1989-04-26

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the world famous Laser Sailboat Company of Hawkesbury, Ontario, was forced into receivership, and closed its doors. In March, the receivers and creditors found a purchaser for the financially beleaguered company.
The purchaser in question, Pearson Yachts, at the urging of the Ontario Development Corporation initially promised to keep 20 to 30 jobs in Canada to build both the Pearson and Laser sailboats.
However, Pearson has now changed its mind and will manufacture all its boats in Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Without a foreign investment review mechanism which this Tory Government cancelled, there appears to be no way to force Laser to stay in Canada much less in Hawkesbury.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Don Boudria: I call upon the Government of Canada to intervene and to set in place mechanisms to keep Laser in Canada. Laser is as Canadian as the Maple Leaf. Let us keep it in Canada, and especially, let us keep it in Hawkesbury.


FISHERIES
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the practice of drift-net fishing in the North Pacific is one that threatens both the environment we treasure and a salmon resource many British Columbians rely on for their
livelihood. It is estimated that these nets kill at least one million seabirds each year, along with 20,000 porpoises, tens of thousands of seals and a number of whales. Over 30 different species are involved in this eco-system that is being plundered daily by drift-netters.
In addition to the environmental tragedy, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 30,000 tonnes of salmon are caught illegally each year while fishermen drift-net for squid. This has fuelled a thriving salmon industry in southeast Asia, where a tin of sockeye can sell for half the price it does in B.C. When only half of the 30 million pink salmon expected to return to B.C. rivers actually make it, it is not difficult to see that a tremendous problem exists. In order to get maximum benefit from the tremendous job the Government has done in the area of salmonid enhancement, we should start getting tough with the nation showing a reckless attitude towards our environment, while taking a resource that rightfully belongs to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Last year the Minister for International Trade refused to stand up for B.C. fisheries and shore-workers to oppose the GATT ruling that denied Canadians the right to process our own fish. The Minister of Fisheries promised an alternative protection so that no jobs would be lost.
Bowing to American pressures, the Mulroney Government agreed to conform without a fight to protect thousands of jobs for B.C. shore-workers.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: In Vancouver East alone, hundreds of native and immigrant women will lose decent paying union jobs as a result.
Yesterday's announcement put it in writing. The Government has removed export restrictions on unprocessed herring and pink and sockeye salmon. This sell-out breaks all Conservative promises to preserve B.C. shore-workers.

April 26, 1989
British Columbians must strongly protest the sacrifice of our fishing industiy to U.S. pressures and demand the resignation of the responsible Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SMALL AND MEIDUM-SIZED BUSINESSES GALA PRIMAS -89
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, the first gala recognizing the excellence and dynamism of businesses in the des Moulins region, Gala Primas 89, was held in my riding this March.
On this occasion, small businesses in my constituency, like Servtrotech, Celtech, Techni-Quilles, the des Moulins Restaurant-Hotel, Confection Magi-Ro, the F.L. Group and Habitations du Boise d'en haut, were recognized for excellence in their respective fields.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, Denis Boisvert had the pleasure of seeing his company, Fibrex, which specializes in the manufacture of fibreglass articles, awarded the "business of the year" honour.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to point out to this House the excellent initiative of the des Moulins Chamber of Commerce and its president Claude Hamer, as well as the wonderful work done by the organizing committee chaired by Mr. Harvey. They did an outstanding job.
Mr. Speaker, the Gala Primas is now a reality in my riding and in a few years, it will surely become an excellent tradition for all the dynamic small businesses of this region.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the people in my province are hoping the Finance Minister's (Mr. Wilson) axe will miss a set of spending agreements that help keep the Prince Edward Island economy afloat. Seventy-eight million dollars in ERDA programs expired March 31, and all Islanders, including farmers, fishermen and tourist operators, are awaiting the Government's verdict on their future.
One such program, the Tourism and Marketing ERDA, is a target for government cut-backs. Such a cut would cost jobs and expansion in an industry which is helping Prince Edward Island catch up with the rest of Canada. I urge the Government not to cut this program or any other ERDA but rather to renew these agreements and index them to inflation. Only by such an action will this Government prove to the people of Prince Edward Island that it is serious about regional development.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa City Council, smug and secure behind the protection which this country and its alliances provide for it, last week voted not to let ARMX have exhibitions here in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: I hope I get extra time for that, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Solid support.


Benno Friesen: They did this in their belief of support for peace and respect for human rights. Presumably, in the interest of consistency, peace and respect for human rights, the next move will be to disarm the Ottawa Police Force, an area-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: -that is much closer to their responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 31 to express my dismay about the Government's betrayal of our Canadian dairy industry at the mid-term review of multilateral trade negotiations of GATT concluded in Geneva this month. Not only have subsidies and returns been frozen but the dairy industry itself has been under attack from a U.S. challenge to the inclusion of icecream and yogurt on the Import Control List. If this challenge is successful it will have a devastating impact on other sectors of the agriculture economy because of the precedent that it will set.
April 26, 1989

I ask the Government to stand up to the United States negotiators and to expose the hidden, indirect subsidies that are available to their farmers through feed companies, grain elevators, fertilizer companies, et cetera.
For example, a dairy farmer in St. Clair County, Michigan with 44 cows will receive approximately $10,000 worth of subsidies in the form of feed. A wheat farmer with 40 acres of wheat will receive three tonnes of ammonium-nitrate fertilizer, all paid for by the United States Treasury.
This is not a level playing field but a massive erosion of the most sophisticated marketing system of any country in the world. We lost our two-price wheat system. The Government took oats from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. We are losing our wine industry, and now dairy and poultry are being challenged through GATT.
I call on the Government to promote and to strengthen the Canadian farmers who supply our Canadian consumers with a continuing supply of high quality food.


LA FRANCOPHONIE GAMES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, a delegation from Canada will be in Morocco July 8 to 22 for the first Francophone Games. The delegation will be in three distinct parts: Canada, Canada-Quebec and Canada-New Brunswick. This formula recognizes Canada's traditional participation as a single entity in the French-speaking world and international games, as well as the presence and special recognized contribution of Quebec and New Brunswick in the Francophone community and its institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat the words of Quebec's International Affairs Minister, Paul Gobeil, who says he is satisfied with the agreement because it allows Quebec to keep its place in the French-speaking world and it shows other nations that we are a united country where Quebec, a Canadian province, has a place within the Canadian federation.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the federal New Democrat caucus I move for the removal of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) from Cabinet for failing to bring forward regulations which would have saved the B.C. fishing industry.
The landing and inspection regulations which were brought forward by the Minister will lead to the wholesale exportation of the herring and salmon industry worth $750 million, and will cost us thousands of jobs in B.C.
In the absence of Canadian grading and gutting rights, foreign buyers will intercept B.C. salmon and herring when they are landed. Canada's sovereign rights have been trampled and British Columbians will be the losers.
We point to the fatal flaw in Chapter 12 of the Free Trade Agreement wherein Article 1203 gives protection to the fishing regulations of Quebec, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick-but not to B.C.
The new Conservative regulations will see foreign buyers snapping up B.C. fish prior to proper grading and processing. While B.C. presently leads world markets in price and quality, the new regulations open the door to low-quality grading and processing outside the B.C. industry.
Up to 7,500 jobs are at risk. Entire coastal communities are placed at economic risk. An entire industry could collapse from the piranha-like activity of foreign buyers-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


HOUSING
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it was indeed an honour and privilege for me to participate recently in the opening of Quinn House in St. Andrews, New Brunswick on Saturday, April 22.

April 26, 1989
Oral Questions
This non-profit housing development was built and funded by the Government of Canada, the Province of New Brunswick, and the New Brunswick Masonic Charities and Housing Company Limited.
The New Brunswick Masonic Charities and Housing Company is an offshoot of the Grand Lodge of Free Masons, which was formed specifically with the role of providing low-cost housing for senior citizens. I am delighted to see this kind of co-operation between the federal, provincial and non-profit organizations.
I call upon Canadians to get involved in the field of non-profit housing because working together we can improve the quality of housing for all Canadians.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the new fish-landing regulations in British Columbia are the latest example of the Government's rushing headlong to satisfy, to pacify, to please its American masters at whatever the cost. We saw the same type of pandering on the Free Trade Agreement. We saw it in a similar vein between Canada and France in relation to Newfoundland a couple of weeks ago.
At least the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) has been consistent this time. He is socking it to B.C. the same as he socked it to Newfoundland the first time around. The Fish Council of B.C., the Native Brotherhood, and at least one of the unions find this completely unacceptable. It is no wonder. It gives complete and unfettered access to unprocessed fish by the Americans-not at all what the Government promised to deliver.
It is the latest example of how the Government has caved in to the Americans one more time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I just caught the Prime Minister's attention. He was doing a head count.
My question is on a serious note. It is addressed to the Minister of Finance. On November 10, 11 days before the last election, the Minister of Finance had this to say: "Conservatives have made spending commitments-"- not promises but spending commitments-"in those reserves, we have sufficient money to handle the announcements."
Those announcements amounted to $17 billion. Eleven days before the election the Minister of Finance said that he had sufficient financial reserves to cover those announcements. Then suddenly after the election, and as he comes up to his Budget, he says that we have a debt crisis in Canada.
That is nothing of course compared to the Prime Minister. Late during the campaign he said: "We have dealt with the deficit."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: "You've got promises, all are within Michael Wilson's fiscal framework. Every nickel has been accounted for."
Every nickel has been accounted for. What a phoney- what a pair of phoneys!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What kind of deceitful scam was the Minister practising at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, the Canadian electorate, when he was so free with his vocabulary during the election campaign?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in the lead-up to that same campaign we had 40 promises, which added up to some $24 billion from that Party.



April 26, 1989


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Mr. Duhamel:: What about yours?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They should think back to that time, Mr. Speaker. I know that it bothers Hon. Members opposite.
Let me remind them of the child care announcement. What did we do? We started off at $5 billion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ron J. Duhamel: What about your commitment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Before the sun had set on that day, we were up to $7 billion. A couple of days later, it was up to $9 billion. Members opposite seem to have short memories.
Let me also remind Members opposite that any time that I was asked a question on the deficit-and I got a number of questions on the deficit-


Mr. Marchi:: Your nose grew!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Starting back in 1984 with the economic statement on November 8, 1984, going right through every Budget, I talked about the importance of debt, the importance of addressing the deficit, of getting the annual deficit down each year. I said that that commitment continues. That commitment will continue in the next mandate-


Sergio Marchi: There goes the nose again!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -because we in this Party understand its importance and are committed to dealing with it.


John Napier Turner: The Minister ought to recognize that the Canadian people are going to hold him accountable for the finances of this country. During the election campaign on several occasions, he called me a liar. Before he stands up tomorrow afternoon in this House, let him look in the mirror.


INTEREST RATE INCREASES-ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISES-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has the nerve to tell Canadians that he misled them during the election because he did not know that interest rates would go up. He made so many erroneous statements last year that he forgot a few. Last year, he told Canadians that interest rates would be around 7.8 per cent when he brought down his Budget in 1989. Well, it is 1989, and interest rates are as as 12.6 per cent.
Oral Questions
The Minister did not tell us the truth during the election campaign. Could he explain to the House today why he misled us about interest rate levels during the election campaign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let us not go back and relive the election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will say to the Hon.
Member, the Leader of the Opposition, that character assassination did not work in the election campaign, and it is not going to work here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition talks about projections of interest rates. He knows the difficulty of projecting interest rates. I think that before the Leader of the Opposition laughs too hard and too long, he should go back to some of the things he said when he was Minister of Finance because he was far, far more off-track with his projections than I ever was.
But let us go back to the fall. We had a mixed period in the economy. There were some signs of a strong economy, but some signs of a weak economy. We had a period of four or five months when there was no employment growth. Housing starts were on their way down. We had the uncertainty about what was going to happen in the United States. The election was just under way in the United States. No one understood what was going to happen then. Those are the uncertainties. Those are the unknowns that people have to encounter in making these projections, and the Hon. Member understands that.


Roger Simmons: Your nose is getting longer and longer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Since we started this year we have had quite an increase in the interest rates, and that is what has led to the problems that we are facing today, problems that we are determined to face and which the Party on the other side totally ignored, totally swept under the carpet and never faced up to.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, all that is from a Minister of Finance who in four short years has doubled the public debt of this country from $170 million to $330 billion. I ask the Minister, why is it that he having had possession of the public books of this country, having known what the public debt was last year in the fall during the election

April 26, 1989
Oral Questions
campaign, having known the extent of the national deficit, having known that interest rates were going up, why did he not come clean with Canadians then rather than telling them now suddenly that we have a debt problem?


An Hon. Member:: You'are still a loser, John.


Roger Simmons: Your nose is getting longer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The nose of the Efon. Member from Newfoundland is right across the floor of this House. It is so long from the things that he has been saying.
Let me give the Leader of the Opposition a simple-no, no, we will give him a simple lesson. We will give the Leader of the Opposition a simple method in fiscal policy, something that he never learned when he was the Minister of Finance himself. The Hon. Member says that the debt has gone up during our term of office.


John Napier Turner: Double the money.


An Hon. Member:: More than double.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I ask the Members opposite, why does the debt go up?


John Napier Turner: You tell us.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The debt goes up because there are annual deficits. We have brought the deficit down every year since we have been in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And if the Hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition, is so concerned-the Leader of the Opposition knows what a wooden nickel is because that is all he has been handing around for the last four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has recognized that the high interest rates policy that this Government has been pursuing has a particularly adverse impact on the less affluent regions of Canada. He has urged the Government to offset that adverse impact with regional development assistance. Regional development programs have, however, either been suspended or cut by this Government, not increased to offset the impact of high interest rates. Will the Minister assure Canadians today
that regional development programs will be fully maintained?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member understands that the day before a Budget, I cannot get into things that are possibly going to be referred to in that Budget. For that reason he knows that I cannot give an answer to that. But the point that I want to make is that we on this side of the House understand that the right way to get the interests rates in this country down is to follow good economic policies, policies that are going to lead to a reduction in the inflationary pressures, and that will get down the interest rates on a permanent basis. That will lead to a healthier economy.


