that the people are paying him to do?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I regret that the hon. member, in his first effort at dealing with a labour matter, was not able to deal with some of the concerns and some of the strike situations which affect workers in this country, and that this was the most his imagination could produce.
1 want to assure him, however, that my recollection does not bring to mind any such statement to a forum in Halifax last week. As a Nova Scotian minister, I will continue always to attempt to show interest in Nova Scotian problems as well as discharging the responsibilities of my department, and if I can assist that most able of all Nova Scotians-the Deputy Prime Minister-in that regard, then I am delighted to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. During his visit in the Gaspe Peninsula on April 24 and 25 last, the minister said that he would like to conclude another Quebec-Canada agreement for the development of eastern Quebec. Such agreement of course should be reached following discussions with and approval by the Quebec government. Could the minister indicate to the House if, as the result of that announcement, there have been discussions or meetings with ministers of the Quebec government and what would be the approximate amount involved in such agreement?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, indeed I made the following proposal to the Quebec government and it has been described by some individuals as most generous for the Gaspe Peninsula, to wit the federal government fully respecting the jurisdiction of the Quebec government would take part in setting up a fund
Oral Questions
in which the federal government would contribute three times more money than the Quebec government to help promote the economic development of eastern Quebec. Unfortunately, my Quebec counterpart Jacques Leonard who answers for the QPDC, rejected that proposal through the media. I find his refusal not only cruel for the Gaspe Peninsula but also very hypocritical, since he has received some $20 million from my department for his own constituency, but he denies to other Quebec areas the financial assistance of my department.


USE OF URBAN TRANSIT SYSTEMS TO CONSERVE ENERGY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that conventional sources of oil are on the decline, as we all know, I wonder if the minister could tell this House whether he would agree that the expansion, improvement, and particularly the use of urban transit systems in Canada, could or would be beneficial in achieving the important goal of energy conservation. In other words, is there not more energy saved by using mass urban transportation, for example, rather than the gas guzzling motor car?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question would have been to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will put it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In view of the reply just now of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and because of the dramatic need to conserve energy in every possible way, can the Deputy Prime Minister now explain why his government just recently, once again, cancelled the often promised federal aid for urban transit-this time to the tune of $30 million-to the province of Ontario? This government started making promises in 1974 in this regard, and then broke them. We tried to honour them, and now hon. members opposite cannot even agree among themselves. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the inconsistency in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, taking the hon. member's statement as fact, he ought to be aware that the reason this program and other programs cannot proceed at the present time is our desire to maintain strict control over government expenditures.


Erik Nielsen: How about Winnipeg?


Walter David Baker: There goes Winnipeg.

May 7, 1980
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


TRAINING OF PERSONS FOR SKILLED JOBS
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns a statement which was reported today, that he apparently made yesterday in Vancouver, that he was anticipating a labour shortage among certain categories of workers and he anticipated that this shortage would have to be met by increasing immigration to Canada.
In light of the most recent projections from the Department of Finance, which show an unemployment rate of somewhere between 8 per cent and 10 per cent in 1985-which is when the minister anticipates this shortage-what specific steps, besides immigration, does the minister plan to take to train young Canadians, and Canadian women in particular, to fill those skilled jobs, rather than to continue the age-old pattern of relying on the importation of skilled labour to meet Canadian needs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I have not seen a copy of the report to which the hon. member refers, but I can give him every assurance that this government is acutely aware of the need to initiate a number of serious retraining programs.
As the hon. member probably knows, we have already spent over $800 million in this country on training programs. We will be renegotiating agreements with the provinces on those programs before the end of next March. During those consultations we will be making every effort to ensure that the heavy demand for new skills, particularly in major resource projects in western Canada, will provide full and equal opportunity for many workers who are presently disadvantaged or handicapped in the work market.
I simply ask the hon. member to encourage his colleagues, in the debates we now have on the employment tax credit bill and other measures, to give us their full co-operation so that we can get those measures through as quickly as possible and so that we can move on with the job which has to be done.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I am not sure the minister really answered my question, but I appreciate the speech. Rather than referring to federal-provincial programs only, I refer the minister to the fact that only 15 per cent of non-traditional training seats were slotted for women in programs sponsored by his own department.
What specific steps does the minister plan to take to ensure that we do not simply continue the pattern of importing skills when we have well over one million Canadians who are now unemployed? Every anticipation, with the projections which came from the Department of Finance in the budget of December, is that unemployment will remain a consistent and persistent problem in Canada until 1985. What steps is he taking in his own department to ensure that Canadian men and women occupy those jobs which will be required for our industrial expansion in the 1980s?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I also appreciate the speech made by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. I simply want to remind him once again that in the throne speech at the opening of Parliament, the government indicated that there would be a number of measures designed to reorganize retraining and job-creation programs. We intend to make the announcements as soon as those programs are fully designed.
In the meantime, in our department we have an affirmative action program. We are presently meeting with a number of private employers across the country to make sure there is full access and opportunity for women and minority groups. Furthermore, if the hon. member can be patient for a week or two, I can give him every assurance that we will be initiating a number of new programs to provide for action of the very kind he contemplates and which we intend to take.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Julien Chouinard, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th day of May, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain Bills.
1 have the honour to be. Madam,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Prud'homme.
Mr. Prud'homme:: -of course in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
May 7, 1980


FORT NELSON INDIAN RESERVE MINERALS REVENUE SHARING ACT
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-26, to implement an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion which I have shown to the House leaders of the other parties and I believe you will find that there is readiness to pass it forthwith. I therefore move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), and supported by the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker):
That a record of the proceedings at noon today in the rotunda of this building, relative to the centennial of Hansard, be made an appendix to this day's Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: Has this motion the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: For proceedings referred to, see Appendix A.)

[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. 2, 9, 192 and 309.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government intend to introduce legislation to make it possible for public servants to have their salaries attached for unpaid debts for which judgments have been obtained against them and, if not, what would be the legitimate reasons for allowing this privilege to continue which is not available to other Canadians?
2.	Will it be government policy to see that public servants must take their full responsibility to society in so far as payment of debts is concerned?


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: 1. Yes, such legislation will be introduced in this session of Parliament.
2. Yes, to the extent that any employer is legally responsible to comply with the laws which permit the garnishment or attachment of employees' wages.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the complete public service history of Major P. A. Lemieux of the Privy Council office including positions held, dates of appointment, etc?
2.	Did Major Lemieux, prior to entering the public service, serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) for how long (c) what are all the details of any connection he may have had with matters of security?


David Michael Collenette: 1. Major P. A. Lemieux, (Lieutenant-Colonel retired), was appointed to the Privy Council office on July 5, 1972 as a secretariat officer-Security and Intelligence.
2. Major Lemieux served in the Canadian army, infantry, in Canada and overseas, from January, 1943, until November 1945 when he was transferred to supplementary reserve status. He returned to active service in the infantry in November 1949 and was appointed to a junior staff officer position in the directorate of military intelligence in January, 1950. Major Lemieux served in various military intelligence and security appointments until his secondment to the Royal Commission on Security in January, 1967. Following his work with the commission, he served in the Privy Council office, on loan, from January 1969 until July 1969, when he returned to a staff appointment with the CAF directorate of security. In November, 1969 he was formally seconded to the Privy Council office security panel secretariat until he reached compulsory retirement age for his rank.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for Defence Construction (1951) Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the Corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?

May 7, 1980
Motion for Papers


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: (a)	1976-77	Revenue Net Deficit	Vote 15 DND	$4,965,645 164,208(b)	1977-78	Revenue Net Deficit	Vote 15 DND	5,837,866 45,105
Note: Net deficit is calculated as revenue less expenses. Revenue is the funding by National Defence through Vote 15.
2. (a) Vote 15-DND
1976- 77	$4,965,645
1977- 78	$5,837,866
(b)	There are no loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to Defence Construction (1951) Ltd.
(c)	There was no investment by the government in Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. in 1976-77 or 1977-78.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past seven years, what was the value of construction work administered by Defence Construction (1951) Limited at CFB St. Jean, P.Q.?
2.	What was the value of (a) uncompleted contracts (b) outstanding tenders, as at March 31, 1979?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: i.	Base Development	Other Construction	Total1972-73	$ -	$1,336,428	$1,336,4281973-74	-	58,842	58,8421974-75	-	573,962	573,9621975-76	1,662,673	894,934	2,557,6071976-77	11,977,794	-	11,977,7941977-78	32,617,416	92,359	32,709,7751978-79	23,729,271	7,500	23,736,71 12. (a)	$69,734,237	Note: Work outstanding on these contracts-$4,965,486.	(b)	No outstanding tenders.	
No outstanding requests for tender.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you be so
kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 3?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the data base upon which the Report on the Classification Audit in the National Capital Area and the Non-National Capital Area was based.
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the report on the classification audit in the national capital area and the nonnational capital area was tabled in Parliament by the President of the Treasury Board on December 18, 1978. There is no document in existence that could be said to be the data base for this report. 1 therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Herbert:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 ask that all other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. E. F. Whelan (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill S-5, to repeal the Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, 1933 and The Supplementary Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, 1935, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill has been before the House and, I believe, before the Senate four times. We expect that by repealing this act we will resolve some of the legal problems facing the Canadian wine industry with regard to the use of the name "champagne" in particular, and of other wine names which are considered to be appellation of origin. We
May 7, 1980

