1988-06-23

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table the documents containing a new broadcasting policy and law for Canada. First, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2) and Standing Order 99(2), I wish to table in both official languages the Government's response to the Fifteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, together with further comments on the recommendations of the Standing Committee's fifth and sixth reports, pursuant to the Government's response dated August 1987.


BROADCASTING
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, second, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table a document entitled Canadian Voices: Canadian Choices, A New Broadcasting Policy for Canada.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will have the honour to table a Bill to create a new Broadcasting Act for Canada.


CANADA-EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION TABLING OF DELEGATION'S REPORT ON VISIT TO GREECE
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association delegation that made an official visit to Greece from March 28 to April 7, 1988.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public.


BILL C-264-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the revised report of the legislative committee on Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use), in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Flora MacDonald (for the Minister of State
(Finance)) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-135, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff Code (code 9956).
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1988
Petitions

Flora Isabel MacDonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, last week three students, Theresa Scaini, Carmen Lopez and Warren Ho from St. Robert's Catholic High School in Thornhill, Ontario, travelled to Ottawa to request that I present in the House of Commons this petition. It is signed by 3,496 of my constituents. They wish to convey to all Members of Parliament their concern that since the Criminal Code of Canada no longer provides any protection for the preborn child, and since it is the responsibility of the federal Government to guard the right to life of all its citizens, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation protecting the right to life of all Canadians from conception until natural death.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to table a petition from 3,000 working men and women in the riding of Charlevoix. The people of Charlevoix are extremely satisfied with the economic performance and climate in my riding: unemployment is at a 10-year low. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this has the effect of increasing the number of weeks required to be eligible for unemployment insurance. Since 25 per cent of the labour force, who are seasonally employed, depend on unemployment insurance benefits, I would humbly ask this House to endorse the principle of maintaining the unemployment insurance eligibility period at 10 weeks.
It is a wonderful riding that depends on seasonal workers and I therefore ask this House, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the general principle of 10 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. This is the will of 3,000 working men and women in the riding of Charlevoix.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to present a petition signed by some 450 constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen, who wish to express their grave concern about the issue that is paramount in their mind, and that is the abortion issue. They ask that this House immediately prepare legislation to the effect that no unborn person shall be deprived of the right of life except where medical procedures are required to prevent the deaths of the mother. As in duty bound, your petitioners humbly pray.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present petitions deploring the fact that in southeastern New Brunswick the unemployment insurance qualifying period has risen from 10 to 16 weeks despite the more than 26 per cent rate of unemployment in that southeastern rural region.
Wherefore the residents of Rexton, Richibouctou Village, Pointe-Sapin, Bouctouche, Sainte-Anne-de-Kent and Cocagne humbly call upon Parliament to make the necessary changes so that the qualifying period remain at 10 weeks.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have other petitions from the people of New Brunswick.

These people are claiming that they are being discriminated against in that they are not allowed to claim tax deductions under the northern allowance. These petitioners are from North Head, New Brunswick, from Castalia, Grand Menan. They are also from Grand Arbour, Ingleshead and Woodward's Cove. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to designate their communities in New Brunswick as eligible under the northern allowance tax deduction program.


An Hon. Member:: Only after hours.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker,
I too should like to present a petition signed by 30-odd residents of the electoral riding of Laval-des-Rapides who humbly call upon Parliament to reject the Canada Post plan and direct management to deliver priority post, registered mail, certified mail, and parcels to 550 Henri-Bourassa Blvd. West, not to 10005 Saint-Laurent.
June 23, 1988


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure this morning to submit a petition on behalf of many Canadians, from indeed right across Ontario, exhorting the Government of Canada to bring in strong legislation to protect the life of the unborn. This is petition No. 332.
A second petition, Mr. Speaker, as well, once again exhorts the Government to bring in strong legislation to protect the life of the unborn. Once again, it includes signatures from a very, very wide range of cities, right across Ontario, from Kitchener, Brantford, Windsor, right through to Ottawa.
Once again, I have a third petition as well. All are for the same purposes. It is my pleasure to table those today. Thank you very much.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today. Nos. 334, 341 and 348.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of the Treasury Board make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Pat Carney (President of the Treasury Board):: In so
far as the Treasury Board Secretariat is concerned, yearly grants were made to the Institute of Public Administration: $150,000 fiscal year 1985/86, $150,000 fiscal year 1986/87, $150,000 fiscal year 1987/88.
The purpose of the grant is to provide financial assistance to the Institute whose main objective is "to promote amongst members of the federal, provincial and municipal public services in Canada and Canadian universities and colleges the study of public administration with a view to better service the public interest". This relates directly to the objective of the Treasury Board Program, by providing a forum which is seeking to improve the processes of Government and the performance of public administration.


Mr. Nunziata: Since January 1, 1987, have there been any parole suspensions in the Metro Toronto region and, if so, how many and, in each case (a) which community residential centre was involved (b) did the National Parole Board lose jurisdiction?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Since January 1, 1987, there have been 972 conditional release suspensions in the Metropolitan Toronto area. In 665 of these cases, the offender involved was not residing in a community residential centre.
(a) Community Residential Centres (CRC) involved
Elizabeth Fry	15
Archibald Center	50
Toronto House	14
My Brother's Place	4
North Beaches	11
Montgomery Centre	36
St. Leonard's Peel	9
St. Leonard's Crossroads	14
Exodus Link	41
Greenwood House	25
Clancy House	24
Total CRC suspensions	243
Community Correctional Centres (CCC) involved Keele	64
Total CCC suspensions	64
(b) The National Parole Board lost jurisdiction on eight of these suspensions.


Mr. Penner: 1.	For each of the (a) chairperson (6) two vice-chairpersons (c) ten fulltime staff members of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas, what are the (t) salary, stipend or honorarium (ii) amounts allowed for expenses (hi) other terms and conditions attached to the appointments?
2.	Are the amounts in part (if) additional to those in part (/")?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: 1. and 2. As
the Minister of Finance announced in his press release of April 29, 1988, the task force will have a staff of 10 full-time employees and a total budget of $2.8 million. The task force will be required to complete a final written report by no later than October 31,1989.
The chairperson will be paid a salary in the range of an assistant deputy minister. The vice-chairpersons will be paid an amount in the same order of magnitude. They will also be provided with living expenses in accordance to the Treasury Board guidelines.
The staff members remunerations are set in accordance to the Public Service Commission guidelines and are based on their knowledge, ability and experience in the area of responsibility.

June 23, 1988
Order for Return


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if it is the pleasure of the House that Question No. 336 be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 336 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Brisco: 
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved:: That the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, respecting bank charges, presented to the House on Monday, June 6, 1988, be concurred in, and that the adoption of this motion shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the government.


Mr. Nystrom:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I can get the Parliamentary Secretary's attention across the way. We have done the normal consulting around the Chamber. We would like the vote deferred until six o'clock Monday, if possible. I understand this will take unanimous consent of the House.
I have done the consulting with the Government's Deputy House Leader of the Liberal Party. We all agree with that. We might as well do it now.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: As usual, Mr. Speaker, this reflects the accuracy of our conversations. Yes, we think it would be in the House's best interest to defer the vote to Monday. We do concur.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) also consents. Therefore, the vote on this motion is deferred until next Monday at 6 p.m. by unanimous consent.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in beginning the debate on this motion I want to point out a very important aspect of it. Normally a vote on an allotted day is considered a question of confidence in the Government. I want to make it crystal clear that in the motion which I have put forward today it is specifically spelled out that a vote in favour of the motion is not to be considered a lack of confidence in the Government. That is justifiable because the motion is to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, which committee represents all sides of the House.
As a matter of fact, the Conservative Chairman was dubbed a socialist by the Bankers Association. Robert Macintosh called the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) a socialist. I am prepared to adopt him. I will baptize him and call him a socialist for this interregnum. He is indeed a red socialist.
The report represents the opinions, after study, of all sides of the House. The motion I put forward reflects the view arrived at in the committee. Conservative Members may try to hide behind the veil that they must vote against this motion in order not to show a lack of confidence in the Government. I want to make that clear. The motion specifically says:
That the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and
Economic Affairs, respecting bank charges, presented to the House on
Monday, June 6, 1988, be concurred in, and that the adoption of this motion
shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the government.
Members must recognize that voting to concur in a report of a committee comprised of members of all Parties of this House does not indicate a lack of confidence in the Government. This
June 23, 1988

motion goes beyond the usual lack of confidence we have in the Conservative Government. The point I am trying to make is that this goes beyond narrow Party politics.
Why did the committee get involved in studying bank service charges? Was it, as Mr. Macintosh said, a desire to bash the banks? Was it a desire to secure our seats about which we are so insecure? Was it because Members of Parliament are on a power grab? Is that why we undertook to study bank service charges? They are hardly the stuff which Conservatives would motivate themselves to study under normal circumstances. Something very vital must have driven them to undertake this study. I suggest that it was the complaints coming from ordinary Canadians from coast to coast; the Mrs. de Gruchy's, the Go-Go Pizzas, and the thousands of letters which were arriving on Members' desks.
We on this side of the House were asking questions back in October and November of 1987. Government Members were asking questions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). Day after day members of the Official Opposition were asking questions about the rapacious activities of the white-collar loan sharks, better known as the banking institutions of this country, in dinging and donging their clients.
That is why we got involved in investigating bank service charges. One of the complaints was about the increasing number of service charges. You are charged to put money in the banks, to take money out of the banks, and to leave your money in the banks. You are charged and charged until your money disappears if you do not do anything with it.
If you asked for a $10 bill to be changed into quarters, you were dinged $2. You were charged 40 cents to get 50 pennies. It was getting absolutely ridiculous. The increasing number of service charges and the spiralling cost of them is what motivated the committee to get involved in this. When people received their statements from the bank they saw that if they were charged $2 last year, they were now being charged $3.50, with no explanation for the increase.
The third issue was notification. In many instances clients of the banks were not properly notified. In fact, there was a great deal of concern that Section 201 of the Bank Act was being breached. Banks would put up a notice in a branch at ten o'clock in the morning, start charging for a service, and take the notice down at 10.05. The banks considered that people had expressly agreed to these service charges. That is why the Finance Committee undertook the study.
The committee discovered, first, that bank service charges had increased by 19 per cent a year since 1982, far in excess of the inflation rate. When the banks appeared before the committee they said that we had to keep in mind that the increase was caused by volume. The banks also informed us that volume accounted for 7 per cent. Taking 7 per cent away from 19 per cent leaves 12 per cent, which is still three times the inflation rate. In response to this issue the committee said, as reported at page 167:8 of its report:
Supply
The Committee has examined this matter to show that the alarm on the part of consumers is more than a temporary protest by a few unfortunate people and is soundly based. This is the only reason for comparing the changes in service charges with the inflation rate.
Therefore, after we discount the percentage for volume we find that there is in fact justification in the complaints of consumers that they were being zinged by the banks.
The committee discovered further that the computerization of the banking system ought to have been providing considerable savings to the banks. We state very clearly:
The regional data centres where cheques are cleared use advanced, highly automated processes. Consumers now do a large share of their banking at automatic banking machines (ABMs), where the cost to the bank of a transaction is lower than at the counter in the branch. Indeed, banks have been able to make banking far more convenient through ABMs and extended banking hours, as they justly claim, and probably without an increase in their average cost per transaction!
The banks claim that costs have risen. When we asked for a clarification of what caused those increases, we found it very difficult to pin down.
It is important to touch on the relationship which has always existed between consumers and banks. When I started out working in the Royal Bank many years ago there was no computerization in the banks. It was a personal relationship, a relationship of trust. People deposited their money in the bank and there was a relationship between the customer, the bank, and the bank's employees. It was a relationship of trust, in which the customers expected their money to be safe and the bank would adhere to its policies. For example, if it charged a certain interest rate, it would stick to it. If it said it provided services for free, it would do so.
I believe that that relationship of trust has broken down. The banks are not careful enough with the notification process. There is no time taken to communicate with the customers and not only inform them of an increase in service charges but explain the rationale behind those increases.
If there is a new service charge, the banks ought to explain that. The banks are not interested in demonstrating the fairness of their charges to their clients. The banks have violated that trust.
The banks take money from their customers' accounts without permission. I call that legalized theft. The case of Mrs. Gruchy was an example of legalized theft. It is legalized theft when the banks seize people's accounts that have been inactive for a period of years.
It is not only my opinion that the banks have broken the relationship of trust. A Decima poll in the Financial Times last March asked a number of questions about bank services. The headline is: "Canadians show no sympathy for the banks' service charges". The First question is:
Bank service charges have been rising. What is most responsible for these increases?

June 23, 1988
Supply
Forty-two per cent of Canadians said the banks are trying to increase profits without having people notice. Thirty-one per cent said it is costing the banks more to perform these services, so they are simply passing on costs to the consumers. Twenty-five per cent said the banks are trying to make up for money lost on loans to poor countries.
The next question was:
Can you name any one bank that has increased service charges more than
the rest?
Twenty-nine per cent said all demand the same rate. Eleven per cent picked the Bank of Montreal.
The third question is interesting:
Should the government step in to protect consumers from increased
charges? Or should banks and consumers try to work things out themselves?
Fifty-two per cent of Canadians said the Government should step in. Another Gallup poll concurred in this Decima poll. It showed that 50 per cent of Canadians said that their banks appear to be levying unreasonably high service charges. Sixty-nine per cent said the probe by the committee was either very necessary or quite necessary.
Canadians are crying out for the Government and Parliament to act on the way the banks are treating them. The committee was very clear in its response. After listening to all of the complaints from consumers, the committee said:
The committee views the consumers' reaction to the behaviour of the banks
and other financial institutions with regard to service charges as justified.
The committee agrees that consumers' complaints are justified. Charges are coming fast and furious without adequate notification and without any rationale. The charges were exorbitant.
Let us consider what the banks did in response to the criticism from the committee. While the committee was holding its hearings, the Bank of Montreal introduced new basic accounts. The Royal Bank froze any increased charges for seven months.
The committee made very wise recommendations. First, it recommended that the banks should provide basic accounts for which no charges shall be levied for maintaining the account, making a limited number of deposits into or withdrawals or payments by cheque from the account, providing the current balance of the account, and transferring to the basic account the balance of any other account of the customer with the financial institution.
We believe there is a lot of competition for the banking services of the wealthy, but very little concern about the basic banking needs of the poor. We believe that the banks must be forced to provide that basic banking service.
The committee went on to recommend the prohibition of certain charges. These are the charges about which people commonly complained. The committee recommended that there ought to be no charge for the closing of the account, if the account has been kept for at least one year.
We also recommended that there be no service charge for the failure to make transactions on the account, although a financial institution may charge for issuing any notice sent to holders of inactive accounts, as required by law. The committee recommended no charge for the deposit of a cheque under a prescribed amount that is returned because of an error or because there are not sufficient funds credited to the drawer's account. In other words, there should be no charge back on the NSF.
There should be no charge for any transaction which results from an error or unauthorized action by the bank. There ought to be no charge for maintaining a savings account during a period when the balance falls below an amount specified by the bank.
The committee also recommended that financial institutions be prohibited from introducing a new charge or increasing an existing charge in respect of any deposit made for a fixed term during that period.
After studying the issue, we believe that our recommendations are justifiable.
In addition, we recommended a new system of notification. There should be 30 days' notice of any change or new service charge on a statement account. It ought to be 60 days' notice for a deposit account, by means of a posted notice within the bank branch. It must be 30 days' notice in writing by mail it the bank wishes to do it differently.
We believe this would correct the problem about adequate notification and information with respect to bank service charges. We believe that the consumer must be well informed and that it is the responsibility of those with whom we have placed our money on deposit in a relationship of trust to inform consumers about any changes in the agreement to administer and keep that money.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs appeared before the committee. Before his appearance before the committee he sent his investigators to 71 branches across the country and discovered that in fact disclosure was badly lacking. No notices were placed in most of those 71 branches and it was difficult to get information when requested.
What was the response of the banks? Mr. Macintosh, who represents the banks, said that Members of Parliament were insecure about their ridings and were trying to bash the banks to get re-elected. He said, "You have to yell at the Chairman of the committee because he has a tin ear, and that is the only way you can get through to him". He said we were in a power grab. That is the lobbyist for the banks talking. What an image he creates for the banks, and he wants to come on Parliament Hill and lobby Members of Parliament!
He did not like the NDP minority report which is attached to this report. I believe our minority report would complete the
June 23, 1988

report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
First, there is the role of the ombudsman. We believe there is an need for a independent, autonomous ombudsman, not attached to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, not attached to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but an independent, autonomous ombudsman with a 1-800 number. Fie would have the function of arbitrator and referee in trying to resolve a lot of these problems.
We believe there should have been short-term redress for all those people who have been taken to the cleaners by the banks, who have been nickeled and dimed, that is why we recommended the freeze for one year from the date of introduction of the report into the House. After all, the Royal Bank accepted the principle of a seven-month freeze. We thought that was a good idea and we ought to extend it to its logical conclusion.
I would also point out that it is now up to the Government to act. The committee has introduced its report. A private Member on that committee has taken that report and patterned it into a Private Member's Bill. The Private Member's Bill is all part of the report. What we are doing here today is debating that Private Member's Bill which incorporates the changes to the Bank Act which would provide justice for consumers. We have no problem in supporting that, but the Government has to act.
I recognize that there is a special relationship between the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the banks. In fact, we can look at the contributions the banks have made to the Conservative Party in 1986. The Conservatives received $35,000 from the Bank of Montreal, $35,000 from the Bank of Nova Scotia, $35,000 from the Royal Bank, $35,000 from the Toronto Dominion Bank and $35,000 from the Bank of Commerce. In an election year those amounts are doubled. In 1986, the Liberals received $35,000 from the Bank of Montreal, $35,000 from the Bank of Nova Scotia, $36,000 from the Toronto Dominion Bank, and $37,000 from the Bank of Commerce. The Royal Bank did not give anything to the Liberals. I understand the sensitivity of that situation. We all know why. There is a renegotiation going on. They have to roll it over.
It is now up to the Government. The Government can release its Members to vote freely on this motion today. I plead with the Government to put aside the financial considerations it has heard from Mr. Macintosh and his henchmen. Do not act like a vampire at the rise of the sun. Do not run and hide. I ask Members on the Conservative side to come forward and vote freely on this motion so we can pass the Private Member's Bill of the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) which incorporates the recommendations. We can put it into law. It is sensible. Justice demands it and Canadian consumers support it wholeheartedly.
Supply


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, we have a peculiar motion before us today that borders on not being acceptable at all, but I am not going to talk about the unacceptability at this point. I will merely point out to you, Sir, that this motion is made on supply. Supply is an opportunity for opposition Parties to test the confidence in the Government. That is the rule, that is the practice,and that is the intent of the rules.
My friend has said he has put in the motion that this is not a matter of confidence. The way to handle that, of course, is to move to amend the rules of the House. If he wanted to do that, if he wanted to change the nature of the motion coming before us, then he could have done so. Indeed, he could have brought this motion on a non-votable Supply day and used it as a matter of bringing the issue to public attention. What he is trying to do is to make political hay out of that which is not political, not intended to be political, but is intended to get at a serious problem which affects citizens of this country.
The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has been meeting in quite a different fashion from that of other committees of the House of Commons in this Parliament. The Finance Committee has operated in a very consensual type of way because the issues brought before it have been issues involving tax, whether corporate, personal or excise tax, issues involving financial institutions, issues involving credit cards, this particular issue involving bank services, and issues involving takeovers. These are issues that are important, Sir, to all people in this country whether they are Conservatives, Socialists or Liberals.
It really does not matter what one is in terms of one's politics, if you put your money in the bank, you want to be able to draw it out. If you deal with a bank, you want to make sure that the service charges are not a rip-off, that someone is not dipping into your account improperly. You want to make sure the tax system is fair, equitable and simple. These are the issues this committee has dealt with, and largely dealt with them unanimously. It has largely dealt with them in a manner, so to speak, that even after the report of the committee has been tabled, the committee would continue to deal with the issues in such a way as to push the Government, to persuade the Government, to direct things to happen that would work out in the interests of the committee and the interests of Canadians, generally.
Fortunately, we have before this House today a motion that breaks that consensus. It is an attempt by a political Party to really make political hay out of something that was not intended to be political. It was originally determined not by a question from the New Democratic Party because it did not know anything about bank service charges.