CUTS IN PROGRAMS IN ATLANTIC CANADA
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has said that we must wait for the Budget to hear about regional development programs being cut, but the fact is that in Atlantic Canada, for example, regional development subsidiary agreements have already been suspended or terminated in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Those are not programs for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, they are programs for joint federal-provincial funding. Will the Minister assure Canadians today, without waiting for the Budget, that federal support for these programs will be restored and fully maintained?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that that question is any different from the previous question. The answer is still the same.


FISHERIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In today's Canada Gazette there is a regulatory announcement that will directly and negatively affect 7,500 existing jobs in British Columbia.
My question pertains to a commitment made by the Government of Canada in the fall of 1987, following a GATT ruling on the West Coast fishery in which the then Minister of Fisheries made the following promise to me in the House about fish processing jobs: "Fish processing jobs are not going to be jeopardized in any way". This was repeated by the Minister for International Trade last spring.
April 26, 1989	COMMONS DEBATES	967
I have obtained from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans this morning an assessment of the regulations that were tabled today. Its own assessment points out that they will affect the raw material supply for processors which will lead directly to the export of jobs in this industry from Canada. A commitment was made in the House in the fall of 1987 to protect this industry. It was repeated in the spring of 1988. Why has the Government completely abandoned its commitment to 7,500 working Canadians in British Columbia?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to review some of the history of the GATT panel which was brought against Canada. Canadian processors were buying Alaska salmon and Alaskan processors were asking for the same privilege. At that time a GATT panel was brought against Canada and they found in November, 1977, that Canadian regulations were not in accordance with the GATT. Accordingly, in March, 1988, Canada adopted the request of GATT, but at the same time made a commitment to the fishermen and the fish industry of the West Coast that regulations would be brought in, which have been brought in, to land salmon and herring in British Columbia for conservation purposes. That has been undertaken and our commitment to the fishermen on the West Coast has been upheld.


John Edward Broadbent: Just a minute ago, in reference to another question, the Minister of Finance said that the Leader of the Opposition had a short memory. Let me say that this Minister has a short memory in terms of the promises made by the Government of Canada on this issue.


LOSS OF JOBS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA TO UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the promise not by one Minister but by two Ministers, was that the new regulations that would be brought in to protect the jobs in British Columbia would ensure that grading and quality control would continue to be done in Canada. According to the regulations that have just come out, the Government has yielded to American pressure to abandon that and to get rid of those two specific commitments that would have kept those jobs in Canada. It will lead very directly, as he knows, because it is part of the Free Trade Agreement, to the transfer of
Oral Questions
these jobs directly from British Columbia to the United States. Why?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I seem to remember that this was the same Leader who predicted the loss of 200,000 jobs when the Minister of Finance brought in his economic statement in 1985. That is how accurate he is in predicting job loss.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I can tell the Hon. Member that there will not be job losses-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: -that the salmon and herring industry will remain viable on the West Coast. The landing requirements are perfectly GATT-consistent.
I might also say that this is the same Leader who went around the country saying that our salvation in trade is in the GATT. The first time a GATT panel comes against Canada he wants to forget it.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN COMMITMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may not like my predictions, but I have a document from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which I received this morning. Its words, not mine, are as follows: "This will affect the raw material supply for processors". The same paragraph states: "The revocation of the export restrictions could result in an increased number of landing stations and-''please note: "-the export of large quantities of unprocessed fish". When large quantities of unprocessed fish are exported, British Columbia jobs are exported with them. That is the reality.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since it was not that Minister but the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Fisheries who made the commitment in the House that these jobs would be protected and the new regulations would keep these jobs in British Columbia, why has the Government of Canada sold them down the drain?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has not sold out the West Coast fishermen. That is a silly statement by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, and he knows it.


An Hon. Member:: You gave it away.

April 26, 1989
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: He is grandstanding on this and he knows it. We brought in requirements consistent with GATT, the GATT which he supports, to land the salmon and herring for conservation purposes in this country. That goes a long way to help the fishing industry on the West Coast, and the Hon. Member knows that. He is just grandstanding today.


FISHERIES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to direct a question to the same Minister, so I will direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister. We cannot get a proper answer from that Minister who said this decision will help the fishing industry in the West Coast.
I have a statement by the President of the Fishery Council in British Columbia, by the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia and by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers, the three major organizations in British Columbia that speak for the fishing industry. They say that we will lose $200 million worth of products and 1,000 jobs. That is the statement by the industry.
Therefore, will the Government change the regulations and restore to that industry the viability which is taken away by this decision?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a question from the Hon. Member. He and I have debated trade issues over the last two and a half years. I notice that his figure of 1,000 jobs is 6,000 less than that given by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. You should get together on your estimates.


Mr. Allmand:: Answer the question.


John Horton McDermid: The estimates of the Liberal Party have been wrong all the way along with respect to job losses and all these agreements that this Government has negotiated over the years anyway. It is not a surprise to me today.
The Hon. Member is another great supporter of GATT. He travelled throughout the country. I saw him on the The Journal and elsewhere telling us that the GATT is our salvation. But the minute something is
brought against us by the GATT, he is on his feet telling us to forget the GATT and get rid of it. You can't do that.


William Warren Allmand: He never said that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the record. They are not my figures, they are figures obtained directly from the representatives of the fishing industry in British Columbia, the people who know what is at stake. Their jobs are at stake. It is clear that the industry involved finds that these regulations will be punitive and that there will be a major loss of jobs in British Columbia. I point out to the Minister that the Government gave away the right to impose an export tax, which is a legitimate means under the GATT to protect Canadian workers and the Canadian processing industry. The Government is responsible for this decision. The Government must rescind the decision.


REQUEST THAT REGULATIONS BE CHANGED
Lloyd Axworthy: My
supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he take a stand to change these regulations and preserve those jobs?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note what the Hon. Member is quoting because it says nothing about salmon at all in this press release from the Fisheries Council. It just refers to herring. The herring season is now over, as the Hon. Member will know if he knows anything about the West Coast fishery. We have made a commitment to the herring fishing and processing industry that we will bring in GATT consistent measures to ensure that the herring roe industry on the West Coast remains viable. We have made that commitment to them and we plan to stand by it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the gallery of The Right Hon. David Large, Prime Minister of New Zealand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 26, 1989


THE BUDGET
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance is so out of touch with reality that he does not realize that the majority of Canadians, not counting the working poor or those people on fixed incomes, can just barely cope from payday to payday as it is now. How can ordinary Canadians cope with this new sales tax? Does the Minister not feel ashamed of himself to have to lay out $162 for a new pair of Hartt brand shoes when that is the average unemployment insurance cheque for a family for a whole week? He should come in barefoot to deliver his budget because that is how many Canadians will be after this tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Take them off!


Lloyd Axworthy: But keep your socks on, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member would like me to take my socks off. The Hon. Member is making an interesting observation. He is criticizing, before he has even seen the details, the reform that we propose to make in our sales tax system. I do not want to embarrass people who are sitting in the gallery, but the sales tax reform that was introduced in New Zealand some three years ago has been a great success. It has been regarded as being fair and equitable and it has been regarded as being an important element in improving the efficiency of the economy. These are all the reasons we want to proceed with sales tax reform and help the people to whom the Hon. Member is referring.


Some Hon. Members:: Ask him the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am terribly tempted to let the right hon. gentleman enter into the debate. However-


REFUNDABLE SALES TAX CREDIT
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is not New Zealand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The Minister is talking about a tax rebate, but how are ordinary Canadians supposed to live in between the rebates? As well, the tax is on all services so that means that transportation is taxed and handling is taxed. It means that the people who live the furthest away from an industry will pay more of the tax.
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Minister who has fancy luxury Hartt brand shoes how he expects Maritimers and Newfoundlanders who presently pay the highest sales taxes in Canada-in Newfoundland it is 12 per cent-to pay any new tax, especially more of a new tax than other Canadians? The only heart and soul this Minister has is in his shoes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my shoes were made in New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What has the Hon. Member got against the artisans of New Brunswick? I am trying to support an industry in his region of the country.
As I watched the histrionics of the Hon. Member, it occurred to me that we should make sure that acting lessons for politicians are fully taxed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member raises a serious question. He is asking about the refundable sales tax credit. I have talked about the refundable sales tax credit for two years now. I have said that this is an important part of sales tax reform. It will be paid regularly to people in lower income brackets. An important point for the Hon. Member to note is that it will be paid in advance so that people will be in cash before they have to pay the tax.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a matter that is very important to all British Columbians, particularly West Coast fisher-people. There are women who work in the industry as well as men. I must say that British Columbians who are watching this on television must be dismayed because the Prime Minister did not budge in his seat when these questions were directed to him.
My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Today, when these regulations were promulgated, it was noted in the regulations under consultations on page 3 that consultations had been carried out with the Departments of External Affairs, Privy Council, Justice and Finance, all of whom support this initiative. When these negotiations were taking place, New Brunswick was excluded, Newfoundland was excluded, Nova Scotia was excluded, Prince Edward Island was excluded and Quebec was excluded. The only province that was not excluded was British Columbia. Why was that decision made by the Government?

April 26, 1989
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I assume the negotiations the Hon. Member is talking about are the free trade negotiations, although he did not say that in his question. I assume that is what he is talking about. However, this has nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement. This is a GATT panel that was brought against Canada long before the Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated or signed.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, that is why I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs the question. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a public statement in the Province of British Columbia on December 18, 1987, that there is no room to move within the terms of the Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Andre:: This is GATT, Davey, GATT, G-A-T-T, GATT.


David Barrett: For reasons internal-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


David Barrett: All the nonsense will not pacify the people of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to let the Hon. Member put his question. I would ask Hon. Members to let the Hon. Member who is putting his question, put his question, and I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the concern is for the people of British Columbia, not the Members here in the House.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that for reasons internal to their country they, the Americans, were prepared to give the East Coast and were unprepared to give the West Coast. You admit in this statement that it was the Free Trade Agreement-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


David Barrett: Why didn't you protect British Columbia?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should understand that we have been having consultations with the fishing industry and with the Government of British Columbia for the last number of months.


David Barrett: They rejected it.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member may be speaking a little early when he makes statements like that.
I can say that our Government made a commitment to the fishermen and the processors on the West Coast that we would bring in regulations for landing requirements which means that every salmon caught, and every herring caught, will have to be landed in British Columbia for inspection and for grading-


John Edward Broadbent: For quality control.


John Horton McDermid: -and for biological testing. Those consultations took place with the British Columbia Government.


David Barrett: Those jobs are gone, and they disagree with you completely.


John Horton McDermid: If the Hon. Member looks at the press release, he will notice that they are not concerned about salmon at all. They are talking about herring. We have made a commitment to the processors of the herring roe industry on the West Coast that we will in fact bring in GATT-consistent regulations to protect that industry.


David Barrett: Let's hear from the Prime Minister and the Minister. That's nonsense, absolute nonsense. You don't give a fig about British Columbia. You don't care about British Columbia, and he doesn't know where it is.


John Horton McDermid: The former Premier of British Columbia is sitting there babbling like an idiot.


David Barrett: He is the Prime Minister of the whole country, not just Quebec. You stand up and speak for British Columbia. Shame.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
April 26, 1989

Farmers in my riding and across the country are preparing to seed their crops. In the past the Minister has made it a practice to announce initial Wheat Board payments in late April in order to help farmers make better informed business decisions.
Is the Minister prepared to announce the initial payment, and if so, can he share it with the House?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, we have just released the initial payments-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: A very succinct answer. The Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
I understand there is a possibility that there is a tanker floating off the coast of British Columbia. I would like to know the following.
First, can the Minister confirm this? Is there a risk to the waters or the coastline of British Columbia? What action is being contemplated?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I heard from the former Premier of British Columbia that he is very worried about what happens in his province, and I would like to answer the question that concerns British Columbia.
This morning at 11.13 the 70,000 tonne dead-weight tanker, Exxon Philadelphia, was broken down and drifting away from the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca in a northwesterly direction. It is presently approximately 12 miles off shore. There is no pollution and there are no injuries. The vessel is reported to be carrying 70,000 tonnes of crude oil from Alaska to Anacortes, Washington.
Three Canadian naval destroyers which were exercising in the Strait of Juan de Fuca have been dispatched to
Oral Questions
the scene. The current draft prediction is that with the existing weather conditions the ship will drift only two nautical miles.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO TANKER SAFETY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister is aware of the Valdez oil spill, and he is aware of the oil that washed up on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. He is also aware of the two leaks from the Stuyvesant. I hope he is now aware of the Exxon Philadelphia floating 10 miles off Vancouver Island.
Will the Prime Minister show the initiative to have a public inquiry into tanker safety on the coasts of Canada?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we know about the concern in British Columbia and throughout Canada over the dangers presented by maritime oil traffic. We share this concern. We are actively exploring the ways to have public input in the review presently under way.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to return to the question put by the Hon. Member for Red Deer. I may have cut off the Minister. If the Minister wants to complete his answer, and do it very quickly, I will hear him.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question for many western farmers. In order to let Members of the House know, we are happy to announce that initial payments are out. They are $155 a tonne for hard Red Spring wheat, $150 a tonne for Durum wheat, $85 a tonne for barley, and $115 a tonne for malting barley.
People should know that grain prices are improving, and this is good news. These are the best initial payments that we have been able to announce for four years.
If Members on the other side are not interested, I am sure Members on this side are, as are the farmers who will be affected by those prices.

April 26, 1989
Oral Questions


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and it does not concern shoes but intellectual honesty.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said there was no problem with the deficit, that everything was under control in Canada and that his Government was keeping it that way. Even the Minister of Finance failed to warn Canadians of the threat that now exists. The only person who had any intellectual integrity on the Conservative side was the Chairman of the Finance Committee, who said that the new tax proposed by the Minister of Finance would cost $10 billion.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Why didn't the Minister of Finance have the courage, why didn't he do the honourable thing and tell Canadians during the election that his Government would bring in a budget that would come down heavily on families with middle and low incomes, on the elderly and all consumers? Why did he hide the truth?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, these comments are utterly false, and the Hon Member knows it.