have received no official opposition from the government of France after official discussions took place, I believe, well over two years ago with the former secretary of state for external affairs who now holds another position in his native province of Newfoundland.
This Canadian product to which we are referring is a good product, and if any one has any need or desire to use it, I would suggest that they try it some time.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on this bill, the passage of which I urge today. The Canada-France Trade Agreement of 1933 as amended in 1935 should have been repealed some years ago.
For years, Canadian wine producers have labelled their wines as champagnes, using generic names without hesitation or hindrance. Champagne was known by that name in many countries, and so it was that Canadian wineries have produced and marketed champagnes under their respective labels. But the legal proceedings initiated against one of our Ontario wineries a few years ago gave our wine industry cause for major concern. The repeal of this agreement will go a long way to remedy that concern.
The introduction of the new excise tax proposed and imposed by the present government justifies further elaboration on the grape and wine industry as it exists in this country. This industry is one of the fastest growing in Ontario. There are over 900 grape growers in the Niagara area alone, working 26,000 acres of vineyards. Flowever, this last year, in spite of an increase of 1,000 acres, the grape harvest resulted in a reduction of some 3,000 tons of grapes. Of the 70,000 tons of grapes produced, over 44,000 were sold to Ontario wineries, thus generating considerable employment in the processing, bottling and packaging industries of this country.
Plantings of French hybrid grape vines began in the late 1940s, followed by planting of the classic Vinifera strains. Many experts predicted that these grapes would not survive in Canada's winter climate. However, due to the dedicated work of researchers and scientists of the Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario, and to the research conducted by individual wineries, as well as the skill of the Ontario grape growers themselves, the volume of these special vines have topped 20,000 tons for the second year in a row. More and more Canadian wine consumers are discovering that Ontario table wines are living up to their successes in international competitions.
While there has been a considerable emphasis on preferred varieties of grapes, experience has shown that the Labrusca grape, which constitutes 50 per cent of the Niagara region grapes, cannot be overlooked in the grape growing, planning and planting programs. Many of the Labrusca vineyards are on soil that is not suitable for the newer types of grape vines. The Labrusca is ideal for grape juice, where their fruitier flavour is readily recognized. It is the staple grape for the lower alcohol, 7 per cent crackling wines, and for Niagara's famous sherries and ports. Perhaps many wine connoisseurs do
Champagne
not appreciate the Baby Ducks, Lonesome Charlies and other 7 per cent alcohol wines, but these wines now enjoy a remarkable share of the wine market across Canada, and yet are the only wines being exported beyond the shores of Canada to the United Kingdom and Japan.
Through continuing enterprise, grape growing, wine producing and juice processing have developed into major industries which are of increasing importance to the economy of Ontario and to Canada.
Grape growers' receipts for 1979 grossed out at $19 million. It is estimated that in 1979 federal and provincial income through excise and federal sales tax, provincial sales tax and mark-up, reached $100 million. This is solely from the sales of wines processed from Ontario-grown grapes. Had the excise tax now imposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) been applied to that 1979 crop, tax revenues would have totalled $118 million. This would have meant that federal and provincial government income would have averaged $2,600 for every ton of Ontario grapes processed into wine, or to put it another way, each acre of wine grapes grown in Ontario would have generated $7,800 for federal and provincial treasuries. This is considerably out of line when one considers that the grower receives only an average income of $780 per acre.
The proposed change in the excise tax represents a tax increase of over $184 per ton of grapes grown in Canada. The average per cent increase per gallon of wine is 185 per cent, as opposed to a 29 per cent increase on beer and a 6 per cent increase on a gallon of spirits. About 38 per cent of Niagara area wine production is in ports and sherries. The new excise tax increase will result in an increase of $1 per bottle for each bottle of sherry or port. The result is that the domestic wine producers, not being able to compete in ports and sherries, are eased out of this market and have ceased and will continue to cease to buy the staple Labrusca grape. The government may wish to review the impact which the fall of sales in this most highly taxed section of wines will have on its over-all tax revenue.
For years the urban growth and development of the city of St. Catharines have been hampered and restricted for the very good reason that it is located in the fruit-growing belt of the Niagara Peninsula. Tender fruit orchards have been converted to grape vineyards because now, at last, there is a mechanical grape picker. For the most part, growers of tender fruits must continue to rely on offshore labour to harvest their crops. Municipalities and organizations interested in the preservation of these fruitlands for future generations of Canadians are looking to the federal government to determine whether or not it is serious about protecting the fruitlands of our country. Despite the fact that for years the fruit growers of Canada have been crying out for some form of protection, it cannot be said that the grape growing and wine production industry in Canada is a protected industry, or even one receiving federal encouragement.
806

May 7, 1980
Champagne
The chairman of the Ontario Grapegrowers Marketing Board called the so-called mini-budget a major disaster for Ontario's grape and wine industry. He said:
Unless changes are made and made quickly, our forecast is that this fall we will have a surplus of 10,000 tons of grapes without any hope of a market. This will be the most disastrous year in the history of our industry.
Also he said that the new federal excise tax on wines signals the biggest crisis the Ontario grape and wine industry has ever faced.
If the federal government is interested in preserving these fruitlands against the pressures of urban growth and development, it can no longer treat the tender fruit industry and the valuable grape and wine industry with indifference. It must act and act quickly to restore the traditional tax relationships between the various forms of alcoholic beverages. Wines, beer and spirits are very different beverages except for the fact that they each contain alcohol. Canada would be more in line with other wine growing countries if there were little or no tax applied to domestic wine.
Taxes on wine in Canada are already higher than those imposed in most countries in the world, with the result that our industry is having trouble competing with the cheaper wines from Hungary, Italy, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. To leave this excise tax unchanged would be to undermine this developing Canadian industry directly. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) recognized this and promised the wine industry early this year to review the tax should his government be re-elected.
The passage of this act today is a positive step in the direction of assisting the grape and wine industry of Canada. It should be followed by a quick and substantial reduction in the amount of tax imposed on this sector of our economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to say two or three words about this matter. My experience with the wine industry goes back a long number of years-at least 14 years-having been involved with it in a number of ways, the least of which was in tasting the product. I can recall when I was in the Ontario legislature that the matter of grape growers and the impact of legislation on grape growers was one which came before us with amazing regularity. Having represented an area for almost 12 years, I am very distressed with the length of time it has taken for the government to come to grips with this matter. I know the problems which confront both those who grow the grapes and those who make the wine.
Dealing with grape growing itself, one of the major impacts alluded to by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) has been the effective urban sprawl and the dramatic increases in costs that are attendant upon that effect, and the difficulty that farmers are having in maintaining a viable operation in the face of urban sprawl. We must add to that, again as was mentioned by the hon. member for St. Catharines, the matter of the excise tax and, of course, all the litigation which has been gone through by the wineries and of course paid for, in
part or in whole, by those of us who consume, and by the farmers who grow the grapes. Those things lead to a great deal more uncertainty than the people in the area should be required to face.
I want to suggest that there are a number of things which should be considered by the government. If we are to encourage the wine industry, if we believe that perhaps it is a place where some growth can take place, and if as a result of that we are to encourage the growing of grapes, then we will have to look very seriously at the pricing structure. I hate to keep referring to the hon. member for St. Catharines, but he is absolutely right on this occasion. He may be wrong on other occasions, but certainly on this one he is right. The difficulty is that as our wines become more acceptable, as the quality rises, as the taste becomes more palatable, as more and more Canadians, and others, are inclined to purchase the wines, then the pressures, both from the government to extract even more by way of tax, and from the importers in whatever way they can and must impede the growth of the industry, are a matter that the government must address itself to in its totality.
It is not enough simply to say that the excise tax adds an unfair burden. For example, I should like to suggest that in the matter of sherries the wine industry of the Niagara Peninsula produces sherries which are very palatable and very acceptable. If they were put in another bottle, many, many people who consider themselves connoisseurs would not be able to veil the difference. Unfortunately, now that they have achieved that level of excellence and acceptability, the government sees fit to add yet again to the tax burden. I think that is counter productive. I think that, in fact, would be wrong. At this period of time, when the industry is showing some potential for growth, the government might consider not doing that by way of tax, but instead encouraging further use and development of the industry for the future needs of the people who enjoy those kinds of drinks.
As far as the French champagne argument is concerned, when we were making champagne that no one would drink, the French did not care what we called it. It was only after we started to manufacture a champagne that was selling, it was only after we improved the quality of that white sparkling wine to the point where it could be taken home and actually put into a glass and drunk, that the people in France started paying attention to it. The government might well have considered moving much more swiftly because there has been considerable cost attached to preparing and developing the case that must be made before the courts, or would have been made before the courts if this bill had not been brought in today.
I suggest to the government, while it may appear in the over-all theme in the interest of Canada, with the development of the country and with all of the major problems that confront us, that the problems of the wine industry are somewhat smaller and, therefore, of less consequence; it may appear that way, but in the over all, in terms of their capacity to produce in southern Ontario, particularly in the Niagara
May 7, 1980

Peninsula, and in the over all in terms of the amount of money they are able to generate from the sale of the product, the delays by this government have cost them dearly. In fact, they may even have contributed, in all fairness, to an undermining of the saleability of the product. This may be because of the uncertainty that existed and because of the fact that many of the farmers, and some of the wine manufacturers, were uncertain of what the future held, and, knowing that champagne by any other name would not be champagne, at least not in terms of its capacity to be marketed, this delay may have impeded the natural growth which was taking place and, of course, may have required, and no doubt will require the industry to spend considerably larger sums of money in its marketing efforts.
I say to the minister in that regard that I am delighted to support the bill. I can remember a couple of years ago being in the Ontario legislature, and I would have been delighted to have supported such a bill then. I never did think I would see the day when I would be here with this bill before us. You never can tell. Is it not amazing what happens to people.


Eugene Whelan: Ask Stanley.


Ian Deans: There you go, you see.
The other problem is that I suppose it might have been done more quickly had we been on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: The other thing I want to suggest is that we will have to make up our minds. Either we are going to have a wine industry in the Niagara Peninsula, secured and supported by growers in the peninsula, or we are going to see the entire peninsula turned over to tar, macadam, and buildings. The decision must be made by government at all three levels. The wine industry cannot possibly survive if it is to be crowded out by urban sprawl.
The hon. member for St. Catharines will recall the attempts by the members of the council of the city of St. Catharines to extend the boundaries of the city not so many months or years ago, and the long delay and debate that took place in attempting to determine whether that would be counterproductive and, therefore, harmful to the growers in the area. Of course we cut it back substantially, but I think the government will have to make some very tough and enforceable decisions about land use policies. We will have to try to find a way to co-ordinate the effort of the farmer with the effort and the necessity of the city dweller. We will have to pay recognition to the heavy tax burden the farmer must carry when he becomes surrounded, more or less, by urban development. We will have to recognize in the tax structure the onerous burden the small family farmer in the Niagara Peninsula is required to carry as a matter of taxation.
When municipalities, Stoney Creek being a good example, with a pro-development council, are prepared to tarmac almost anything they can get their hands on, and encourage development to the exclusion of the preservation of the farm community, we have to recognize that farmers, if they are to survive,
Champagne
have to be treated in a way that will enable them to compete with industrial development and with urban sprawl in the peninsula, in other parts of the province and in other parts of the country.
The passage of this bill may well put an end to the battle over the name champagne. 1 frankly doubt it, as I suppose it will carry on at some other level. It may well be carried on, if not in the courts, certainly in the media. However, the longterm future of the industry will depend to a great extent on co-ordinated pricing, taxation and land use policy. The industry cannot survive, no matter what we allow the names to become, unless we have that kind of policy.
I would suggest to the minister that some time in the not too distant future he might address himself to that very matter in this House, and suggest to the House how he proposes to rationalize the tremendous imbalance the farmer must face in terms of his contribution to the tax structure, and the tremendous pressure he must face with regard to urban sprawl, and the way in which we may be able to secure for future generations the perpetual use of most valuable land for farming purposes. There is no point in saving all the stony land for later and using up the arable land now. There is no point in allowing development to take place on the best soil in areas with the most favourable climatic conditions, only to be left in years to come with nothing but perhaps the less desirable and, obviously, less fertile land.
I have had it said to me that, of course, modern technology in the farming industry will bring about the necessary changes, and that somehow or other we will be able to produce more on less; that with machinery and with all kinds of feeds and whatever we will be able to produce more with less. I am from Missouri on that one; I think I would like to see something a little more concrete, and not just simply some pie in the sky proposals, or perhaps some ill-dreamt-up, middle-of-the-night claims after a bottle of cheap wine or, for that matter, a bottle of cheap whisky or beer.
Frankly, I think it would serve us better in the long run to deal with the real problem. While this is an example of a problem, the real problem is the one I have just mentioned. We will have to do these things, and I urge the minister to take that problem on post haste, and let us see if we cannot get it resolved.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a very few words to say on this matter because I am aware, and perhaps pleasantly surprised, that an all-party agreement to pass this particular bill, which has already cleared the other place, has been reached. It is extremely tempting to utilize this time to discuss the industry in general, and to indicate the need for an opportunity to do precisely that, and, on another occasion, to discuss the tremendous growth in the Canadian wine industry, not only in Ontario, but potentially in other parts of the country, including British Columbia.
I was reluctant to rise because I know there is an agreement to dispose of this bill in the House before four o'clock, and I know that we have to depend to a great degree, with justifica-