John R. Rodriguez: Not so.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It was the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) who brought the matter to the attention of the House in the first place. The Member opposite says, not so.

June 23, 1988
Supply
This issue was brought to the attention in the House in November. The committee decided in November to launch an inquiry. The committee engaged its research staff. The research staff met with the committee on a number of occasions because the committee members wanted to contribute to that research. On March 29, the committee made public its research document and made public its terms of reference under which an inquiry into bank service charges would be held. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was not there-The Member for Nickel Belt, Johnny come lately.
Let us talk about the motion for a moment. This is a motion for concurrence. There are provisions in the rules for concurrence motions to be brought. The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has used concurrence motions as one of the arrangements whereby the committee could get something going on a particular issue that bothered the committee and was part of a committee study. We used concurrence motions successfully with respect to tax and with respect to corporate concentration. We have done that for only one purpose, and that has been to move the political process forward. The political process is now moving forward. We do not need to use this kind of method today to move the process forward. In question after question from sides of this House the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) responsible for this matter has indicated to the House that the Government will be bringing forward legislation and regulations at least as tough, if not tougher, than the regulations and legislation proposed by my colleague from York Scarborough.
Sir, this motion is a motion designed to embarrass the Government. It is a motion designed for political purposes. It is not a motion designed to help the cause of the little person who has problems with bank services charges. This is a motion to try to make the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt look good- johnny-come-lately look good.


John R. Rodriguez: So you will vote against it, right?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We are asked to vote on this motion. Let us go back to the report of the committee. The New Democratic Party decided at the last minute on the committee decision that it would like to file a minority report. At the last moment members of that Party produced what they call a minority report. Committees do not have minority reports. They have reports, but not minority reports.
The New Democratic Party states in this so-called minority report: "We believe the committee's response falls far short of its harsh criticism".


John R. Rodriguez: Right!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why then, Sir, are we asked by the New Democratic Party to support the committee's report? Because it falls far short? What does it mean? What kind of New Democratic Party is this? It is the new dinosaur Party designing its program for one purpose-political marks.
Members of that Party have accepted Robert Macintosh. Dear Bob said we were only in it for politics. The New Democratic Party is only here for politics.


John R. Rodriguez: What are you here for?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Members of that Party do not care about Mrs. de Gruchy. They do not care about people who are dipped a dollar a month because they bank in a bank that decides that if one does not have more than $200 in the bank then one will lose a buck.


John R. Rodriguez: How are you going to vote on this?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They are only interested in saying: "How are you going to vote? How are you going to vote?" The Hon. Member does not want to bother about the rules of this place. He does not want to bother about Supply. He just wants to embarrass.
The embarrassment is this. This New Democratic effort to try to cause difficulty is not really going to accomplish much at all. Obviously, we are required to support the Government if we intend to have a government in the country. If we were to support the motion for Supply, then we would in fact be voting non-confidence in the Government, notwithstanding what the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt would like to say.


John R. Rodriguez: Nonsense.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I think it is important to go over the committee report. The Finance and Economic Affairs Committee is a committee of the House composed of 13 Members. Nine of them are Progressive Conservatives. If this is going to be a political report, then this is a Progressive Conservative report. The report could have been passed by the opposition Members. The report was initiated by Conservatives. It was produced by Conservatives. It was not even supported by New Democrats. Now they want to force a vote on it. What kind of drivel is that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: How are you going to vote on it?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Let us go over briefly the recommendations of the committee. First, the committee proposes that the banks be required to offer an alternative to an intricate account that has many service charges and to provide, in effect, a basic account so those who are perhaps disadvantaged in society will be able to take part in contemporary banking activity.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Are you going to vote against that?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Second, the committee would prohibit certain charges outright that the banks have been making. Frankly, it is amazing that most of these charges are still being levied. There is a charge for putting money in the bank, for example. There is a charge for writing cheques of a minor nature. There is a charge for transferring money from one account to another. There are a number of charges that are being made that are really unconscionable.
June 23, 1988

Third, the committee proposes a very strong legal notification change with respect to the changes in service charges under Section 201 of the Bank Act.
The committee also proposed certain draft regulations. The committee Members on the government side have been working very closely with Cabinet to effect the changes and proposals set out by the committee.
It has been interesting over the last number of weeks, particularly with respect to the nature of change that is taking place, to see that people had no idea in many cases just how arrogant were bank presidents and how their lack of understanding of the ordinary person existed.
Sir, I want to read into the record a letter that was written by J. A. G. Bell, President of the Bank of Nova Scotia. This is a letter in reply to a lady by the name of Sandra Hanmer of 120 Golfview Avenue in Toronto. Mrs. Hanmer was after the Bank of Nova Scotia concerning the appearance of a branch at Gerrard and Woodbine. I will just read a couple of paragraphs of Mr. Bell's letter. It reads: "We have had the future of that branch under consideration for some time, and expect to make a decision in the very near future on whether or not it should remain open. Quite frankly, the branch is not a profitable operation since the customer base consists largely of senior citizens who receive their banking services free of charge. It is also worth noting that our client base includes a large number of welfare recipients who now use our low cost banking services. These services were referred to by the House of Commons Finance Committee as life-line banking."
Needless to say, Mrs. Hanmer was shocked. I want to read a couple of lines from her reply to Mr. Bell. "I write you because the facia of one of your branches is falling off into the street, potentially endangering people's lives, and you tell me that the branch is not a profitable operation because it is only welfare people and senior citizens who use it and therefore it is quite okay for you to let it fall into disrepair and endanger passers-by. Is this the type of defence you would present in court had someone been injured and sued you?"
Clearly, as members of the Finance Committee we would have preferred to work out a voluntary arrangement concerning changes in bank service charges and bank practice. However, clearly, the kind of arrogance and lack of sensitivity expressed by the President of the Bank of Nova Scotia in his letter and other letters as a result of other actions, leave the Government with very little alternative except to proceed with the legislative hammer and regulatory control. It is important that that regulatory hammer and control be effected properly.
While the committee has drafted a Private Member's Bill, and that Private Member's Bill will remain on the books and be debated within a week if something is not done pretty quickly, it is important that the Government move ahead, because it is the Government that controls the machinery of enforcement, and the machinery of regulation. Therefore, it is
Supply
important that we give the Government the benefit of the doubt and the support it needs in order to bring forward that legislation and regulation that has been promised by the Minister, which I am advised will be at least as tough, if not tougher and more demanding than the position of the committee. Indeed, I suspect that, had the committee report been before the committee today, it would have been harsher than it is.
I am sure most Members would have thought that a committee report that was doing things that were largely agreeable, or that should be agreeable to anybody with any sensitivity in Government or in banking, would have been accepted as fair and decent. We were charged with being schizophrenic. One becomes very schizophrenic over the type of approach by bank presidents that were given to Mrs. Hanmer, Mrs. de Gruchy, and others who have had their accounts dipped into and dinged as we have seen, not only in the period leading up to the preparation of the report, but since the report itself.
Ordinary Canadians look to Government in cases where there is oligopolistic activity for regulation to protect them. We believe, if at all possible, that business ought to be able to regulate itself and ensure that that regulation is in the public interest. Clearly the banking industry, with respect to service charges, has not been able to come to grips with the reality of what it is doing, and it will have to be pushed. The only agency that can push it is the Government, and the Government has agreed to do that.
This motion is improper at this time. It does not help the cause of moving change forward. It is designed by the New Democratic Party to create problems in the process by which we address the problem of service charges in a manner that makes handling those problems work. It is our preference to have a government Bill. It is our preference to have the Government move ahead. We have been working to do that. To move concurrence at this point in this fashion is wrong and not productive.
This Party will be voting against the motion for the simple reason that this motion is brought forward to create a political arm for the New Democratic Party that did not care about service charges until we handled the matter, and now it is trying to recoup and get aboard what it thinks may be a bandwagon. They are johnny-come-lately. They are lately, lately, lately.


John R. Rodriguez: Surely, Robert Macintosh was correct and it is a lot of bombast, a lot of yelling, condemning, and personal attacks on the New Democratic Party to attempt to project the image that somehow or other the Hon. Member is the father of bank service charge changes in the interest of consumers.
I wish to point out that the New Democratic Party was asking questions on this issue back in November, 1987. The standing committee commenced hearings on April 28. As the

June 23, 1988
Supply
consumer critic for my caucus I joined the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee in the study of these bank service charges.
The Member stated in his speech that perhaps if the committee were writing its recommendations today it would be harsher. That is why we put in our addendum to the report, and that is why we want it approved and in the motion. Since our addendum is attached to the committee report, that would be acceptable. The Hon. Member wants redress. Of course, there has to be concern for an immediate redress for consumers. That is why we recommended the one year freeze. That is the redress. The Hon. Member cannot say that it is water under the bridge and what has happened has happened. There is a need for justice to be served to those consumers who have been dinged and zinged, as the Hon. Member has said. That is why we put that in.
The Chairman of the committee, as an afterthought, wanted an ombudsman. He was not thinking of the ongoing interests of the consumers. He did not want an ombudsman who was going to be effective or an advocate for consumers. His whole approach in the committee was to put the ombudsman in the Superintendent's office, stick him up in the attic. We know that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is only interested in the solvency of banks, not in the problems of Mrs. de Gruchy, Mrs. Hanmer, or other people like that. That is the point.
I ask the Member, in light of the fact that we are in the dying months of a Government and we are getting ready for an election, is this not an opportunity for the Chairman of the Finance Committee who just spoke to put aside his desire to be seen as the father of this legislation? Can he put aside that narrow, selfish view and see that this motion, if approved, would immediately do the things that should be done? It commits the Government.
We know that the pressure has been on the Government not to tell the banks what to charge and what not to charge. I have no problem with regulating them. The Member for York Scarborough has no problem. It is in his Private Member's Bill. But I honestly think that the Ministry of Finance will not accept a regulatory principle where the banks are told what services they shall charge for and what services they will not charge for. That is not part of its philosophical agenda.
I say to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and all Members on the government side: support this motion and you will achieve what you say now, that we should be tough with the banks. The other route is long and it may never come to a conclusion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I attempted to follow the convoluted rationale of the Member for Nickel Belt, but it was virtually impossible. First, the motion is that the House support the Finance Committee report. The Finance Committee report is not the minority piece that is put in an appendix, it is the report. My friend believes that what he wrote in an appendix is
part of the report. He does not even know what he wants us to vote on.
If we take him at his word, and we are supposed to vote in favour of his appendix, I can say that we would not do that for the same reasons that we refused to support his suggestions at the last and dying moments of the Finance Committee hearings. The reason is very simple. The Hon. Member decides he wants an ombudsman, but he does not say where or how that will happen. The report does. The report states it will be a branch of the Superintendent of Financial Institution's office that is funded already by charges against deposit taking institutions. Therefore, it will not cost the taxpayers any further money. They do not think of these things. They do not work those things through. Obviously we could not support what the Member deems to be part of the report.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Clearly, Sir, the Member is so far off base that to support this concurrence motion, brought in terms of Supply, when the rules clearly say Supply is confidence in the Government, makes any support for my friend impossible.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend across the way. He has been around Parliament for a long time. Why does he not just vote on what is on the Order Paper before his very eyes. The question is very simple. I remember Stanley Knowles years ago saying that you vote on what is before you. What is before the House in this motion is:
That the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee-be concurred in.
It is a report of the Hon. Member's committee to be concurred in. He knows what that committee report is saying. Just read very carefully what it says:
That the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and
Economic Affairs, respecting bank charges, presented to the House on
Monday, June 6, 1988, be concurred in.
You vote yes or no as to whether or not you agree with what is in the report. The Member is the author of the report as Chairman of the committee. He has to vote now on whether or not he concurs in that report. That is the first part of the question.
The second part of the question reads:
-and that the adoption of this motion shall not be considered to be a
question of confidence in the Government.
The Member across the way is right when he says that usually a Supply motion is a non-confidence motion, but the House here is saying that if we adopt this report it is not a question of confidence. I repeat, it is not a question of confidence. You vote that this is not a question of confidence.
What the Hon. Member is trying to argue, with respect, is that we call night day and we call day night or we call Wednesday Thursday or we call Thursday Monday. You vote on what is before you. It is very clear. It is black or white. We
June 23, 1988

vote concurrence in the report. If the Member does not do that, he is voting against his own report. This is not nonconfidence in the Government. I say to the Member, respond to that.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, all one has to do is to take a look at the note immediately below the report. It says:
Note:
Ninth of ten allotted days and fourth votable motion for the Supply period
ending June 30, 1988.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is not the motion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It continues:
(Eighth of eight votable motions for the three Supply periods provided
pursuant to Standing Order 82(5)).
There is no provision in Standing Order 82(5) for the introduction of a no-confidence motion in the Government. The purpose of Supply is to allow the Opposition a chance eight times during the year to test the confidence that Members have in the Government. That is how we run our system. For one Party to decide of its own, without some changes in the rules, that it can use words like, "this motion shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the Government" to somehow try to trap Members into voting against the Government is pretty simple and pretty foolish. The answer is very clear. The Member from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) ought to know that.


Some Hon. Members:: He does.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He is an important person in his Party and he ought to know that what he ought to be proposing is a position that opposition Parties should be entitled to introduce motions indicating their confidence in the Government.
If the Hon. Member wants to introduce a motion indicating confidence in the Government, that might be a different matter. Perhaps he could organize the rules in that fashion. How he would do it would be to introduce a motion of some kind indicating that his Party has confidence in the leadership of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government. That is exactly what they are doing here, only they are not. They are saying, "Sucker, sucker, sucker, come and vote for this motion". And then say, "Sucker, sucker, sucker, we are going to say you vote to defeat your own Government". We are not going to buy that, baby.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can only recognize the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. My friend across the way referred to the note under the motion. I am sure you could clearly indicate to the House that we do not vote on notes in the House of Commons, we vote on the motion before the House. The motion before the House is very clear. The motion before the House does say that it is not a question of confidence. Obviously one does not draft a motion to say we
Supply
believe that Brian Mulroney is the greatest thing since sliced bread.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You vote on the motion before the House, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we voted on Meech Lake. Because we agreed with the Meech Lake Accord does not mean that we think Brian Mulroney walks on water. You vote on what is before the House. My friend across the way does not know what he is talking about, and I am sure you could put him straight, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have been associated with the work of the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee on this issue of charges to clients since the beginning. It is a complex issue and it has been handled, I consider, with care and sensitivity by the Finance Committee, a committee which, like the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, generally works in a non-partisan fashion and tries to come up with solutions that are in the public interest that can be supported by all members of the committee.
For this latest round of hearings on service charges and financial institutions, we were joined by the New Democratic Party Member whose motion is before us today. He and his colleague had a minority report because they did not consider that the consensus report fully met their requirements and views. It is quite puzzling today to find that they are now moving a motion to support the committee report which at the time they could not support without reservations.
I welcome the opportunity to talk about this matter of service charges to consumers because it is an important and a delicate issue. I think there are some matters that should be put to the House that are worthy of more care than the kind of bank bashing which we customarily hear from the New Democratic Party. Having said that, let me say I hold no brief for the banks or any other financial institutions and, indeed, I did share in the criticisms made by the Finance Committee.
Let me go back and repeat the history of this issue. In November the matter of service charges to consumers and financial institutions, particularly the question of notification or lack of it, was referred to the Finance Committee. The staff of the Finance Committee prepared a research paper. I may say that the financial institutions generally, the banks and the trust companies, were reasonably forthcoming with facts, which aided in the preparation of this research paper. On March 29, the paper was made public, together with the terms of reference of the inquiry. What was becoming very clear by that time was that as competition in the financial institutions increased, as banks, trust companies, caisses populaires and credit unions all competed harder for business, they chose to pay higher interest rates and to provide new services like daily interest rates. This was the way in which they chose to

June 23, 1988
Supply
compete, to keep their existing customers and to attract new customers.
To balance this expenditure, the banks started to unbundle their fee structure and to move more and more in the direction of user-pay. The Finance Committee came to the conclusion that the banks and other financial institutions had moved too fast, too vigorously, in the direction of user-pay, and that there should be a correction.
Insensitive things had been done. The public relations of financial institutions have not been good. Instead of responding to consumer complaints, they have tended to be defensive.
A particular area that the Finance Committee was interested in was the question of notification. There is a section of the Bank Act which requires notification to consumers of any changes in fee structure. A regulation was passed several years ago which provided that simply posting a notice in the bank or financial institution would meet the requirements of this particular section, namely, Section 201 of the Bank Act. It may have at the time, but in this day and age, when most people use machines and go into banks less and less often, the notice is simply not seen. Then consumers find it rather a shock when they are suddenly paying for some service for which they had not previously paid.
One of the things that irked consumers enormously, of course, was when they found that money was being deducted for inactive accounts. It is very difficult for any reasonable person to justify this. How can financial institutions charge a fee for an account in which there has been no activity?
These were some of the things that consumers were writing about and that the financial institutions were not responding to. When the Finance Committee set the terms of reference for our public hearings, we did focus very much on the whole question of notification, whether financial institutions are entitled to dip into people's accounts without warning and without specific authorization.
As a result of the hearings, some very specific recommendations were made by the committee to strengthen the legal notification requirements of Section 201 of the Bank Act which is clearly inadequate in present-day circumstances, and to prohibit certain charges. The committee also recommended that financial institutions provide limited basic banking services free of charge. We recommended that they provide what one of our members described as accounts "without bells and whistles".
The response of the financial institutions to this has been very negative. First, they say they are already doing this, that as a gesture of good will to their consumers, they already have about four million accounts for senior citizens which have no fees or very limited fees. Most banks also provide accounts for young people under 18 which have limited or no fees. The position of the financial institutions is that as a gesture of
customer good will, they already provide accounts with no fees and few frills, and that they should not be legislated into doing so any more than any other commercial organization should be required to provide free services.
The Finance Committee takes a different approach. We have seen that in the United States there is a requirement in many states for financial institutions to provide what they call life-line accounts, very basic, minimum accounts. This is the direction in which the Finance Committee has leaned.
I want to mention a few of the highlights of the committee's report. In spite of the banks' protestations that they now provide services that have minimum fees, the committee was not able to accept that as satisfactory or to accept that they would do it as a good-will gesture, because we had so many letters from people who did not know about these accounts. We heard from students who had put money into the bank at the end of their summer jobs and then went back at Christmastime to draw the money out for Christmas shopping and found that, because the accounts were below a certain minimum amount, they had been docked quite a bit of money. In many of these cases, when the students or their parents complained to the banks, the charges were reversed. At that point, the families learned that these particular institutions offered services for students whereby charges were not applied. However, the public information provided has not been satisfactory, and we heard from many consumer groups and from many consumers who had gone to their financial institutions to ask for information about charges and had not been able to get it or to get it easily.
On the question of the increase in service charges over recent years, the banks put forward the view that the increase was related to increased volume and to inflation. The committee was not able to accept that entirely, because it appears that charges related to personal banking services by domestic banks have increased 18 per cent to 19 per cent over the past five years. The banks said that the volume of transactions increased by 7 per cent a year, so that means that there is 10 per cent or 11 per cent unaccounted for.
The committee came to the conclusion that the alarm on the part of consumers was more than a temporary protest and that there was a serious problem with a lack of information. In fairness to financial institutions, one must point out that although their service charges have increased, the greater part of their operating costs is still covered through the interest spreads. Nevertheless, service charge income has been increasing rapidly, and this is something that is a concern, particularly to low-income consumers.
Charges for personal financial services have been increased both in level and in number. The key, of course, is that the banks and the other financial institutions, as I said earlier, are offering higher interest rates because of the increased competition and therefore they are trying to balance some of this by increasing service charges. Unfortunately, the service charges