The Prime Minister, myself, and other Members on this side have stated warnings on many occasions, starting in 1984, of the dangers of the debt and the importance of reducing the deficit.
Members opposite have not done one thing to give us any support in getting the deficit down. Every time we have brought in a Budget, the Leader of the Opposition and all Members on the other side have done everything they could to stop us from bringing in these deficits and stating that the policies that we were bringing in were wrong.
Does the Hon. Member have anything that he wishes to say about the debt, or is he going to shove it under the carpet as the Leader of the Opposition has done for many years?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time his Government deceived Canadians-it was primarily the Minister of Finance who deceived the elderly in his 1985 Budget-during an election campaign.
This is the second time Canadians are being deceived by the Minister, who represents Bay Street.


Mr. Speaker:: Please put your question.


REQUEST AS TO WHY MORE INFORMATION WAS NOT GIVEN TO POPULATION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Why didn't the Minister of Finance tell Canadians during the election campaign that he would use his Budget to come down hard on all Canadians, in order to pay for the profligate spending by the Prime Minister and his Government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is saying that we misled the House, that we misled the public.


Roger Simmons: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been listening very carefully. The allegation was not that the House was misled.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: During the election campaign, I was asked on many occasions about the deficit and the debt. Each time I said we are committed to continuing the work to get the deficit down because the debt is a problem.
I want to go back to something which the Leader of the Opposition said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Members on the other side do not like me bringing these things forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra has said that we must keep the debt from growing. The Hon. Member knows that the only way to do that is to keep the annual deficit at zero. He has never said what he would do to keep the deficit at zero. What taxes would increase and what expenditures-
April 26, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in two official languages the annual report of Telesat Canada pursuant to Standing Order 32.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32,1 am pleased to table two copies of the annual report of the Canadian International Development Agency for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, in both official languages.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES, PROCEDURE AND PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS PRESENTATION OF FIRST REPORT
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I am in a bit of a dilemma here. I have a report to present, but I am under instructions from this all-party, non-partisan committee to do it with some pizzazz. Until such time as I can determine how to bring in a brass band with rockets, flares, dignity and decorum, I am not sure I can carry out the wishes of the committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Therefore, sir, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Member's Business. I will present it to the clerk with some flair.
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbians who point out the high unavoidable risks of a catastrophic oil spill associated with off-shore oil drilling. They indicate that the small oil spill washing up on the West Coast of Vancouver Island right now demonstrates just what a catastrophe a large oil spill would create if one occurred.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to encourage that the current moratorium continue on all hydrocarbon exploration and development activities in the coastal waters of British Columbia.
I have a second petition from British Columbians. They point out that the South Moresby Park Agreement that was signed by the Government committed itself to spending $20 million or more to explore for minerals and hydrocarbons in the first national marine park. The petitioners believe that this is unacceptable. It would create a precedent that renders the whole concept of park creation meaningless.
The petitioners have asked the Government of Canada and Parliament that hydrocarbon exploration activities do not take place in British Columbia's coastal waters and they do not want the Government to be paying for such activities.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the same Standing Order to present two petitions signed by persons in the Vancouver-Victoria area of British Columbia who are extremely concerned about the growing number of oil spills off the West Coast of Canada due to the tanker traffic.
They call on the Government to no longer continue to finance any kind of hydrocarbon exploration and associated activities in those coastal waters. The want the Governments of British Columbia and Canada to pursue alternate sources of energy. I have two petitions signed here under the Standing Order.

April 26, 1989
Petitions


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I have here certified petitions from British Columbia residents who are deeply concerned about recurring oil spills off the coast of the Province of British Columbia. In particular, they are concerned about the recent spill off the coast on the west side of Vancouver Island and the current problem off the coast of Vancouver Island today. These people are petitioning and beseeching this House to be concerned about the problem and to take some action on it. I hope that the words of Canadian citizens taken in this petition will fall on open ears of this Government and that it will proceed to take some action to ensure the safety of those pristine coastlines in the Province of British Columbia.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by British Columbians. The petitioners point out the dangers of oil exploration and the shipment of oil off the West Coast. They also point out that the continuing consumption of fossil fuels is having a global warming effect. They suggest that moneys instead be spent on alternate energies.
It is with great pleasure I introduce these petitions.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table today, pursuant to Standing Order 103, petitions which have been certified correct for tabling in the House. These petitions are from a large number of British Columbians who are concerned about the catastrophic oil spill that we had recently in British Columbia, in particular the oil spill that is still washing up on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and as we have learned today of the Exxon Philadelphia floating without power off the coast of Vancouver Island.
The petitioners are concerned the risks out-weigh the benefits and that the current moratorium on all hydrocarbon exploration and development activities in the coastal waters of British Columbia never occur and the present moratorium be made a permanent one.
Mr. Speaker, I have several thousand petitions that have been provided to me from residents all over British Columbia asking the federal Government to continue in perpetuity the moratorium on off-shore oil exploration and development in the Canadian Pacific. The reasons
being that it would be unavoidable are that there would be a catastrophic oil spill associated with off-shore drilling and extractions on the seismicly active, storm-swept high energy coast off Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Sound. They also point out that even the small oil spill that has hit and is continuing to hit the West Coast of Vancouver Island vividly demonstrates what a large oil spill would do to the sea life there.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want in any way to restrict Members from presenting petitions, but Hon. Members will be reminded that a short statement describing the petitions is sufficient. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have petitions with over 1,000 names on them from Vancouver, Vernon, Port Coquitlam, Burnaby and North Vancouver, British Columbia.
They are also extremely concerned about the recent oil spills off the West Coast of Vancouver Island in January, and the devastating consequence that oil spills have for seabirds and sea life, not to mention the lives of thousands of natives and non-native residents living along that coast. They ask that since the risks outweigh the benefits that there be a moratorium on exploration and development activities in the coastal waters off B.C., that the money instead go toward promotion of energy conservation and ultimate energy.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents in my riding from Port Moody, British Columbia, including the mayor and alderman. The petition notes the recent oil spilled in the ocean off Washington coast and the fact that the British Columbia coastline has been despoiled from Sooke to Cape Scott as a result of this oil spill.
The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to formulate plans and responsibilities for clean-up of all types of oil spills on open waters, including negotiating with the United States of America for a bilateral agreement, and that the date of July 1, Canada Day, be given for completion of that agreement. Further, that regulatory controls be developed for oil tankers and oil rigs which would serve to prevent such spills from re-occurring.
April 26, 1989

I agree with the petitioners and I would like to present it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is very conscious that on this important matter there are a number of petitions being presented today, and there may well be more. I draw Members' attention to the rules which bind us all. I am reading from the annotated Standing Rules.
When presenting a petition during Routine Proceedings, the Member may make a brief summary of the Prayer of the petition, state the parties from whom it comes and the number of signatures it contains, but may not make a speech or enter into debate on or in relation to the petition. The Member should also indicate that the petition has been certified in order, pursuant to the Standing Orders.
I would ask Hon. Members to co-operate with the Chair in this regard.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table two petitions that ask the Government of Canada to give priority to the health of all Canadians by asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to cancel the construction of two nuclear submarines and instead to invest the money in research to cure diseases.
Two petitions come from the Haitian Association, Salvadorans, Chilians and the local community service centre and another petition is from a women's group in my riding of Saint-Laurent.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have a petition from 59 petitioners with regard to the proposed sales tax on music lessons. They have asked that the Parliament of Canada not consider music studies for addition to the sales tax because they consider them as an educational process and therefore music education should be exempt from the proposed sales tax.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by several hundred members of the Province of British Columbia in which they express their concerns about the risk of catastrophic oil spills on the West
Petitions
Coast, and in particular, the spill that took place and affected my riding in January of 1989. They call on the Government of Canada and British Columbia to extend the moratorium on oil drilling off the West Coast indefinitely in order to avoid further damage to the coast.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from some of the residents of Kingston and the Islands, wherein they recite the fact that in 1986 the Government accepted a report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of this House, recommending that an amendment be made to the Canadian Human Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of the federal jurisdiction, and requesting the Government and this House to proceed with amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act in accordance with the report of the committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to this House from residents of British Columbia who are concerned over this Government's approach and attitude toward future hydrocarbon exploration off the coast of British Columbia.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and the honour to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 that have been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. The petitioners, all who are residents of British Columbia, raise concerns about large scale oil pollution on the West Coast, having experienced, unfortunately, a number of incidents over the last little while, and call for very specific action by this Parliament and by the Government of Canada to protect them.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to place before you a petition from people who live in British Columbia who have expressed concern about the oil spills off our beautiful coastline, and who have also expressed concerns about the impact on the livelihood of not only the people who work in British Columbia and on those coastlines but in fact the wildlife and marine life on those coastlines.

April 26, 1989
Petitions
The petition calls for a moratorium on the hydrocarbon exploration. It has been certified by the Clerk.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from British Columbia residents of the lower mainland who share the concern of my constituents regarding the so-called small oil spill that washed up on the British Columbia coast in January. The events of today once again demonstrate the reason for the concerns of these people. I ask the Government to please use any funds that are going to be used for development for alternative and sustainable and environmentally benign sources of energy.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to present these petitions under Standing Order 36. The petitions have been certified and the people who have signed this petition come from British Columbia, from Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby and Coquitlam. They are asking that the federal Government continue in perpetuity the moratorium on offshore oil exploration and development in the Canadian Pacific off B.C. They are very concerned about the effects of the devastating oil spill, what has happened to the coastline in B.C., and they are taking their right in bringing these petitions to Parliament.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, as a Party person who grew up in British Columbia, the north part of the Saanich Peninsula, it is a particular pleasure for me to stand in the House today and present this petition on behalf of the people of British Columbia who are well aware of the damage which the oil spills have caused, and are asking that there be a moratorium placed on the offshore exploration of hydrocarbons in perpetuity and that the federal Government give a promise to the people of British Columbia that that will be the case.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour and privilege to present a petition
signed by several hundred residents of Vancouver Island. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I have a sister and brother-inlaw who live on that island. The petitioners wish to remind Members of the House of the dangers of oil spills on the West Coast and particularly around Vancouver Island. The petitioners ask that the money currently being spent by the federal Government to subsidize offshore oil drilling on the Pacific coast be used instead to promote energy conservation and the development and use of alternate sustainable and environmentally benign sources of energy.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 75 people, a petition which has been duly certified by the Clerk. They are people from parts of British Columbia and Ontario who point to the great risks of oil exploration and development on the West Coast, and the underlining of that by the oil spill washing up still on Vancouver Island. They also point to the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels to protect the atmosphere.
They petition that the Government promise to discontinue all subsidy to oil exploration and development on the West Coast and to use the money instead for the development of renewable energy sources.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present under the provisions of Standing Order 36 a petition from numerous residents of the Province of British Columbia. The petition has been certified to be in order by the Clerk of Petitions.
It is a petition asking the federal Government to continue in perpetuity a moratorium on offshore oil exploration and development in the Canadian Pacific.
I would just say briefly that it is a shame that the Governments of the day did not listen to the then Government of the Province of British Columbia. If they had they would not have this kind of mess to put up with at this time.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition sent to me from farmers in west central Saskatchewan which has been duly certified.
April 26, 1989

They are critical of the Government's decision to remove oats from the marketing jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, something which they say will severely reduce their income. They petition Parliament not only to reject the Government's decision to leave oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board but to place the marketing of canola under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board as well.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. It has been confirmed to be in order.
It is from residents of Vancouver with regard to oil spills off the West Coast. The petitioners believe that the risks outweigh the benefits. They ask that the current moratorium continue on hydrocarbon exploration and development activities in the coastal waters of British Columbia. They ask that the Canadian Government indicate to industry that this moratorium will not be lifted in the future.
They further ask that the money currently being spent by the federal Government to subsidize offshore oil drilling on the Pacific coast be used instead for the promotion of energy conservation and the development and use of alternate sustainable environmentally benign sources of energy.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to join with my colleagues in presenting a petition on the subject of a moratorium on offshore oil exploration and development.
The petition is signed by a number of residents from British Columbia. It has been duly certified by the Clerk.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Perhaps I would have been recognized earlier had I confessed to being a relative of one having lived in British Columbia.
I have a petition here that is duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions as is appropriate in the circumstances. The petition comes from about 200 citizens of British Columbia. They do not speak just for British Columbia. British Columbians often foretell the concern of Canadians all across the land on environmental questions.
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: This petition asks that there be a moratorium on all hydrocarbon exploration and development activities in the coastal waters off British Columbia and that the Canadian Government indicate to industry that this moratorium will not be lifted in the future. Further, they ask that the money currently being spent by the federal Government to subsidize offshore oil drilling off the Pacific coast be used instead to promote energy conservation and the development and use of alternate sustainable and environmentally benign sources of energy.
That is a point of view to which all Canadians could agree.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, although I must admit that I have only been to Vancouver once and that I never really had the opportunity to see the beautiful shoreline, I would like to have that opportunity some day.
I too rise with honour as is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 would like to submit to the House a petition duly certified and signed by a number of residents of British Columbia.
They ask that the current moratorium continue on all hydrocarbon exploration and development activities in the coastal waters of British Columbia and that the Canadian Government indicate to industry that this moratorium will not be lifted in the future.


Mr. Jim KarpofT (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the pleasure of rising to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. It has been duly certified.
This is a petition signed by a large number of British Columbia residents, several hundred of them. Many of them are from my riding of Surrey North. They express their concern about the continued problems of oil pollution on our West Coast,the threat that that has to our marine life, to tourism, and to the jobs and livelihood of a large number of British Columbians. They request that the federal Government and the other Governments continue the moratorium on hydrocarbon exploration and development. I concur with their request.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 with a petition which is my honour and pleasure to present.

April 26, 1989
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
The petition points out that there are high unavoidable risks of a catastrophic oil spill associated with offshore oil drilling and extraction on the seismically active storm swept high energy coast off Vancouver Island in the Hecate Strait in the Queen Charlotte Sound. They ask that the current moratorium continue on all hydrocarbon exploration and development. They state that the risks far outweigh the benefits. I concur in that and am pleased to present this petition.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am veiy pleased to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of residents of western Canada, particularly residents of the West Coast.
They point out the high unavoidable risks of a catastrophic oil spill associated with offshore oil drilling. They call upon the Government to extend the current moratorium on all hydrocarbon exploration and development activities in the coastal waters of British Columbia. Further, they ask that the money currently being spent by the federal Government subsidizing offshore oil drilling on the Pacific coast be used instead to promote energy conservation and the development of alternate sustainable and environmentally benign sources of energy-


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Vancouver area who also have a concern with respect to oil spills on the West Coast of British Columbia. They request a moratorium on all future drilling and hydrocarbon exploration in favour of more economically and environmentally sound measures.