May 7, 1980
Champagne
tion, on the good will and co-operation of members of parties opposite. Nevertheless, I thought that it was important that I rise and at least be on record as having approved of this bill and, if nothing else, to indicate my new found interest-I must confess that it is not a new-found interest in wine-perhaps an ongoing interest-I have for the area once represented in the provincial legislature by the hon. member for the New Democratic Party, with whom 1 have a very good rapport outside the House.
1 am pleased with the passage of this bill because it legalizes something which the government indicated several years ago, the end to a protocol and a trade agreement with France which goes back to the 1930s when in fact our wine industry left much to be desired. What this bill is doing is legalizing the intent expressed by the government some years ago, and thus eliminating the possibility of legal action.
The hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) is a very astute politician and has served his country very well at all levels. For instance, he was the mayor of St. Catharines when it allowed that beautiful wine-growing area on the outskirts of the city to be absorbed into the urban sprawl. It must have been a very difficult decision for the mayor to, on the one hand, go along with the developers and, at the same time, express the interests he has expressed today, which are so well known to the farmers. It is a dilemma which the hon. member from Hamilton has pointed out.
Surely the greatest defence which the farm community has against further spreading of the urban sprawl or the cement jungle, is in time to make certain that the farmer has a decent income from his land. This is why 1 must pay tribute, at the risk of sounding partisan, which is not my intention, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The people of Lincoln County, and particularly those from the town of Grimsby, tell me that the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the development of a small but growing brandy industry. Through the minister's efforts some years ago, the cabinet of the day was persuaded to provide moneys needed to buy up certain grapes which, in turn, were turned over to Canada's one company that can legitimately say it produces Canadian brandy. This is an indication that the wine industry, particularly in the Niagara Peninsula, has friends on all sides.
Again, I must gently say to the hon. member for St. Catharines that the tax which was imposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) some weeks ago is, in my opinion, detrimental to the wine industry. I am rather sorry to see the tax implemented, but I must again remind the hon. member for St. Catharines that, although it is not the subject of discussion today, the tax is nothing more than a total and complete replica of the tax proposed by the previous government. I am sure that the hon. member is quite accurate when he said that the former minister of finance did agree, during the election campaign, to review that particular tax. However, it should not go unnoticed that the present Minister of Finance made the same commitment the other day in the House.
In conclusion, I do not wish to end in a partisan role, nor do 1 wish to express different opinions from those of the hon. member for St. Catharines. I am very pleased that the members of all parties from the Niagara Peninsula have been able to put aside their partisan differences for the common good of the wine industry in our part of the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Val-ley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, thank you very much. If the Chair has difficulty with my name, 1 have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair might have difficulty, but, as a point of order, the Chair prefers to be known as Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree, sir, but if the Chair has difficulty with my name, I have difficulty with gender.
I am rising briefly, Mr. Speaker, because I know that there has been all-party agreement to move this bill through all its stages into law, and to get the bill to the other place for royal assent today. It will basically help the industry. I appreciate that the members from the Niagara Peninsula have a little more direct interest in the wine industry.
The only reason that I rise is to forewarn the minister, although I know full well that he is from another area of the good province of Ontario, that in other provinces, and including Ontario, there is another problem, not with champagne or Champlaign, but with apple cider. Without getting into the details of the controversy, and in view of the fact that the Horticultural Council of Canada has passed resolutions on the problem of sweet cider and apple drink which, if resolved, will help the productivity and/or the income and well-being of the farmers of this land, I would like to put the minister on notice that while I certainly am in approval today and do not wish to hold up passage of this bill, I was thinking at one point- before I realized there was all-party agreement-that if the bill had anything to do with liquids I would use it to make sure that, no matter what liquid it was, we would talk about cider.
Whether it be in the House, the Standing Committee on Agriculture, or by letter, hopefully we will be able to move the horticulture resolutions on the sweet cider problem to a satisfactory conclusion as we are doing today with the matter under discussion in Bill S-5.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I was champing in pain a little bit, as it were, as I listened to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). Has any hon. member ever tried to order Canadian wine on Air Canada? It is impossible. I agree with just about everything which the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said, but I would point out that there is a wine industry in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia. It is a very good wine industry. As a matter of fact I tried to bring some sample bottles here for some hon. members so that they might try them. I refer to the new wines which are being made in the Okanagan Valley,
May 7, 1980

particularly in the new industry which is called the cottage wine industry which, for example, can be found at Trepanier, as well as at Port Moody and in the lower mainland.
I agree specifically with the comments of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain as they referred to the problems caused to the wine grower when urban sprawl takes over farm areas. We have had to deal with that matter. A previous NDP provincial government had to deal with that problem in British Columbia. 1 think that that government will go down in Canadian political history as being very courageous in its dealings in this matter. The Barrett government, the last NDP government and the next one in British Columbia, brought in a land freeze act that protected the farm land of the province. It not only protected the farm land, but it added to the land freeze a measure to protect the small farmer who needed help and a stable income in order to continue the orchards.
The orchards of the Okanagan are in some danger today. The area is facing floods of Albertans who come to the area- and who of course are welcomed as Canadians-for recreation. I hope that we can continue to keep those orchards and keep the new wine industry growing. There is no pun intended. I support this bill and agree with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain with regard to champagne. What is in a name? 1 suspect, though, that the dispute about the name champagne will go on, but at least this bill will give Canadian wine growers a chance.
There is a snob appeal, which is found more among my generation than perhaps the other generations because we have become more of a wine drinking generation, that we must drink French wines and foreign wines when, in fact, there are very good Canadian wines. These Canadian wines are made in my area and other areas of the country. As the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has said, the problems of the wine industry wither on the vine when they are put beside all the problems of the world. I do not wish to add any sour grapes to this debate when I say that, but I think that it is important that this bill go through today.
We in the New Democratic Party support the bill and commend to the government the remarks made by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that steps should be taken, both federally and provincially, to stop this urban sprawl in wine growing areas in order to give them and wine growers a fair chance.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, after consultation, there seems to be general agreement that this bill be referred to Committee of the Whole rather than to the standing committee of this House and that it be disposed of forthwith, through all stages.


Walter David Baker: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Motion amended.)
Bank Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amended motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


Eugene Whelan: third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BANKS AND BANKING LAW REVISION ACT, 1980 MEASURE RESPECTING BANKING INSTITUTIONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-6, to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this, or for that matter, any parliament. I deem it a good omen that the opportunity occurs on the same day that we are celebrating the centenary of Hansard. The record of 100 years of accurate reporting gives me confidence that my words will be reported accurately.
1 am very pleased, in fact I am very proud, to be able to represent the people of Okanagan North in this great assembly. Today I continue debate on this very comprehensive Bill C-6, which represents the decennial review of the Bank Act. This is an important bill for the people of my constituency, as indeed it is to all Canadians.
In Okanagan North the availability of financial services is essential to our economic well-being. Our economic base depends upon having a healthy forest industry, a healthy agricultural and tree-fruit industry, and a healthy and active tourist industry. The people who own, operate, and work in

May 7, 1980
Bank Act
these industries-most of whom are small business people- depend to a rather large degree on obtaining operating capital through local banking and financial institutions at competitive rates. It is important to them that operating loans are available quickly at reasonable rates. Unfortunately, in recent months the ever-increasing escalation of interest rates to unprecedented levels has made it extremely difficult for business people, for farmers, for fruit growers, for people in the lumber industry, and indeed for all small business people-or large business people-in the Okanagan and elsewhere in Canada, to operate at a level of activity and a margin of profit which would enable them to survive. Here we must ask who is to blame for these high rates.
There are those who blame the bankers. There are those who blame the banking system. There are those who blame the central bank. Mr. Speaker, there is only one place we can lay the blame for high interest rates. There is only one place we can honestly look to for responsibility for those killing interest rates. There is only one culprit, Mr. Speaker, and that culprit is the present Liberal government, a government whose policies over the past 12 years have been solely responsible for the position that all business people, home owners, and the whole country, are in today. Over those years this government has pursued a reckless, irresponsible, and indeed almost an insane policy of government spending, a policy of huge and ever-increasing deficits and a policy of printing money to meet those deficits, a policy of building bigger and bigger bureaucratic monstrosities until today our civil service establishment per capita is one of the largest in the world. It is this government, with its policy of inflation, which has caused the high interest rates, and it is this government which seems determined to maintain an even higher inflation rate and consequent high interest rates.
It is indeed unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the passage of this bill to revise the Bank Act will probably have no effect on the disastrous economic policies of this government. I speak in favour of the early passing of this bill, however with some changes which I shall detail later.
There are two general areas of the bill which deserve commendation. First of all, the bill purports to increase competition in the Canadian banking system and, by doing so, it will almost certainly strengthen an already strong Canadian financial and banking structure. The bill will increase competition by providing easier entry into the banking field by new banks, first by making it possible to incorporate by letters patent rather than by an act of Parliament. Second, it will allow greater access to the Canadian market by foreign banks and thus provide existing Canadian banks with greater competition and the Canadian public with a greater diversity of banking institutions.
The banking community of Canada supports this move, this endeavour, for greater competition. This support has the hon. member from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) of the NDP wondering how much competition will really result from this act. He said, if I remember his words, surely the banks are going to face additional competition, and they are in favour of
it? Surely the act is not going to provide the competition which the minister says. He indicated that those big, bad financial corporate bums, as they were once termed by the NDP, would not favour this act if they were going to find competition. I suggest to him that those big bad banks, the Canadian bankers, are as capable as any in the world and they are prepared for a trade-off. That trade-off is that they are prepared for greater competition in Canada if they receive similar, reciprocal treatment to enable them to compete in other parts of the world, which they feel they can do effectively.
As a Canadian I am certainly pleased and proud that our financial institutions are known and exist the world over. I only wish other Canadian companies were as successful in competing around the world.
The Canadian public will benefit from the increased competition which will be encouraged by this bill, in two ways. First of all the entry of foreign banks into the market will provide a greater diversity of financial services. We live in a world marketplace. The time is long gone when we can be parochial and limit our horizons, whether as individuals or as businesses, to the confines of one country.
This is particularly true of the financial world and this country can only benefit by having access, not only to the credit resources and financial services of Canadian banks, but also to the credit resources and financial services of some of the great financial institutions of the world.
That is why I favour the early passage of this act, because it will allow foreign banks easier access to the Canadian market and provide Canadians with access to their financial resources. Bill C-6 also deserves my support, and the support of this House, because it will make it easier for new banks to be established in the maritimes, in eastern Canada and in the western provinces. This bill will facilitate the conversion of existing financial institutions to the status of a chartered bank. Again, as I said earlier, this bill will make entry into the banking business easier.
We, in western Canada, are well aware of the results and effects of the lack of competition that used to exist among the major banks in this country. It was not too long ago that the head offices of the major banks in Canada were located in Toronto or Montreal. I have worked with large businesses, and with small businesses, in the western provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and now British Columbia. I well remember in the 1950s and 1960s, and earlier, whenever there was a small, short depression-now they call them recessions-and money was in short supply and credit was tight. The local managers of the major banks were forced to go to their customers and call their loans. This was done because decisions were made and based in the offices in eastern Canada. Of course their decisions were based on the needs of those companies which needed credit in different parts of the country.
Things have changed. We now have several new banks. Some of the banks have head offices and decision-making offices in western Canada. We now get loan and credit-making
May 7, 1980