June 23, 1988

have a way of hitting the people with low incomes and minimum balances in their accounts.
The Chairman of the committee has spoken of his dislike of regulations. Since I am not a Conservative, I cannot say that I have the same dislike of regulation, but, like many people who think they have more taste and talent for negotiation than for confrontation, I really do see regulation as a last resort. I would have hoped that the banks, faced with the evidence of a number of unhappy, dissatisfied consumers, would have been more ready to say: "We went too far, too fast in the direction of service charges, we are willing to make some changes". Instead, the spokesman from the Canadian Banking Association chose to attribute bad motives to the members of the Finance Committee, and this has not made for an easy situation.
Regardless of the attribution of motives and the hyperbole, we still have to deal with the issue. The question is, how best to deal with the issue. The consensus that the Finance Committee reached-I was part of it and I reached it reluctantly-was that it was necessary to move to provide better consumer protection, and, most certainly, better consumer information.
Again, may I just quote from the committee report. The committee believes that the rapid escalation and proliferation of fees was far from inevitable. The banks have pushed their user-pay approach too rapidly and too far. Unbundling and service differentiation have been carried to an extreme.
So that, Mr. Speaker, while we fully understand that indeed the banks and the other financial institutions have many, many thousands of satisfied customers and consumers, and most Canadians have great confidence in their banks, and have probably not had reason to complain in the course of 20, 30 years of dealing with them, nevertheless senior citizens are complaining that they have their accounts assessed for charges, simply because they did not have much money in them-there was no transaction, no activity, and yet there is a penalty for that-this is not justifiable.
Then you find that a senior citizen had money taken out of his account because his account was under $500, and when he died and his widow tried to close his account, she was charged a fee for closing it. These are small amounts, but they are large to the people concerned.
I am sure that from the point of view of the financial institutions-the complaints and the criticism they get for this nickeling and diming-it has been difficult and painful, and they may feel this is very small stuff in the face of the thousands and thousands of satisfied customers, but I think Members in this House have to be very concerned with the right of the consumer, especially the low-income consumer, the person with few resources, who may not have the social skills and adroitness to go and complain to the bank in a way that gets the charge reversed.
Supply
People who have been able to write letters to bank presidents have almost invariably had their charges reversed, and they have received an apology for this unfairness. But the people who do not have the resources to do that, who simply talk to the teller, or who do not talk to anybody, go unsatisfied. Hence, the need to have this matter regulated in some way.
Now, the committee adopted a three-pronged approach. I need hardly say that we put a lot of emphasis on information. Obviously, an informed consumer can make choices. We had a recommendation that the banks be required to provide an alternative to the intricate accounts with many service charges, and provide one very simple account with few-well, as the Member for Scarborough said, with "no bells and whistles", and for that, no charges.
Perhaps our most important recommendation is the need to strengthen the legal notification requirements of Section 201 of the Bank Act. Because one can hardly repeat it too often, if consumers have information, they can protect themselves and they can make their own choices. Increasingly, we found that an awful lot of this difficult and unsatisfactory situation could have been avoided if consumers had known about the special accounts for senior citizens, the special accounts for youth, because that is where the bulk of the complaints came from.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough on debate.


Mr. Kilgour:: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona.


David Kilgour: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was listening with some interest to the Member. I wonder if she would tell us- since we learn in the first introductory economics course that chartered banks have an ability to create money by taking deposits and issuing loans and so forth-whether she thinks that the banks should be entitled to cover all of their expenses by service fees, or does she-I notice that her colleague, who used to be a bank president, is sitting near her. Is she defending the banks today, or is she criticizing them in part and defending them in whole, or where exactly is she coming from in her speech today? I was not too clear.


Aideen Nicholson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member is unclear about where I was coming from. Let me try to summarize. I do not hold with the kind of bank-bashing we hear from the New Democratic Party, because I think it is irrational. At the same time, as I summarize the evidence that the Finance Committee had before it, after very careful examination it is quite clear that the banks have moved too far too fast in the direction of user pay.
When the financial institutions were faced with increased competition, they chose to compete by offering better interest rates. That is how they chose to try to attract new business and

June 23, 1988
Supply
maintain their existing customers. They tried to balance that by some user-pay.
I said that still, most of the expenses of personal banking come out of the interest spread. We had been led to believe by some people that the banks were financing the whole thing by service charges. That is not true. What is clear is that the service charges have proliferated and have increased, affecting harshly the senior citizens and those who maintain minimum balance accounts.
I say that I would have preferred to have seen the banks agree on the fact that they have moved too fast on this, and I would prefer to see them agree to move back. They are not prepared to say that and, therefore, I see no choice except to legislate in the way that the committee has recommended.
As I said from the beginning, the committee report was unanimous. I have quoted in my speech parts of the committee report including the following: "The committee holds the view that stronger measures are needed than increased awareness by consumers, and sensitivity to public pressure on the part of the banks. Therefore it proposes changes to the Bank Act and regulations, and corresponding changes to statutes regulating other financial institutions". I support those recommendations.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member across the way who is occupying the Conservative benches for the applause.
The point which government Members have brought up in opposition to our motion is that it is a non-confidence motion and they are, therefore, not prepared to support it. One wonders, as well, whether government Members have real interest in this. Government Members have accused us of playing politics with bank charges. I really wonder whether it is not government Members who are playing politics with the issue of bank charges.
We are all aware that this Parliament is most probably in its dying moments and that there will be an election called, conceivably this fall. Anything on the Order Paper which has not been dealt with at that time will die. In fact, I suspect that this is the major reason the banks turned down the offer of the Finance Committee to enter into a fair personal banking practices agreement. They were not interested in voluntarily complying with basic set standards because their calculation was that the Government is not going to last until the end of the year and that all the concerns about bank charges will wash away like water under the bridge and they will be able to continue in their practices.
I suspect as well that government Members know this. The Minister has promised to introduce legislation. Yet I did not notice, on the list which was provided to our House Leader of legislation which the Government was prepared to bring forward and have passed before the summer recess begins, an Act dealing with bank charges.
Our purpose in moving this motion today is for the House to tell the Minister and the Government that we want this legislation now. The House now has an opportunity to instruct the Government to do so before Supply is passed. Monday is the last day of Supply.
I am indeed very confused when I hear the tortured reasoning of the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn), who is the Chairman of the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee, in trying to explain why he will be voting against the recommendations of his committee. There is no explanation for that other than, perhaps, that the Tories wanted to make a lot of noise about bank practices but were not prepared to act. Perhaps they wanted to create the impression for the folks out there that they are not really the friends of Bay Street and the bankers. They are willing to talk tough about bank charges, but the reality is that they are not prepared to act on them. The fact that Tory Members continue to talk tough about bank charges but will not ensure that legislation is passed before the calling of an election indicates where their true intentions are.
In this debate the Tories attempt to claim that New Democrats are johnny-come-latelies to the issue of bank charges. The spokesperson for the Liberal Party has just said that she does not side with the New Democrats when it comes to bashing banks. We have always been accused of bashing the banks, but now the Tories say that we are johnny-come-latelies on the issue of bank charges.
Historically the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, have always been critical of how banks have moulded the economic development of this country to ensure that there are half a dozen very powerful banks. We have always been critical of the practice of the banks of investing where money becomes available, very often to the detriment of our regions. We have historically been critical of how banks have dealt with the average Canadian customer.
The Canadian public will not believe the Tory accusation that we are johnny-come-latelies on the issue of banks. But then there are so many other things about the Tory Government that the Canadian public does not believe or accept. In fact, when we look at the polls we discover that one of the major reasons the Canadian people will not be returning this Government is that they do not believe the Government or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is telling the truth.
Another reason we are introducing this motion today is an old concept which existed in the mother of Parliaments, the Parliament of Great Britain. That concept is that there should be an address of grievances before Parliament addresses the Government's request for Supply. In other words, the grievances of the citizens should be dealt with before the Government is given the money it wants in order to run the country. The Government has until Monday to get its Supply. We believe that the Government and Parliament must address the grievances of thousands of Canadian citizens.
June 23, 1988

Every Member who has spoken today has raised some of these grievances. The Member for Mississauga South went on at some length about the grievances which have come to his attention. In fact, he accused the banks of arrogance.
We all know the story of the retired person in Ottawa who needed some change. She went not to her branch, but to her bank, with a S20 bill. She needed $10 worth of quarters and the bank charged her $2 for changing the $20 bill.
My Leader, the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), brought to the attention of the House a pizza parlour in his constituency which was charged way beyond what one would normally expect to be charged for basic bank services. The list goes on and on.
Of course, when we met with the executive officers and presidents of the banks they said that these are not their policies, that these are perhaps the mistakes of their branches. Well, surely the head office is responsible for the branches. However, the banks operate in such a way as to give the branches a lot of manoeuvrability to nickel and dime their customers.
We also discovered from many days of hearings in the Finance Committee that if a person complains loud enough, writes to his or her Member of Parliament or whatever, very often the branch manager will reduce or nullify an unjustified charge. Does that mean that whenever someone is nickel and dimed, 40 cents here or $1 there, on an invalid charge, he or she should write to their Member of Parliament? You and I know that in most cases people will say "Well, why bother?"
The banks also say that if people are not happy, they can go across the street. However, we have discovered that every branch engages in this nickel and diming. Average depositors realize this, shrug their shoulders, and accept it as the cost of doing banking business in this country. What is required is action by Parliament. What is required is action by the Government. We have known of this situation for a long time. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to promise us legislation. We want legislation. Hopefully our motion today will hasten the Government in that direction.
There are other examples of abuse which the committee has not studied. In fact, a whole other kettle of fish has not been investigated but deserves thorough examination. It is the treatment of small businesses by the banks.
Small businesses which depend on loans are very often captives of the banks which can call in a loan at any time. Therefore, many small businesses are forced to put up with all kinds of ridiculous charges.
One case that was brought to my attention concerns a small cattle auction mart and feed lot in Saskatchewan. They wrote:
We have an operating loan of $150,000... Occasionally we require an
extension. October, November, March and April are our bigger months as
more cattle are moving during that time.
Supply
Our local bank has to call Saskatoon to get approval for an extension. Each time they call they charge us $100. Last year it was $150 per call. I find this charge outrageous. One long distance call (100 km), someone's consent to a day or so extension and it's another $100 on top of interest, and overdraft interest.
That is outrageous. Yet the Tories will vote against this motion. The letter goes on to say:
The explanation I receive is that it is not a service charge, it is a handling charge with someone taking the responsibility of the extension. They can call it what they like. It costs us $100 for a telephone call. Please note the enclosed debit memo to our account for two telephone calls in March.
We have to handle $10,000 worth of cattle to gross $200 in commissions.
This feed lot and cattle auction mart will not make much money with a rate of $100 per telephone call.
It is another example of a bank doing almost anything it wishes to a small business. In this case, it is charging $100 for what may be a $2 or $3 call. The Finance and Economic Affairs Committee will hopefully conduct a thorough study into the treatment of small business by the banks. I believe it will result in an even stronger indictment of the banking practices of the big banks.
We should honour an old British parliamentary practice of dealing with grievances before Supply. However, I do not expect any action from the Tory Government. It may rant and rave and create the impression that it is thoroughly disgusted with these bank charges. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) may state to the committee and the House that he is outraged. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) may warn the banks that he will introduce tough legislation. However, let the Canadian public not forget who are the friends of the banks.
Let us consider bank donations to political Parties in 1986. The Bank of Montreal donated $35,000 to the Tories and $35,000 to the Liberals. The Bank of Nova Scotia donated $35,000 to the Tories and $35,000 to the Liberals. The Royal Bank donated $35,000 to the Tories in 1986, however, it did not give anything to the Liberals because it is holding the $5 million to $6 million debt of the Liberal Party. Perhaps they will make another deal.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank paid some $35,000 to the Tories and some $36,000 to the Liberals in 1986. The Bank of Commerce paid $36,000 to the Tories, and gave the Liberals $37,000, $1,000 more. We know who are the friends of the banks. It is no wonder the Liberal spokesperson disagrees with the New Democrats and suggests that we are bank-bashing.
I suspect the sincerity of the Tories when they discuss the unfairness of the banks to their customers. The Government will not take any action. It may introduce legislation, but it will never be enacted before an election is called.
It is also interesting to note the similarity of the contributions made by the banks to both those political Parties. They will probably double in an election year.


Mr. Nunziata:: How much did the NDP get?

June 23, 1988


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am proud to announce that the NDP got nothing.


John V. Nunziata: Because you want to nationalize the banks.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I would add that the NDP would turn them down if they offered money because we believe one cannot accept $35,000 from the Bank of Montreal without being beholden to it.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the Hon. Member tell us how much the NDP got from the Canadian Labour Congress?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can ask that question in the 10 minutes for questions and comments after my speech. I know that four years is a not long term and it will probably be his only four-year term, but surely he has learned that there are 10 minutes in which he can ask questions after a speech.
The New Democratic Party does not solicit funds from the banks because we believe that one cannot take almost $200,000 in contributions from the five major banks without being beholden to them. That is why I believe that the Conservatives will not introduce banking legislation. I also believe that the Liberals are very happy about that because they do not want to see their friends restricted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments will be held after Question Period.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the people of Quebec are celebrating their heritage with various celebrations marking St. John the Baptist Day.
A typically French holiday marked by the lighting of bonfires, the feast of St. John is part and parcel of the
traditions handed down to the French-speaking people of America by their ancestors. For the people of Quebec, it is a day of celebration but also an opportunity to reflect upon themselves, to show their pride in speaking French and to think back on their origins.
As the prime source of French language and culture in Canada, Quebec represents an essential thread in the great tapestry which our country constitutes. One only has to travel in that province to see how truly different it is from the others. It is the only one where French-speaking Canadians are a majority. Quebec also operates under the Civil Code and its culture is unique and definitely distinct.
The vitality of the French fact in Quebec and Canada is now unquestionable. Now we must ensure the development of the French language and culture in the other provinces with a view to promoting one of the fundamental characteristics of this country.
I am very proud to join with my fellow citizens from Quebec in celebrating their national holiday. May you thoroughly enjoy this day with your family and friends in an atmosphere of fraternity.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, Premier Vander Zalm's irresponsible Bill 53, which was introduced yesterday, will allow British Columbia hospitals to sell equipment to the private sector and then lease it back. Under this agreement, cash-starved public institutions which have a tax exempt status will sell expensive equipment purchased with taxpayer dollars to the private sector which then uses it as a tax write-off. The taxpayer pays twice.
The Treasurer of Ontario estimates that institutions receive 10 per cent of the benefit while intermediaries receive 90 per cent. The federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) calls this an inappropriate use of tax dollars. Ottawa and the provinces have agreed unanimously to a moratorium on such sales and lease-backs of assets of hospitals, yet British Columbia ignores this agreement.
This approach to supplementing hospitals' budgets will not address the root cause of under funding of health care. The federal Government has cut $2 billion from health and education funding. This must be restored, and the Canadian public should know that this kind of B.C. privatization scheme is ripping them off.


June 23, 1988


GALA OF EXCELLENCE IN AMOS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on June 13 at the Amos Social and Cultural Centre, La Foret Pavilion of La Mosa'ique Comprehensive High School presented its first great annual gala for excellence.
The ultimate purpose of the organizers of this event is to instill in students at La Foret Pavilion the desire for excellence, which is the art of performing one's duties and tasks to the best of one's talents and abilities.
Isabelle Breton was the "Wayne Gretzky" of the students. She was proclaimed outstanding student at La Foret Pavilion, in addition to winning the Governor General's Medal and the Pierre Tardif and J.P. Norrie Scholarships.
Mr. Speaker, the list of students honoured at this gala for excellence is impressive: the 146 winners deserve our hearty congratulations. Hats off to the administrators and teachers at La Mosa'ique Comprehensive High School in Amos!


DISASTERS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, a simple memorial in a Canadian newspaper asks all of us to remember a tragic event now fading into memory. The destruction of Air-India flight 182 on June 23, 1985, resulted in the deaths of 329 persons.
Mention of the mere numbers lost does not disclose the fact that the victims included entire families. Fathers, mothers and their children perished in this senseless criminal conspiracy. These families included the wives and children of Dr. Kurian Thomas and Gnanendran Murugan, of Halifax West, but virtually every community of Canada was touched by the tragedy.
Canadians will not forget the horror of the Air-India disaster, nor the special loss suffered by the Indo-Canadian community. We must do more than recall this event. We must protect Canadians by acting to ensure that those capable of evil acts of terrorism and violence are apprehended and punished.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the annual analysis of the Government's record by the School of Public Administration at Carleton University was recently released. The Tory Government's four year old fiscal restraint slogan has been labelled an illusion.
At the beginning of its mandate, the Government was insensitive to questions of regional disparity and other social issues. These issues were ignored for too long. The Government is now hastily trying to catch up. Money was poured into Quebec before a by-election and funds are being committed hastily without much evidence of an organized plan.
On June 3 the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) said the tax system could not be both fair and simple; we can only have one or the other. It also seems that the Government cannot control the purse-strings as well as maintain social and regional programs; we can only expect one or the other.


PROTECTIONISM ENJOYED BY BRITISH FARMERS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advised Canada to get involved in free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: She left the clear impression that such a move had been good for the United Kingdom. However, the fact is that British farmers gave up free trade to join the European Common Market. They now hide behind the high wall of protectionism under the Common Market's agricultural policies, and receive two to three times the price they were getting under free trade.
Let there be no mistake. Protectionism has been good for British farmers, and for the British economy. With the extra income generated by artificially high farm prices there has been an economic revival in Great Britain. When combined with the discovery of North Sea oil, the economic effect was more than enough to offset the negative economic and social aspects of Thatcherism.
Yes, the Common agricultural policy has been good for Britain. But Canadians should keep one point very clearly in mind-it is not free trade.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1988

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, a major international conference is being held in Toronto next week to discuss the health of the global atmosphere. This conference is a result of initiatives taken by the Government in response to the call for action by the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Over recent years, leading world scientists have reached a consensus that increasing human activities will cause inevitable alterations to the world climate. There is growing recognition that the atmosphere is our most pervasive global commons. Climate change and other major air pollution issues require international action if we are to make progress on the road to sustainable socio-economic development.
This world conference is the first of its kind, and is expected to be a key step in developing international agreements and strategies which will assist humanity in adapting to these expected environmental changes.
This is yet another example of this Government's world leadership in issues crucial to our common future.
* *
*


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government will spend $110 million over the next five years to protect, conserve and clean up the St. Lawrence River, which was polluted by the previous Government and which will be cleaned up by the Conservative Government. Mr. Speaker, this is the most important federal environmental initiative in Quebec.
The Governments of Canada and Quebec have agreed to implement the appropriate coordination mechanisms to ensure that the action taken by each side to clean up and develop the St. Lawrence River is complementary.
To restore the quality of the River to what it was in past years, the federal Government intends to implement a dynamic four-part action plan and to create a marine park for the protection of endangered species and sensitive habitats. Six million dollars have been set aside to protect the beluga whales at the mouth of the Saguenay. I am proud that my Government recognizes the priceless value of the St. Lawrence River, which has always been a source of great pride for Canadians and is a living heritage.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, where the NDP was at the time when it inspired and passively endorsed the lack of concrete policies from the federal Liberal Government.