POINT OF ORDER


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a correction to Hansard.
On Friday, April 14, 1989, as reported at page 520 of Hansard it is indicated that I put a question to the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) with respect to capital punishment. It is a question which purports to favour capital punishment.
It was not me who asked the question but another Hon. Member. I believe it was the Hon. Member from Lethbridge. I would ask that this be corrected on the record.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.




Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order since the Government House Leader is in his place.
During Question Period we all appreciated hearing statements by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer). However, I would suggest that since under Routine Proceedings there is an opportunity for Ministers to make statements, it would be a good idea for Ministers to make a statement during that time rather than using Question Period. Obviously, these were not legitimate questions.
However, as I say, we did appreciate the fact that the Ministers took the time to make a statement in the House. I am suggesting that next time perhaps this should be done under Routine Proceedings where it would be more appropriately received.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. There were two questions asked. We only get two on this side, and sometimes not that many. They were considered to be of sufficient importance, just as my hon. friend considers the topic of their question to be of considerable importance, that they should have been asked during Question Period. In fact, we on our side were quite shocked that the Member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) did not see fit to rise and ask a question about that very serious matter occurring down on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. We wanted to get it out to reassure the people of British Columbia that we were taking care of the matter.
April 26, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) on the same point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. I do want to point out that the Member from Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the environmental spokesperson for the Party, actually did raise that question. The Government was complaining that they had two questioners during Question Period. We also had two questioners during Question Period. We are an opposition Party, and Question Period is, if you like, set aside for opposition Members to ask questions. If he is complaining that he only had two of his Members, who actually probably should not be asking questions, I am saying that the reason we are concerned is that we want the Ministers to be making statements, but making them at the appropriate time.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to suggest very courteously that one of the ways of correcting that is to shut down the amount of time a question takes; then you get more questions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on April 13 last I had the honour of tabling the Government's Bill to enhance the service charge disclosure provisions of the Bank Act. Unlike the predecessor Bill, which applied only to personal accounts, Bill C-9 applies to both business and personal accounts on deposit at chartered banks. This policy was developed in co-operation with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Valcourt) and incorporates measures proposed in consultation with small business and bank representatives. It also responds to many of the recommendations put forth by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. The committee helped focus attention on changes in the
Bank Act
banking industry that left many Canadians surprised by unexpected service charges.

Mr. Speaker, the changes provided in Bill C-9 are based on four premises: first, individuals and companies must be able to make enlightened decisions and compare prices to choose the accounts and institutions that best meet their needs; second, Canadians are entitled to receive reasonable advance notice before new or additional charges are imposed on their deposit accounts; third, customers wishing to complain about service charges must know that a mechanism for this exists both within the bank and with the Government and that they can have access to it.
Competition, not regulation is the best way to guarantee a fair and reasonable approach to establishing prices.
By applying these principles to the Bill, we have made substantial progress towards increasing consumer protection. The provisions of Bill C-9 represent a considerable improvement in the standards to be observed by banks with respect to notice and disclosure of charges to their customers in Canada.

First, in deciding where to do their banking, consumers will be in the best position ever to shop around. Each bank will be required to make available brochures of service charges for their various accounts. A brochure will be available for personal accounts and for business accounts. With such information readily available, consumers will be in a position to choose accounts and institutions that best meet their needs. In addition, for all other kinds of charges, where standard ones exist, the public will have access to a list of all such charges. This requirement, which was one of the major objectives of small business groups, represents a substantial improvement over the previous Bill.
A second major area of enhanced disclosure takes place when a customer chooses his or her accounts.

New customers will first receive a copy of the agreement they have signed, a list of all service charges applicable to their type of account, information respecting the bank's procedures for notifying them of any increase in charges, and information on the bank's procedures relating to complaints.

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to changes in related charges has also improved. The bank may not introduce any changes in the charges it applies to a customer's account without giving the customer 30 day's notice. Customers who have accounts with passbooks and, as a result, do not receive monthly statements in the mail, will be advised at least 60 days in advance of any changes in charges by means of signs posted in full view at their branches.
The provisions of this Bill also allow for the fact that in recent years, there has been a increasing tendency among Canadians to use automatic tellers. As a result, banks will have to notify their customers at these outlets of any changes in the charges applied to their accounts.
I would now like to discuss the second major objective of this Bill, which is to provide for complaint mechanisms.
For the first time, banks are obliged to establish a procedure for dealing with customer complaints and to have such procedures approved by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
The banks will also have to designate an administrator or employee who will be responsible for implementing the general complaints procedure and to appoint at least one employee who will receive complaints from the public. Finally, banks will also have to post a notice to inform customers of their right to file complaints with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, if the banks are unable to deal with the problem themselves. The name, address and telephone number of the resource person at the Office will also be posted.

This Government continues to monitor service charge practices and is ensuring that Canadians are able to resolve their account-related problems. As part of that process and to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to assess on an ongoing basis the success of our efforts, the Superintendent will be preparing annual reports on complaints and a report which will be tabled in Parliament. Penalties for non-compliance have also been increased. At present, penalties for breach of the disclosure provisions are to a maximum of $1,000. This new legislation provides for a maximum penalty of $500,000 for a breach of any of the provisions without reasonable cause. There may be some who say we should have gone further in regulating charges. To this I respond first, that as a matter of principle this Government is not in favour
of price regulation, particularly in markets where there is competition.
This Bill represents a reasonable and responsible approach to the major issues. Through this Bill, consumers and business will have assurances about the treatment they will receive from banks. Banks, too, will understand their role and responsibility in serving their customers.
Moreover, the Government will shortly be bringing forth its legislation on financial institutions reform which, by breaking down barriers, will foster an even more competitive environment.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the following clarification. Once implemented, the Bill and the measures taken last year by the banks with respect to basic charges and accounts will make it possible to deal with concerns expressed by many Canadians before the Finance Committee of the House of Commons.
From now on, as soon as they open an account, Canadians will be informed of the charges involved and of their rights. They will be advised of any changes in the charge schedule, in a manner that is far more acceptable than was the case before.
They will also have direct access to a complaint settlement mechanism, first at their bank, and if they do not obtain satisfaction, at the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions which will act as a mediator.
Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that these measures will help consumers and companies to get the most out of their financial institutions and that the industry will become more competitive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Young), Mr. Speaker would like to take the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that it is not the custom of the Speaker to interrupt debate to hear an application, but I have an application for a motion to adjourn for an emergency debate.
The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), very kindly agreed to postpone rising because the Speaker, for a few minutes, had to receive the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I hope Hon. Members will
April 26, 1989

understand. I will hear the Hon. Member for Esquimau-Juan de Fuca.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 WEST COAST FISHERIES-PUBLIC RELEASE OF REGULATIONS
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52. This morning there was a Government promulgation of release of regulations relative to West Coast fisheries.
The emergency forthcoming because of the promulgation of those regulations today make it imperative for me to stand up and ask for this debate. Without the debate, decisions will be made in the Province of British Columbia that affect not only investments both private and public, but the lives of thousands of British Columbians, their families and coastal communities.
It is with regret that I have been forced to quote the Secretary of State for External Affairs ((Mr. Clark) earlier today to show that this matter was an issue that was negotiated away under the Free Trade Agreement. We were not able to determine the impact until these regulations. Once we saw these regulations, we then knew the necessity of an emergency debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I have had the advantage of not only reading the notice for an application for an emergency debate, which was very succinct, I have heard the Hon. Member and I have also had the advantage of having heard extensive comment on the matter in the House today.
I am sure there will be opportunity to comment on the matter further. It is a serious matter, of course, as all Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the West Coast fishery, but despite its seriousness and its importance, I do not feel it is appropriate to proceed to an emergency debate.
Bank Act




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would of course like to take this opportunity to speak to the Bill tabled by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Loiselle) concerning bank service charges. Many Canadians, including our financial institutions, have been waiting to find out exactly what the Government's position would be on this matter which was examined last year by the committee responsible for considering financial and economic matters here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, there was something that struck me in the Minister's remarks here today, and it was the fact that, and I quote: "There had been exhaustive consultations with groups representing industry and small business".
When the Minister of State (Finance) tabled the Bill in the House on April 13,1 believe, there was of course a reaction from the parties concerned, and I must admit that from the outset there was a positive reaction, because the Bill reflected a problem that had been brought to the attention of Canadians by many Members of this House during the past two years.
However, I think it is only fair to say there are still some questions about the proposed legislation, especially on disclosure, and I am thinking of consumers who may have very small accounts and for whom the bank is too big for them to be able to discuss any concerns they might have about service charges. Does the system established under the regulations that accompany the Bill truly respond to the need for disclosure of all the possibilities opened to consumers?

April 26, 1989
Bank Act

This legislation is a very limited approach to the extensive work done by the Standing Committee on Finance. The major question which must be addressed with respect to this legislation is based on the area of transparency of information made available to consumers.
Corporations are now brought under the legislation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been a very vocal supporter of the Government on a number of issues in the recent past. It has made it clear that it believes there is a serious flaw in the proposal. I believe that was reflected in the testimony that was heard and in the recommendations that were made by the Finance Committee. It concerns the double charging on NSF cheques. We recognize that there has been an attempt to bring in regulations to deal with as many situations as possible. It seems to me and certainly to many small businesses in this country that requiring the issuer of an NSF cheque to pay a fee upon that cheque being returned is a totally legitimate and appropriate charge for the banks to make.
However, while I do not want to be difficult, there are great differences between rural and urban situations. For example, it is difficult for an urban dweller to cash a cheque in a bank branch where he or she is not known. It is not a simple task to go in off the street and attempt to cash a cheque, whether it is in a bank or in a retail store.
That is not always true in smaller communities and rural areas where the cashing of a cheque is seen very much as a reflection of trust between two parties, between people who are expected to be good for whatever they do, be it the issuing of a cheque or anything else. I wonder if it is not an unfair practice to have both the issuer of the cheque charged a fee when it is returned NSF as well as the party taking the cheque.
I know the argument is made that the receiver of the cheque should be more stringent, should ask more questions and should be sure that the issuer of the cheque has sufficient funds to cover it. However, that is not an easy thing to do. I hope that the position put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and many others will be taken into consideration.
I wish to apologize, because at the outset of my remarks I should have thanked the Minister of State and his staff for the co-operation they have shown on this matter. As a new Member of Parliament, I do want to/ point out that it was very generous of the Minister's staff
to provide us with information and keep us up to date on the process. I would like to recognize the Minister's co-operation on that basis. My remarks are not of a confrontational nature.
Although my friends to the left had reservations about the report made last year by the Finance Committee with respect to an ombudsman type of activity, generally speaking members of the Finance Committee realized that there had to be some improvements made and this Bill reflects some of those. However, I wish to underline my belief that the charging of the so-called innocent party in a transaction involving an NSF cheque is not a practice that should take place. There should be a way to avoid that practice.
From the bank's point of view, the point is made that it is easier to recover from the person who has taken the cheque. Usually that person has a business establishment and an account at the bank. There is no doubt that recovery is made much simpler because the party is at hand, while the party who has issued the cheque may be long gone. Oftentimes, that party has no intention of covering the cheque. If it were simply a mistake on the part of the issuer, undoubtedly he would return to the retailer and cover his charges as well. In most instances, the issuer of the cheque is no longer to be found or is insolvent, and it is a very difficult process to try to recover any loss to the bank.
In the meantime, I point out that the person, company or small business that takes an NSF cheque finds itself in an even more awkward position. Not only is it hit with a fee, but what can it do about the cheque? Again, it seems to me that this adversely affects the small business person who may not have a sophisticated method of verification of cheques. Cheques are taken on evenings and weekends. Sometimes people think they know other people well enough to be able to trust them, but for whatever reason, they come a cropper. I hope the Government will take a look at that situation.
I also suggest, and perhaps the Minister could enlighten us about this matter today, that the Bill go to the Finance Committee rather than to a legislative committee. I think that has been the practice and certainly the members of the Finance Committee will have a very specific interest in this Bill.
My next point deals with transparency of disclosure. We will have to look at the implications of this. We will want to hear from the banks, trust companies, and depositories. It is one thing to inform consumers but it is another thing to confuse them. I am wondering from a very practical point of view what we intend to propose for the disclosure of information.
April 26, 1989

Some have suggested that we will end up with financial institutions with nothing but posters and pamphlets everywhere. Ordinary consumers will be faced with a very complex decision when trying to determine what they want to do with their money, what type of account they want, how much it will cost them, how many cheques they can issue and how much they will have to pay to get their cheques back. I hope an attempt will be made to simplify that situation.
I recognize that the Minister believes that the marketplace will have a great role to play in making sure that there is competition and that the fees are maintained at reasonable levels. I think as well, though, that there has been a move on the part of financial institutions to become very complex. There are interest-bearing savings accounts, balance amounts, different types of accounts and different charges for cheques depending on how many cheques are written a month and the like.
The information we have received, and I am sure the Chairman of the Finance Committee has heard this as well in the last couple of years, is that most people are looking forward to a system that is simple. They want to know what banking will cost them but both individuals and small businesses want a system that is simple, a system they can understand, cope with and respond to with some flexibility. They want to see something that is not as complex as the plans, programs and approaches that have been put forward by some financial institutions in the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Minister of State's comments on the whole matter of decompartmentalizing financial institutions-the rules of the game-and again, I cannot let the opportunity go by without indicating to the Minister the importance of what is happening in the financial sector, be it stockbroking, insurance companies, trust companies or banks. Mr. Speaker, for all sorts of reasons, I believe it is true to say that the federal Government is lagging behind on this issue. We can start to make up for lost ground, but we must still consider what has happened, especially in Quebec, which I am sure the Minister is well aware of, and what is beginning to happen in Ontario. But it is
Bank Act
because of what is happening in the other provinces, which traditionally have followed what has happened, mainly in Ontario, that we now see how fast events are moving in Quebec and we have not acted.
So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister responsible will soon be able to advise us when we can expect a bill on what connections are permitted between financial institutions and what connections are not.