decisions on the basis of western need. This bill will provide an opportunity for the establishment of even more banking institutions. New banks, new institutions mean more competition. More competition means more efficiency, new ideas, and better service for the Canadian public.
Let me illustrate. In British Columbia we have a financial institution called the Bank of British Columbia. Let me quickly disclaim any special brief for the Bank of British Columbia, but, just by way of illustration, it provides an example of what competition from a new source can mean in services to the Canadian public. We all, or at least some of us, remember the response of the five major banks in Canada when the question of providing daily interest to customers who had money on deposit was suggested. I believe it was suggested during the hearings that this House had in committee on this particular bill. "It cannot be done," said the chartered banks at that time. "It is too costly. Impossible!" they all cried in unison. However, in recent years the "new boy" in the banking system, the Bank of British Columbia said, "We can do it," and they have done it. Today all of the old existing banks are stumbling over themselves to get in on the act. Now you can even get daily interest on chequing accounts.
This bill is strongly supported by the credit union movement in Canada. That union says, and rightly so, that it will benefit from the proposal in the bill to create a new Canadian Payments Association through which, for the first time, nonbank financial institutions that accept chequable deposits will be permitted to participate directly in the clearing system.
Credit unions agree that the bill will provide more equitable competition within the Canadian financial system and provide them with increased service. There is, however, one aspect of this bill which concerns me and many of my constituents, particularly those in the auto industry who are involved in automobile leasing. This concern has been expressed before in this House during debate on this bill. I am glad to see the minister agree that perhaps some change could be made in committee.
The part of the bill that concerns us is that part that allows banks to enter the business of the financial leasing of equipment, including automobiles, through the use of subsidiaries. The minister said that the Canadian public would benefit from allowing banks into this area because increased competition in the leasing field would result. I disagree.
First, I believe it is generally admitted in the industry that leasing an auto is considerably more expensive than is borrowing money from a financial institution and buying the automobile outright. For instance, when I go to seek advice from my local bank as to whether I should lease a car or borrow the money from that bank to buy a car, my bank manager in all likelihood, as would everyone's bank manager, would explain that leasing costs considerably more money in most circumstances than does borrowing money from that bank to purchase a car. He would also explain that leasing was only valid under certain circumstances and special conditions. Today, under present circumstances, I believe my friendly banker would offer to lend me the money to buy the car of my choice.
Bank Act
However, if under the terms of Bill C-6 the banks are allowed into the leasing industry and, do as they intend to, and have a leasing officer in every branch across the country, as they now have loan officers and mortgage officers, under those conditions the natural thing for him to do is to say, "I would like you to meet my leasing officer". It must be true, and undoubtedly is true, that there is considerably more money to be made in leasing than there is in loaning money, or else the banks would not be so eager to get into it. Consequently, no longer would I as a consumer have two choices, one to borrow money, and one to lease effectively. I would be steered into the leasing business which would be more expensive for me as a consumer.
The second objection I have to the proposed Bank Act, and indeed the existing act and previous acts, is that they are not really designed as a vehicle properly to enable the banks to get into the business of dealing with commodity purchases or commodity leases, as suggested in this new act.
Admittedly, today, when a bank lends money to purchase equipment, be it a car, a fridge or whatever, and takes as security a conditional sales agreement or a chattel mortgage on equipment to be purchased or financed, it is dealing with commodity purchases. The bank now has that right. However, several provincial governments, if not all, have found that financial institutions-not necessarily banks but not necessarily excluding them-have taken unfair advantage of the consumer. Mr. Speaker, that is a terrible thing to have to say, but unfortunately it is true.
There are many cases in which financial institutions, bank managers, feel it is necessary for them to repossess the vehicle or other equipment of a defaulting purchaser. In order to regain their money they sell it quickly, probably for an amount considerably below its real value. This happens at times even when the purchaser has a large equity in the equipment. The result is an unfair loss to the consumer concerned. Provincial governments have devised and enacted legislation in almost every province, I believe, to protect consumers against this practice. However, this legislation does not affect the banks since the bands claim they come under federal jurisdiction and are immune from provincial laws. They currently claim this immunity in respect to the financing of chattels by way of mortgages or conditional sales contracts. I have the experience of several cases in which banks have repossessed articles contrary to provincial legislation. Provincial legislation is only followed provided enough fuss is made when bad publicity is given or, more usually, as a result of action by the department dealing with consumer affairs. When this happens, the banks back down and voluntarily accept the terms of the provincial legislation.
Undoubtedly abuses will arise in the field of financial leasing, and undoubtedly provincial legislation will be brought forward to correct such abuses, but again this legislation will be unable to provide a remedy if it is the banks which are guilty of the abuse. It is for this reason that, in my view, the

May 7, 1980
Bank Act
bill before us should be changed in committee so as to restrict the involvement of banks in the leasing field. The banks should be restricted to providing financial leases for large fleets, heavy equipment or heavy trucks-things of that nature. Competition for leasing to the individual consumer is already extensive, and no benefit would accrue to the Canadian public if we were to enable the banks to enter this field.
In closing, let me repeat that the passing of this bill will not solve the economic problems for which the policies of the government are responsible. We are not likely to deter this government from the disastrous course down which it is headed. However, we can, and we should, rely on the resourcefulness of the Canadian people to succeed in spite of the government. The passing of this bill will allow one segment of Canadian society, the financial and banking community, to get on with the job.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the revision of the Bank Act. Since this is my opening speech I should mention that in the beautiful riding of Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands we do, indeed, have banks. We also have credit unions, which are even more relevant to the interests of ordinary people.
Without digressing too much, I might add that Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands is one of the most beautiful parts of Canada or, indeed, of the world. I thank the people of the riding for their confidence in me; I will do my best to serve them. On their behalf let me say it is a nice place to visit, but we don't want too many of you to live there. I urge hon. members to visit their banks or credit unions before they come.
I was in the House two nights ago when the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) suggested that new members should not become too involved in this discussion because all the important questions have been asked and answered to almost everyone's satisfaction. Last night the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) agreed with him in wanting to rush this bill through its several stages. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I must decline the invitation to remain silent on this measure. It touches on too many issues which are important to me. These issues concern me as a Canadian interested in the broad economic and social well-being of my country. They concern me as a consumer of financial services, and they concern me as a member of a political party which is working for progressive change in Canadian society.
The Minister of Justice expressed concern that this session of Parliament should not reinvent the wheel. I can assure him we are not interested in reinventing the wheel, but we do have some questions about the direction in which the wheel is travelling. In short, we oppose the proposed revision of the Bank Act as set out in Bill C-6. We oppose it for some of the things it does and also for some of the things it fails to do, or does not do in an adequate manner.
Let us examine some of the things this act does. First of all, it opens the door for foreign banks to have a larger, more official role in Canada. In a sense the Bank Act amounts to an
official baptism of the situation which already exists. The government hopes by this to place greater control over foreign banks in the hands of federal authorities. When we look at the government's track record when it comes to controlling big corporations, I must say this is a rather forlorn hope. The bill talks about means of increasing competition with the chartered banks. But we ask how much this kind of increased competition will help ordinary consumers or small businesses. As other members have pointed out, foreign banks would emphasize large-scale commercial and industrial accounts. The foreign-owned subsidiaries of the multinationals would be inclined to use foreign banks for their financial transactions rather than Canadian banks.
Last night we heard the hon. member for York-Peel yodelling about Canada becoming the Switzerland of North America. I suggest that the first step toward this was taken when we go rid of our merchant navy. The second is bringing in the foreign banks. Instead of the gnomes of Zurich we will soon, perhaps, be able to talk about the Hobbitts of Bay Street. We all agree that more competition in banking would be desirable, but this could be better achieved through more Canadian banks and through enlarging the scope of our credit unions. We should also be looking seriously at such alternatives as post office banks.
Another reason often cited for allowing foreign banks into Canada is the need for reciprocity, so that Canadian banks will have access to foreign markets. But, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the record of Canadian banks in South Africa or the Caribbean, we have serious doubts about the value of this proposal. With regard to Canadian banks in the Caribbean, one informed source pointed to the concerted attempt by multinationals to destabilize the government of Jamaica. Canadian banks have not been neutral.
Canadian banks have not been enabling or developmental in their approach, but they have been part of the multinationals' grab for Third World resources. In South Africa Canadian banks, through their loans to companies doing business in South Africa and to South African government agencies, have given powerful support to the policy of apartheid. In this regard I am pleased to note the following statement on foreign lending that the Toronto-Dominion Bank issued on March 14 of this year:
We have reviewed our position and again state categorically that we are opposed to apartheid. The bank has made only one loan in South Africa in recent years. That was to the state electrical system, along with a group of European and other banks, for construction work at a coal-fired generating station. This would increase the over-all electricity supply to support the government's announced intention of electrifying the non-white communities. This loan will not be renewed nor will the bank make new loans to the government of South Africa or its agencies under present circumstances.
I believe it would be good if other major chartered banks followed this example.
Second, the new Bank Act allows the cabinet to issue letters patent for a new bank rather than requiring that charters be issued only by an act of Parliament. This undermines the role
May 7, 1980

of elected representatives. This provision undercuts the need for full, public and open discussion of any new bank proposal. Elowever, this seems to be a hallmark of this government: more rule by cabinet and by the bureaucracy, and less by the people and their representatives.
Third, as has been pointed out repeatedly, not only by members of the New Democratic Party but also by hon. members from the Conservative party, the new act allows banks to expand into such areas as automobile leasing. Automobile dealers have clearly recognized the threat that this poses to their business. They very much fear that they will be completely unable to compete with the massive resources of any of the chartered banks and the access that these banks have to the leasing market.
Now let us look at some of the things this act does not do. First, it does not offer any substantial improvements in public disclosure regulations. The public needs to know how interest payments are calculated. The public needs to know about any associated costs of loans. There is a need for disclosure regarding the policies, practices and operations of the banks and their international subsidiaries. For example, what loans are being made to companies in South Africa?
Second, this act does not control the spread between the rate of interest the banks pay to depositors for their savings and a much higher rate that borrowers must pay to the banks when they borrow money.
Third-and this is most important-the new act takes no action against interlocking directorates. In interlocking directorates, directors of large commercial and industrial corporations sit on the board of directors of one or other of the major chartered banks. We are opposed to this system because it gives us the worst of all possible worlds. It does not give us healthy competition.
Large corporations have the inside track in raising capital. This, in fact, is one of the ways by which multinational corporations dominate our world economy. Scarce savings come increasingly under the control of one of the large banks, and loans are made much more easily to corporations which have representatives on the boards of directors. If we are going to talk about competition and free enterprise, there should at least be an arm's length distance between financial corporations and their major industrial and commercial customers.
Certainly interlocking directorates encourage some planning for the rational use of resources, but this is not public planning, and it is not planning in the interest of the public. It is planning in the interests of those who do the planning, namely, the interlocking directorate. So we have neither a healthy free enterprise system of competition nor a rational system of public planning. We have monopoly capitalism, and those members of the Liberal and Tory parties who vote for an act which allows this kind of interlocking directorship to continue are, in effect, voting for that kind of monopoly capitalism. There is nothing competitive in it at all.
Fourth, the new act does not make it possible for the government to use the Canadian banking system as an effec-
Bank Act
tive instrument of public policy. This is a very important issue. Since I have been here in this House we have discussed low interest loans for small business, but we do not have any provisions to require the banks to make available a certain amount of money for these loans at low interest rates.
Today the people of Canada are crying out for a housing program which would enable them to purchase homes at reasonable rates. Where is the mechanism in this act which would allow the government to require the banks to make loans for such a program?
Native Indian bands are starved for economic development funds. They require capital. The Bank Act should make the banks more responsive to this kind of public need.
Some people will reply that all of this should be left up to free enterprise and that everything will adjust itself in the private interest. In response, we can ask how helpful banks have been to the growth of Canada in the past. In "The History of Canadian Business" Tom Naylor points out that the Canadian banking system evolved from a need for capital to move staples out of the country. It was oriented to the idea of Canada being a hewer of wood and a drawer of water rather than being a modern, industrial nation. Naylor shows how the banks siphoned savings from the maritimes to use for opening up the west and its staple production. As a result, necessary industrial development did not take place in the maritimes. This is one of the reasons for the present regional economic problems.
Areas of Canada are undeveloped today because of the free enterprise policies of our banks in the past. In one maritime community, for example, the ratio of deposits to loans reached 20 to one; that is, for every $20 local people invested in savings only $1 was loaned back to the local community for necessary improvements or any kind of economic development. A ratio of 20 to one! It is no wonder we have problems in the maritimes today.
Similarly, in the west banking policy confirmed people there in a staples economy rather than one based on industrial development. Farmers were sometimes unable to negotiate loans which would help them to hold back their crops and get decent prices. Instead, the money was loaned to speculators who then forced the farmers to sell immediately for what they could get. Revolving loans were often made to fall due just before harvest time, once again forcing farmers to sell at whatever price was offered.
These are some of the previous policies which our banks have followed. These policies proved to be very lucrative for the banks, but they have had disastrous effects on our economy. They do not give me great confidence in the direction in which our banking system has been moving in the past. There is nothing in this act which indicates that it is going to change direction. The conservative nature of banks is shown by the near panic created in 1911 by a modest proposal that there be a central fund to guarantee the notes of all Canadian banks. Sir Edward Clouston, general manager of the Bank of Montreal at the time, was quick to categorize this proposal as