HOUSING
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the crisis of affordable housing in Metro Toronto is approaching the point at which people cannot even begin to dream about owning a home. While the average cost of a home surpasses the $225,000 threshold, the federal Government continues to remain irresponsibly silent.
Surely the Government has heard the calls from ordinary Canadians who cry out for immediate and sensible reforms, and the many recommendations offered by Members on all sides of this House.
Surely the Government has also considered the Downsview Air Force Base, or surplus federally owned lands, for potential housing sites. Yet the federal Government has been incredibly negligent in its absence of leadership. Perhaps it believes in the Thatcher approach of allowing pure market forces to dictate the price.
[DOT] (MIO)
The ability and opportunity to own and live in an affordable home are more than a financial transaction. This is also a question of human need and dignity.
I call upon the federal Government to stop this moral bankruptcy and to move to stem the tide before Toronto becomes a tale of two cities: one for those who can live there, and one for those who can only work there.
* *
*


ST. JEAN BAPTISTE FETE TRIBUTE TO QUEBECERS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: On behalf of the New
Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate all Quebec men and women who will honour their patron saint tomorrow on St. John the Baptist Day. Tomorrow, my Leader is planning to go to the Montreal area to join them in their festivities.
I find it particularly revealing that in 1988, it was only yesterday, with a large majority and hardly any resistance, that the House of Commons finally agreed to the Meech Lake
June 23, 1988

Accord, a document which finally recognizes Quebec as a distinct society, something which Quebec men and women have known for decades and generations, but which will be recognized at last by the rest of Canada. I feel it is a development which should have occurred a long time ago, but it is good that it is now a reality. The fact that Quebec men and women have kept their own traditions and language on an English speaking continent, and that Quebec culture has endured over three centuries, is quite an achievement, Mr. Speaker.


EXTRADITION
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Gordon Taylor (Bow River): Mr. Speaker, the Extradition Treaty signed by Canada and the United States in 1971 is badly out of date. For instance, this Treaty contains a list of offences, and if the offence is not on the list the person cannot be extradited. The list does not contain offences such as computer crimes, some drug crimes, or parental abductions. I recommend to the Government that this list be scrapped and replaced with words like "any criminal act" or "criminal conduct".
The present treaty contains Clause 6 that may prevent the Government of Canada from sending a serial murderer back to the U.S., because that country provides death for convicted murderers while Canada does not. I strongly recommend that this section be removed.
Canada should not interfere with the justice system of another country. More important, Canada should not provide a haven for murderers from other countries.
The present section is an invitation for serial murderers and fugitives from the law to come to Canada. We don't need to import murderers. Out with Ng!

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to welcome our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) back from a highly successful Economic Summit in Toronto. The inroads the Leader has made in coming to a resolution on the
important issues of agricultural subsidies and Third World debt are indeed notable accomplishments.
I rise today to commend the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), for their successful efforts, perseverance, and obvious negotiating skills in having the British Government drop the harmful fur labelling legislation. Our Prime Minister's personal intervention is indeed appreciated by hundreds of thousands of trappers and fur traders across Canada.
As mentioned yesterday by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, our Prime Minister's resolve is a tremendous asset for Canadians. He has won the admiration of our allies and the respect of the global village.
Again, Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your efforts on behalf of the fur industry.


DISASTERS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, three years ago today Air India Flight 182 crashed off the coast of Ireland killing all 329 people on board. It was the worst act of terrorism in aviation history. Of the 329 people who perished, 280 were Canadians. One of those who perished was 16-year-old Mukul Paliwal of Ottawa, the son of internationally recognized plant virologist, Dr. Yogesh Paliwal.
Early this morning, on the third anniversary of the death of his son, Dr. Paliwal, an employee of Agriculture Canada's Plant Research Centre, died of a heart attack at age 46.
Over the last three years Dr. Paliwal had been very involved with the families of victims of the Air India tragedy. Later today a peaceful demonstration will be held on Parliament Hill to call on the Government to hold a public inquiry.
Three years have passed since Flight 182 was blown out of the sky. There have been no arrests. No one has been brought to justice. Some very important questions remain unanswered. There have been serious allegations that the Government had advance warning of a threat. There have been serious allegations that important wire-tap evidence relating to the case was destroyed. There have been serious allegations of shoddy police work, and of political interference in the case.
The Government must immediately convene a Royal Commission of Inquiry to provide some basic answers. Anything less will be a denial of justice.

June 23, 1988
Oral Questions


INNOVATION
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: In the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, during Question Period we had a display of what I think was the most degrading demonstration of Liberal-Socialist opposition I had ever witnessed since my election.
The official representatives of 700 million citizens of the free world had agreed that Canada had shown initiative and should be commended for its Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
The G-7 told us that this Agreement will be used as a model by the GATT, an organization consisting of 93 member-countries, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, I saw some Liberal Members actually cheer when their Leader made some negative comments about our major trading, social and cultural partners. I thought that some of these Liberals would know better.
Mr. Speaker, who are closer to the truth? The crazy highbrow Socialists, the outdated and ill-assorted Liberals, or the elected representatives of the free world?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Three years ago today on June 23, 1985, Air-India Flight 182 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean killing 329 people, of whom 280 were Canadians. The families of the victims of that disaster have had no answers from this Government in three years; no answers and no facts.
Why hasn't the Prime Minister appointed a Royal Commission of Inquiry into this tragedy, and will he do so immediately?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions in this House, and I will repeat it again today, there is an extremely active investigation being carried on into this tragedy by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At no time have there been less than 50 officers working on this case, and on occasion there have been up to 250 officers.
I think it would be wrong at this time while an active investigation is being carried on to have an inquiry such as that
suggested by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, Mr. Atkey, Chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, advised the standing committee that to conduct a Royal Commission of Inquiry at present would be counter productive and now is not the time to do that.


DEMAND THAT ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY BE ESTABLISHED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service erased tapes of telephone conversations about the disaster which had been intercepted, and failed to provide any satisfactory explanations for this mistake. The Security Intelligence Review Committee investigated the work done by CSIS but its conclusions were unsatisfactory. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board was unable to provide satisfactory answers. A royal commission of inquiry was appointed in India, and another one in Ireland, but none was appointed in Canada, although 288 victims were Canadians. This while Canada has established and appointed commissions of inquiry subsequent to other tragedies such as the Hinton disaster and the Ocean Ranger case. Why not in the case of the Air India crash, this tragedy that occurred three years ago?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, the question just posed is basically the same as the previous one only this time it was put in French. I will repeat the same answer.
There is an extremely active investigation ongoing by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, utilizing no less than 50 officers at any given time and up to 250 on occasion. The matter has been looked into and reviewed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is an independent body, chaired by Mr. Atkey, and composed of other former members of the Privy Council of Canada. They feel, after their investigation, that a Royal Commission of Inquiry at this time would be premature and would have nothing but bad effects on the investigation presently being carried on by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, premature, after three years of getting nowhere?


CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and now two Solicitors General, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the RCMP, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service have all failed to provide answers about the reasons for the deaths of 280 Canadians. All we know for certain is that no charges have been laid and that an investigation has been made into the quality of the original investigation.
June 23, 1988

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister once again, was the investigation into the crash flawed? Were errors made? How much longer does the Prime Minister intend to wait before he inevitably has to call a Royal Commission? Surely the families of the victims, on this anniversary, are entitled to at least that.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to repeat for the benefit of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and other Members of the House the evidence given by Mr. Atkey before the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, on December 17, 1987. He said:
We believe that if we launched an inquiry now, we would disrupt the investigation by forcing law enforcement agencies, security service, and individuals engaged in those agencies to concentrate on defending themselves rather than finding sufficient evidence to convict those guilty of these terrible events.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the real reason the Government will not initiate a Royal Commission of Inquiry is because it is trying to cover up its own negligence and gross incompetence in this matter. We know that the Government received advance warnings. We know that this tragedy could have been averted. We know that false affidavits were sworn in order deliberately to mislead a court. We know that crucial evidence was destroyed by way of the erasing of tapes.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it not true that the Government is afraid of a Royal Commission of Inquiry? It is afraid because a Royal Commission will indicate how incompetent and grossly negligent the Government was.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, regrettably there is only one part of that question with which I can agree and that is that yes, indeed, it was a terrible tragedy. Yes, indeed, we all feel and express today a great sorrow for those families on the anniversary of this terrible, terrible accident.
With respect to the allegations the Hon. Member has made, let him come forward with some proof. We have been working very hard and diligently on this matter, and if he has evidence of the allegations, if he has proof of those allegations, then he should come forward in the House, come to see me in my office, or come to see the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to try to assist them in this investigation, instead of making unfounded allegations in the House.


STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN AIRLINE'S SUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General wants evidence. Here is the evidence. The Solicitor General knows that Air-India is suing the Government of Canada, alleging in Paragraph 30 of its statement of claim that the Government of Canada was negligent, and
Oral Questions
because of the Government's negligence its aircraft was destroyed. It says that in the months of May and June, 1985- this is preceding the crash itself-the existence of circumstances posing a threat to Air-India's operations was brought to the knowledge of all the defendants in the form of letters and verbal communications from the plaintiff.
Is the Solicitor General denying here today, in the House of Commons, that Air-India did not provide advance warning to the Government of Canada that there was a threat to its operations, that there was a threat to Air-India? Is the Solicitor General saying today that the Government of Canada had sufficient security in place in order to prevent this type of tragedy?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, in one sense I am amazed at the question of the Hon. Member because he is supposed to be a lawyer and understand about statements of claim. On the other hand, I am not at all surprised by the question.
The Hon. Member should know that that is an allegation contained in the statement of claim. That is not proof of the allegation made therein. No evidence has been laid as yet before a court of law. Statements of defence have been filed by the federal Government. The action has not as yet come on for trial. It is presently before the courts and we will have to await the outcome. At this point there is no evidence whatsoever to support the allegations made by this Hon. Member.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CAN ADIAN WHEAT BOARD PRICING SYSTEM
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. I have obtained today a draft interpretive document produced by the U.S. administration on the free trade agreement which offers drastically different views of Articles 701, 705, and 706.
It says in effect that the U.S. now claims to have review powers over the Canadian Wheat Board's pricing system. It claims that it is conducting consultation directed toward establishing a method to determine the price at which the Wheat Board is selling. It goes on to say that the ideal method would be a public price-setting mechanism transparent to the U.S. Government, producers, and processors.
Can the Government tell us anything about this particular set of consultations and the direction that the U.S. is trying to take?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Canadian

June 23, 1988
Oral Questions
Wheat Board is a very well run organization and has served Canadian farmers very well, especially in the last number of years in the face of international difficulties in sales. As such, the Americans do not like it because we have been succeeding in selling where they have not.
I am not familiar with the documentation about which the Member speaks. I am familiar with the terms and conditions in the free trade agreement which essentially leave the Canadian Wheat Board exactly the way it is. It gives us more secure access to the United States market.
I am sure that the Wheat Board, based on its ability to sell, very much welcomes the ability to compete in the United States away from the political uncertainties which we now have. On that basis it is good for the Canadian Wheat Board and is going to be good, as a result, for Canadian farmers.


U.S. GRAIN EXPORTS-PRICING PRACTICES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the pricing differences which exist between the two countries, can the Minister explain to the House the Government's interpretation of the price-setting mechanism used in the United States?
Does a shipload of grain owned by Cargill leave the United States with a known value on the particular shipment, or is it privileged information for business purposes as that information is on Canadian shipments by the Canadian Wheat Board? Do producers in the United States in fact know the value of the grain being exported in each shipment?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, that is a strange kind of question and I am not so sure it has anything at all to do with the free trade agreement. It has to do with the different ways in which Canada and the United States sell grain. I am aware of circumstances under which international grain trading companies buy grain on speculation, hold it for a period of time, and then resell it.
The Canadian Wheat Board operates in an entirely different fashion. It operates in the sole interests of the producers who fund it and therefore have a lot at stake in terms of how the Canadian Wheat Board operates.
I am not so sure that I totally understand the question, especially if the Hon. Member is trying to relate it to the free trade agreement. I suspect that the substance of the question, to the extent that it is a question, has absolutely nothing to do with the free trade agreement at all.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT PRODUCERS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the whole point of the discussion as far as the National Association of Wheat Producers and the U.S. administration are concerned. They seem to be of the opinion that they know the value of the grain as it leaves their ports,
yet under the Canadian Wheat Board system that is not known. In fact we all know, from watching the data, that we are just as ignorant of the value of grain leaving their ports as they are of the value of grain leaving ours.
The National Association of Wheat Growers seems to have given the administration most of the points in this particular agreement. It seems to believe that Section 22 of their Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 is still in effect and can override any such agreement that the administration might sign with Canada, giving them the power to restrict imports into their country at any time those imports increase. Is that the understanding of Canada? What is the Government doing to change that particular understanding on the other side of the border?
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and
Oilseeds)): Mr. Speaker, the National Association of Wheat Growers in the United States, and its president, Jim Miller, have been critical of the free trade agreement because he is concerned that we will be even more competitive with the United States after the free trade agreement is signed because of our quality of product, our reliability of supply, and our reputation.
The Hon. Member refers to Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. I do not have the free trade agreement in front of me, but if memory serves me correctly one of the provisions of the FTA is that the United States agrees not to reintroduce or introduce measures that quantitatively restrict our grain at the American border. I suggest that answers the Hon. Member's question about Section 22 of the American Agricultural Adjustment Act.
We believe we produce as high a quality product as anyone in the world. We have a very good system of grading through the Canada Grain Commission. We have a good system of selling. Fair access to the American market and rules that will enable us to sell successfully into that market on a fair minded basis will be to the benefit of Canadian farmers. This will be to the benefit of that Member who is a farmer himself and to the benefit of his neighbours who produce some of the highest quality product in the world.


MERIT PRINCIPLE IN PUBLIC SERVICE-POSITION OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians already knew that it cost Secretary of State Lucien Bouchard millions of dollars to buy his victory in the byelection in Lac-Saint-Jean. We thought that was the end of it.
June 23, 1988

Not at all! Our so-called Mr. Clean is now paying his debts. This morning in the Journal de Quebec, he had this to say about ex-MP Clement Cote who gave up his seat for him:
It isn't true that my predecessor is unemployed! In fact, he is now working for the Conservative Party in Ottawa. As I said during my campaign I promised that Mr. Cote would get a job, either in the federal Public Service or at one of the Crown corporations. Our Government pays its debts, and we are going to take care of this very shortly.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he doesn't think it is unethical for his Secretary of State to pay his political debts by violating the merit principle with respect to public service hiring. Is that the new image of honesty and frankness the Government thought it would project after the election of "Mr. Clean"?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is immoral about an individual wanting to secure a job and make a living. If that falls into his category as immoral, then I guess it is. However, I would think that it is in the interests of any individual to pursue a career of his or her choice. That is one of the freedoms we have in this country. I would think the Hon. Member would preserve that.


Jacques Guilbault: It seems the Deputy Prime Minister fails to understand that this job was promised in exchange for the resignation and for the seat. He may find that kosher; we do not.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS-PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Jacques Guilbault: Let me remind the House and Canadians what the Prime Minister said during the last election campaign. On July 16, 1984, he said:
The method of making appointments could be corrected by dramatic measures... We are going to bring in a brand new dimension to them of objectivity and representation and fairness for all Canadians.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Has his Party forgotten about this statement I just quoted? Will we finally know the total amount it has cost Canadians in taxpayers' funds to buy the seat in Lac-Saint-Jean?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about promises. His own Leader went there and promised the Liberal candidate a Cabinet position if they were elected. I suppose the Hon. Member would find that immoral as well.


Jacques Guilbault: He was not appointed beforehand.


Ms. Copps:: You gave him one before he was elected.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact is that a number of changes have been made in the appointments process. All Governor in
Oral Questions
Council appointments can be screened by the respective parliamentary committees.


Mr. Rossi:: Can you say that without a smile?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not know why Hon. Members are so touchy about this situation. If they have any strong feelings about the appointments we have made, they have the perfect right to call appointees before the committee and examine their credentials and talents. I do not think they are doing a very good job at that.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POWERS OF CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to return to the question asked by the Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre.
I have a copy of a document, as does he, prepared for Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. Trade Representative. It is the American interpretation of Chapter Seven of the Trade Agreement. It is a clear violation of Chapter Seven, as we read it. It deals with the trade agreement restricting the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and the powers of the marketing boards in this country.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada stand up for the farmers of this country and protest to the Americans that we do not want the power of the Wheat Board diminished or the power of the farm marketing boards diminished? Will he stand up for Canada and Canadian farmers, or will he continue to sit on his backside?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that the Hon. Member would suggest we should stand up for farmers. The farmers know which Government and which Party has stood up for their interests. It certainly has not been his Party.
I do not know to what document the Hon. Member refers, but it is rather strange, considering the anti-American attitude of NDP Members, that they rely very strongly on American documents floating around to defend specific American interests.
The Hon. Member should read the legislation. If he can pinpoint in the legislation where there is a diminishing power in the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, or pinpoint where the marketing boards are undermined, then he would have a case. But I will challenge him. It is not contained in the Bill. He should start dealing with Canadian documents and Canadian legislation, and stop relying upon American propaganda.

June 23, 1988
Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am not anti-American, I am pro-Canadian.


INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could not even deliver on subsidies for the farmers of Canada at the Economic Summit. Clayton Yeutter's own document states that Articles 705, 706 and 707 would restrict the powers of marketing boards in our country. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada has said that nothing in the agreement would diminish the powers of marketing boards, why is the Government not protesting the American interpretation of the trade agreement which they say will restrict the powers of Canadian farmers? Why do you not stand up and fight for Canadian farmers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation of the trade agreement is documented in the legislation that has been tabled before the House. Why does the Hon. Member not deal with it, rather than some phoney document floating around in American hands?


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Canadians who have wisely saved and invested their money are now becoming increasingly insecure with respect to the safety of their investments, particularly GICs. The Government must take a leadership role and make the public aware of what investments are secure through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, and what is not insured.
Can the Minister tell Canadian savers and investors when their money is safe and when it is not?


An Hon. Member:: Don't give it to the Liberals.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have just been provoked, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is asking me whether I would invest in Liberal victory bonds. Those are not covered by the CDIC and I don't know that they are very safe investments.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, GICs up to $60,000 and up to five years maturity are covered by CDIC, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you for that information. Order Paper!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, the CDIC is embarking
on a campaign, working with the member organizations of the CDIC, to make sure they advise investors in the savings certificates and saving instruments that are issued by these corporations which are covered by CDIC and which are not covered by CDIC.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On the floor of this Parliament yesterday, the Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain went out of her way to try to prop up the credibility of this Conservative Government in Canada. Now that Mrs. Thatcher has inappropriately given her support to the Canada-U.S. trade deal, is the price to Canadians for that endorsement going to be the purchase by Canada of British submarines?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members opposite may not like hearing the truth from Mrs. Thatcher, but their objections won't change the truth. The fact is that the Canada-U.S. trade deal is a good deal for Canada.