The uncertainty that exists with respect to financial institutions must be addressed. I recognize very well that we are dealing with a very limited Bill, but I do think it is imperative at the very outset of this Parliament that the Government and the House of Commons deal with the reality with which we are faced on a daily basis, with what will happen with commercial links, who will be able to do what with insurance or stock transactions, what role trust companies will play, how much commingling of services will be made possible. For example, within a very short time there will be the arrival of the American Express Bank. All the furore that surrounded that announcement has caused a degree of uncertainty.
In the last few days the Finance Committee has been able to speak with and listen to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. One point Mr. Crow kept going back to was the integrity and credibility of the monetary system. I believe it is equally imperative that Canadians feel confident about financial institutions. With the Minister of State having to take over a financial operation just recently, through the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and with the experience we have seen in Ontario and the West over the last couple of years, it seems to me that it is incumbent on all of us to show very quickly the direction in which the Government intends to move.
We have dealt with the proposals of the Minister's predecessor, and obviously many of those are still around and probably will be forthcoming. I do not think it is appropriate that the Government continue to follow the crowd as opposed to being equal partners in the development of the new reality that most people perceive to be coming into place with respect to how financial institutions function.

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
There are a number of problems that have to be addressed with respect to the report prepared by the Finance Committee. I do not believe that in his remarks the Minister intended in any way whatsoever to indicate that the Bill we are dealing with today reflects in totality the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance. There are still a number of issues raised in that document that need to be dealt with. Although we will be dealing with it in more dimensions this afternoon in the House, it is important that the Bill be referred to the Finance Committee where we can sit down and have discussions with people from industry, people representing consumers, as well as knowledgeable Members of the House who have a particular interest in matters of finance and economics.
In closing, I want to say to the Minister that we understand the effort that has been made to address some of the elements involved in the recommendations of the committee. We do believe there are some elements that need to be addressed, some of which I have outlined and others that I am sure will be brought to our attention while the Bill is considered by committee.
The position of our Party is that we believe it is absolutely essential that we move very rapidly to put before the House and the people of Canada the direction the Government intends to take with respect to the reform of our financial institutions.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying on September 29, 1988, before I called it one o'clock, I want to deal with the Bill. The Bill was first introduced in the House by the former Minister of State for Finance, "Baker" Tom Hockin. Before we started the debate on the Bill the Minister said to me in conversation that he knew the Bill was not exactly the type of Bill you wanted out of the Finance Committee. However, he said that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. So I said to "Baker" Hockin, "There is no way we will accept this half-loaf", and the Bill died.
The Bill has now been resurrected under the name of Bill C-9 with boulangerie Loiselle in charge. He is now in charge of the bake shop, but it is the same stale half-loaf. It has not changed. This Party is not prepared to eat or break that stale half-loaf.
They are not minor concerns that the NDP Caucus has about the Bill. In his comments the Liberal critic has stated that perhaps we have concerns. We do not have "some" concerns. We have total concern with the Bill. This Bill breaks faith with the Canadian people.
One only needs to recall the episodes that led to the Finance Committee looking into bank service charges. In the words of the Chairman of the Finance Committee people were being "dinged and donged" on service charges. We are not talking about small money here. In 1987 the five major banks collected $1 billion in service charges from ordinary Canadians. We are not talking about penny-ante stuff. Lo and behold, the Standing Committee on Finance examined the whole issue of bank service charges. It made some tough recommendations.
Why do we oppose the Bill? First, the Bill has VC.


An Hon. Member:: What is VC?


John R. Rodriguez: VC is voluntary compliance. What we are saying in the Bill is "Trust the banks. Don't worry, be happy". The whole concept of actually walking into this marble-towered financial institution and expecting the widow to trust it when all she wanted was to change a $10 bill into quarters, she trusted them and the bank hit her with a $2 charge. We are being asked to trust the banks.
What do the banks have to say for themselves? The following is a speech made by Mr. Ritchie, the chief honcho of the Scotiabank. Regarding service charges, he stated: "One of the most significant trends in banking worldwide is the increasing relative importance of income other than interest.
For example, fee income is now almost one-quarter of our total revenue, up from a little over 18 per cent just three years ago." This is not small stuff, Mr. Speaker. It is 25 per cent of a bank's income and it is increasing. In three years it has gone from 18 per cent to 25 per cent. As time goes on, the service charges applied to customers of the bank will be an increasingly important source of the bank's revenue. This Minister and the Tory Government says, "Trust the banks. They will look after you. They have voluntarily complied". The Scotiabank is the same bank that charged Mrs. de Gruchy $2 to change a $10 bill into quarters to do her laundry.
To believe that the banks will look out for our interests is like asking Evil Knievel, Jr., to go park your car. The imagery is the same. Someone suggested that it was like asking the Ayatollah Khomeini to be the literary critic
April 26, 1989

for the New York Book Review. One of the first criticisms that we have about the Bill is the fact that it contains voluntary compliance, which is something we cannot accept.
The second objection is what I call the "Snow White" clause in relation to monitoring. Not only does the Government accept voluntary compliance in the Bill, but it also accepts what I call this "Snow White" syndrome. In other words, as they go through this process of voluntary compliance the banks are going to look into the mirror and say: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest bank of all?" Of course, we know what the answer will be. We are asking them to police themselves.
The Government totally rejected the whole concept of an independent ombudsperson. We are asking the banks to police themselves and I am sure they are going to say that that service charge was bad. You bad boy! I am sure they are going to do that. Absolutely. Rather, I would suspect that it would be the same as what Snow White's stepmother got when she looked into the mirror and posed the question. This Government has accepted that especially since, as I pointed out earlier, service charges collected on customers' accounts account for 25 per cent of the bank's income, an amount that is rising.
What does the Bill do? Does it outlaw certain service charges, Mr. Speaker? No. I have the Bill here and I will tell you what it does. It is all just an inundation of paperwork. Actually, it is notification. You write the customer and you tell him that the service charge for an NSF charge-back is now $15 and not $10. But the notification has to be in writing "in the prescribed manner", information in writing "in the prescribed manner".
Every single clause and subclause of the Bill makes sure that the banks give notice in writing "in the prescribed manner" with appropriate copies in the appropriate colours. If this Bill is ever approved, God help the forests of this country because they will be gone. Isn't that great, Mr. Speaker? This Government gives the banks the keys to everybody's account. All the bank has to do to is inform customers. There is no process of disputing the charge. The Government will say to me, as the banks have said, "If you don't like the service at this branch, go to another bank". They have cut you off at the
Bank Act
pass because to transfer your account from one bank to another you are now charged. As a matter of fact, I went out the other day and got the latest lists. Lo and behold, to transfer an account from CIBC to another bank costs $10. Is that fair?
All the bank has to do is send you the notice in writing "in the prescribed manner". That is what the banks have to do. This Minister says this Bill is different from the last one in that this Bill includes small business. Does it? It includes small business but only for core services. It does not include some of the more outrageous charges which the Finance Committee found the banks were imposing on small business and individuals. This Bill does not prevent banks from increasing charges for deposits or withdrawals. It does not specifically outlaw the NSF charge-back. It does not outlaw transferring from one bank to another if you are not satisfied. It does not outlaw that.
With regard to the NSF charge-back, and I want to pin this Minister down and wrestle him to the ground, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -the banks have said "We have voluntarily complied". On September 29, 1988, the then Minister of State for Finance said "As a result of their consultations with the banks, six service charges which most Canadians found to be objectionable have been removed by various federal financial institutions. Specifically, recipients of NSF cheques are not charged for depositing such cheques in their personal accounts". The Minister said that. All of the banks have complied except for the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Toronto-Dominion is not part of the voluntary compliance, the VC. I went to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and found a list of over 100 services. I understand there are about 178 different service charges.
I picked up the one for the CIBC. It says for a charge-back on an NSF cheque the cost is $4. Is this a bank complying, Mr. Speaker? The NSF charge-back is there at $4. Where is the voluntary compliance on the part of one of the banks that said "We will comply"? This bank has not complied because these service charges are providing a handy opportunity to increase income. I know there are some of us in this House, and maybe out in the country, who will be so cynical and cruel as to

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
suggest that what the Canadian banks were doing were covering their losses for what at that time were considered to be reputable borrowers, Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil. Now they are taking losses and the taxpayers of Canada are having to pick them up. If there were such cynical persons around, the suggestion would be that when banks started to be hit with those losses was the time when they unbundled the charges.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank told the Government, as it tried to get this voluntary compliance, to go take a hike. One bank has decided to go on its own. It has no voluntary compliance. That in itself should have been enough for the Government to recognize that it had a responsibility to the consumers of Canada to ensure that certain basic services were provided to bank customers.
The Minister asks me why. I will tell the Minister why. We are talking about banks that are really operating in an oligopoly position in this economy. They are chartered. You and I, Mr. Speaker, cannot just go out in the street and open up a bank. Banks receive a charter from the Government of Canada, from the Parliament of Canada. They have certain monopolies, certain things they can do that others cannot do. Having given them that responsibility, the Government cannot withdraw from their responsibility to rein-in this outrageous behaviour of banks with respect to bank service charges.
I am surprised that the Minister who is responsible for this Bill asked me why. I find this amazing. But I should not find it amazing. After all, he is a Tory. He knows where his friends are.


An Hon. Member:: Right.


John R. Rodriguez: He knows they are all up there in the ivory towers of the banks, in the golden towers. I think the Royal Bank has a golden tower in Toronto. That is where they are. They have chosen the correct colour. So I am surprised that he asked me that question: "Why?"
Banks can still do all the things that the Standing Committee on Finance said were despicable. They can still make a charge on a minimum balance. If your
balance falls below a certain minimum they can still charge you. Nothing in this Bill prevents that. Nothing. Can you believe this? We found out that if the bank makes a mistake on your statement or your account, do you know that they charge you for that?


An Hon. Member:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. They charge you for that. It is true, brother, believe you me. We heard the evidence. They charge you on the number of deposits, imagine that! You put money in their bank, they charge you. Can you believe that?


Some Hon. Members:: No. No.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. Someone walked in the bank the other day, just walked in to get out of the cold, they charged him. Believe this or not, a lady walked past the bank, she got a charge.


An Hon. Member:: I think I believe it.


John R. Rodriguez: Inactive accounts. If you are the kind of person who puts your money in and then goes home and forgets it and puts it under the mattress, they call that an inactive account and they charge you. But if you get active in your account, they charge you for that. They have got you going and coming. These guys are just out of control. Out of control.


An Hon. Member:: What is the country coming to?


John R. Rodriguez: I remember the Chairman of the Finance Committee. A very affable guy. He was supposed to be a powerhouse in the committees. He went over after the standing committee had drafted its tough, tough report. He phoned up the banks. He said, "Can we come over for tea and crumpets? We have to talk about this." He went over to the big tower here on Sparks Street, met all the big honchos in the bank. I guess he drank the tea and ate the crumpets but the bank said "We are not interested. We are not interested in what your proposals are."
We even had a Conservative Member of that committee who entered a Private Members' Bill to include all the tough recommendations of the committee. Along comes "Baker" Hockin with his Bill last year and
April 26, 1989

suddenly he withdrew his Bill. He said, "Oh, this Bill satisfies me." It takes very little, I know, to satisfy a Conservative. It takes very little, especially when his bosses from the banks are pulling the chain. It takes very little. But surely, Mr. Speaker, this is breaking faith with all the hundreds and hundreds of people who wrote to us on the committee about what was happening with bank service charges. Surely it was a break in faith.
Does it stop the banks from applying any of these service charges? No, it does not, because all the Bill does is to say "We accept the bank's word that they have voluntarily complied. Secondly, all you banks have to do is to send out the appropriate document informing customers of the new charge or of the increasing charge 'in the prescribed manner'." It is a roaring rabbit.
Now we get interesting. Say you get the notice in the prescribed manner, you get your yellow copy in the prescribed manner. The bank tells you what the charge is for deposit boxes, or whatever the service is what the charge will be. If you do not like that, what do you do? The first thing the Bill says you do is to go to the bank and you see the staff in the branch. You see the outline. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce went and picked it up today. They said, "Four easy steps for resolving a complaint". Notice they are very positive, "for resolving a complaint". They are already anticipating a resolution. So if you do not like it, what does the Bill say you do? You go down to the bank and complain. You go to the staff and say, "I do not like this charge". What does the staff person do? He or she might take out the compact mirror and say, "Mirror, mirror in my hand, is this charge a fair charge?" Then I ask you, what is the mirror going to say?


An Hon. Member:: The bank owns the mirror.


John R. Rodriguez: The bank says, "You have a very fair charge. It is the fairest in the land". They give this message to the consumer. The consumer says, "I do not like this". The consumer says, "I do not like the answer". So what does the Canadian Imperial Bank say in those four steps? The same thing as the Bill says, you go to the manager of the branch. So now you have an appointment with the manager. What does he do? You don't like the charge, so he takes out his hand mirror and he says, "Mirror, mirror in my hand, is this a fair charge? What does the mirror say? It says, "It is the fairest charge in the land." Of course.
Bank Act


An Hon. Member:: It is a fairy tale.


John R. Rodriguez: Here is the next step. You do not like that, so what do you think the third step is? The third step says, you now go to the regional office of the bank. It says here. You go to the regional office. When it gets down there, the regional manager or regional honcho goes into his bathroom and he looks into the-


An Hon. Member:: Mirror.


John R. Rodriguez: -bathroom mirror. Of course. What does he say to the mirror? "Mirror, mirror on the wall, is this a fair charge?" What does the mirror say?


Some Hon. Members:: "It is the fairest charge in the land."


John R. Rodriguez: "It is the fairest charge in the land." My colleagues are right. "It is the fairest charge in the land." You got it. But you are not happy with this?


Some Hon. Members:: No. No.


John R. Rodriguez: "No, MP, are you kidding?" They know how useful those Tory MPs are. What does it say? You go to the president of the bank, Mr. Ritchie. You go to the president. First you have to pay a charge. You say to the president, "I do not like this charge". What does he do? He goes into his full size mirror, sees his whole person, and he says, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, is this a fair charge?" What does the mirror say?


Some Hon. Members:: "It is the fairest charge in the land."