May 7, 1980
Bank Act
communism. Imagine, only the barest possible protection for the consumer is denounced as communism!
Again we can look at the track record of banks as employers. When we are reviewing the place of banks in our society, it is not a bad idea to see what kind of employers banks are, and how they treat their own workers. Banks are the largest private employers of women in the country. In our banks we have seen entrenched forms of sexual discrimination. Banks have created a job ghetto for women. Women have been given the routine, low-paying jobs, and have been passed over for promotions. Often women have trained male employees who then advanced five times more rapidly beyond them. Sometimes we talk about "bankers' hours", but the women who have worked at banks were often forced to work without coffee breaks and coerced into working overtime at straight pay.
In a book entitled "An Account to Settle: The Story of the United Bank Workers", we are told how this worked. It reads:
The banks have a special exemption from the law that workers must be paid for working overtime. By means of an arrangement with the Ministry of Finance, overtime in banks was "averaged". If one night everyone worked late and another night they were sent home early, the two were considered to cancel each other out, and no overtime was paid. The banks were allowed to average overtime over a thirteen-week period so that employees could be required to work overtime every day for several weeks without pay.
That is the kind of bankers' hours that they were demanding for their own workers. I wish all members of the House could read this book as it details the hassles these women faced when they tried to form a union. It tells a story of coercion, intimidation, and bribery, in the attempt by the banks to break the union. It is not a very pleasant story for the 1970s.
Surely with the profits that the banks have been making, they could afford to be better employers that this. Surely these pinnacles of respectability do not need to exploit women as cheap labour in this day and age. In fact banks were almost as bad employers as the House of Commons itself, which refuses its employees the right to form a union.
It is true that banks have made some concessions to workers in British Columbia in order to defeat the bank workers' organizing drive. But in spite of these concessions, bank workers continue to earn less than the average British Columbia wage. They have no seniority recognition in relation to transfers, promotions, or job security. There is no effective grievance procedure. Surely our banks can be better employers than that. Banks have an account to settle with their own workers.
Two years ago, on the anniversary of the Soweto riots against apartheid, Canadians were asked to close their accounts with banks which supported that vicious policy through loans. In response to this appeal, I closed my account and took my financial business to the local credit union. In my letter to the chief executive officer of the bank, I emphasized that I had always enjoyed good, courteous service from the management and staff of the local branch of the bank. My action was concerned only with the bank's policy of loans to South Africa. 1 had a small loan at the bank with one or two payments left, and I paid this off as they came due. Imagine
my surprise, therefore, when two months after the last payment I received a dunning letter from the bank which read:
We feel we have been more than lenient with you in the handling of this account. However, unless we hear from you by October 24, 1978, your account will be referred to a collection agency.
They felt they were being more than lenient with me when I paid the loan off two months earlier! This letter indicates the bank's attitude to the Canadian people. The banks feel they have been "more than lenient" with us, that they are doing us a favour by putting money out to usury.
In this party we think that in this revision of the Bank Act we have been more than lenient with the banks. We believe that the time has come for some fundamental changes in the Canadian banking system, not changes to allow more foreign banks into Canada. We do not need changes that will allow the cabinet to charter new banks without recourse to Parliament. We do not want changes that would allow the banks to enter the leasing market. Rather, we need changes that will allow a decent measure of public disclosure. We need control of interest rate spreads. We need changes that will put an end to the stranglehold of interlocking directorates.
Finally, we need legislation which will give this government the power to use banks as an instrument of social and economic policy. Instead of rushing this legislation through, let us take the time to bring in a revision which will meet the real needs of Canada in the 1980s.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) who, a few moments ago, made his initial speech in the House. I remember him when he served as the distinguished mayor of Edmonton, and many others in this House remember him in that capacity. I am glad to say in passing that, as he gave his speech today analysing Bill C-6, I noted that his powers of analysis and persuasion have not diminished, even though he moved further west in the course of his career. So, along with many others, I welcome him to this House.
I wish to make some very brief comments this afternoon on Bill C-6, particularly with reference to the leasing provisions. I know that several comments have been made already in this debate on the leasing provisions, but I think the matter must be simply stated again in order that the government receive a clear indication of the strength of the opposition to the leasing provisions contained in Bill C-6.
I am opposed to the idea of banks being involved in the leasing business, especially the leasing of cars to individual consumers. Banks should remain in the financial field and leave merchandising to the private businessman. That is the thrust of the comments I want to make this afternoon.
The leasing of automotive vehicles involves a variety of factors, not just the extension of credit. An appropriate model vehicle must be selected and a lease drawn up to suit the individual's needs and requirements. Equipment, maintenance, insurance and disposal of the vehicle at the termination of the lease are all involved. Banks are in no position to provide this
May 7, 1980

complete range of service. Whatever banks may say about their desire to help the consumer by providing competitive leasing arrangements, it is clear that they are interested in leasing because of the profits involved. After all, that is the fundamental reason they have become involved in leasing. It is questionable in my mind, however, whether banks will, in fact, increase competition in the marketplace.
In the majority of cases, banks finance large dealer-leasing operations and require complete dealer-customer files, including the names and addresses of lessees and the terms of the lease contract. Of course banks are also able to obtain money at a cheaper price than private businesses. That is a point we should not overlook. They will start out with a competitive edge and will be fully capable of attracting lessees away from private dealers. 1 think the fear that has been expressed by the automotive industry across the country is well-founded. Moreover, they have a right to expect a government that will foster a climate for private business, not impede it.
What we are contemplating if this bill goes through unchanged, is the banks achieving a virtual monopoly in the leasing business. That being the case, what guarantees do we have that they will remain competitive in this field? The limited number of banks in Canada would make this nearmonopolistic situation much easier to control. We must ask ourselves: can five or six banks really provide as much competition as 3,000 independent dealers, in the long run? I believe bank leasing would also represent a conflict of interest. On the one hand they are providing operating lines of credit to car dealers, while on the other hand they will be competing with those same dealers in the leasing business. What guarantee is there that banks will not drive a dealer out of the leasing market by curtailing his credit? Dealers and manufacturers of automobiles are already under severe economic pressures without this added threat.
Some of the amendments which were made to the former Bill C-15, and which were contained in the regulations attached to Bill C-14 of the previous government, were supposed to address the concerns of automobile lessors. For example, banks were excluded from directing lessees to a particular dealer. However, how this would be enforced is left unsaid, and I believe that it would be extremely difficult to have this kind of enforcement.
The stipulation that no more than 20 per cent residual value could remain when the lease term is over does not really restrict banks from entering the car leasing field. If one has a vehicle which is depreciated at 2.5 per cent over 36 months, the residual is down to 10 per cent, a level which banks can operate under. It really depends on how the depreciation will be calculated.
If the original intent of this legislation was to permit banks to lease big ticket items such as locomotives, aircraft, ships, etc., then some of the restriction related to on-highway vehicles of a certain size would not be contrary to this intent. That is the kind of amendment I would favour.
Bank Act
I was pleased to note yesterday that the parliamentary secretary suggested that he recognized the distinction to be made between the intention and the application of the car leasing provisions in the bill as it is now written. He gave an indication that the government would be amenable to examining the thrust of the financial leasing provisions of the bill when it gets into committee. He said in his speech, as reported at page 763 of Hansard, that there could be some possibility for change. That raises a ray of hope for those of us who feel as strongly as I and many of my colleagues do against the car leasing provisions. But if the government had made up its mind to accept an amendment to the legislation, I believe the parliamentary secretary would have been more specific. Perhaps the government needs to receive the kind of message which I am indicating this afternoon a few more times, before it sends a clear signal to us indicating that indeed the bill will be amended in the manner I have proposed.
I think it is now clear that the present legislation is not sufficiently specific in this regard. In fact automobile dealers report that the major chartered banks have begun building staffs of experienced vehicle leasing personnel. Obviously the banks think the restrictions are lax enough to permit car leasing, so these restrictions should be tightened.
Several suggestions have been made by other members of my party about how this act could be amended so that car leasing stays with the dealer, and heavy trucks and large ticket items are available to the banks. Again I say that these suggestions should receive the serious consideration of the government. I think that dealers have provided a reasonable leasing service to consumers in the past and are closer to the consumer than a bank could ever be. If we are worried about some aspects of the car leasing business, we should deal with those problems through the provisions of consumer and corporate legislation, not the Bank Act.
I think the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) put the matter very succinctly in his opening speech on behalf of our party when he said, as reported at page 636 of Hansard:
The idea of the banks engaging in the business of leasing passenger vehicles and trucks up to a certain commercial weight will not fly, period.
Following that, the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kem-pling) indicated in his intervention on this bill, as reported at page 725 of Hansard, "We think leasing should stay with the dealers". I think those two statements very accurately sum up the thrust of opinion of many members on this side of the House.
Finally, I want to restate the principle that is at the core of my speech today. There is a great danger in Bill C-6 that banks will overstep their proper functions and the effect will be to the detriment of the consumer as well as of the independent businessman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bank Act amendment, or the entire revision of the Bank Act. Before I deal with a couple of concerns which I have with respect to it,