John Napier Turner: What was the price for the speech?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The navy will be completing its evaluation with respect to the two competing models based on which model could best serve the needs of Canadians. I will be carrying that recommendation to Cabinet.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Well, Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is very difficult for the Government to have praise heaped on it one day and valid scorn the next.


DECISION ON CHOICE OF SUBMARINES
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Did
the Prime Minister at any time during or after the Summit have a discussion with Mrs. Thatcher about the possible purchase by Canada of British submarines? Did they discuss at that time what should be in Mrs. Thatcher's speech to this Parliament? Again, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the price for that is the purchase of British submarines? Or was the good old mother country simply propping up the colonial Prime Minister of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is a
delight to see that even after that by-election disaster earlier this week the Liberals have still maintained their sense of
June 23, 1988

humour-with the exception of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, possibly.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, both the President of France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain put the merits of their respective cases to the best of their abilities. The navy will make its judgment as to which one best serves the needs of Canada. I appreciate the recommendation of the Hon. Member as to his choice and we will certainly take it into consideration.


TESTING OF LETHAL GAS AT SUFFIELD, ALTA.-1986 INCIDENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence. As the Minister knows, deadly nerve gases used in chemical weapons are being tested in the open air as well as inside the experimental station at Suffield, Alberta. The Minister has stated these tests pose no danger, but Beryl Kirk, the Deputy Director of Mountain Region of Labour Canada, has confirmed that on May 26, 1986, there was a near fatal accident at Suffield involving two researchers who were exposed to lethal nerve gas. In fact the experimental station was evacuated and the researchers were hospitalized, one for a lengthy period.
Would the Minister advise the House how this squares with his statement that the tests at Suffield pose no health risks?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the incident in 1986, I understand that in 1986 a World War II shell which contained nerve gas was found on the range. In the process of decontaminating it one of the technicians had an accident and two technicians were exposed to gas. Both of them were taken in for medical treatment and both of them were released virtually immediately afterward. In follow-up studies, neither one suffered longterm damage at all.


REQUEST THAT OPEN-AIR TESTS BE HALTED
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Minister is referring to the same incident as Beryl Kirk. My supplementary question is with respect to an independent analysis of the threat posed by the field tests of nerve gas at the Suffield range. A professor of chemistry at the University of Alberta, Dr. Mark Hollingsworth, states unequivocally in relation to the Tabun, Sarin and Soman test:
.. . these releases constitute real and immediate public health threats to
communities near the base, including Medicine Hat itself.
In light of the near fatalities at Suffield, and the severe health threat to communities like Medicine Hat, will the Minister order an immediate halt to any further open-air tests of these deadly nerve gases?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, first, with respect to the incident mentioned by the Hon. Member, in one case one technician spent one day in hospital. The technician was given an additional three days off. The junior technician returned to work the following day. That
Oral Questions
is hardly an indication of "lengthy time in hospital" as a result of this. Both technicians are working for DRES at the present time. Neither of them had any long-term effects from this at all.
With respect to the scare tactics being used by the Hon. Member to prevent defensive research designed to protect members of the Canadian Forces, the public is well protected. If the Hon. Member is suggesting we should be closing down this defensive research which is designed simply to ensure that, if Canadian troops are exposed to deadly agents, they are properly protected, then the Hon. Member should have the honesty to say so.
From the point of view of this Government, until the day we succeed in having a ban on all chemical weapons we have an obligation to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces, who are defending freedom on behalf of Canada, have adequate protection against nerve agents which are possessed by the Soviet Union.


THE ECONOMY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister for International Trade. When the Tories began discussions on the disastrous free trade deal, Canada had a 69-cent dollar in relation to the U.S. When the deal was signed last December, the dollar had risen to 77 cents. Yesterday, as a result of the secret monetary agenda related to the Canada-U.S. trade deal, our dollar rose to 83 cents.
Does the Acting Minister not realize that this policy, combined with the trade deal, has already caused a disastrous loss of jobs in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are so many inaccuracies in the preamble of the question that it is hard to know where to start. But what I can say is there is absolutely no connection at all between the free trade agreement and the rise in the Canadian dollar except for the fact that investors from many parts of the world are looking at Canada and saying Canada is a good place to invest.
If the Hon. Member was here yesterday she would have heard the Prime Minister of Great Britain saying that these are the things, free trade agreements like what we have just agreed to with the United States, that will lead to a strengthening of the economy. People are investing here because Canada is going to grow as a result of the free trade agreement. That is the message the Hon. Member seems to miss.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Unlike the colonials on the Conservative side of the House, this Party examines the deal and the worth of the deal.

June 23, 1988
Oral Questions EFFECT OF MONETARY POLICY


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if in fact this monetary policy is so successful, can the Minister of Finance explain why last Friday 150 workers in St. Catharines were laid off from TRW Canada? One of the reasons for the lay-off, as stated by a company spokesman, was every time the Canadian dollar rises one cent, the company loses $1 million in profits annually. Is that what the Minister thinks of this so-called support of a monetary policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on individual and specific situations.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I bet you aren't.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But I will comment for the Hon. Member, that when asked for their evaluation of the local economies, the economy in their local regions, 73 per cent of Canadians said they were pleased or very pleased. Twenty-four per cent said that they were not.


John V. Nunziata: That's the Anacin commercial.


Henry Perrin Beatty: To clear the headaches of the old Liberal Government.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can understand where the Hon. Member for York South-Weston-no, it is not York South-Weston-York West-


Sergio Marchi: York South

Weston.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I keep forgetting. 1 know why he needs an Anacin. It is because he is getting a headache from all the good things that are happening to the country. Canadians are on a roll, and it is making the Hon. Member feel very, very uncomfortable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister about Bill 60 in Alberta.
The Government stated it was very disappointed in the Bill because it gives practically no recognition to the needs of the Francophone community in Alberta.
What does the Government intend to do to ensure that the Government of Alberta gives at least the same rights and
services to Francophones in Alberta as were granted Francophones in Saskatchewan, in other words, that it will translate into French those provincial laws that are important to the public, consult with the Comite franco-albertain, improve Government services for the Francophone community in Alberta and improve education services for the Francophone minority in that province.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Government Leader in the Senate indicated yesterday, the Government would have preferred a more generous response by the Government of Alberta. We have indicated to the province, as we have to all provinces, our willingness to participate in supporting the English and French linguistic minorities in the areas of education and translation. We are prepared to provide the kind of assistance that would be necessary to achieve the goals and the objectives.
As the Hon. Member indicated, we have been successful in negotiating a satisfactory framework agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan. I know that the Secretary of State will be in touch with provincial authorities in Alberta to reaffirm our willingness to work toward a more generous approach to the rights of Francophones in the Province of Alberta.


APPARENT INDIFFERENCE OF GOVERNMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Is it really in keeping with the spirit of the Meech Lake Accord that was passed in the House yesterday for the federal Government to express its disappointment and then tolerate this decision by the Government of Alberta to do practically nothing about providing the services that are necessary to protect its Francophone minority?
What does the Government intend to do, aside from voicing its good intentions? Does the Government have other plans or is it going to tolerate this intolerable situation in the Province of Alberta?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it is a matter of trying to determine who is right and who is wrong. What is important is an indication on the part of the federal Government to sit down to work out a package with the province that would be satisfactory and would reflect the reality of that province. That has been our policy in the past. I think it has worked quite well. I am confident that it can work again in the future.
In so far as his reference to the Meech Lake Accord is concerned, certainly once it is ratified the official language
June 23, 1988

minority groups will be able to invoke the linguistic equality clause. Therefore that would certainly add further strength.
I can assure the Hon. Member, and reiterate and reaffirm, the federal Government's position is that it is willing to sit down to work out a satisfactory agreement together within the context of the goals and objectives that clearly are desirable and attainable.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning the search and rescue facilities available to Nova Scotia fishermen and others. I am sure the Minister is aware of the concerns that have been expressed by fishermen with respect to the response to their needs in dire circumstances.
Has he taken the opportunity to discuss this concern with his colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? If not, will he take up the matter again to determine whether he can find a quicker way to respond to difficult circumstances in which fishermen find themselves, and provide a more flexible system of search and rescue for the benefit of fishermen and all persons who go down to the sea in ships?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for a very good question. The issue of search and rescue, particularly on our East Coast, is a very important one for the Government. I visited Summer-side, Prince Edward Island myself just a couple of weeks ago in order to get a first-hand view of search and rescue and the operations that we have there. I am convinced that with the equipment available the structure that we have at the present time best serves the needs of people in the area.
From time to time, obviously, we will dispatch equipment to specific areas to try to help out as there are changes, in terms of patterns of fishing and other activities taking place.
We also are constantly reviewing with other Departments and within the Directorate of Search and Rescue the way in which resources are used. We will keep it under constant review for the future. If improvements can be made, we will certainly make them.


HOUSING
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Public Works. Given that the lack
Oral Questions
of affordable housing is a serious problem in Metro Toronto now, and given that the Government's tax reform will add 9 per cent to the price of a new home by 1990, and given that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is now an also-ran rather than a leader in the field of housing, does the Minister have any intention at all to deal seriously with this housing crisis?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of that question at all.


Sergio Marchi: Then you don't know what's happening in Toronto.


Otto John Jelinek: The Government, through CMHC and the Minister of Public Works, under the direction of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has taken a leadership role. We have provided more dollars for affordable housing in the country than ever before.
We are currently in the process of continuing to discuss the matter and encouraging the Government of the Province of Ontario, and other provincial Governments, to co-operate in a co-ordinated effort with us. We are hopeful that progress will be made in that direction.


REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON BILL C-l 11
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Government has had a Bill on the Order Paper for some time, Bill C- 111, which would assist people with low down payments to buy a house. Even though there are other problems with the Bill, if the Government is serious does it intend to bring this Bill forward for debate?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to stand up to let the Hon. Member know that the Government has taken a leadership role. The facts and the record speak for themselves. If the Hon. Member wants to aid any progress toward the success that the Government has made, then she would be supportive of the initiatives that the Government has taken in that regard.


BROADCASTING
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications who today tabled a policy statement and a Bill on broadcasting that reflect very much a rejection of the main principles of the Caplan-Sauvageau Report, and those of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Would the Minister explain in respect to her position on human rights why the Bill does not reflect the strong recommendations for balanced representation in Canadian society?

June 23, 1988
Oral Questions
She may remember that Bill C-20 even talked about promotion of equality.
Would she explain to women, native people, multicultural groups, and visible minorities why she has abandoned them? Why is there no strong statement in the Bill as proposed by the standing committee?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, today I had the honour of introducing a new broadcasting Bill, and a new broadcasting policy for Canada, with an additional expenditure of some $250 million in new funds toward those goals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in broadcasting legislation, will refer to those groups which in the past have been disadvantaged. I am referring particularly to women, multicultural groups, aboriginal peoples, the handicapped, and linguistic minorities. For the first time, all of these groups are addressed in the Bill.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, they are not addressed very adequately or as thoroughly and precisely as had been recommended.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF CBC
Lynn McDonald: Would the Minister explain what this new money that she has referred to really means? Is it above increases in the cost of living? Are they real increases, or not? I suspect that they are not real increases.
Would the Minister confirm that her spending plan for the CBC means that the cut-backs, instead of being 15 per cent from when the Conservatives came into office, will now be a mere 5 per cent cut-back since the Conservatives came into office? Is that good enough?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to explain this to the Hon. Member.
First, let me assure the Hon. Member that we are talking-


John Napier Turner: Take her to lunch.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Leader of the Opposition says: "Take her to lunch". I will give him that privilege.
The $250 million is new money. The allocation for the CBC to increase its Canadian programming to 95 per cent, the allocation of $20 million for English-language programming and $15 million for French-language programming, is what the CBC considered necessary. Quite frankly, I did not think it necessary to go beyond what the CBC put forward as its requirement.
In addition, we have put $31 million into the extension of services in the North, to remote communities, and to persons who are handicapped. We have also put additional funding into Telefilm to increase the broadcast development fund of Telefilm in order that there will be more Canadian production in our programming.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be one question from the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to close off Question Period.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the unfortunate decision made yesterday by the Government of Alberta which removed most of the vested rights of the French- speaking community of that province.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, himself a minister and a member from Alberta, the following question: Does he intend to personally contact the premier of Alberta in order to express the dissatisfaction of his governement, and also, I hope, of all members of this House, about the initiative of the Government of Alberta? Will he ask the premier to at least offer the French-speaking citizens of Alberta the same services given to the Fransaskois, even though those services are far from satisfactory? Can he promise us to at least ask the Government of Alberta for those services?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in response to an earlier question the willingness of the federal Government to participate in the framework agreement.
I do not become personally involved in every issue with respect to the Government of Canada. There is ministerial responsibility, and there are processes that are followed.
The Leader of the Government in the Senate, whose responsibility is federal-provincial affairs, has been in contact with the Government of Alberta. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in touch with the Government of Alberta to see if there is anything further that the federal Government can do in co-operation with the Government of Alberta to further the interests of the francophone community.
June 23, 1988


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to give us a statement of government business for the coming week. In particular, I would like to mention the point raised by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), and ask about the Government's intention to bring forward Bill C- 111, a Bill devoted to changes in the Government's housing policy.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be St. Jean Baptiste day, and naturally the House will not be sitting.
On Monday we will call the tenth and final allotted day for Supply. I will be proceeding with a motion, which I understand has all-Party agreement, to postpone today's vote to Monday at 6 p.m., and also to adjourn the House at 6 p.m. on Monday, with a further adjournment next Thursday, which I will address in a moment.
On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday the Government will be calling Bill C-130, the free trade legislation. The intention is to adjourn at three o'clock on Thursday.
My friend makes reference to Bills which might be on the Government's legislative program. If the Hon. Member will turn to the Projected Order of Business he will see that there are several Bills on which we have made considerable progress. There may be one or two that come up.
I	take with great interest the question of the Hon. Member for Trinity vis-a-vis Bill C-l 11. That is something that we can get together on and ask the Minister and his spokespersons to see if there can be quick debate and perhaps put that through in all stages. In any event, I will certainly take that up with my colleague.
There have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you would find, Mr. Speaker, that there is unanimous consent to put the following motion immediately. I move:
That on Monday, June 27, 1988, the House shall adjourn at 6 p.m.; and-
That would be after the divisions on today's vote and after the divisions on any necessary Bills on the final allotted day.
-that on Thursday, June 30, 1988, the House shall adjourn at 3 p.m. until
II	a.m. on Monday, July 4, 1988.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Deputy House Leader if he can explain
Supply
why the child care legislation has been taken off the legislative list of priorities.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The House will be aware that the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) negotiated with the provinces the first comprehensive child care package that this country has seen.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We have not seen anything in four years.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There are ongoing discussions with the provinces. The legislation which will come forward will be enabling legislation. I have the caveat that there may be additional pieces of legislation we can deal with quickly. I would hope that my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party might be disposed to give us quick passage of this Bill once we have the enabling legislation and all negotiations are finished.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodriguez:
That the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and
Economic Affairs, respecting bank charges, presented to the House on
Monday, June 6, 1988, be concurred in, and that the adoption of this motion
shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are ten minutes left in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I had the floor to ask a question before you called it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, and then the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) immediately thereafter.


John R. Rodriguez: I would like to address a question to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), who gave an excellent speech this morning. In the response that the banks had to the standing committee's report on bank service charges, Mr. Macintosh et al stated: "Of course the Government should not force us to provide services free. The grocery stores are not asked to provide free groceries. There is no such thing as a free lunch."
I would like the Hon. Member for Regina East to comment on the fact that the banks have been getting a free ride on the taxpayers of Canada. Did the Government and the people of Canada not allow the banks to write down their Third World debt to the extent of $3 billion, and defer their taxes? I would

June 23, 1988
Supply
like the Hon. Member to comment on the free ride and the free services that the banks have been getting out of the Canadian taxpayers.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for a very good question. For the banks to say that there is no free lunch-of all groups in Canadian society to say that-is silly. The banks have been one of the most privileged groups in the country. They get special rights from Parliament as contained in the Bank Act. They have been allowed to accumulate an amazing amount of wealth and power, especially on a per capita basis, more than the American banks have. We have allowed them to develop into an almost monopolistic position in this country. They were described by the consumer groups as an oligarchy. For the banks to say there is no free ride, is a little amusing. The banks have paid very little and in some years no tax at all on the hundreds of millions of dollars profit. If anyone is having a free ride in Canada it is the banks.
My colleague mentioned the Third World losses which the banks will experience. That is true. But again, those losses all become tax deductible. Even if the banks are taxed at the 50 per cent level, half of those losses will be paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. If one looks at the profits the banks have made and the dividends they have been paying out one will see that there have been no substantial decreases in dividends. In fact, the banks' profits have been up even though they have been writing down and are potentially in a position of writing off many Third World losses.
The type of financial world that Governments in part have created has been to the benefit of the banks. I remember as a youngster working in a clothing store. On Saturday I would get paid in cash. Now almost everyone is paid by cheque, and that is a help to the banks. Low-income Canadians, the young and the old, do not have big amounts in their banks. They are the ones who suffer the high charges under the banking system.
In committee we proposed having basic accounts without charges for certain people. For the banks to say that poor people, old and young people and those on low incomes should not expect something free from the banks is somewhat obscene and shows insensitivity. It shows that the banks do not realize or appreciate the tremendous benefits they get from doing business. Banks do not seem to be willing at all to help share the wealth they have gained by helping out low-income Canadians by providing a no frills, free bank account-type of business.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, does the Member's Party still have a policy to nationalize one of the banks, and which one is to be selected if that is the case? While I am on my feet let me tell him that in 1981 when the Mitterrand Government was elected in France a number of banks were nationalized. A friend of mine who worked for a small export bank in Paris told me that once his bank was nationalized it was told to get
rid of its clients and to take on a friend of the Government of the day who was to be the preferred client. That was done. About two years later when the policy was reversed the Government then told the bank in question to get back its former clients. They were, of course, no longer available.
Would that be the intended policy of the New Democrats in the incredible situation either ever being elected as a Government? Would the New Democrats do that sort of thing? Would the Member tell us whether or not the New Democratic Party has since abandoned its policy to nationalize banks in favour of our policy, which is to try to get a grip on the banks' performance? Will the Member tell us which bank the New Democrats would intend to nationalize?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I understand it was the Conservative Government of the day that nationalized the banks.


Mr. Andre:: It was a socialist Government-Mr. Mitterrand's.


Simon Leendert de Jong: No, the first banks nationalized in France were nationalized by a Conservative Government. With the election of the Mitterrand Government and a socialist majority they finished off the job, so to speak. If the Hon. Member would look at the records in France he would find that the nationalization of the banks was done originally by a Conservative Government.
The resolution on our books concerning the nationalizing of banks occurred when interest rates were at the 18 per cent, 19 per cent and 20 per cent level. It was felt by delegates at our convention that the Government needed a handle on the financial sector and that nationalizing a bank or banks would do the trick. I would tend to think that an NDP Government would not have as its top priority the nationalization of a bank, and I do not think we will reach into a hat for a name. It would seem to me the money which the Government has spent bailing out banks, particularly in Alberta, would have brought us some financial institutions.


Michael Morris Cassidy: We could have one now.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Irresponsibility occurred, particularly because of the Tory Government of Alberta, which led to amazing losses in money to the individual investors through CDIC-


Michael Morris Cassidy: We bailed out foreign speculators.