John R. Rodriguez: Of course. "It is the fairest charge in the land."
By this point you are really cheesed off. You do not really like the answers you got. What do you do now? The bank points you to this notice on their wall. It says if you do not like what is called "Four steps for resolving a complaint", you now can go to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. He is over here in the bank tower. He is up here in this tower just like an eagle. That is so he can see far. He is up there. You get up to him and you say, "Look, Mr. Mackenzie, I do not like this charge." He says to you: "Look, I would like to help you, you see, but I do not handle consumer complaints because I am only here. I am only in the business to make sure banks do not go broke. I am here to regulate banks to make sure that they stay in business. I have a conflict because if I have a lot of new complaints, and I agree with you, then that means the banks do not get as much money as they

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
should get. So I think you have to go back to the bank and see the bank". Thus, there is the full circle.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this the way to greet anybody? I have made fun of this but it is the only way I know how to put across a point. I think I have made that point. I ask my brother opposite if I have made the point. In fact, there is no independent, impartial individual who assesses, first, if a service charge is justified and, second, if it is justified, is it a reasonable one? There is no provision for that.
There are examples concerning industries in the country which are regulated by Government. I refer specifically to Bell Canada. That company has to apply for rate increases. Not so long ago it was forced to provide relief on a rate charge that was too excessive. There are no provisions in this Bill concerning banks. The Bill is faulty in that regard.
What have we New Democrats said? We agree with the rest of the members of the Finance Committee. We agree with Paul McCrossan's Bill. I tried everything possible to get Paul McCrossan to keep his Bill on the Order Paper. When he withdrew it, I entered a Bill which included all of those things that Paul McCrossan had in his Bill. Mine went beyond that and added two other things.
What do we want? We want a basic no-frills account. We believe that by law banks should provide that type of basic no-frills account where certain transactions are part of that basic no-frills account. That would allow poor people who have very few transactions, or very basic transactions to do with the bank, to be able to carry them out without being dinged and donged.
Banks that have assets of $140 billion have made those assets off the deposits of ordinary Canadians. Those same banks turn around and ding and dong them for every single charge which allows them to continue to increase their wealth. Last year the Royal Bank had net income of $700 million while the Scotiabank had net income of $506 million. The CIBC had net income of $591 million. Despite these spectacular earnings, the Royal Bank raised 15 of its service fees an average of 4 per cent to 6 per cent. The other banks have followed suit. Even when they are enjoying spectacular earnings
they continue the ever onward and upward rise in bank service charges.
We propose an immediate one-year freeze on bank service charges. This differs from McCrossan's Bill. I did not pull that figure out of a hat. The Royal Bank did it, but only for six months. After that there were even more astronomical rises. Thus we are suggesting a one-year freeze.
It seems to me that over the past five years, bank service charges have increased at an average annual rate of 19 per cent. I have a strong feeling and suspicion, although I cannot put my finger on it, that they have been overcharging Canadian consumers.
We have seen this situation before. I recall the experience we had with credit card interest rates. I saw the Tories, in particular the former Member from Scarborough West and others who sat opposite, screaming because the interest rates on credit cards skyrocketed. What happened? The Finance Committee decided to investigate the matter. Suddenly, the banks all agreed they would move voluntarily and overnight the rates came down to about 15 per cent. What has been happening lately? The rates are back up and climbing. Retail credit cards at places such as Sears and Canadian Tire are up at around 30 per cent.
I heard John Crow and the other birds from the Bank of Canada say the other day that they are allowing interest rates to rise because they want to dampen demand. I suggest that for a number of Canadians who do their retail purchasing on credit they have already been dampened with interest rates of 20 per cent and 30 per cent on their credit cards.
Look at the spread, Mr. Speaker. The cost of money is around 12.3 per cent or 12.4 per cent and these retail outlets are charging 20 per cent and 30 per cent. We recognize the need for a freeze. We believe there should be prohibition against unfair charges. We specifically point out the unfair minimum balance charge. We believe that should be outlawed.
I see the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) is leaving the Chamber. She is blowing me a kiss. I do not know why she is leaving during my very clear and precise expurgation of this Bill. She could learn something about UI since I will be getting to that in a minute.
April 26, 1989

There are certain charges that we believe should be outlawed. We have specifically named them in my Private Member's Bill which will be brought out shortly in the House. One is this minimum balance charge and the other is the NSF charge-back. The NSF chargeback is not in force for small businesses. It has to be applied to small businesses.
Another proposal we are making to the Minister which seeks to amend the Bill is to provide a financial services ombudsperson. This is not the smoke and mirrors imagery that I created a little while ago but in fact a person who is impartial and outside the banks. There are no mirrors here, no Snow White's stepmother. This is a financial service ombudsperson to whom consumers can go, with whom they can negotiate. The ombudsperson will be a referee and report to Parliament on a regular basis. That is the prince that will come. It is the only way to save Snow White. To surrender Snow White into the hands of these 167 dwarfs across the way is to say that the whole question of regulating bank service charges is hopeless. We do not believe that.
The Government can move in this direction to assure Canadians that in fact when they deal with financial institutions they are being dealt with fairly.
I talked about the privileged position which banks had in this society. I want to refer to Mr. Ritchie's closing comments in his speech because I think we have to be concerned. The Minister should be concerned. Here is what he said:
The truly fundamental question raised by the service charge issue -and here I return to my theme -concerns the proper role of government in regulating behaviour in the market-place. Provided there is adequate disclosure of service charges, there is more than sufficient competition in the financial industry to ensure that the consumer's interest is protected.
Can you believe that? Can you believe that in fact what this bank president is saying is that Governments should stay out of regulating the behaviour of banks. Governments regulate the behaviour of citizens every single day of the year. I cannot do certain things in this House. I cannot take it all off on the street. You cannot drive your car beyond certain speeds in certain areas.


Mr. MacKay:: Oh, yes, you can.
Bank Act


John R. Rodriguez: You cannot drive your car beyond certain speeds in certain areas. You can, but society regulates that. If you are caught you are charged.
In this particular instance he is saying that banks which hold this privileged position of oligopoly should be allowed to do whatever it is they want to do. Their behaviour should not be circumscribed by the same body that gave them their charter in the first place, that gave them this privileged position. That is what he is saying, and that is something that we cannot accept. To establish certain basic ground rules does not prevent Mr. Ritchie and his other compatriots in the banks from having what passes for competition.
I see you, Mr. Speaker, giving me the two fingers. Does it prevent them from doing that? It does not do that, but I think there is certain minimal behaviour which must be regulated, and I have described those.
We are not able to accept this Bill. We are opposed to it. We see no point in proceeding with it because we are not interested in playing powder puff games. It is smoke and mirrors. It really does not deal with the problem that Canadians are having with banks.
It was not just notification or the whole rigmarole of notifying them in the prescribed fashion. That was not the problem we heard about. That was not the problem at all. The problem was the variance of service charges and the amounts. That is what concerned them, the exotic nature of those service charges and the ever increasing amounts.
In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Continuing debate with the Hon. Member for Markham.


An Hon. Member:: Will there be comments and questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 74 the first three speakers had 40 minutes with no questions or comments.
We are now entering into the second phase where we will have 20-minute speeches plus 10 minutes of questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Markham has the floor.

April 26, 1989
Bank Act


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud today to speak to Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act, inasmuch as I think it is honest and fair to say that I was the first MP to raise this topic about two and a half years ago. It was not the NDP. It was not the Liberals. It was the Conservative Party.
In my current riding of Markham and in Whitchurch-Stouffville I have heard a number of complaints in the past on this subject. I would like to walk through a bit of history on this Bill. Sometimes when we arrive in this House we wonder if we can actually take an issue from the riding level where people are concerned, bring it to Parliament, and actually get changes in the Act. It is clear that the answer is a simple yes on that.
In the fall of 1986 three different constituents had separate appointments with me on this type of problem. I recall that one was a Mr. Malcolm Wilkinson from Citation Drive. His problem involved buying a bank draft. They used to cost $2.50. He used to buy a $10 draft to send to a relative in the U.K. He went in the next year and it cost $4.50. It was only a $2 increase, but it was an 80 per cent increase at that time.
Another gentleman, Mr. Burt Newman of Alimosa Drive, had a problem which rested with the safety deposit boxes. He used to own a business downtown around Spadina. He did not get to the bank very frequently, maybe only once or twice a year. He went down one day to pick up his statements and noticed a charge for safety deposit boxes. He checked his records to find that the increase was well over 20 per cent for that one year. He asked at the bank and, just to make a long story short, he got absolutely no satisfaction in terms of an answer on why the rate was so high, why he was not notified beforehand, and so on. Another gentleman with a long list of complaints had a real problem, the idea of being nickelled and dimed to death.
I directed a question to the then Minister of State for Finance in this House on January 21, 1987. I will just quote briefly from it:
-we are moving toward re-regulated financial services marketplace, and I support that initiative. However, I have received a number of complaints about the excessive increases in bank service charges and the lack of adequate notice. Will the Minister look into this particular problem? Can he assure us that through this reregulation we will see more competition in the market-place to help combat these apparent excessive increases in service charges?
I had a parliamentary assistant at that time and after that statement we did our own financial analysis of the rates in 1986 verses 1985. We did a simple matrix on this, mostly on large banks and trust companies, and indeed we found that in our view the increases were excessive.
I guess it boiled down to a few problems that were consistent with people to whom we talked, that the increases year over year were too large. Second, there was inadequate notice of the changes that were going to take place. Third, there seemed to be no real route or process where someone could get a valid complaint dealt with.
I talked to the chairman of the Finance Committee and, with all-Party agreement, we got this issue on the formal agenda of the Finance Committee. We began hearings on March 24, 1988. We submitted to the House on June 6, 1988 a series of recommendations, which I would like to highlight.
The committee called upon the Government to strengthen the legal notification requirements of the Bank Act. Second, the committee recommended that a complaint resolution mechanism be required both within the institution and through the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
Third, the committee proposed that banks be required to provide accounts offering basic banking services.
Fourth, the committee called for the removal of charges that are widely perceived as unfair to individual Canadians. The idea was that if one received an NSF cheque, even as the receiver, had to pay a fee at the time. That idea has since been dropped by everyone. Finally, the committee proposed stiffer penalties for contravention under the Act. The vast majority of the committee's recommendations were accepted. Regrettably, last year the draft legislation died on the Order Paper.
I am very pleased that our new Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Loiselle) acted with such haste and alacrity in developing Bill C-9 quickly and introducing it into the House on April 13. Here we are now discussing it. We want to move it along.
I want to share a few highlights of this latest piece of legislation. The Minister said: "The legislation will enable customers to shop around and make informed choices about banking services".
April 26, 1989

The new rules relating to personal deposit accounts will require enhanced disclosure in a number of ways. They include brochures that are available to bank customers and the general public, full disclosure of account related charges when an account is opened, at least 30 days advance notice of changes in charges or the introduction of new charges relating to customer accounts. Similar disclosure will be required for a core list of charges applicable to business deposit accounts. I particularly applaud the Minister for that step.
The legislation also requires that banks develop clear procedures for the filing of customer complaints. Quite markedly, the Act also proposes very stiff penalties for a contravention of this Act. It goes from $1,000 to $500,000, which I happen to believe is very significant.
I will highlight some of the Act itself. The trouble really rested in Section 201 (6) (b) of the previous Act which stated:
- prescribing the manner in which any charges for the keeping of an account are to be disclosed to a customer, and when such disclosure is to be made; and -
One can see that it was too weak and open ended. That is certainly being tightened in what is proposed in Bill C-9.
In conclusion, it has taken two and a half years since the initial complaints in my riding came to my attention. I wish it could have moved faster, but I am pleased that it is at this stage now. I again commend the Minister for dealing with this so quickly.
There may be other ideas when the Finance Committee deals with this matter, as I hope we will, but all in all let me say that I think the proposals are generally fair and equal and go to the heart of the matter, which is to provide more protection to the consumer and small business person.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a formal motion. I believe I have the agreement of all three Parties. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance deal with Bill C-9,
rather than a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member consulted with me prior to his putting that motion. Since there is an amendment to the main motion, I hope the Hon. Member would come back and reintroduce the same proposal after the amendment has been disposed of.
Bank Act
Therefore, I will proceed to questions and comments.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the my hon. friend. I recall that he was concerned about bank service charges. Indeed, he raised several questions in the House two years ago and possibly, with the questions he raised, it caused the Finance Committee to look into bank service charges finally.
However, I find his position today with respect to this Bill somewhat ambivalent. This Bill does not come to grips with the kind of concerns he was raising two years ago about varying service charges. How can he support this Bill when it does not come to grips with the problem of increasing bank service charges and the expansion of service charges? This Bill simply notifies clients and customers of increases. It does not deal with the basic question of whether that service charge is justified. How can he support a Bill that is virtually hollow? It is a shell.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for his question.
I think the Bill comes to grips with what should happen in the market-place, in a balanced way. It is clear that the New Democratic Party would like to nationalize banks. We do not happen to think that would be a good step.
Personally, I can say that I think the system is working better than it did two years ago. In my personal experience, I had an account with one of the larger banks for over 30 years. I found that it was not competitive with some of the new accounts that were being introduced by trust companies, for example. Thanks to changes in the market-place and a better awareness by the institutions, I do not pay one cent a month for all my banking services. Previously there was a charge of some $12 or $14 a month, which would be fairly significant over a year.
There is no mistake that there is better competition in the market-place. We do not happen to believe that the market-place works well if it is shackled totally with regulations. I think the Bill goes to the heart of the matter, tackling the issues that should be tackled.
I hope this is not the last time we deal with this issue. I think it is fair to say that most of the senior executives of the banks would admit that perhaps the rate of increases were too harsh and got away from them, and that perhaps their reaction to customer complaints was too insensitive. I suggest a major change has taken place in

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
the attitudes of the banking community and trust community. I think that is progress in itself.
I am basically in support of the Bill. I think changes have taken place. I do not think the Hon. Member is setting the record exactly straight when he suggests that nothing has changed.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the gentleman from Markham is absolutely right. He was the person who first raised this issue. Indeed, a note that was passed to me a day or so ago said exactly that. We believe in giving credit where credit is due. There is a kick, of course. We like to attribute blame where it is due as well.
The Hon. Member should first take full credit for any small improvements this Bill represents since the time he first raised the issue. Equally, he will have to take the blame because the Government appears to have paid only lip service to the Hon. Member's well intended intervention and has in effect caved in to the banks.
Does the Hon. Member now intend, before his whole project is completely sabotaged and torpedoed, to undertake to knock some sense into the Minister and get the improvements he had in mind in the first place? He himself is a financial officer. He has experience and knows exactly what I am talking about. If he were completely candid right now, he would tell us that this is just a very small step in terms of what he intended when he first raised this issue. What does the Hon. Member have in mind now for committee stage in order to knock some sense into the Minister and get the improvements that would make this Bill worthy of its name?