May 7, 1980
Bank Act
I wish to refer back to the speech of the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) last night in which he called the hon. NDP members his cousins, and there was a great deal of good-natured banter back and forth. In that line I want to dissociate myself from the cousin concept. I very carefully checked my family tree and I found that there were no socialists in my family tree. Therefore, I cannot, with the greatest respect, call any of them my friends or, certainly, my cousins.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe your grandchildren will be.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I suspect that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is incorrect. I do not think any of my dependants will become socialists because, by nature, we are accumulators of capital, accumulators of things, so that we can build this nation rather than try to tear down the people who work hard and build up a little nest for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: With respect to this present act, I know that it has been under review for four or five years. 1 know that on the whole the Bank Act is excellent. It clearly brings Canada into the modern era. It permits Canada as a whole to pursue actively international development. For me it is absolutely critical, in this small world we have, that we all become very much interlinked. The sooner we can have Canadian banks operating in the entire world, the sooner other nations can have their money in this nation, the greater chances there will be for world peace. One of the greatest things to keep people peaceful is if they know they will lose an incredible amount of money if they are aggressive in a nation.
My two concerns with respect to the Bank Act are very narrow points which can be rectified easily in committee, and I hope they will be. My first concern relates to the position of livestock producers and the payment they receive from their animals when sold to packing plants, particularly those plants that have a section 178 bank loan but go bankrupt before the producers are paid. Some will immediately say that that will not happen very often, and that is correct. But, in fact, it does happen from time to time to the small producers. There is no doubt it will happen again. It will basically happen because in this country at the national level we have accumulated a deficit that has really become onerous. We are in tough times vis-a-vis the world economy, and there will be several thousands of businesses and people who will have to declare bankruptcy, and clearly some of those will be processors.
I think another aspect that will cause failures in my own province of Alberta, and very likely in my own riding, which has a lot of livestock producers and processing plants, relates to the fact that the province of Quebec is taking equalization money from the national government and using it to subsidize its farmers who are becoming self-sufficient in terms of livestock. That is affecting our livestock producers in Alberta, with the result that several of our small packing plants are
going to go bankrupt. It is a shame that should be so, sir, but that is the hard reality.
In addition, there is the question of equity between the innocent livestock sellers and the lending banks. We need, for a moment, to address our minds to section 178 of the Bank Act, which is the actual section that gives banks a very special type of security for the loans they make to agricultural producers, agricultural processors and others in a number of similar situations.
When the borrower signs a section 178 security the effect in law is to transfer the ownership of the goods secured to the bank. The bank then has a very special procedure the rest of us in our society do not have, and that is to sell those products and thereby be paid in full.
If I come to you, sir, and buy your cow, I take delivery and tell you I will pay you tomorrow, and I do not pay you tomorrow, then you have to bring an action in law in the courts, and presumably you will get a judgment and you can seize my assets. If I do not have any, it is tough luck for you.
The effect of section 178 vis-a-vis the banks is to give them some special security, so they get a degree of priority in respect of those goods.
Under section 178, as proposed, certain products are exempt from this special security the banks take. One of those exemptions relates to direct products of the soil and another to dairy products. It is interesting that the bill continues these special exemptions from the old act. I think we need to look very carefully at this in committee, because we must understand the rationale for picking out certain of the agricultural products and not the broad range. In committee we need to look very carefully at an amendment that would permit us to have the entire range of agricultural products fit within this exemption.
Perhaps I could trace an example for you of how this would work a hardship on the individual livestock producer, of which there are many in my riding. We know that across Canada there are over 100,000 livestock producers. They usually have operations with 60 to 100 cows, which usually results in from 50 to 100 calves each year. If, in fact, there were 100 head and they were sold for $900 an animal, that would result in about $90,000. In fact our livestock producers are not getting that kind of return now. They should be, because that is what it would take to really have an economic operation. They are getting much less, and we need to address our minds to that question at another time. We should note that if the producer sold his entire 100 head for $90,000 that would be his entire gross income for the year.
The producer would take those animals to a smaller packing plant, negotiate a price and sign an agreement for the sale. The effect of that agreement is that from the moment of the agreement the ownership of those animals is transferred to that packing plant. Even though that producer has not been paid he has lost ownership of those animals and the ownership is with the packing plant.
Such a producer does not really have any choice. You might say, let him watch out for himself. Certainly people have to be
May 7, 1980

vigilant for their own protection, but in actual fact that livestock producer does not have any alternative to selling them because his animals are at market weight. If he keeps them, it costs him more to put additional weight on them and they become over or undergraded and he loses money on the sale. He has to sell them when they are ready for market.
The problem comes in relation to the packer who, prior to buying from the livestock producer, has borrowed money from the bank and has given to that bank a section 178 security. The effect of that security is to transfer the ownership the packer gets to the bank. If the packer goes bankrupt, all of its assets are frozen, a trustee in bankruptcy is appointed, that trustee collects all the assets, sells them and distributes the money among the creditors. However, the bank, having taken a section 178 security, steps in and gets absolute priority. It picks the animals up, takes them out, sells them and gets paid in full. The rest of the people, including our livestock producer-and remember that this is his entire product and income for the year-ranks as an ordinary creditor, and has to share with the other creditors, and very likely settles for 15 cents or 20 cents on the dollar. I have seen that happen many times in my career. Therefore we really need an amendment by which we could perhaps delete the whole section. The effect would then be to make the banks much more careful about the loans they give to the producers as well as to the packing plants.
A more likely amendment would be one which would give livestock producers a priority for payment, that is, they would have continuing ownership in those animals until they were actually paid for. We know, the way the livestock industry works, that payments very seldom come through in less than a period of 30, 60, or 90 days. The United States, as a result of having gone through the major catastrophe of a large packing plant going bankrupt, with several hundreds of individual producers suffering, amended its law so that the livestock producer continues in this ownership quality until he is actually paid. If he delivered his animals to a packing plant and the packing plant went bankrupt, he could step in and get his animals back and go elsewhere. While he might suffer some loss, it certainly would not be as great as if he got nothing.
The way the statute is now, upon declaration of bankruptcy the ownership of the animals passes from the producer to the packer, and because the packer has signed a section 178 security the ownership immediately transfers to the bank. Therefore, as between two innocent parties, the seller and the bank that lends the money, the way the existing statute reads, the seller bears that entire loss. That really is not fair. If we amended the statute to give the livestock producers a priority in payment that would certainly solve the problem.
The question really is, who should bear the loss between many small producers and one bank? I submit to you that the institution, or the person, that can best protect itself is clearly the financial institution. Our banks are now large successful corporations. They should be large and successful, and I am delighted to have shares in banks because that gives me a piece of the action. I am glad to note that other members have some too. I hope our friends in the NDP have shares, because
Bank Act
certainly that would give them a feeling of owning this country and being a part of it. That is a great feeling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you ever hear about credit unions?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Sir, if they have their shares in credit unions that is the first step in the right direction, because very soon credit unions will want to apply under this amended Bank Act to become banks and their members will automatically get shares. That will solve the problem, so there is hope for them yet.
Getting back to the banks, they now have specialized lending officers, particularly in the agricultural industry. These officers are able to monitor the very few packing plants in the country, but it is difficult for the 100,000 producers to be aware on a daily basis of what is happening in the packing plants and the industry generally as to who is weak and who is strong. Banks are able to monitor this situation through their agricultural commodity loans officers.
Between the two parties, I believe that there should be equity in favour of the producers. Clearly this Parliament is the highest court of the land, and we have an obligation as members to be equitable as well as to allow what we would define as narrow legal rights. I submit that we should be more concerned with the producers in this area.
My second major concern is with regard to the provisions in this act which would permit the banks to be involved in automobile leasing. I will not bore you, Mr. Speaker, with too many comments on this subject. I agree with the comments of the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) and the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). It is a measure which will need study in some detail during the committee stage and perhaps amendments will be proposed.
If banks are permitted to get into the auto leasing industry directly, they would, on the face of it, be in a conflict of interest situation, because the rest of us must borrow money from those same banks. They could easily give a degree of priority to their own subsidiary corporations by way of a lower rate of interest, or they might give a loan or withhold a loan to me, for example, if I were in competition with them. That is a very real concern, and I think it is necessary to build in some protection if those sections will be allowed to pass. I would prefer to see these sections deleted completely.
Therefore, subject to the act being amended in these two areas, I believe that the bill is sound, that it is in the national interest and that it will see this country take off in terms of becoming an active participant in the international development of the world. As a result, it will lead to a more peaceful world, which can only make things better for the citizens of this country.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C-6 with regard to the effect it will have on the development of the Third World. Because of my different background and experiences, I see the bill in a completely

May 7, 1980
Bank Act
different manner than does the last speaker, the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).
I would like to begin my remarks by reading a newspaper article published on April 26 in the Montreal Gazette which was taken from the Washington Post. Perhaps some hon. members have read the article. I believe that it has something very significant to say in a very simple way. The article is about a story which originates in Peking, China. It reads:
In classroom 207 of China's most prestigious university, the brightest minds of the next socialist generation leaned forward to hear one of the great secrets of the capitalist world:
"When you pass Go, collect $200."
At Peking University's chorus on the American economy, instructor Frank Hawke, a 26-year-old American was introducing 63 young Marxists to the mysteries of the game of monopoly. One could have heard a Chance card drop as students strained to understand the intricacies of what seemed to them a microcosm of the American system.
China is flirting with capitalism this spring. About 3,000 Chinese factories have been permitted to experiment in the use of some of their income, buying and selling without central government control. To these young Chinese, it seemed safe to ponder the ravages of ruthless competition, as long as they were safely confined to a brightly coloured board propped up on Hawke's desk.
Hawke is teaching a course at the university after spending a year here collecting material for his doctoral thesis.
The inspiration to bring monopoly to class struck during last week's lecture, when, he said, he was discussing the transition from competitive to monopoly stage capitalism "and found myself talking about this game. From their perspective it really must be sick. The object of the game after all is to make everybody else poor."
In that context, I would like to address my remarks to what I believe is happening in the international community, particularly with regard to the transfer of funds and banking. Basically, I, like many other Canadians, am frustrated to look at an act the size of the Bank Act and realize that I really do not have any power over it. I realize that there are people who have more experience in this particular area of banking and that they are the ones who lay down the laws. These laws frustrate me, and I am sure that in the long run they frustrate millions of other people in other parts of the world.
I would like to address my remarks basically to how I see the Canadian banking system affecting the whole question of international development. I am happy that the Secretary of State for Externa! Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) has indicated in the House that he is willing and looks forward to discussing seriously the Brandt commission which deals with the whole north-south question, the question of the rich and poor, the question of the Third World and the developed worlds, and the question that faces us in the next decade, the situation of interchange or interconnection, that we cannot lay something aside and forget it. It is basically part and parcel of our life. Of course the question is, how will it be part and parcel of our life?
I have experienced living and working in Third World countries. I have lived with people who were not just poor, but who were living in utter misery. I have lived and worked in countries that just do not have the economic ability to alleviate their situation. When I hear people say, "if they would just work, they would get ahead", I know that that statement is not true. I know that those who work the hardest get the least. The
hardest job which I have ever seen performed is the cutting of sugar cane. I know that those who, in a sense, work the least, get the most. I believe that those who go to banks to cut their coupons are really working the least, but getting the most.
When we reflect on the over-simplification in the statement "if they would just get down and work, they would get ahead and become rich like us", we all know that it is a false statement. I am certain that many hon. members here realize that it is a false statement.
Many hon. members in the House have lived through the 1930s. Many of them are my age and many are older, but they all know that we lived at that time in a Third World situation. I grew up in Saskatchewan during the 1930s. I was too young to really know that there was another way. I thought that being poor, as my family was, was the normal situation. At the time, of course, everybody was in the same situation.
I would like hon. members to reflect on their experiences of the 1930s because that is what is going on in most of the world today. My father, like other fathers of hon. members who lived in the west, was a homesteader. He went west with great ambition and worked hard. But due to disasters beyond his control such as drought, but mostly due to the economic system-he went broke. He did not simply go broke, but reached a point of no return.
I can remember as a child my father pacing the floor at night. I suppose he was worrying about what we were going to eat the next week. I can remember him talking about banking and worrying that he could not pay the interest due. Although he had probably paid enough interest to buy the machinery four or five times and the farm four or five times, he was in a debt trap that left him a broken man. When he died just a few years ago, the worst word in his vocabulary was the word "debt".
The last speaker referred to the fact that he thought the revised Bank Act would bring about a world development program. I do not agree, and I will give my reasons later. As our family and many of our neighbours were enduring this desperate life, a kind of aid program was established, not unlike those aid programs we sometimes talk about today. People from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba who are my age will remember this aid program. It was called relief, which amounted to aid from the east. This came in forms which were determined, I suppose, by what commodity happened to be in surplus. As a child I remember that my father and my neighbours felt embarrassed because they had to accept it. We were given salt fish which must have come from somewhere in the maritimes. I suppose if you grow up in the maritimes you think that salt cod is good-


Mr. Rompkey:: It is excellent.