Simon Leendert de Jong: But had that money not been used to bail out other banks which had money on deposit in those financial institutions, it could have bought assets and we would have had a public bank.
Another area to explore to which some serious thought should be given, which several other countries have, is to have a type of savings institution connected to the Post Office. Perhaps we can make our Post Office a little more viable. Certainly it needs some imagination and some imaginative leadership. This is an option that should be explored.
June 23, 1988


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member across the way would not want to mislead the public. The federal Government did not bail out banks. If it had, I imagine the CCB and the Northland Bank would still be there. The Government bailed out credit unions, teachers' unions and municipalities. It suffered the loss for those. That is what happened. I think the Hon. Member would like to correct the misrepresentation that he made.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. As far as the Canadian Commercial Bank is concerned, many deposits were made by some of our biggest banks. They deposited, in the CCB because it was paying a fraction more in interest, and the Government paid them off.
We have a strange situation. The Canadian Government has a deficit. We borrow money from the banks and pay them interest in order to pay the banks the money they lost when they were speculating. Can you understand that logic, Mr. Speaker? We borrow money from the banks to pay them off on money they lost while speculating in CCB, and we pay interest on that. That, I suppose, makes some sense when you are a friend of the banker. When you are in charge of looking after the public interest and the public purse, I would suggest that that is irresponsible. I suggest this Government has been irresponsible.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to participate in this debate this afternoon. Perhaps I could just mention something the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) seemed to have glossed over a little quickly in his comments. He mentioned the irresponsible actions that led to the bank failures in Alberta, and I think every credible person in this country would agree that, indeed, there were irresponsible actions, but it was the introduction of the National Energy Program, supported by the Hon. Member's Party, which destroyed the economy of Alberta. The economy of Alberta was sent downward before any other area of the oil patch in the world as a result of the measures taken with the support of his Party.
Today, we are discussing an NDP motion to concur in a report of the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee. This is a report which I, along with the Hon. Member who moved the motion, played a part in drafting. I would like to argue first, for the benefit of those following the debate on television, that this motion is particularly inappropriate and unsupportable today. I will go through the reasons why it is both inappropriate and unsupportable today in some detail-


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's totally ridiculous.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I would be happy to take questions from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: We get along so well in committee, why are you abandoning the committee now?
Supply


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I am not abandoning the committee.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You talk with forked tongue.


Harvie Andre: And you listen with empty head.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: There is a procedure of which all Members are aware for moving concurrence in a committee report, and that procedure is provided for under Standing Order 56(1 )(b). Indeed, at any time, an Hon. Member is within his or her rights to move concurrence in a report. However, there has been parliamentary reform introduced into this House, and I would argue that bringing this motion forward today is inappropriate for several reasons.
First, under Standing Order 99(2), the committee can ask the Minister to respond in Parliament to the report. Indeed, the committee has asked the Minister to respond, and the Minister has indicated that he will respond in the House on Tuesday of next week. Since parliamentary reform has taken place, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time any member of any committee has tried to move concurrence in a report before the Minister has given the ministerial response to the report. There have been instances of concurrence being moved following the Minister's response, and indeed, members of the Finance Committee have moved concurrence in a report following a Minister's response to bring onto the floor of the House of Commons the fact that they are dissatisfied or wish to proceed with this argument.
The second reason it is inappropriate is that we do not require an opposition day to do this. Indeed, while I did not raise this as a point of order today, I believe, had it been challenged, that the Speaker might well have found that today's motion was out of order. I refer specifically to Standing Order 82(3) which reads:
Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by Members in opposition to the government and may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and also may be used for the purpose of considering reports from standing committees relating to the consideration of estimates therein.
This Standing Order is quite clear that it is foreseen that opposition Parties may choose to use their allotted days to move concurrence in a committee report which deals with the Estimates, but there is no indication in the Standing Order that it should be used for today's particular purpose.
I indicated that I might have been willing to make such a procedural argument, but I did not because I think it is important that we have the opportunity to discuss this report today. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was the first speaker on this motion today, and in his introductory remarks, he raised another ambiguity which has to do with the motion, and that is exactly what we would be voting on if we were to vote in support of this motion.
The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt indicated on several occasions during his speech that he was seeking approval of the report including the recommendations made by members of the New Democratic Party in that report. One of those

June 23, 1988
Supply
recommendations is that the Government place a freeze on all bank service charges with the exception of those prohibited by the Finance Committee majority report for one year effective on the date of this report's tabling in Parliament. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt indicated quite clearly that he would interpret a vote in favour of this motion as a vote in favour of the recommendations he placed in the report of the Finance Committee. Of course, neither members of the Liberal Party or of the Conservative Party could support those particular recommendations when we put together the report.
There is an argument that today's motion should be acceptable to government Members because, after all, government Members endorsed the vast majority of the report, which of course they did. However, the NDP Member who moved the motion today has tried to take it one step further and has indicated that he views his motion as encompassing his recommendations, and he said so on several occasions.
There is another reason, of course, why I view this motion as being inappropriate, and that is that the House is already seized of the majority report. Yesterday, the Chairman of the Private Members' Business Committee tabled a report in the House indicating that the majority report of the standing committee encompassed in the Bill tabled in my name and seconded by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) would be made a votable Bill and that that Bill would be debated, I believe, on July 12, in just over two weeks' time. Already we can eliminate the ambiguity in today's motion. We can see that Members will have every opportunity to express their views on, and indeed to vote for, the majority report, the part of the report with which we all agreed, on July 12 when this Bill comes before the House.
Indeed, perhaps I could make a comment as an aside, because I see the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) in his seat, a very distinguished member of the Finance Committee. From time to time when he was a candidate, he indicated that he felt that some of the support for the Conservative Party had historically come from the Orangemen of Ontario. July 12 happens to be regarded by those people as the glorious 12th, and I would hope that if we have not resolved the issue by unanimous consent before that date, following the adoption of Bill C-292 on July 12, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides and I might indeed go out to celebrate the glorious 12th together after we take a major step for Canadian consumers.
I would like now to review why the Finance Committee decided to take up the issue of bank service charges and what is in the report, because I believe that the majority report deserves the support of all Hon. Members. The complaints to the members of the Finance Committee and indeed to individual Members of Parliament started to arrive in large numbers last May, and it was not by coincidence that they started to arrive in large numbers last May. One of the major chartered banks instituted massive increases in service charges in May, and indeed instituted a whole series of new service charges in May, and this led to consumers being hit with
charges about which they did not know and charges which they had no reason to believe would ever be applied to their accounts.
The basic problem arises out of a section of the Bank Act which has been around for 65 years. Any person who hears me speaking might think he or she knows what these these words mean, but obviously they do not mean what every layman thinks they mean. In the Bank Act it says in Section 201(2) that a bank shall not in Canada, directly or indirectly, charge or receive any sum for the keeping of an account for the customer unless the charge is made by express agreement between the bank and the customer.
One might well ask how a customer can be surprised if the only way a bank can levy a charge is with the express agreement of the customer.
The reason is the following. For years the only way a person	I
has been able to open an account in a bank or indeed in a trust	I
company has been by signing a form saying that notwithstand-	I
ing what may be in the Bank Act, the bank has the right to	I
change any charge at any time, as long as it is charging all of	I
the customers the same charges and indeed, it has the right to	I
introduce any new charge at any time, without necessarily	I
giving any notification to	the	customer.	I
It is obvious that this can lead to a host of problems. I will	I
quote a portion of a letter from one constituent, because it	I
deals with all four major areas of the bank service charge I report. This particular	customer	had everything that could	I
possibly go wrong with an account go wrong. I quote the letter:	I
Recently I withdrew all the money except a few cents. Now they transfer	I
money from my chequing account to this other account just so they are able to	I
cover their one dollar service charge every month. 1 did not authorize this	I
transfer of funds. Nor at any time was I informed that a minimum balance	H
was required for that account. Since this account is not often used the one	I
dollar charge was not detected for eleven months. This meant eleven dollars	I
less in the account.	H
When this problem first occurred I phoned the bank on three separate	I
occasions. Each time I was told that the Manager would return my call which	I
he never did. They are now refusing to return the money transferred without	H
authorization.	H
The issues that are dealt with in this one consumer's letter to	H
are the following: First, charging fees without agreement of	H
the client. Second, charging fees without notice to the client.	H
Third, unauthorized actions by the bank, in this case transfer-	H
ring money from one account to another without notice to the	I
client. Fourth, the need for an ombudsman. Even when the	I
client brought this action to the attention of the bank, the	I
answer at the branch was; "Sorry, we are keeping your	H
money".	I
Once I made a phone call to the vice-president of this	9
particular bank, it refunded the charges and sent a letter of	I
apology to the client. I think all members of the committee will	I
agree that in order to get simple justice in this country,	H
customers should not be required to write and ask their MP to	I
June 23, 1988

take up an issue with the vice-president, executive vicepresident, or president of a bank, to get back $11.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: It is not very productive-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Why don't you support the motion?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I do support the content of the majority report, unequivocably.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Why don't you support the motion today?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: There is a Bill standing in my name to this effect. I would like to review what is in the majority report because I think it is important that consumers know what the Finance Committee is pressing for. The first area has to do with information, getting notification and disclosure of what on earth is happening. Certainly the Conservative Members on the committee are committed to the free market system. We recognize that the only way a free market system can work is if customers can actually find out what the costs are of the services which they wish to buy.
First, when a customer opens an account at a deposit-taking institution, he must be told the complete list of charges applicable to that account. It does not seem too radical that you are actually told what is going to be charged.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Why would you vote against that on the vote on Monday?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Second, regardless of what form the bank or trust company makes the consumer sign, waiving his rights, there is a provision in the Bill standing in my name saying they cannot waive the rights to protection under the Bank Act. Third, there is established a consumer-complaint procedure, first at the branches, and then at the head offices. Finally, if the consumer cannot achieve simple justice, the bank has an obligation to notify the customer of the right to take the complaint to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to have the Superintendent pursue the complaint on the customer's behalf.
In addition, there is a requirement that the Superintendent report annually to Parliament on the nature and number of complaints that are received by him, and how they were resolved. What we have provided for, in addition, is that when fees are about to change, the bank or trust company, the deposit taking institution, has a choice of how they notify the customer. They can do it directly in writing, in which case there is a 30-day advance period, or they can post notices, prominent notices, in the bank branch. If they don't contact the client directly, they have to post the notice 60 days in advance. This all designed to ensure that the customer has available to him or her a complete list of the charges so that if they see a charge that they do not like, they know well enough in advance that they can move the money to another institution.
Supply
There are a number of practices occurring among deposit taking institutions which the committee feels should be prohibited, as they are against the public interest. The first of these is charging for closing an account after the account has been opened for a long period of time.
It is the feeling of the committee that if we are to have an efficient system where consumers can indeed shop, they should have the right to take their money out of the bank and indeed shop with it rather than having a deterrent-fee levied on that account simply because they want their money back.
The second type of transaction which we found repugnant was the concept of charging consumers for not doing anything. We didn't have a particular problem with charging the consumers for utilizing the bank services, writing cheques and things like that. We did find the practice was creeping in of charging consumers for not doing something, after they had not written any cheques or made any deposits for a year, or for a matter of months in some cases. We felt that these practices should be prohibited. After all, if the money is just sitting there, the bank is earning interest on that money. The fact that you don't cause the bank any work should not be a reason for it to levy a charge.
We have had no problem whatsoever with banks or trust companies charging people who wrote NSF cheques. When we get to the person who deposits an NSF cheque, this person is already a victim a victim of the person who wrote the NSF cheque. We do not feel the deposit taking institution should apply a further penalty on the depositor. If they are going to collect money, let them collect every cent that it cost them to cover the transactions with the bounced cheque by charging the person who wrote the cheque.
Similarly, banks have recently introduced charges simply because the balance is small. We think this should be prohibited. On savings accounts, the bank do nothing. It does not process cheques or send out monthly statements. The money is left in the bank. The bank should not apply a charge to a consumer just because there is a low balance.
In summary, to incorporate these recommendations, we have recommended prohibiting five specific transactions. We have recommended that a basic or lifeline account be established for those of modest means who have modest needs in the banking system. We would allow up to six deposits or withdrawals monthly without any charge for maintaining the fee with this basic account. The reaction of the banks has been fairly extreme on this. They suggested that allowing people to have the right to make deposits and withdrawals-a very small number, six a month-is somehow requiring them to offer free banking.
These are the types of accounts that the banks lived on for the first hundred years in this country. To the best of my recollection, at no time during those hundred years were the banks ever registered as charities.

June 23, 1988
Supply
Finally, it is evident that there will be questions in the future as to whether or not the banks are complying with the Act. Since 1923 the maximum fine which could be imposed for noncompliance by the banks has been $1,000. Obviously, $1,000 is worth a lot more in today's dollars. Therefore, the majority report recommends that if banks do not comply with the recommendations of the committee in the future, they should be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 for the first occurrence- that is the shot across the bow-and, if they continue to repeat within a three-year period, to a fine of up to $100,000.
In summary, I will give my full support to the majority report of the committee. However, the motion standing in the name of the Member for Nickel Belt is premature, ill-advised, and possibly procedurally destructive of the parliamentary reform process because of the timing and the way in which the motion is put.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, will the Member who just spoke, who is an actuary, tell us something about what the banks call balance of revenues in terms of the concept of profits which most of us know? While he is doing that, again as an actuary, would he tell us something about the way the banks create money and, if he is able, what kind of profits this unique ability they have has generated for them?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, the committee commissioned a report from Dr. Terry Thomas, an economist, with the Library of Parliament, on this specific subject. Banks, of course, have available to them essentially two sources of profit. One is the spread on interest rates and the second is service charge fees.
We found that the rate of increase of service charge fees had been averaging nearly 17 per cent a year, considerably in excess of the rate of inflation or the rate of transaction growth. We also found that while the combination of interest spreads and service fees had remained stable for many years, giving a legitimate argument to the banks that as they raised service fees they were decreasing their interest margins, in 1987, the year in which all the complaints arose, there was in fact a quantum jump in the total profitability of the banks.
The combination of the interest spread fees and the service charge fees jumped total bank profitability on Canadian operations by 35 per cent over 1986 and the profit on Canadian operations in 1987 was the highest recorded since we have been keeping statistics. It is, therefore, no wonder that bank consumers were very aware that this massive increase in service charges was going through.
One additional thing occurred. We also commissioned a study on domestic profitability versus profitability on foreign operations. We found it very interesting to observe that while historically the profit on foreign operations had been large and sustained, in 1987 there was a very sharp drop in the profitability on foreign operations which just happened to offset the very large jump in domestic operations. There was roughly a
35 per cent jump in charges to Canadian consumers per $100 of assets administered and at the same time there just happened to be a drop of 25 per cent per $100 of assets administered in the foreign branch. Over-all, the total profitability of the bank per $100 of assets administered was virtually unchanged from the year before.
So there certainly appears to be a case to question whether that rise in the charges on Canadian operations was not introduced in part to offset the losses which were occurring particularly from South American and Third World loans.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disturbed by the comments of my friend and colleague on the Finance Committee, the Member for York Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). He stated in length why he supports the recommendations of the committee and in the same breath said he is going to vote against them by opposing the motion before us which calls for concurrence in those recommendations and makes it clear that this is not a question of confidence in the Government.
His procedural arguments are both unnecessary and specious. I am very concerned to see that Members on the government side seem to be backing away from taking on the banks on an issue which has made Canadians from coast to coast more angry on any particular issue than almost anything else I have seen over the last three or four years.
I would assume that the Member's statement about favouring the recommendations stand. He is obviously undermining his own credibility by voting against this. However, rather than going into that in too much detail I would like to ask him a very specific question.
In the NDP's report we recommend that there should be a financial services ombudsperson who would in fact protect consumers when they get into the kinds of situations which many Members have raised in debate in the House of Commons during the course of this debate. We have argued cogently that to leave the Superintendent of Financial Institutions as the relevant officer for complaints would not work particularly well. There are conflicts of interest and conflicts in terms of functions, et cetera.
Does the Member support the concept of a financial services ombudsman, someone to whom Canadians can turn if they continue to have problems with the banks after, one would hope, concurrence in the report which is before the House today?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, the Member raised two issues. In his questions he explained the rationale for why the motion before us is not supportable. First, the NDP itself would not concur in the majority report of the Finance Committee. The NDP chose to add a minority report to that.
His subsequent question reinforces the point I made in my speech. Both this Member and the Member for Nickel Belt have suggested that support for the motion before us today would indicate support for their ideas in their minority report
June 23, 1988

and the Member has just now asked me to support their minority report. The answer is that I do not support their minority report.
The concept of having an ombudsman, without a capital "O", is contained in the majority report. I support the idea of having a person to mediate, to represent the consumer, a person to whom the aggrieved bank customers can turn in the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. That is contained in my Bill and in the majority report. There is no question about that.
The Member has gone one step further and asked whether I support the NDP minority report to establish an independent office of an ombudsman. The answer is no and it is no for several reasons.
First, by putting it in the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, as contained in my Bill, we provide for the banks themselves to fund the operation. If we establish a separate government operation-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Just like the Conservative Party.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: No, no, this is because the
Superintendent's office is funded from levies on the banks themselves. The NDP would argue that we should set up another elaborate government bureaucracy which would have to acquire expertise in dealing in banks and would have to represent the consumer. We believe that there is sufficient expertise in the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and that by applying the discipline of an annual report to Parliament whereby the Superintendent has to bring forward all of the complaints which were brought to him together with how they were resolved, Parliament will be able to keep its finger on the pulse of what is happening in the banking community by ensuring that if a significant problem is occurring in large numbers the parliamentary committee or the Government can take immediate action.
No, Mr. Speaker, I did not sign their minority report. I do not support their minority report and the fact that they are trying to include that minority report in this vote today is precisely why I cannot support this motion.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan), my neighbour, on his comments today. As you know, in Scarborough we have had a number of public forums on this issue of bank service charges in which my colleague, the Member for York-Scarborough, has taken a leading role. About six or eight weeks ago, prior to the Finance Committee meeting on this, Members of Parliament from Scarborough held a public forum. It was certainly obvious at that time through hearing from residents of Scarborough that there is a need for some action on bank service charges.
Supply
They cited some examples of horrendous problems. I am interested in the proposal of an ombudsman that was brought forward by the Finance Committee and mentioned by the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough. This would provide a third party to whom people could bring their complaints and have them resolved.
Britain introduced an ombudsman a couple of years ago. Has the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee had an opportunity to determine the effectiveness of that system in Britain? What could we expect from an ombudsman in Canada to look after some of the problems that have arisen from bank service charges?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ellis):: I will give the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) a minute to answer. The Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) is to speak next but he is out of the House at the moment. I will give him a minute, then go to the New Democratic Party for the next speaker if he does not show up.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the committee looked at the British ombudsman and we were quite impressed by that approach. The situation is somewhat different, however. In the United Kingdom, the banks themselves fund the office of ombudsman directly. The ombudsman in the United Kingdom is not a mediator between the banks and the consumer, but is, in effect, a person who can make a decision and impose a fairly large fine directly on the banks under the legislation.
While we considered this approach and thought it interesting, we thought we would rather go the mediation route because a person cannot be both mediator and the one who imposes the fine if they do not agree with the mediator.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During his remarks, the Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) referred to comments I made in my speech, that the NDP minority report was part of the report. I want to correct the record and read from the "blues" what was said: "He", meaning the Member from Mississauga, "... did not like the NDP minority report which is attached to this report. I believe our minority report would complete the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs". It goes on to deal with those recommendations in the minority report.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) pointed out, the concurrence is with the report. What was published as a report is the recommendations made by the committee as a whole, in which the New Democratic Members concurred. It was a unanimous report. There was an addition by the New Democratic Party in an effort to elaborate and improve the recommendations in the main committee report. That did not mean we did not concur with the thrust of the report. We are asking for concurrence in the report. The report