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The process will work. The Bill will go to committee. Of the 14 members who were on the committee in the last Parliament, only three are now members of that committee. There are 11 new members on the committee, and I think the Hon. Member will find that my style and approach is to get to know the new members and hear their views on various Bills.
We do not pretend to have all the answers. I think the members who sat on the last committee will testify that there was a great degree of consensus reached on the committee. It was not as if only one side carried it. Indeed, the final recommendations we made were, by and large, supported by all Parties. I think it would be a bit unfair to prejudge before we actually hear from the other members of that brand new committee just what thoughts they have on this subject.
I will return to the comments I made in my summary. I believe that, by and large, this is a good step forward. It gives better protection to the consumers of Canada. The Hon. Member is correct in that I have a bit of experience in this area. I served for over 30 years in the finance and trust business so I bring a bit of perspective to the inner workings of these companies.
The Hon. Member may know that the whole approach to customer service has changed pretty markedly in the last 10 years or so. In the past the spread that the banks and trust companies had between deposits and loans literally looked after all these services. As pressure grew on that spread they, like many different industries, moved to a fee for service approach. I believe that in some cases they got a little too aggressive on the range of fees and the rates of increase. We have come down hard on those areas and they know that voluntarily those things will not be permitted.
The public is much more aware because of the effort made in this whole process over the last two years. Bank officers will tell us that many more people question items on their statements, whereas years ago they would not even attempt to do so. If they do not get answers, they tend to shout in the bank line-ups or pound the desks. I would submit that the public relations area has improved remarkably in the last little while.
When we get to committee, let us see what will happen. If there are other valid improvements that we as a committee should consider recommending, I would certainly want to be a part of that. However, I would not want to prejudge that process. I am basically in agreement with what the Minister of State for Finance has drafted. It is a real step forward.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Nickel Belt so eloquently put it a few moments ago, the Bill that is before us today provides for virtually just another way of shuffling paper. The Hon. Member from Markham (Mr. Attewell), with all of his experience in the industry, should recognize that the provision for the bank to comply voluntarily is an atrocious way to deal with a very serious problem.
April 26, 1989

I wonder if the Hon. Member could explain to the House how it is that he could support a Bill that calls for the banks to engage in voluntary compliance. We know from past experience in farm matters and other matters affecting many Canadians that the banks look after their own interests. When we are talking about voluntary compliance, we are talking about the interests of the banks, not of the consumers. I wonder if the Hon. Member could explain his support for the Bill in this light.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I do not think that this should turn into a bank bashing exercise. There are six large banks in Canada. They are world-class banks and are well managed. There are many trust companies that are well managed as well. I do not think this should be a bank bashing exercise.
I would like to suggest that we start with a philosophy for how we want the market-place to work. Are we going to go to Steinbergs and ask them to submit a list of what price they will sell apples at before they start selling them? Are we going to go to retail gasoline companies and ask them, before they raise their prices, how they will do it? Should they come to the big Government to see what should happen?
The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt cited numbers from the banks. I forget whether he mentioned that they were profits or gross revenues. He knows that that by itself means nothing other than the fact that it is a large number. What really counts in measuring the profitability of a business, as the Hon. Member knows, is the return on equity. If the return on equity is 30 per cent I would say that it is far too high, but we will not find it at that level. Normally an adequate return for most industries would be in the 12 per cent or 13 per cent to 16 per cent range. This is return on the shareholders' equity, the equity of average Canadians who have invested in these companies.
The Hon. Member knows that, by and large, banks are owned by average Canadians. No one person can own more than 10 per cent of a Canadian bank, so they are very widely held by seniors and by average investors and companies. They want an adequate return on their
Bank Act
investment as well. Does the Hon. Member want to weaken the banks?
Let us keep things in perspective when we are talking about this subject. There have been some mistakes made, there is no question. Some banks have become too aggressive. However, let us not take a knee-jerk reaction to this problem. Let us look at it in a rational way. Let us keep the consumer uppermost in our minds, but let us not go overboard in our reaction.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from Nickel Belt is in the House. I listened with great interest to what he had to say, especially the part about the mirrors. I had wondered for years why bankers had those large washrooms with those full length mirrors. Of course, if digruntled bank customers become mobilized, we will see a whole new growth industry in replacement mirrors.
I am delighted also that the gentleman whose initiative brought this Bill before the House is in the Chamber, the hon. gentleman from Markham. I thank him for his response to my question. In responding, he confirmed what I implied in my question when I said that we still have a long way to go in terms of what the Hon. Member set out to do. I am grateful to him for his undertaking that he is not giving up yet. Despite the different styles, I thought that the gentleman from Markham and the gentleman from Nickel Belt were not that far apart in terms of their concerns about this piece of legislation.
I am about to commit the unforgivable sin of crawling into bed politically with someone so far to the left as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and so far to the right as the Hon. Member for Markham (Mr. Attewell) by saying that I too share their concerns. There is a real Liberal middle of the road. Any political bed will do as long as the principles are correct.
I am glad to see the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Loiselle) is present. I want to say something to him, and it is best to say those things directly to someone's face than behind someone's back. This Bill says an awful lot more about the Government's relationship with the banks than it does about the Government's concern for the consumer.

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
We are debating Bill C-9 in its present form, and I stress the fact that it is in its present form. Thank goodness we have a committee system that works, and on this Bill it has its work cut out for it. I am grateful to the Hon. Member for Markham who has proposed, and will do so formally later in the debate, that this Bill go to the Finance Committee. That is the place for it, and we will support that.
We believe that certain improvements can be made. We do not believe that we can support the Bill in its present form, but we believe that the Bill is on the right track. It requires major surgery, and we hope some of that surgery will take place at the committee stage before we are asked to give our final commitment in terms of where we stand on the Bill.
I now wish to talk about banks, but before I start talking about his friends in the banking business, perhaps the Minister may want conveniently to leave and get a cup of tea or something. Let me put the following question to the Minister first.
In closing the debate at this stage, perhaps the Minister could verbalize what he sees as the possibilities for federal trust companies and those under provincial jurisdiction in ensuring that they too are governed by the provisions that will be in the improved Bill when we are finished with it in committee.
Is there ever a subject that one would like to talk about at greater length and with more emotion than the banks, particularly if one lives in a small rural community in Newfoundland. I suppose the same could be said of people in many other parts of this great country. Perhaps it is my upbringing, but I get the distinct feeling from the banking business that it is doing you a favour every time you walk into a bank. You feel like you should genuflect or tip your hat. One sees cattle line-ups and ropes. There are not enough tellers. The banks take you for granted, and you stand in line. Have the banks not learned that payroll days come regularly two or three times a month, or eveiy week? Have they not learned that some days they should actually have some staff who are not having coffee?
The banks should do as good a job posting charges as they do making up little "closed" tabs for the wickets. I have gone into a bank and Miss Smith is at that one station, Miss Brown is at another, Miss White is at that one, and Miss Closed is at the other nine. The banks have the facilities but they do not have the attitude.
People whip out during their coffee breaks with only 15 minutes to deposit their cheques, because by the time they get off work the bank is closed. What do they do? They stand in a line-up 20-back and wait for one of the three open tellers because the other 9 or 10 are closed off.
It is that attitude, that callousness, that devil may care attitude that the banks exude to their customers which make customers like me suspect all the time. Is it any wonder when one receives that cavalier treatment? There is no other service oriented business, no other sector of the economy that is trying to please the customer, which would do that to a customer.
I get the feeling that there are two classes of customers, if one looks at it from the bank manager's eyes. I say to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt that when they are not looking in the mirror they are categorizing customers. It is a very simple categorization, and even an assistant bank manager could understand this one. There is the fellow with the gold card and the fellow without the gold card.
For your information, Mr. Speaker, I borrowed this one from a Toiy to make my speech. This Tory would like to be a Liberal, and we are working on him, but the gold card kind of stands in his way. There are two classes of customers. In the last few minutes this particular friend told me that he went into a branch where he had had an account for many years. They knew him extremely well, but they were putting him through the hurdles all the time. They were charging him every time he coughed or sneezed. While he was there waiting for the teller to do whatever it was she was doing for him on the other side of the glass, he reached into his pocket and hauled out his wallet-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister of State for Finance on a point of order.


Gilles Loiselle: I would like to inform the House that it is not my card the Hon. Member is holding. Second, I would like to inform the Hon. Member for Markham (Mr. Attewell) that I will have to leave shortly in order to meet the Minister of Finance from British Columbia.
Therefore, I will not be having tea and crumpet, maybe a glass of whiskey. I apologize for having to leave in a few minutes, but I will carefully read the Hon. Member's remarks as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's is a long time Member. He
April 26, 1989

knows that there should not be a display of cards or forms, or anything of that nature in the Chamber. We do not wish to have any advertising in this establishment. I was also going to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, who was also displaying a long sheet, to delete all those displays, if possible, please.


Roger Simmons: The Minister of State for Finance is most gracious, and I understand he cannot stay. I wish to correct him on two points. The fellow who sits over there is the Hon. Member for Markham, and I don't drink whisky.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did not mention the bank, but I do understand, Sir. The point I am making is that there are two classes of customers. As soon as my friend took the gold card, which I am not allowed to display at this time, out of his wallet, the one you don't see, it was spotted by the teller who was allowed to see it. She, bright girl that she was, said: "Oh, you have a gold card. We don't have to charge you if you have a gold card. Why didn't you tell us before that you were a holder of a gold card from this particular bank?"
There are two classes of customer. That is the type of thing the Hon. Member for Markham had in mind, and that is the type of thing we have in mind. Bank attitude cannot be legislated. However, there is an arrogance out there the banks ought to admit to and, more important, do something about.
I mentioned the long line-ups. When I mentioned to a friend that I was going to participate in this debate, he mentioned to me that a few days ago he was in one of those line-ups. He said that he could tell me in detail the business of the lady in front of him, because he had heard the whole thing. He heard the teller advise her that she was overdrawn. That is another issue regarding the configuration of the bank and its line-ups. There is no confidentiality in those banks. You cannot go in and discuss your personal financial business. You can get appointments, I suppose, and wait the required six weeks or so. I am talking about trying to do a spontaneous transaction, when you have to come in from the street and go into the bank to do something. You should not be told in the hearing of several other people that you are overdrawn, for example.
Bank Act
To move quickly to another point, the banks in this country, by and large, have abandoned the small outlying areas, the less populated parts of the country. If I had time I would love to take you all to God's country, to my riding of Burin-St. George's, and to the Isle aux Morts. The Francophones call it Isle de Morts. We know in Newfoundland it is the Isle aux Morts. Then there is Middletown, Terrenceville, and Rose Blanche, but you would not find a bank anywhere because there is not one. There are a couple of thousand people in each of those communities, but there is not a bank.
The attitude is that these people should go up the highway anywhere from 30 to 90 miles if they want to get to a bank. There is not even a bank there one or two days a week. These people, through no fault of their own, are still back in the days of the mattress and the sock. They do not have basic services that are available to many other parts of this country. Why? My friend from Nova Scotia knows exactly why. Greed, not service, is the overriding preoccupation of those banks, by and large.
The Government should be very comfortable with that concept. It is the same concept the Government is allowing to go forward in railway abandonments, postal closings and airline deregulation. The watchword out there is greed. It is a situation of grab all you can and forget service to outlying areas; forget the areas of less population. If people are not living in Quebec, Toronto, Niagara or the satellites of Winnipeg and Vancouver, tough titty as we say.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: The same attitude is reflected here. That is why this Government is so comfortable with it. It is the very philosophy this Government practises on the people of Canada. Is it any wonder that the Government is standing idly by allowing the banks to practise the same philosophy on Canadians?
Let us talk about the loan policy of banks. If you wonder why I am off on these delightful tangents, Mr. Speaker, it is because I said this Bill requires major surgery in committee. The more I think about it, it may need a transplant or two in committee. The loan policy is a subject that can get me hot and heavy if it were not so late in the day. The only people who can get a loan in the bank these days, without being hassled, are the people who do not need one. Do you realize that, Mr. Speaker? The only people who can walk into a bank and get a loan are those who do not really need a loan. The security, the collateral the banks insist on, is usually several times the exposure involved in the loan.

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
The ceiling loan authority of that poor fellow behind the desk with the bank manager's sign on it is so low that he has to make a phone call almost every time a person walks in the bank to borrow for any amount. If these people are worthy of the title bank manager-and I am not suggesting they are not-it seems to me that in the interest of serving people and providing good service they ought to have more authority. To my earlier point, the loan policy ought to be one that protects the banks but not to the point of harassing the consumer, the would-be borrower.
You have been wondering, of course, while I have been speaking, Mr. Speaker, how I am going to look my bank manager straight in the eye when he reads my speech. The answer is right here in my notes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: The exception that proves the rule. The best bank manager in the world is located in Springdale, Newfoundland-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: -where I have not worked for 15 years, where there is not a vote for me. Springdale is on the other coast of Newfoundland, 400 miles from my riding, but he is the best bank manager in Newfoundland. That is why I still do not have to use my socks other than for the normal purpose.


An Hon. Member:: Which is what?


Roger Simmons: My barefooted friends in the NDP would not know what socks are for.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: I have two or three other points. I have some information on the gold card but I had better not get into that any more. However, I have some other things I want to say before I quit.


Mr. Tobin:: The friends of the bankers are over there and they are very smug.


Roger Simmons: In terms of this particular piece of legislation, the old cliche about too little too late comes to mind. There is still a built-in penalty here for those who accept cheques which turn out to be bouncers or rubbery. Their own business interests dictate and common sense dictates that they, the banks, will check the cheque and the person who proffers the cheque. Even with that check, it is possible for a rubber cheque to get through.
When it does and it is returned and marked NSF by the bank, that person who acted in good faith, and after a thorough check, should not be penalized. This legislation does not cover that, just to make one particular point.
My colleague, our spokesman, the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Young), indicated to the House that this Bill makes a little bit of progress, but we are going to play wait and see on this. I know for the Minister it is a laughing matter because he has gold cards and he is not one of those who gets harassed by the banks. I understand it is funny for him, very funny, but it is not funny for those people in the small communities. There he goes, out to see his banker no doubt.


Mr. Valcourt:: You should watch what you say.


Roger Simmons: It is too late in the day to be unkind to the Minister, but it is not funny at all for those people in small communities who do not have banking services nor for those people in large communities who are being treated with that cavalier, arrogant attitude I talked about earlier. If you want, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman who is sponsoring this Bill, the Minister from Langelier on that side of the House that they will have to get their heads together with this Party and caucus in committee to make this Bill worthy of its name. Then we will give it full support.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) about whiskey. He suggested that he stopped drinking whiskey. I am tempted to ask him when he stopped drinking whiskey but I certainly could not tell by his speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He suggests that he is using someone else's gold cards from his Tory friends. I sometimes think that the Tories and Liberals are kind of interchangeable like gold cards. I want his position on the Bill. He talked about everything.
The New Democratic critic, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), said that in this Bill there is no independent impartial individual who decides whether a service charge is proper in the first place. He used the mirror analogy. I think he made an overwhelming case to show that the banks were regulating themselves, that the foxes were in charge of the hen-house.
April 26, 1989

I ask the Hon. Member if he is he was really supporting this Bill. If he is, then I do not understand why he is supporting this Bill.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it clear but before I respond to the second question, let me respond to the first point. The answer to the whiskey question is that I have never quit because I never began. However, that is another issue altogether.
I thought I made it clear that at this stage we cannot support the Bill. I thought I had made it clear to him that we do not think there is enough transparency disclosure. We think there ought to be more signage in the banks. I believe I had implied that as I went through.
I certainly, in one of my last points, mentioned the other major reservation we had about the Bill, that is, that these people receiving those bad cheques in good faith ought not to be penalized. There are two or three points that he obviously missed on the way through, so I will talk more slowly the next time. I guess my short answer to him is: "Meet me in committee, Louie".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester on a question or a comment.


Mr. Casey:: I have just a few observations. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) referred to me in his speech so I thought I should respond a little.
First of all, it is not my gold card either, Mr. Speaker, that he has. I want him to make that clear. He suggested that the gold card makes two classes of people, and I think that that is not right. I should say that I do not want this to be construed that I am here to defend the banks, because I am not. A gold card does not make a second-class citizen or a first-class citizen. You buy the gold card and you use it for services, the same as you buy a card to get on the buses downtown. You can get on the bus with a card or you can get on the bus with money. It does not make any difference.
The other point he made was that he invited us all to go to Ilse aux Morts where there are no banks. Probably even more important, there are probably no car dealerships in Ilse aux Morts or bookstores either. I do not know. I have never been there, but I would be welcome to accept his invitation to go at any time.
Bank Act
I would just like to mention that recently the Lloyds Bank was going to close a branch in my constituency in Truro, Nova Scotia. We asked them to reconsider that and they did. We appreciated it in our constituency that they did reconsider their plan to close the bank. They left it open and they re-manned it and it is up and away again. My only question would be: When will I get my invitation to Ilse aux Morts?


Roger Simmons: I thank my good friend for Cumberland-Colchester. He will be aware that Truro is a long way from Ilse aux Morts. Physically it is a long way but in other ways it is a long way as well. He is a car dealer. If you listen to him long enough you would think he is a used car dealer. He states that the card does not make the difference. He gave us the answer as to what does make the difference. Money makes the difference, money. He stated that there were no car dealerships in Ilse aux Morts. Come on down, come on down. I will tell him that until he gets there and sets up a dealership, I will tell him what is in Ilse aux Morts-people who work 12 months around in fishing boats and fish plants. What is in Ilse aux Morts is this: a very big payroll, a very big year-round payroll, and no place to put it except in socks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am going to recognize the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte, and then I am going to recognize the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, and that will be it for the questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a comment and a question to my colleague who just gave a very powerful and compassionate speech, one that empathizes not with the car dealers of the planet and not with the woolly-eyed socialists who in their attempt to reach Utopia want to nationalize all the banks, but one that empathizes with ordinary Canadians. That is the difference between the Party that thinks that the bottom line is the car dealership and the Party that thinks the bottom line is theory. This Party is concerned with flesh and blood people.
Because there seems to be some confusion among those who occupy the extremities of the Canadian political thought, the doctrinaire people, those on the right and those on the left, I would like to give the Member a chance once again to make clear exactly what he said.

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
I would like to ask the Member if in fact what he is saying is that this Party believes in the free enterprise system, believes in the banking system, and believes we can make this Bill better in committee. I would ask him to be crystal clear for Canadians who are paying attention to this debate, whether or not what I heard him say is that no, unlike the Conservatives we do not believe the banks should regulate themselves, and unlike the NDP who are on record in their policy convention and their policy handbook and have passed it as party law, we do not believe in nationalizing the banks either. Can he make clear to us that the Liberal position is the pragmatic one.


Roger Simmons: All of the above. Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. The fellow must be from Newfoundland. I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. He hits the nail right on the head. This Bill and this debate is all about where we are really coming from philosophically. It is easy for the Hon. Member for Markham or the Minister from Langelier to get up and soft-pedal and try to tell us that this bit of puff we have here called Bill C-9 is going to change the banking world. It is equally easy for the gentleman from Nickel Belt, somewhere in the middle of his aerobics display, to tell us that all is wrong with the world. Somewhere in between lies the truth, and there are the Liberals too.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as I implied, some of my best friends are bankers. God knows I need them.


An Hon. Member:: I would not admit it in public.


Some Hon. Members:: That is the difference, that is the difference.


Roger Simmons: You come here often. If in committee we can have some good will in this regard, if we can get members of the Finance Committee, presuming the House so directs that it will go to the Finance Committee, to make some fairly major changes all within the spirit of the Bill. There is nothing wrong with the spirit of the Bill, but once it gets beyond spirit it is very short on substance. We want to give it a little more substance in committee. At this stage we cannot support it. Would somebody explain it to him, because I have said it two or three times, at this stage, second reading-are you with me-


Some Hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Roger Simmons: -we cannot, do not, and will not support the Bill.


An Hon. Member:: That is what your opening speaker said.


Roger Simmons: He said nothing that was contradictory with that.


An Hon. Member:: He did, he did.


Roger Simmons: I am telling you, rest at ease, go back to sleep, do not worry about it. We are not going to support the Bill at this stage. But, Mr. Speaker, at another stage because the spirit of the Bill we need-


An Hon. Member:: Maybe tomorrow you will have a different position.


Roger Simmons: No. No. At this stage of the Bill.


An Hon. Member:: Now you are talking Liberal.


Roger Simmons: I think they got it, Mr. Speaker. At this stage of the Bill we will not support it. We want to get it in committee. Depending on what happens in committee we will let them know whether or not we are going to support it. That will depend on whether or not we are prepared, as a House, to put some substance in the Bill to protect the Canadian consumer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South on a question or comment.


Mr. Blenkarn:: 
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously late in the day. I want walk to the gentleman from Mississauga South through the process one more time.
It is implicit in my statement that we want to see the Bill in committee. It is implicit in that statement that we do not want to see it delayed for six months. That ought to be crystal clear to the illustrious chairman of the Finance Committee, a man who has been known even in the heat of an election to stand on his principles. Even when his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was telling the country one thing about revenue neutral taxes, he was prepared to bare his soul. He told the whole world that by his guestimation the national sales tax would bring us at least an extra $1 billion.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Fourteen billion!


Roger Simmons: He was low even on the $14 billion. The estimate now is $22 billion.
The point I make is that that gentleman has long been on the side of truth even when it has hurt him in his career path. I say to him that we want to see the Bill in committee. We do not want to see it get a six-month hoist at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill, after listening all afternoon to the comments of my colleague, the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Loiselle) and Opposition Members.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Finance) today proposed second reading of a bill that provides for major improvements in those provisions of the Bank Act that are mainly concerned with disclosure of service charges.
As you know and as the House knows, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is based on the policy set forth in previous Bill C-140 which also concerned service charges.
However, unlike its predecessor, Bill C-9 also applies to business deposit accounts.
This afternoon, I heard Opposition Members talking about small businesses. As we know, however, this policy was formulated after exhaustive consultations with members of small business groups. Thanks to the very useful contribution made by these groups, the Government is now proposing to improve the standards for all deposit accounts.
Bank Act
I would like to give a summary of what the Bill will do for businesses.
First of all, the Bill responds to one of the main demands of small business groups, which is to ensure access to information on what a bank charges for its services.
The Government intends to oblige banks to make available to the public a list of all ordinary charges related to banking services, not just the charges that apply to personal deposit accounts.
Mr. Speaker, this provision is important, not just because it meets the demands of small businesses but also because it gives all Canadians the right to obtain information so they can shop around and make a considered decision with respect to their banking operations.
Under the new Bill, businesses will also have access to brochures that will indicate the service charges applying to the various deposit accounts offered by Canadian banking institutions.
Before it can modify the charges on business accounts, especially those of small businesses, a bank must give thirty days notice to the holders of such accounts. This requirement will apply to the services specified in the draft regulations, which represent the majority of service charges paid by small businesses.
The Bill acknowledges that like consumers, businesses may be faced with problems that require the bank's attention. Consequently, under this Bill businesses will have access to the same complaint settlement mechanisms as holders of personal accounts, and they will have that access both through the institutions and through the Government.
One may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why the Government did not act to eliminate the charges on business accounts when a customer pays with an NSF cheque. The decision to remove these charges for personal accounts was made voluntarily by some institutions last June. It was not a Government decision. However, I think that, unlike individuals who often have few convenient alternatives, companies can use other payment methods.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this Bill, although it does not completely satisfy the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), should be passed on second reading as soon as possible and referred, as the opposition parties and the Government wish, I think, to the Standing Committee on Finance for in-depth study, so that it can come back to us for final passage as quickly as possible.

April 26, 1989
Bank Act
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the sooner the Bill is passed, the sooner Canadian consumers will benefit.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary. He talked about consumers' freedom to choose among the banks. I think that it is often difficult to change from one bank to another if someone does not like the service charges.
Does the Hon. Member agree with what I said about it often being difficult, if a consumer does not like the service charges, to change banks? That is why I believe this Bill is inadequate.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, it makes no difference; I still disagree with the New Democratic Party.
From having worked in the field, Mr. Speaker, before entering this august Chamber, on the contrary, I think that there is competition in the area of bank services, as in any other sector. There is healthy competition.
The consumer, whether an individual, a company or a small business, who does business with a bank, or with a caisse populaire in Quebec, and who is not satisfied with the treatment he is getting can easily do business with another financial institution and obtain the benefits he desires and the financing he needs, be it personal or for business.
Looking at the number of banking institutions in Canada-banks or any other institution providing financial services-I believe that there are many and competition is very strong. Strong competition means service must be good, at a reasonable cost, if the financial institution is to survive and prosper.
So I think it is easy to change banks at any time to get the services one wants.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary. For example, wall someone who got a mortgage from a bank and who does not like service charges be able to transfer the mortgage to another bank? There will be charges to pay and I don't think he can avoid them.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, when a consumer signs a mortgage agreement with a financial institution, he is informed of the related charges. And if he is not happy with those charges, he can shop around and get a mortgage elsewhere under the terms he wants. And it can still be done, Mr. Speaker. We often see taxpayers and consumers who change financial institutions when their mortgage comes due. I don't think there is a problem in that respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Sudbury on a question or comment?


Mrs. Marleau:: First of all to my hon. colleague from the West Coast, I am the Member for Sudbury. I think I look a little different from your colleague in front of you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Diane Marleau: To the Hon. Member across the way, he tells this House that there is a great deal of competition out there with banks. I do not know exactly what area he comes from, but there are many areas in this fine country of ours that do not have a lot of banks and therefore there is very little competition.

You talked about credit unions. The question I am asking you is this: I have been told that credit unions are totally regulated by the provinces. Is that true? If it is, this Bill will not control credit unions or other financial agencies at all. It will only control the big banks, right? Can you explain that to me? That is why we do not support the Bill as it now stands.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I agree on one point with my colleague from Sudbury (Mrs. Marleau): She looks much better than the Member from the New Democratic Party. On that, we are in complete agreement.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that credit unions come under provincial jurisdiction. I mentioned them a few moments ago because I was saying that consumers have the option to do business with several financial institutions. I took credit unions as an example, but I could have referred to certain trust companies who also offer financial services. I mentioned credit unions in that context.
April 26, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate, the Hon. Minister, Government House Leader.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognizing me. I would move pursuant to Standing Order 26(1):
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of second
reading of Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was next on the list to speak. It seems to me that the Minister has been, with respect, kind of smuggled in here to get up and make the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have been very generous today with opposite sides taking turns. Once a Minister rises, I must respect the fact that the Minister is in the Chamber and wishes to speak. I was not aware that this motion was being put. I figured he wanted to speak on the Bill. Therefore I have recognized the Minister.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Would those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And more than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your Honour was kind enough, in your generosity, to say that you have been fair today and that you did recognize the Minister thinking that he was going to speak. Therefore I wish the Minister would speak now since he took the floor to speak. Instead he gave us a fast one as they say in baseball. We are here to listen to the
Bank Act
Minister, since the Minister was recognized and given the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I am in agreement with the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. He is absolutely right. When you play those kinds of games it comes back to haunt you in this House, and the Minister should know that.
Anyway I have got to wind up on the debate. I have one minute, I gather. Our position in the NDP is clear on this Bill. As the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt said, we do not want half a loaf, a quarter of a loaf, or a tenth of a loaf; we want the whole loaf.
Ordinary Canadians have to meet these bank charges, these growing service charges. The banks are pulling in the money on this to pay off, as the Hon. Member said, their external debts. We want some teeth in a Bill so that Canadians will not be gouged by service charges from banks which have a history of doing so. That is why we had the issue referred to a committee in the first place. I am disappointed that the Government did not come back with a Bill with some teeth in it to show Canadians that in fact it has responded to the needs out there.
I wonder if I might be able to speak on this Bill tomorrow. I am not sure, but I think the House will adjourn at six o'clock.
May I call it six o'clock and continue my speech tomorrow with respect to the banks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have 19 minutes, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.

It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 27, 1989