Robert Joseph Ogle: There is someone who grew up in the maritimes, Mr. Speaker. People on the prairies thought it must be some kind of snowshoe. We certainly could not eat it because we did not know how to eat it.
May 7, 1980


Bill Rompkey: That's funny; we ate bread all the time.


Robert Joseph Ogle: There was probably another aid program going the other way to help people in Nova Scotia. Perhaps we were sending them aid which they did not know how to use. I remember we were given cheese and apples which often arrived frozen and rotten. Somehow or other, this all seemed to make us less than human.
That is the kind of thing that will be reflected again if we let the banks continue in the direction they are headed. They will tie up poor people in poor countries by setting the same debt trap for them that my father and his neighbours were in during the 1930s.
In the coming decades we have to face not only our own internal problems but the problems of misery and poverty and the universal kind of depression in these other countries that keeps people in a depressed condition-not because they do not work but because the economic system is based on the game of monopoly. The idea of that game is to make the other person poor and keep him poor-keep him weak so that he cannot get power. In monopoly the winner ends up with all the property and power, and the loser is kicked out of the game.
After the depression a strange thing happened, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure we all remember it. In 1939 a world war broke out and suddenly there was lots of money and there were jobs all over the place. Everything boomed. But we should not think that an arms race or a war today is the way to bring our economy back to life. I think the experience of Canadians in the 1930s can be compared with the situation in some Third World countries where people are suffering today.
I think it is important when considering this bill, Mr. Speaker, that we examine how the world banking system is constructed. The frustrations of the man in the street, personal indebtedness, high interest rates and mortgage rates, that we speak of all the time in this country are the same the world over. These frustrations are experienced by all who are trying to become members of the community of nations. The banks that cause our own people to be frustrated are causing the same frustration in the Caribbean and many other areas of the world where they are a major presence. They are present in those countries for one reason only-to earn overseas profits.
Canada is integrated into the financial system of the western world. A bill such as C-6 which affects the behaviour of dominant corporate factors in the system cannot be viewed in purely domestic terms. The power and privilege enjoyed by the big banks outside Canada are related to the power and privilege they enjoy in this country.
I think it is useful for Canadians to examine how our financial institutions operate in Third World countries because that is where inflation, currency devaluation, unemployment, and foreign debt are most severe. When we examine conditions in Third World countries we can see what will happen here if we allow the same system to continue.
I have lived in countries where the devaluation of currency has reached 300 per cent per annum. Other people have probably had the same experience and know how dreadful
Bank Act
conditions are. I have lived and worked in countries where half of the population was unemployed; I have worked and lived in countries where all the money that could be earned was used to pay interest on the foreign debt.
We must ask the following questions: who controls, who decides, what are the needs, what are the greeds that continue to keep this world alive today-or dead?
Sometimes development is taken to mean that you take money and go out and build something. That is a part of development, but if we look at it in only that light we are missing the basic fact. Unless development affects the lives of individual people in individual countries in such a way that they can live without oppression or a feeling of being inferior, it cannot be called successful. One of the great problems of debt-that word that my father hated so much-is that it finally destroys the person as a person; it finally turns him into something less that a human being; it destroys. Aid given to countries that will involve them in debts just so that Canadians can make profits, is shortsighted. Increasingly, it is also because the governments of many less developed nations are desperately in search of outside capital to keep their economies afloat. That is the same thing I can relate back to the whole experience of growing up on the prairies when it was necessary somehow or other to face, as my father would find out each spring, and as many fathers had to face, how were you going to make the next year work, how were you going to get the seed grain, machinery, feed for the animals, and so on.
Those are the problems the Third World faces in another way. Each year they have to face how they are going to produce, how they are going to make their economy grow for that year. Therefore they begin the year in debt. They begin the year only with the hope that the minimum they can do is pay off the interest on the debt of the year before. They are thrown into the same ultra-hopeless position which people lived through on the prairies in the thirties.
During the last two decades, which have been called the development decades, the Third World indebtedness has risen in a most alarming way. The price of Third World exports has not kept pace in any way whatsoever with the soaring costs of imported oil and western manufacturers. This is something that western farmers like many of my colleagues sitting around me realize right now, that they are living in the same kind of cycle. Their incomes, which come from their product, grain and food, are not in any way keeping up with the cost of the machinery and the fuel they have to use. However, the squeeze they face is nothing compared to the squeeze of developing countries in which their whole economy may depend on one crop such as cocoa or something like that, and everything they have to use comes in from the outside.
Last fall Michael Manley, the prime minister of Jamaica, speaking at the Third World foundation in London on October 29, 1979, brought this kind of point home in his address. You have probably heard it, Mr. Speaker, from other sources, but the idea is very simple. He was simply saying that the relation-

May 7, 1980
Bank Act
ship between sugar and tractors, and this is a question of not only Jamaica but any one of the Caribbean countries that produce sugar, for example, the relationship between sugar and tractors in the system of international exchange is now a classic in the dialogue, but factually we need to realize that this is far more than a point in advocacy. He gives an example.
In 1965 the average price per ton of sugar realized by Jamaica was $73 Jamaican compared with $1,536 Jamaican for a Ford 5,000 tractor that would be used in the growing of the sugar, a ratio at that time in 1965 of one tractor per 20.84 tons of sugar. In 1979, 14 years later, the Ford 5,000 tractor was no longer available. It had been replaced by a new model called the 66,000 which is slightly more powerful but is designed for exactly the same purpose as the other tractor was being used for.
In 1979, Mr. Manley says the provisional average per ton of sugar had risen, it was true, to $530 Jamaican per ton, but the price of the tractor which did exactly the same work as the one that was manufactured before was now $30,945, so that the ratio of one tractor now required 57 tons of sugar instead of the 21 tons that had been needed in 1965.
The point simply is that sugar does not multiply like that. Jamaica with its economy is just demanding and using up more of its natural raw products to get what amounts to the same thing. Therefore as they struggle to increase their production in the same length of time, they are falling behind in such a way that they are becoming more and more involved in the whole thing that is called the debt trap.
Brazil, for example, now uses half of the total of its export earnings just to service the accumulated foreign debt. An important thing for us to remember is that the very problem I am speaking about of Third World underdevelopment is something that we Canadians must not be smug about, because the very same things that are affecting the Third World countries are also affecting the economy of our country.
We need to be reminded that Canada, as Premier Blakeney has noted, faces its own problems of underdevelopment and will do so if it continues to mortgage its future to foreign investors. Our own balance of payments figures indicate that we are not immune from the debt trap that now affects most of the Third World.
I now come to the Bank Act. A crucial phenomenon of recent years has been the rapidly growing role of private multinational banks in international loans to the Third World. These banks have amassed huge holdings of U.S. dollars, principally Eurodollars and petrodollars. They are kept in banks outside the United States beyond the control of the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, in the absence of any international regulatory authority which could control the amount of credit extended against these dollar reserves, many of which are now held by foreign subsidiaries of major U.S. banks.
The Eurodollars phenomenon began after World War II when the Russians had lots of American money. They did not want to put it in the United States. They wanted to have it
invested some place. They would frequently invest it in one of these multinational banks which have places outside the United States.
The petrodollar, the money that came from the recent explosion in oil money, is another form of money that has been put out, not in the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States but in multinational banks that have offices all over the world. What happens to that money is that the poor come looking for it, just as they do in the monopoly game that we talked about before. They are given the money. However, the one who has the money makes the rules.
One of the results has been that the hundreds of billions of dollars held in these banks outside the United States and other major countries that have no regulatory control, can now be recycled to refinance the hundreds of billions of dollars of Third World debt. The private banks therefore become a neutral intermediary in the debt trap.
How does the debt trap work? It means that the developing country in its problem of trying to make itself get ahead has to borrow money. It has to pay interest. It cannot accumulate. It cannot build the reserves that would be able to break it out of the thing. They have to borrow more money to pay the interest they cannot pay.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Just like this government.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Finally, they are in the trap of being hopeless. A member says it is just like this government. Maybe he is not far off. It is like this government that is borrowing and borrowing and getting itself, as Mr. Blakeney from Saskatchewan says, into the debt trap.
Today in Canada we hear about the growing number of individuals, small and even medium-sized businesses going bankrupt. A lot of businesses are going bankrupt, a situation made worse by the interest rates of the monetaristic policies of the Liberal and Tory governments. I want to add that in the world today there are a lot of countries-not individuals and not corporations-that are on the verge of bankruptcy or are already bankrupt. They must borrow yet more to meet the repayments on outstanding loans, a situation made worse by the monetaristic policies of western high finance. It works as follows.
Because many Third World nations are now in danger of defaulting on their loans, the situation has become serious for many multinational banks as well. For example, the two largest United States banks-


Mr. Friesen:: Would the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) permit a question?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Perhaps the hon. member could wait until the end of my speech. Possibly the hon. member was rising to ask me when I was going to finish.
May 7, 1980


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Many Third World nations are now in danger of defaulting on their foreign loans and, as a result, the situation has become serious for many multinational banks as well. For example, the two largest United States banks, Citibank and Chase Manhattan, earn three-quarters of their profits from their foreign operations. The large banks, then, have a vital interest in preventing the collapse of the debt spiral particularly if they have overextended credit to debt-ridden Third World countries. That is what the banks are really afraid of. What happens if somebody out there cannot, finally, pay? Can you go and take over the country? Well, in a sense that does happen at times-they are taken over in one form or another. But one thing that does not happen is the development of that country as a free country in control of its own future.
The institution to which many people look as a means of staving off financial collapse is the International Monetary Fund which was created at the same time as the World Bank to stabilize currency markets and aid reconstruction in the aftermath of World War II. Today, the IMF has 128 member countries and acts as a lender of last resort to those experiencing acute balance of payments problems. The generosity of the IMF, however, is more apparent than real.
First, when the IMF extends credit to Third World governments it is often only for the purpose of allowing them to pay back loans to western governments and lending institutions. The financial elites of the west which dominate IMF decisionmaking are the chief beneficiaries, not the host countries. Again, this is the simple principle of the monopoly game: he who has the money makes the rules. So, when in February of 1978 the U.S. Congress was asked to approve a $1.7 billion contribution to a special $10 billion IMF debt relief fund, no less a paper than the Wall Street Journal described it as "The bankers' relief act". Relief! The same idea as my father had to face, but now it is the banks that are getting it because they were no longer able to secure the interest they felt was coming to them for the money they had advanced.
In the second place, the IMF does not extend credit without a great many strings being attached. Typically, it demands that a recipient country follow a strict regimen of domestic deflation and restraint in order to improve its credit rating, so to speak, within western financial circles. This austerity recipe usually includes huge cuts in government spending, particularly in the area of social services, and a domestic tightening of credit together with a laissez-faire, open-door policy to attract foreign investment, and currency devaluation to encourage exports and discourage imports.
Again, these are the rules of the monopoly game-taking away the basic cards of the players who are losing. It is a recipe which imposes enormous social costs on the masses but which does nothing to correct the scandalous inequalities and imbalances between nations which are responsible for much of the problem in the first place. It amounts, again, to saying, "It is your fault you are poor." It is the same as saying, at the end of the monopoly game. "It is your fault that I have all the chips."
Bank Act
1 should like to speak for just a few moments about a particular case. The government of Jamaica, about whose dealings with the IMF I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) earlier in the session, is one of the countries facing the brunt of this Hobson's choice. Because the IMF "seal of approval" is usually needed before a country can obtain loans from other international sources, for example member governments, the World Bank, or multinational banks. Third World countries are increasingly facing an unenviable choice: they must either submit to the bitter medicine of the fund, which makes the disease of dependency even worse, or they can go it alone, defying the international creditors and staking everything on the achievement of national self-reliance. The odds on the latter course being successful are formidable indeed. So a country like Jamaica has to decide whether it will continue to be forced increasingly into a debt trap from which it cannot escape, or whether to take a chance and try to go it alone. It is a terrible choice to have to make, particularly if both involve losing situations.
In 1978 the Jamaican government agreed to accept an emergency $220 million balance of payments loan from the IMF. Since previous negotiations with the fund had not led to a happy conclusion, the Manley government was forced to accept extremely stringent conditions for the new loan. In part, these conditions were based on the same perverse, so-called monetarist economic theory as now holds sway at the Bank of Canada. Its prescriptions are predictable: restrictions on the money supply, restrictions on growth, cuts in social spending, and the creation of an attractive climate for foreign investment. The consequences for Jamaica have also been predictable: a decline in real wages, higher unemployment, cutbacks in social services, greater inequality.
As a result, the people are unhappy. And what finally happens? Because of the pressure which has been applied it can lead to political and social unrest. And who is responsible?


An hon. Member:: The NDP!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Somebody said it was the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Who is responsible for the fact that people have been dumped into a debt trap from which they cannot escape? Jamaica's recent refusal of the IMF terms in the latest round of negotiations has put it in dire straits since, without IMF approval, it is finding great difficulty rescheduling debts and negotiating for new loans with the World Bank and with the private banks. These include the large Canadian banks which have recorded handsome profits from their Caribbean operations but which do not like Mr. Manley's politics-this is a dislike which they apparently share with the IMF.
Now how does all this effect development? The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills said the reason the banks were involved was because of development. But what is development? Development seems to mean the basic destruction of the countries concerned.

May 7, 1980
Bank Act
The strategy of CIDA during 1975-1980 stresses the creation of conditions for self-reliant development directed to meeting basic human need in the poorest countries. I think CIDA has put it very well. The development program of the Jamaican government has similar criteria which are being more hindered than helped by our western financial institutions. I hope the Canadian government will review this situation to determine whether we are really doing all we can to foster true human development.
It was our colleague, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), who spoke of another area in which Canadian banks are forcing their way into the affairs of other countries. He spoke particularly about the fact that I, as a Canadian, he as a Canadian, and we as Canadians, do not know what is happening to the money we may have saved, the insurance we may have put away or some formula we have arranged with banks to keep our earnings so that we can be taken care of in our old age. What happens to that money? Where does it go?
We face a modern banking situation. We do not know where the money goes, and it may be-and often is-used not for development of peoples but for the basic oppression, for instance, of the blacks of South Africa, as my colleague mentioned, or of the peasants of Peru or somewhwere else. As a British analysis recently put it, all this means for the worker of the industrialized world is that a growing proportion of his pay packet is siphoned off for purposes unknown, and sent to far off countries of which he knows less.
In view of the fact that the banks in Canada constitute a very select inner elite and have grown enormously in wealth and power over the previous decade, it is more urgent than ever that government attempt to inject at least a modicum of public accountability into our banking system.
I would like to conclude my remarks on the question of basic social morality. Where does the money go? What do banks do with it? How does that affect human beings? In the interest of a more open, accountable and just financial system, I urge the government to look seriously at the policy recommendations which the Task Force of the Churches on Corporate Responsibility presented in a brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on January 23, 1979.
In order that the Canadian public be in possession of information which permits it to form valid judgments about the foreign loan policies of Canadian banks and other financial institutions involved in international investment of underwriting and in order that clients and shareholders be given the legitimate choice of raising questions about these policy decisions, the task force submitted the following recommendations for inclusion in the revised Bank Act:
1.	that the Bank Act make provision for uniform and equitable public disclosure requirements of loans by Canadian banks, their subsidiaries and
affiliates and by other financial institutions made directly or through consortia to foreign governments or agencies of foreign governments of amounts totalling more than $1 million;
2.	that in the interest of public and shareholder accountability, Canadian banks and other financial institutions be required to disclose the amount and the dates of such loans and publish them as a matter of record;
3.	that in order to preserve the principle of client/banker confidentiality and in order to safeguard the principle of competition, financial institutions should not be required to disclose such loans prior to 30 days following signed agreements.
I trust that these recommendations which have been made after deep and serious thought and study by the Task Force of the Churches on Corporate Responsibility will be included through amendments to Bill C-6, the bill we are discussing at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) entertain a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time of the hon. member has expired.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
['Madam Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues, I wish to thank you for so graciously accepting the invitation to unveil this plaque. Your presence and that of other distinguished guests highlight the significance of this centennial for all parliamentarians as well as for all Canadians.\nMadam Speaker, the publication of Hansard is the best example of freedom of expression in Canada, one of the many freedoms we all cherish. We thank you for joining with us in commemorating this happy event.', 'Thursday, May 8, 1980']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the honourable Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:
Bill C-2, an act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976-Chapter I.
Bill S-5, an act to repeal the Canada-France Agreement Act, 1933 and the Supplementary Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, 1935-Chapter 2.
It being six o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 22(1).
At 6.03, the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
May 7, 1980



Mr. Charles Fisher (Chairman, Hansard Centennial Committee):: Madam Speaker, hon. members of the Senate and the House of Commons, dear colleagues, the program calls for me, at this point, to introduce Madam Speaker, a lady who obviously needs no introduction. So perhaps I would do better to begin by introducing myself, a Hansard reporter who, as chairman of our centennial committee, has been given the agreeable task of co-ordinating these arrangements to celebrate our 100th birthday.
[ Translation]
We are honoured by your presence, Madam Speaker. It is indeed a good omen that our celebration, which got off to such a good start, will continue throughout the year, which will be a most active and interesting one.

I say that making these arrangements has been a pleasant task, and for good reason. The encouragement and assistance we have received from Your Honour, from Mr. Jerome while he was Speaker, from Mr. Fraser, while he was clerk of the House, from Dr. Koester and, more lately, from Mr. Pelletier, have exceeded all our expectations. We are especially grateful to Dr. Koester for good advice. I must also refer to the help given us by senior officials in the administration, by the Sergeant-at-Arms and by the protective staff. Our grateful thanks go out to them all.
Madam Speaker, a Hansard reporter has a place in the House of Commons but, by tradition, he has no voice there; he may not speak, not even if a Prime Minister were to ask him to do so. In the course of a working life he must listen to thousands of speeches and it would be surprising if, on occasion, he did not permit himself some private reflections on their quality. But though he has plenty of experience as a listener he has no opportunity to practice oratory, and my only excuse for this indulgence today is that it happens so rarely and that it will not happen again for a hundred years.
Today, as we contemplate this plaque, soon to be unveiled by you, Madam Speaker, we may be forgiven if we summon up remembrance of things past and think kindly of those generations whose efforts have gone into the recording, compilation and printing of Hansard over the past 100 years.
It was never an easy task, and it is not so today for reasons which even a casual visit to the House of Commons makes clear. There is always present, you see, an element of risk. Voices raised in contention are not always robust; quotations are not always from the sources alleged; sentences do not always, alas, contain verbs.
The splendid rotunda, in which the plaque before you is to be placed, reminds us of the theme which is at the very centre of this celebration; that is to say, continuity-the continuity of our institutions together with their ability to adapt to new circumstances, which is like water flowing over stone.
Hansard today is far removed, in some respects, from the Hansard of yesterday. Electronic engineering has made possible two remarkable changes, one of them central to good reporting, in two words, accurate hearing. That certainly beats the crystal ball, which I suspect our colleagues, long retired, consulted more often than they would admit. The other change is two-edged. The slow-moving ribbon of the tape machine can, in the end, outrun even the fleetest pen. It records, without emotion or hesitation, every word, every stammer, every unintended error.
A way must be sought, and found, to combine the literal accuracy of the machine with the truthfulness of informed human reporting by people who, for one reason or another, understand the work they are doing. This, I suggest, is the path which lies ahead during the next 100 years.
Madam Sauve, the bronze plaque which the House of Commons has caused to be placed in this hall is an expression of the regard felt here for Hansard as an institution. It is a most splendid tribute.
Upstairs, in the offices of the Debates branch just outside the Chamber, one can see another record of achievement- rows of bound volumes dating back to 1880 and occupying yard after yard of space on shelves which have lately been specially reinforced to bear their weight. I look at them from time to time, consider all the skill and effort they represent and think, perhaps presumptuously, of the line dedicated to Sir Christopher Wren: Si monumentum queris, circumspice.

Madam Speaker, we would be most honoured if you would say a few words while unveiling the long-awaited plaque.


Madam Speaker:: It is not without some feeling of admiration that I have the honour of unveiling this plaque commemorating the centennial of Hansard.

On an occasion such as this, we think first of those whose enterprise and courage laid the foundation of reporting freedom in Canada, a freedom of which the daily publication, in full, of words spoken in the House of Commons, serves as witness. We think, for example, of Francis Collins, the first professional shorthand writer in Upper Canada; we think of

May 7, 1980
men like John Bourinot, Alphonse Desjardins and Sir John Thompson, whose energies found expression in a wider field of the national life. Not least, we think of Luke Hansard of Westminster whose name has come to represent, more neatly than any official title could do, the service whose centenary we celebrate.
[ Translation]
Let us not forget the staff, a great many of whom are honouring us with their presence. They have many talents and I would like to focus on one: their ability to adapt smoothly to a new means of communication, namely television. Other innovations will follow that are yet impossible to foresee because of the speed of technological change. But one thing will endure- the tradition of impartiality, freedom of expression and high standards will prevail in this essential service of the House of Commons.

I am told that among the events planned for the centenary celebration is an exhibition of Hansards from around the world. For more than 12 months copies have been arriving in Ottawa from the provinces and territories, from Commonwealth countries, from countries in the east, from lands so
remote that some people have not heard of them at all. They are printed in English, in all the languages of Europe, in Cyrilic, in Arabic script, in ideograms, all of them belonging, as it were, to the Hansard family of which our own institution is a part. Even though they may not hear the words of greeting, our good wishes go out today to all the men and women employed in this essentially democratic task. We send them a message of good will. And we congratulate, from the bottom of our hearts, those who, here in Ottawa, provide us daily with our Hansard.
[ Translation]


Mr.  H. J. Lacombe@Editor of French Hansard: Madam Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues, I wish to thank you for so graciously accepting the invitation to unveil this plaque. Your presence and that of other distinguished guests highlight the significance of this centennial for all parliamentarians as well as for all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, the publication of Hansard is the best example of freedom of expression in Canada, one of the many freedoms we all cherish. We thank you for joining with us in commemorating this happy event.

Thursday, May 8, 1980