June 23, 1988
Supply
itself includes several appendices which are attached to provide information and not to represent a position from the committee. The committee's position is in the text of its report.
I am rather concerned about the comments of my colleagues from the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee which suggest they are backing off on this particular subject. They have shown a good deal of political initiative in this area and have, as in other areas, been innovative and prepared for the committee to take its own line. It has been clear for some time that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would much prefer that the committee do something else than look at the question of bank charges. They would much prefer that the committee simply scold the banks and then go away, to be deep sixed until after the next election, and hopefully never see the light of day again.
The Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) and the Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Blenkarn) and others on the committee are not known for kowtowing to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance. Those Members have taken an independent line on such issues as deregulation of financial institutions and banking centres, as well as on other matters. That is why I am puzzled that their courage seems to have suddenly run out in this particular case, and they have decided not to support this motion to concur in the report of the committee.
It is not true that this procedure has not been done before. My colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt moved concurrence in a report on the unemployment insurance system which came unanimously from the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigrant prior to having had a response from the Minister. Furthermore, our motion allows the House of Commons as a whole to state our opinion about the way the banks have been gouging Canadians steadily in the last few years by the unsupportable and unsustainable increases in service charges. A simple debate on concurrence which is permitted under the rules of the House does not lead to a vote and would not have the same force in sending the message to the banks that they have been singularly asinine in their reaction to the concerns of Canadians as reflected by the committee.
Monday will be the final day on which to deal with the question of Supply and the Estimates. It is a parliamentary tradition dating back to the Magna Carta that the grievances of the citizens are heard by Parliament before Supply is voted. Banking is a federal responsibility in this country and citizens have a real grievance with respect to the performance of the banks. The federal Government has the power to stop the gouging, the deception and misinformation. It has the power to ensure that the banks deal honestly and fairly with their clients and customers. I do not know of another grievance that is as legitimate as that for airing at this time.
I am concerned that the Government Members, most of whom come from the Finance Committee, are continuing an
elaborate web of explanation in order to vote directly contrary to that which they purport to support in the unanimous report of the Finance Committee. While the Government Members talk tough, I daresay they are turning into wimps. That is unfortunate.
It has also been suggested that New Democrats are John-nys- come-lately with respect to this subject. The chairman of the committee suggested that we have tried to jump on board with this issue. The New Democrats raised the issue of interest rates in the early 1980s, and fought on the issue of the unfair retail credit card rates. That issue continues to persist. New Democrats fought on the issue of bank profits. We complained that the chartered banks had made profits of hundreds of millions of dollars but paid no tax on those profits.
When we have talked about the abuse of oligopoly of power by the chartered banks, on many occasions we have done so alone. It is a pleasure to welcome members of the Government in airing the grievances of their constituents on this particular subject, but it is wrong to suggest that the NDP has not been there on these issues for a long time.
I am struck by the absence of a representative of The Canadian Bankers' Association in the House of Commons today. I am looking around the galleries and I do not see anyone from the Bankers' Association. Frankly, I think that is too bad. I am sure if there is a representative here, he would silently raise his hand to indicate that I have made an error. Perhaps there is a representative of one of the chartered banks in the gallery? Apparently that is not the case, either.
Perhaps they think the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) is here to look after their interests in view of the fact that the five major banks contribute $175,000 a year to the fund of the Progressive Conservative Party and a slightly lesser amount to the Liberal Party. When the debate over bank service charges in the spring and summer of 1988 has passed, when this House has taken effective action to outlaw and stop some of these unacceptable practices, I suspect there will be studies at business schools such as York University, of which I am a graduate, on corporate public relations with some awful examples of how not to act. One of the worst examples of corporate public relations, I am sure, will be the mishandling of this particular issue by the Canadian Bankers' Association and the Canadian chartered banks.
The President of the Bankers' Association, Mr. Macintosh, is a man who is well known to many Members of Parliament, particularly those of us who deal with economic issues. He is a man who not long ago had a reputation as being the lobbyist's lobbyist, one of the most effective lobbyists in Ottawa. But he has blown it this time, with what he has said on radio, television and in the press. He has even called the chairman of the committee a socialist, a charge which I can categorically deny. I know the chairman of the Standing Committee on
June 23, 1988

Finance and Economic Affairs well and if he is a socialist, then I would have to abandon my Party, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there will be no need for me to do so.
Mr. Macintosh has talked about the power grab by the Finance Committee without recognizing that under the reformed rules of this Parliament, the Finance Committee was simply doing its job when it took the reference to look into bank service charges. This esteemed lobbyist has attacked the press, particularly the Toronto Star. He has suggested that everyone makes a few mistakes and the press is simply dealing in horror stories. He has not recognized the anger that is out there among Canadians. As the committee put it, one of the major reasons for all this is that there is a whole generation of Canadians of the age, perhaps, of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and myself, who were brought up to trust the banks. There was not a lot of variety of financial institutions in those days. When I started a bank account, it was with the Toronto Dominion Bank some time in the 1940s. I fully expected to stay with that bank for most of my life at the time and did so, in fact, for something like 20 or 25 years until I became so annoyed with the way they were dealing with me as a customer that I switched to another bank.
I have to say that for all the courtesies I receive from the other bank that from time to time I have problems. For me, as a Member of Parliament, someone with perhaps a larger income and more financial dealings than many Canadians, it is difficult to know who the devil is in charge. I also get these quixotic service charges from time to time. I have found that if I go to the bank and pound my fist on the table a couple of times, I can get the charge reversed. I think bank managers have that particular discretion. But that is not a privilege that is available to a lot of Canadians. They feel afraid to do it. They feel they are in the grip of the banks and because they are powerless they feel this frustration and anger which has grown and grown.
There have been a number of cases cited. One of the cases is about a woman who was charged $2 to convert a $20 bill into change so she could go to the launderette. She was a woman who eventually got so mad she called up my constituency office. After this matter was raised the transaction was reversed. The bank said: "Gee, I guess someone made a mistake". But these cases are not mistakes if they occur and reoccur. What is happening, of course, is that the banks are being hypocritical on this particular subject. They have given instructions to the local branch managers to improve their fee income without much regard as to how that would take place. Senior managers have blinded themselves. They have covered their faces and told their subordinates: "Go ahead and do it, but if you get caught apologize and turn it around".
A case came into my office just the other day from a student who lives in my constituency. She had problems with the Bank of Montreal just across the street from Parliament Hill. She gave her landlord a post-dated cheque for her July rent because she was going on holiday sometime in June. When she came back from holiday she found out that the cheque had
Supply
bounced. It had been presented by the landlord, possibly in error, prior to the time for which it was dated. The bank had refused to honour it and, therefore, there was a $6 charge and the cheque went NSF. When the student complained that it was the bank's mistake, she was told by the bank's customer service officer that the banks do not check the date on cheques under $1,000. I deal with that particular bank and they have never told me that they do not check the date on post-dated cheques that are under $1,000. That raises the question of what kind of service it is when those people who can afford to write cheques for $1,000 or more receive one service from the bank and those people who cannot receive another service.
That particular $6 charge was refunded after we spoke to the bank manager. We were told that the charge that was imposed does represent the usual practice. In other words, it is not even a mistake in this particular case, it is the usual practice. How was the public to find that out? They would find out when they were dinged by the bank.
There was another case of a particular constituent who teaches at Carleton University. Without any instructions, the bank had begun to cover the overdraft on their account not by a transfer from their savings account, which had been the practice in the past, but by transfer from their Visa account. They had not even been able to find out what was happening with the Visa account unless they went to the money machine. This was a person who was seeking to manage his financial affairs so as not to pile up a lot of credit card charges, but here was an unannounced change in policy by the bank which hurt that particular constituent.
I have another case which I am still trying to track down. A small business in my constituency deals a lot in coins. The coins are rolled but its branch is refusing to accept rolled coins despite the fact that those coins are and should be treated as legal tender and should be accepted at any bank.
There was a suggestion already cited here in the House. The Bank of Nova Scotia in Toronto suggested it would close branches in areas where there was a substantial number of senior citizens or people on welfare because those bank branches would not be profitable. These persons would have to go to the banks of marble in downtown Toronto, I presume, in order to get service.
We already have a problem in my constituency in areas where there are significant numbers of senior citizens and people on welfare. They find the time it takes to cash a cheque is so long that they wind up in the hands of the cheque cashing services where they pay from 3 per cent to 6 per cent of the value of a government cheque or some other cheque in order to get it cashed. I think it is wrong that someone should pay up to $15 or $18 to get their monthly cheque cashed. I think there is something seriously wrong with that.
I believe that if the banks really cared about the people they are supposed to be serving, if they really felt they had any responsibility to their clientele, after all, they do perform a

June 23, 1988
Supply
service, I would assume, on behalf of all Canadians, particularly as we move into a cashless society, they would not tolerate that kind of competition and would provide a service that was sufficiently adequate.
I have to accept that the banks are not the only villains in this particular piece. I note, for example, that Government of Canada cheques are extremely difficult to cash for cash and that in many cases the banks have a hold of a week, two weeks or three weeks on them because of the Government's own practice in terms of clearing those cheques and passing on responsibility if the cheques are fraudulently presented. That is a problem which could be solved if the banks cared about the people on whose backs they make hundreds of millions of dollars of profit every year.
What we are seeing is where there used to be a relationship of trust people now feel that they are being exploited by the banks and being pushed around by a bank oligopoly.
I have another case which came to me today. I talked to a constituent. It is very interesting that this constituent said: "Please do not identify me. Do not give the details of my case. Do not indicate which bank I was dealing with". The constituent said: "I may need a loan from the bank in the future. I may need my mortgage rolled over or renewed. I am afraid that if I went public with my concerns that the bank would blackball me and I would be driven out of business because I would not be able to get loans on any reasonable kind of basis".
This constituent, who has a substantial income, had a series of misfortunes which I do not need to go into. The result was that about a quarter of this person's monthly income was garnisheed by the bank in order to pay off a debt. Whatever happened, was not the subject of complaint. The complaint was the following. Earlier this year the outstanding amount of the debt of the loan which had been called was paid off because of the garnishee. The constituent went to the bank and said: "Well, would you please stop collecting that money. According to the court order you have your pound of flesh, you have your money". The bank refused. It refused for about four months running, through the late winter and spring of this year until finally just a few days ago matters came to a head. By that time the bank had received several thousand dollars more than was its due, according to the court order. The constituent finally went to the bank and said: 'Enough is enough. If you won't deal with this, then I am going to talk to my Member of Parliament. I am going to talk to the press. I will raise it with the newspapers in places such as Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Something has to be done. This is not right".
The bank then responded. It said that it was sorry. It gave the constituent the excessive amount of money back. It stopped taking the money that was being garnisheed and said: "It was just a clerical error. It was a mistake".
We have to bring such situations to an end, situations in which banks rip off their clients and then when they are finally caught out, when the clients or customers finally rise up in anger, they reverse the charge, refund the money and say: "Well, it was a mistake". That kind of excuse will not wash any more. We need to get away from a situation in which millions of Canadians have to come to their Member of Parliament in order to get redress in such cases.
The bank fee for service income has been by about 19 per cent per annum. This represents a 10 per cent or 11 per cent increase in the level of rates. Banks have been having about a 7 per cent increase in their volume of business. The cost of doing business has been going up at about the same rate as their volume of business, about 7 per cent. They are benefiting in terms of more efficient operations because of computerization, the public not seeing that. The public is being charged more and more and more.
It is as though I went to The Bay to buy a suit and I had to pay $2 to get in, $1 to ride upstairs on the escalator, $20 an hour for the sales clerk for consulting fees while deciding what suit to buy, a charge to have the suit fixed, another delivery charge to have it delivered to my home, and something else when I went out the door to leave the place. That is the concept that the banks have. It does not work in commerce. I expect to pay $300 or $250 for a suit, and those charges are rolled in.
But the banks are saying that every nickel that it costs to run a local branch it will rip off from the customer by means of these service fees. That is not the way it should be done. That is not the way other people do business. I do not believe it should be done in the case of banking as well.
We need not just concurrence in this report, we need support for the concept of a genuinely independent and effective financial services ombudsman who can bring to an end the kind of abuse of power which we are seeing from the banks, something which we have been seeing over the past few years. Let us not forget the banks have a federal charter to fulfil their responsibility. They have a privilege which no other institution has, that is, they are able to create money at the stroke of a pen. I believe that they have obligations to the people of Canada in return for the enormous privileges and profitability that they enjoy because of the charter they have from the Government of Canada through this Parliament.


David Kilgour: 
Michael Morris Cassidy: By voting against this report.


David Kilgour: Whether we vote for or against this motion, which is quite different from the report, as the Member should know as an experienced parliamentarian, is entirely beside the point.
The Hon. Member will recall that this morning his colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), indicated that nationalizing a bank was, I think his phrase was, not a priority of an NDP Government. What rank would it have on the list of priorities? Which bank?
I noticed that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre was shaking his head when I was trying to tell something about what happened in France when the Mitterrand Government nationalized a number of banks after 1981. Was he disputing that? Was he denying that this experience of my Paris friends happened? My friends lived through it and saw what it was like to have political interference with commercial banks. They did not like it. It did not turn out well for exporters. Finally, they abandoned it. I believe, however, that the nationalization of banks was not abandoned when the Chirac Government took office.
Will the Hon. Member answer another question for me since it is one with which I have a personal problem. My bank happens to be the Bank of Nova Scotia, which has done well for many years. However, the Chairman of that bank, Mr. Ritchie, as the Hon. Member will know, has been basically trying to do what he can to stop the free trade agreement. As someone who believes that the free trade agreement is very much in the interests of western Canada, central Canada and Maritime Canada, I take, as I have indicated to Mr. Ritchie, considerable offence with that position. Would the Hon. Member advise me to transfer my account to another bank, or would he advise me to transfer it to the Democratic Party account? What recommendation would he give me in light of this conundrum I face?
The serious question I ask is if it is not a priority to nationalize a bank, or banks, will the Hon. Member explain to us exactly what the policy of his Party would be if it ever took office with respect to nationalizing a bank or banks?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wishes to deposit his wealth in the coffers of the New Democratic Party to help us in the next election, all contributions are gratefully received. I anticipate, as I have told him on platforms earlier, that the next Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strath-cona will in fact be a New Democrat. If he wants to join our Party, that might be himself.
The motion states:
That the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and
Economic Affairs, respecting bank charges, presented to the House on
Monday, June 6, 1988, be concurred in, and that the adoption of this motion
shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the government.
This is the motion that the Hon. Member who says he wants to bring the banks to heel intends to vote against. How
Supply
contradictory that is. I do not know what the Hon. Member has in mind when he talks about how his Government will bring the banks under control. If he is not prepared to support a committee report, I think that his credibility is particularly weak.
The Hon. Member has asked me about the NDP's position on financial institutions. As the finance critic I have been developing and putting forward positions and terms of limiting the ownership of large financial institutions, be they banks or trust companies, including the ones which are presently grandfathered according to proposals coming from the Government. I would hope to have the support of the Hon. Member in that particular area.
We will be outlining our priorities in terms of our platform during the course of the election campaign. At that point we will talk about financial institutions, and other areas.
One of the key priorities that we will talk about is quite specifically the issue we are presently discussing, which is when it came to the crunch the Progressive Conservatives, with 210 seats, were not prepared to take effective action to protect Canadians from being mauled and mishandled by the chartered banks. New Democrats are prepared to take that effective action. We have made a number of proposals in that direction. There is still time, and I invite the Hon. Member to join with us in order to take the necessary action through the House of Commons so that we can control abuses by Canada's banks now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a question, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


David Kilgour: Perhaps I was not present earlier when you ruled on this question, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask the Hon. Member whether a motion to concur in the particular circumstances we face today is proper under the present rules of order in the House. If Your Flonour will advise if that question has been ruled upon, then I would specifically ask the Chair if there has been a ruling, or if I should assume, since there has not been a ruling, you have made a presumption of validity and allowed the debate to go ahead today.
My understanding from people who know the rules is that this motion we are discussing today is most improper under the rules, and we should not be discussing it on an opposition day, or on any day in the House, given the fact that the Government has not yet had a chance to reply to the report with which we are asked to concur today.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no need to hear the Hon. Member on that point. The motion is obviously in order, otherwise the Speaker would not have allowed it to come forward. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.

June 23, 1988
Supply


Michael Morris Cassidy: In reply to the question or comment from the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker has made it very clear that this motion is in order. Perhaps that clarification was needed in order to expose exactly what game the government Members are up to. Since eleven o'clock this morning government Members have been arguing that this motion was improper, that it should not have been put forward, and that they feel it is against the rules of order of the House. For those reasons they will oppose it, rather than dealing with the substance of the motion.
I would ask the Hon. Member to deal with the substance of the motion. Is the Hon. Member in favour of the report of the Finance Committee, which has been made clear does not include the minority report, or does he oppose it? If he is in favour of it, does he intend to vote for the motion, which the Speaker has clearly indicated is in order, or is he going to be hypocritical and confusing in his position by voting against something which he purports to agree to?


David Kilgour: My understanding is that if, under the bizarre rules that we have in the House, a supply matter


John R. Rodriguez: You are reflecting on the House. You are reflecting on the Chair.


David Kilgour: Those rules cannot be blamed on the Speaker, and the Member knows it.
Under the bizarre situation that we live under in this House, if Members on the government side vote for the motion this afternoon, I understand-and if I am incorrect, I hope that the Hon. Member will tell me where I am incorrect-that would constitute non confidence in the Government.


An Hon. Member:: No.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, it will.


David Kilgour: I am fully in sympathy with the position of the Member.
The Member was present one month ago when we debated on this side of the House that NATO was not an important part of Canada's defence, and the Members all know on that side that most of us found that simply preposterous that we were asked to do that. It was explained to us by knowledgeable Members like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that that would have constituted non confidence in the Government.
I hope the time will come in the next Parliament, as they have done in other places like the Bundestag and other assemblies in the world, when there will be a free vote on every matter except when it constitutes non-confidence in the Government, that it will be specified very clearly for all Members what those situations are, and we can get away from situations where all of us on this side of the House who support the report of the Finance Committee as strongly as does the Hon. Member, I trust, would like nothing better than to
support it with our vote. But because of the rules which I understand we operate under in this particular case, we cannot vote for it because we would therefore be voting non-confidence.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Perhaps this is the final round of this interesting turnabout. I very much appreciate the response of the Hon. Member to my questions. I would point out to the Hon. Member that the motion states specifically: " ... that the adoption of this motion shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the Government".
I would also point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that where a motion is put forward by an opposition Party and states quite specifically that it is a matter of confidence, then I believe the established practice is that it is a matter of confidence and should the Government be defeated on that particular motion then the Government falls. That is done in the normal way with words such as "and for the following reasons this House has no confidence in the Government". That can be initiated by the opposition Parties.
Where the motion is not explicit then the Government can treat a motion as a matter of confidence or not. Where a motion is explicit that it is not a matter of confidence then I would assume that anybody understanding plain English would assume or draw from that that it is not a matter of confidence.
If the Government deems a motion to be a motion of confidence then it is a motion of confidence, and it is possible that a motion can be deemed to be one of confidence by the Government, even if the motion itself states that it is not a motion of confidence. I have to draw from all that that the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona has been told by the brilliant parliamentary tactician, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), that a motion here which is explicitly stated by the Opposition not to be a matter of confidence has been declared by the Government to be a matter of confidence.
In other words, at the highest level of the Government, the House Leader or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), heard what the Royal Bank told them and decided to make this into a motion of confidence in order that they could get the Member and his colleagues who want to vote for the motion to vote against it. That is preposterous. Perhaps the Hon. Member could clarify that. I can only assume that he has been told by the Government that it is a motion of confidence, because nobody else would be able to declare it so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


David Kilgour: I rise on a point of order. It should be cleared up that, when I indicated that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had indicated something about the earlier matter of NATO, the Minister had said nothing to me or, to my knowledge, to anyone else on this side about today's motion.
June 23, 1988

The problem is that the last time when the NATO matter was raised, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) gave an interview in which he stated that if we win this vote the Government will fall on a vote of non-confidence. At the same time, the Member will recall that last time the NDP motion also said that the passage of this motion will not constitute a vote of non-confidence. That is where we get into the hypocrisy on all sides of the House, an hypocrisy which is created by the rules and practices of the House, and which in the spirit of the McGrath Commission I hope very quickly we will have resolved.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: First of all, Mr. Speaker, since the period provided for questions and comments has now expired, I would, if I may, like to take this opportunity, as a Quebecer, to wish a Happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to all French Canadians across this beautiful country of ours, and Quebecers especially. Happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day! Tomorrow is a day of pride for all Quebecers!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me to participate in this debate. It gives me a welcome opportunity to discuss a very important issue. I wish I could congratulate the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) as warmly for the way he has chosen to raise the issue. Bank service charges are important and deserve to be considered by the House, so does the larger issue of consumer protection.
I want to spend some time addressing both of these issues. This motion brings up the matter in a way that is unacceptable to the Government. The Hon. Member can word his motion as he pleases, but he cannot thereby slip out from under the precedents of this House. As the Deputy Government House Leader pointed out just three and a half months ago on a motion moved by the Liberal Party, under the provisions of Standing Order 82(9), we have no choice but to consider this a matter of confidence. Therefore, despite our appreciation for the work of the committee, the Government will be voting against this motion today.
I do want to say a few words about the work of the standing committee. Members of the committee are to be profoundly congratulated for their work. They have brought this issue clearly and concretely to everyone's attention. If I may say so, they have done so in a non-partisan way which did not make the issue a tool of perceived political advantage, such as
Supply
members of the New Democratic Party are attempting to do today.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You are making it partisan.


Frederick John King: We know that all those who deal with financial institutions have a stake in knowing that their interests are well served. They are all affected by service charges. It would be an error to think that this is a minor issue, and some of the credit for ensuring that no one can stand aside on it is due to the work of the committee.
Let me begin by looking briefly at the context in which this whole question has arisen. We need to have a firm understanding of the issue and the full implications of any possible action before accepting any detailed recommendations. We also have to understand the recent history of the financial services industry and the way it has developed in recent years.
This Government has a proud record of action in defence of consumer rights. We have consistently put it as one of the goals of our reform of the financial institution sector. Legislation has already been passed by Parliament to implement the first stages of that reform. A significant part of the package contributed to strengthening the protection of consumers, depositors and policy holders. Still further measures are part of the remaining legislation on financial institution reform as has been clear since the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) released his draft of the new trust and loans company Bill last December. These measures will go even further to protect consumers from conflicts of interest and will encourage competition. They will ensure that the present high standard of corporate behaviour is enhanced in the interests of all those who participate in the financial system, which are most Canadians.
There is a valid role for Government in ensuring that individuals are treated fairly. When we look at how that responsibility has been carried out in the past, it is fairly clear that the existing provisions in the Bank Act and in regulations do not go far enough. They need to be updated to take account of current conditions. At the same time we must be careful not to go too far with regulation. Unnecessary detailed regulations must be avoided. Instead, we must remember that market competition is the best way to obtain fair pricing practices.
I want to note that competition has already produced positive changes for consumers in certain institutions. We also must emphasize that disclosure of information is the foundation of the effective exercise of consumers' rights. Disclosure enables individuals to exercise their own rights without having to rely on the Government. I want to return to this in a few moments.
One key element in understanding why service charges are before us today is the recent history of the financial industry. I want to very briefly go over some of the key points in the way the industry has been developing. We all remember the days when there were no service charges for most bank services at banks-at least I remember that. Of course, there was very

June 23, 1988
Supply
little interest paid on deposits because, as we all know, the banks used the difference between what they earned from deposits and what they paid to depositors to cover their expenses.
Those were also the days when you had a simple choice going into a bank. You could have a chequing account or a savings account. On one you got next to no interest even in nominal terms, and on the other you had the privilege of depositing in person and making withdrawals in person. You also had a simple choice of where to bank. Outside the big cities you could go to whichever of the one or two or three chartered banks had a branch near you. In the cities the choice was larger. There might be a branch of each of the big banks near you. If a local trust company had a branch, you might be able to use it for some services. If your province had established a savings bank with a local branch, you could go there, or if you lived near a credit union you could get some banking services there also. But that was about it. The point I am making is that in the last two or three decades the financial services system has changed enormously. The number of choices each participant in the system has to make has multiplied many times. There is vastly increased flexibility, and there is far greater capacity to get the services that you need. There is also much greater competition.
The trust companies, and we now have many more trust companies operating across the country, are into the provision of service and what amounts to direct competition with the major chartered banks. Credit unions have grown in number and are also offering a far wider selection of options. Today as a consumer of financial services, you have a choice of institutions. You are not limited to just one bank even in small communities. You have a choice of instruments. The two or three types of accounts of 20 years ago have been replaced by dozens of types of accounts with different terms and conditions and with different advantages. You are not even limited anymore to bankers' hours. The automatic tellers machines and competition between institutions has brought Canadians longer hours of service, Saturday service and, in many areas, 24 hours a day service.
There is always a price to pay for improvements on this scale, and in the case of the financial system more competition and more choices for consumers has meant greater complexity and a much more elaborate infrastructure. But most of us benefit very considerably from the new situation. I have heard no widespread demand that we go back 30 years. I do not believe that the people want that. I know that our economic health would be considerably impaired by any attempt to return to the simpler, but less flexible, less adaptable, less competitive system of an earlier period that I remember so well. As there is therefore no going back, the question is only about how we pay for what we get.
Specifically, do we extend the "user-pay" principle which enables individuals to "buy" the services they need, or do we revert to a system which spreads the cost of all services over all customers? Or do we recognize that no single approach is
appropriate in this less than perfect world and look for a solution that combines elements of both approaches?
The committee report has left us in no doubt about what has happened, and it describes very accurately the process that has brought us to where we are today. Let me quote very briefly at this point from the report itself which reads:
The Committee is not interested in turning back the clock. In principle
explicit pricing is a welcome development.
The committee has accepted that greater choice must be paid for, and that service charges by and large make an acceptable and appropriate contribution to the cost of doing business.
The committee has highlighted flaws in the system, at least in terms of the requirements for disclosure. It has brought to our attention that the present system does not always work without error or mistake. It has indeed pointed to specific cases where obvious injustice has occurred, either because of individual mistakes or because an institution's system has been too rigid.
The Government's proposals have to take into account that the basic system is sound and not in need of major structural changes. Whatever is wrong will not be fixed by forcing the whole system backward. We do not want to interfere needlessly in one aspect of the sector's activities.
We also have to take into account what in the sector has caused the confusion and problems. It is perfectly clear that the real problems arise from a lack of communications. I say that without in any way denying that mistakes and wrong decisions may have been made, and I do not mean to suggest either that the problem is not real, that it is a question of how we look at it and that a good public relations job will make everyone happy. That would obviously be very wrong.
I do mean that when we listen to the people on the street or the people who have been writing to the offices of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of State for Finance and individual Members of Parliament, including the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) and me, the biggest question we hear is: "How was I supposed to know what the financial institution was going to do to me"? The cry, heard over and over again, is: "I just didn't know".
We can all appreciate the problem. People must know when they have choices, and must have sufficient information to make their choices. They must have the proper information to allow them to shop around to find the best deal possible and to take advantage of the options and flexibilities now provided by the system, and of which the system is justly proud.
This is basic to any idea of natural justice. It is fundamental to any system of free enterprise and free competition. So, as I said at the outset of these comments, we come to disclosure and we come also to the thorny question of the best way to ensure that full and proper disclosure occurs.
June 23, 1988

The Government does not believe that it is all black or white. Beyond a certain point, we cannot force people to learn or understand what they need to know. Beyond a certain point, we cannot effectively force institutions to do things without interfering to an unacceptable degree in their activities. We have to find a way that combines elements of prescribed regulations with good corporate citizenship.
It is in the institutions' own interests, after all, to have contented customers. It would be unprofitable for institutions to offer new options to customers, to attract them and then to alienate them by clumsy or careless provision of essential information. It would be curiously short-sighted for any institution which is based on dealing with people and selling them services fundamental to the operation of our economic system in the long term to write off one group in society or one potential customer.
I think it is quite reasonable to talk about options and possible ways to proceed, so long as we do not talk ourselves into impractical or unreasonable corners. We must not base an entire system of regulation on admitted injustices or absurdities, though we must strenuously work toward a system without such flaws.
We must recognize that there is a great diversity in the practices of institutions, a diversity which benefits their customers, and we must be careful not to legislate or regulate that diversity away. We have to remember that past experience teaches us to be leery of the practicality or benefits of any system of controls on prices and fees.
The Minister of State for Finance has made clear a number of times that the Government's response to the committee report will be forthcoming as quickly as possible, and hopefully by the end of this month. The Government's action, when it comes, will be developed after considering the interests of both the institutions and the customers in the system.
In shaping these proposals, the Government will benefit considerably from the work of the committee. We will be moving as quickly as possible to correct errors in the system and to ensure that the customers of our financial institutions are equipped with the information they need.
I regret very much that the Opposition has made this a partisan issue, and needlessly divided the support this House should be giving to the committee's goal of better protection for the customers of financial institutions.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I want to first compliment the Hon. Member for his well documented speech. I think we all enjoyed going down memory lane about how the banking system developed. I think it is important to remember where we were and how far we have come in the banking system.
The Hon. Member, of course, represents a rural riding, as I do, and represents it very well. I am sure he comes in contact with many farmers, and farmers also complain about our banking system. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on
Supply
whether or not he feels the banking system is better today than it was. Is it as personal as it used to be?
Today, when we go to banks, we have to go through a maze of ropes and flashing lights telling us which way to go, and it seems to me to be very impersonal. We also find when we get to the teller and ask for our balance that the computer is down. Does the Hon. Member think that the services are any better today than they were 30 years ago?
The Hon. Member also has to point out that farmers as a group are one of the biggest borrowers and users of banks, and of course, in the past three or four years, there has been a rapid decrease in interest rates the farmers have had to pay. I am sure the Hon. Member also knows that for every percentage drop in interest rates, agriculture in Canada is saved $150 million. I am sure the Hon. Member realizes how much farmers have saved on interest rates over the past number of years.
The question I would really like to ask the Hon. Member is if he feels that the banks today are as personal as they used to be, perhaps when he was a younger man farming back in the Okanagan.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I would not think that there is the same personal touch in any business today that there was when I was a boy. I can remember when we used to go to the drugstore and were able to go up to the counter and order malted milks. We can no longer do that. We simply do not have the same kind of personal relationships with the people with whom we do business that we did when I was a youngster.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When was that, Fred?


Frederick John King: That was a long time ago. I didn't have any money so I didn't deal with banks. I was so poor in those days, you would think I would have turned out to be an NDPer, but-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What went wrong?


Frederick John King: My father taught me that even though we had little money, there was only one way to get it and that was to work hard and make your own way in life. Don't wait for the Government to do things for you, do them yourself.
I might mention that yesterday, June 22, my father celebrated his 99th birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: Regrettably, I was not there to help him celebrate because there seemed to be some important things to do here. Anyway, I thank the Hon. Member for helping me reminisce about the good old days.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of brief comments with regard to the question that is before us today. I would remind Hon. Members that we are dealing here with an opposition motion

June 23, 1988
Supply
that is not to be considered a question of confidence in the Government, because we want to maintain the non-partisan debate that came about as a result of the recommendations of the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. That committee was able to make recommendations with regard to bank charges that were supported by all three political Parties.
I want to briefly note the kinds of problems that led the committee to investigate what the banks were doing. Here is one simple example. The Bank of Nova Scotia at 225 Red River Road, Thunder Bay, for example, charges 40 cents for each deposit into an account that has a minimum balance of less than $500. Here, we have banks charging customers to deposit their money in their own accounts.
A second example is in the riding of Oshawa. Mrs. Yvonne Mitchelldeck of Ajax was upset because her Toronto-Domin-ion Bank branch at the Pickering Town Centre had charged her babysitter $5 to cash a $45 cheque. Here is a bank charging a young babysitter $5 to cash a cheque of $45. These kinds of shocking incidents is what motivated the Finance Committee to investigate the kinds of user-fees or service fees that the banks have been laying on people as of late.
Having studied this problem and the fact that banks are charging people for basic banking services, the committee came up with some recommendations. I do not want to go into the details of them, but they said that basic banking services ought to be available to people. You ought to have a right to a basic bank account. You ought to be able to deposit money in your account. You ought to be able to have a small balance. You ought to be able to have an inactive account. You ought to be able to close out an account without getting dinged, without getting an extra fee laid on you. Those are important recommendations.
These recommendations really come out of one basic principle, and that is a question about money, whether money is a public good or simply a private product, a private commodity. The banks are treating money-and their services are a part of what money is-as simply a private commodity, that they can sell willy-nilly, without considering the interest of the community, and that they can charge anybody as much or as often as they would like to. I would like to suggest that money is a public good. The dollar bill is something that was established by the Crown. The dollar bill is not some private thing that a banker can go around and sell. In effect, that is what they are doing when they charge you a fee to deposit money in your own account, or charge you an enormous amount to cash a cheque. They are treating the dollar bill as their private plaything. I think that is a fundamental mistake.
We are being challenged on that to say: "Where do you guys stand with regard to the nationalization of banks? Aren't you really going to nationalize all the Canadian banks? Isn't that the real problem?" No. That is a red herring. If you want to talk about public versus private interest with regard to money,
you ought to ask how come banks over the last couple of decades have been able to privatize the dollar? That in effect is what they have done. What they have done is create something which is very popular, something which we all use and that is the credit card.
I have a Visa credit card with the Commerce. They have managed over the last few decades to privatize the dollar. They charge us enormous interest rates for using these cards, using what is a public good.
The central, fundamental question here is whether or not money is a public good or whether it is a private plaything. We ought to congratulate the Finance Committee for waking up and responding to the complaints of ordinary Canadians who are saying that they want to get the banks off their backs and that they want the banks to remember that they have a service to deliver. They are not only there to make a profit-and goodness knows they make enough of that-but they are there to provide a basic service, that is to assist the Canadian people in the circulation of money, and to help us in meeting our basic needs.
I just wanted to remind this House that the Finance Committee was doing the right thing when it started to investigate these exorbitant fees. There is a public interest when it comes to money, and there is a public interest when it comes to banks, and that public interest has to be represented by this House. We ought to vote in favour of this resolution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't believe my ears. Was the Member from Winnipeg suggesting that we should nationalize credit cards? Was he suggesting that we should not have credit cards?


An Hon. Member:: You are privatizing Air Canada.


David Kilgour: Is it also in one of the resolutions of his Party? Would he tell us whose banking system he likes? Is it in France or is it in Spain? What country is it in?


An Hon. Member:: How about a credit union?


David Kilgour: If it is going to be Sweden, because that is always what the New Democrats like best, would he tell us what he knows about the Swedish banking system?


Cyril Keeper: The banking system that I like is the public's banking system. That is a banking system that offers a service to ordinary people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 23, 1988

Mir. Keeper: It is a banking system that does not try to bilk them, does not try to rob young babysitters when they get their hard-earned money. That is the banking system that I want.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: When I mentioned credit cards, I was pointing out that before we had this plastic dollar bill, we had this paper one, which was issued by the sovereign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: We didn't have to pay 18 per cent interest on this dollar bill. This has become the dollar bill of the day. The rates on that have become so high that they are a burden.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: We ought to be looking at the rates on credit cards, not treating it like a private commodity like something you could sell, whatever the price they bring.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you might consider, before we vote on Monday, making a ruling on whether or not this is a motion of confidence. I suggest that only the Government itself can decide whether or not a certain vote is a motion of confidence. I remember, before I came to this House in 1968, in February of that year, the Pearson Government was defeated on a Finance Bill. That was interpreted by Mr. Pearson not to be a confidence vote. He came back before the House a day or two later and moved a motion of confidence in his Government. He specified that that was the confidence vote.
Another thing, when the Government of Joe Clark was defeated in December, 1979, he was defeated on a subamendment proposed by our Party, and the Prime Minister that day deemed that to be a confidence motion. I see in the House now the Assistant Government House Leader. I think the only way that this would be a confidence vote is if the Government House Leader, or the Assistant Government House Leader, or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), were to get up and deem that this indeed was a confidence vote. Only the Government itself, according to our practices and our customs of this country, in the British Parliamentary system, can decide whether something is a confidence vote or not. Perhaps the Speaker can get up and confirm that that is a proper interpretation of our rules. According to our practices I am quite sure that it is.
If this is not a confidence motion it may make it a lot easier for Members of the House of Commons to get up in unison and support this report of the Finance Committee. This report
Supply
was supported by Members of all three political Parties. The motion is very clear. My friend from Nickel Belt does not consider this to be a confidence motion, nor do other Members on the opposition side.
If we can get that confirmation from the responsible government Minister, then this is indeed not a motion of nonconfidence. It might be useful, Mr. Speaker, if you could comment on whether my interpretation of the rules is correct and proper.
I want to make one more point which may not be relevant to the debate. The Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) said that this was similar to a Liberal motion on NATO. That Liberal motion on NATO did not specify that it was not a confidence motion. At that time the Government made it clear that it interpreted the motion to be one of non-confidence. Therefore, that was altogether different than the case today.
Would you, Mr. Speaker, be kind enough to confirm that, according to our practices and traditions, this is not a motion of non-confidence and the only way it would be is if the Government were to indicate in a very clear way that it considers this motion to be one of non-confidence in the Government.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will address a few remarks to this particular point. We have had a very useful debate on the issue of the nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs respecting bank charges. However, I would suggest to my hon. friend and the House that the House may have voted unanimously if my hon. friend had taken the course of action open to him, that is, to move under Motions on the Order Paper that the House concur in the committee's report. That may very well have received the unanimous consent of the House and would have sent the message to the Government which my hon. friend sought.
Second, I have not examined the report in detail as other Members of the House will have, but I do understand that there is a minority report of the NDP included in it which may confuse the House as to exactly what it was voting for. Members on the government side, at least, may not have been sure whether they were voting for all of the things the committee recommended and/or the items recommended by the New Democratic Party.
Finally, we adopt the position of the previous Government with respect to this particular order. We will be moving ourselves on things of this nature, perhaps imminently. We do not want to make history for my hon. friend. For that reason we will be considering this a matter of confidence and the Government will be voting against the motion. Our position on bank charges has been made clear by the majority members of the committee.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Hijacking the private Members.

June 23, 1988
Supply


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This is not Private Members' Business. The Government has a perfect record on Private Members' Business. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) will tell the Member that the Government has a perfect record on Private Members' Business because the first Private Members' Bill to go all the way through the House was that of an NDP Member. If the Hon. Member wants to debate Private Members' Business and how we are handling it, we can do that at another time when my friend has had some time to prepare his argument.
I just want to point out that the Government will be voting against this particular motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To answer the question of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the question of confidence is one entirely in the hands of the Government and not of the Speaker.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement reached earlier this day, the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock, Monday, June 27, 1988.
It being six minutes after five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(2), this House stands adjourned until Monday, June 27, 1988, at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.06 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 27, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers