February 28, 1978

LIB

Edward C. Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance)

Liberal

Mr. Lumley:

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that there were no members from British Columbia or western Canada serving on the board of the Bank of Canada. I think he should check the list of directors of the Bank of Canada.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Robert Lloyd Wenman

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Wenman:

I was suggesting to the House that there is no regional representation; that members chosen for directorship have in the past been and continue to be not regional in their recognition. I am suggesting a specific proposal, that the government recognize the provinces by allowing them to make some appointments to the board. If the government is afraid of the provinces and does not wish each province to recommend one appointment, then perhaps the government could choose five representatives. Or perhaps a system could be found which would, within the appointments of the federal government, recognize the regionality of Canada. This is not the situation currently and it should be.

Another matter which the government might have considered in its Bank Act revision legislation is permitting chartered banks to use provincial treasury bills as part of their secondary reserve requirements. There are several advantages to the proposal. It would lift what could be considered a monopolistic federal tax on chartered banks. The federal government's discriminatory action against the provinces in the secondary reserve requirements is typical of its lip service in recognizing regional rights and aspirations rather than do so on a realistic basis.

In 1974 after the infusion of a few more Conservative MP's from western Canada we thought the government had heard western Canada when it acceded to British Columbia's request for more regional autonomy by introducing a bill which would allow a 25 per cent equity position by a provincial government in regional chartered banks. That was three finance ministers ago.

Why did the government not accept this proposal? Was this window dressing tokenism? Or was it because the legislation that is currently being planned by the government was in fact the new socialist controlled system that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) muses about so loudly so often? Perhaps the hon. member who has just spoken was revealing some inside information and the government is going to restrict Canadian travel by restricting the amount of money we can take out of

this country. Is that socialist policy government policy? I hope not. I hope they will make that matter clear before the next election.

Why did the government not bring forward the former bill C-7? Is it a stall to get the government past another election? Is it because the government does not want to accept the proposals presented to it or does not know what to do? Regardless of the excuse, it is inadequate. Instead it should be part of a substantial major economic package which would improve the sagging economy of this nation. The country cannot wait 12, 18 or 24 months for a new Bank Act or a new economic thrust. The country is tired of the election paralysis which has fallen over this parliament and Canada. It is time that the government did something concrete or called an election so we can get on with governing this nation.

This bill is one of the government's excuses for inaction. It is a further stall tactic. It means that on election day Canadians will choose a new government to bring in a new economic package which will include a new Bank Act and the provisions which are wanted and needed by Canada.

[ Translation]

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
SC

Eudore Allard

Social Credit

Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):

Mr. Speaker, the white paper on the Canadian banking legislation published at the end of August 1976 would have the banks more competitive with credit unions, and other banking institutions. The members of the Social Credit Party of Canada believe that chartered banks at present are in a better position than other financial institutions in the country since they have the privilege to create money with a mere stroke of the pen.

A while ago I heard the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) say that he thought that the banks were sufficiently powerful, but chartered banks do not have control. They are self-controlled and they even control the members of this House as well as the government. They rule the roost. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-16 since it gives Canadians the opportunity to get acquainted with the operation of our monetary system. I have before me some statements on banking assets from 1967 to 1975. From October 30, 1967 to October 31, 1970 those assets increased by $6 billion; from 1971 to 1972, by $8 billion; and from 1973 to 1975, a record increase of $16 billion. I said "record", but I think they will beat that record this year. In June, I forecast that the chartered banks would make a net profit of $25 billion, but I foresee now that those will reach $26 billion this year.

Mr. Speaker, before the Bank Act was revised in 1957, the increases in bank assets varied between $2 and $3 billion a year. With regard to interest rates on loans to their clients, there was a 7 per cent ceiling from 1934 to 1944 and 6 per cent from 1944 to 1967. When the ceiling was removed in 1967, rates remained subject to a very complicated increase which depended more on the general trends in financial mar-

February 28, 1978

kets than on the public will or that of the government. Before 1967, when the Bank Act was revised, bank shares were set at a $10 par value. After 1967, that par value was lowered to $2, but worthy of note is the fact that those same $2 bring in from 50 to 80 per cent in dividends annually. Today, it is easy to see that despite their par value of $2, bank shares fluctuate between $14 and $45. On that par value of $2, banks pay a dividend that varies between 25 cents and 40 cents, about four times a year, that is from $1 to $1.60 a year on a par value of $2 depending on the market, profits and other appreciations of market values.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, all that is very complex for the non-initiated to the monetary, economic and political systems in Canada and the United States. But, before going any further, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back somewhat to better situate us in the banking context. During the worst of the 1930-39 depression many economists, Canadian, American and even from around the world met in Canada to study the phenomenon of the economic depression, the worldwide stagnation and the lethargy of business.

It is as a reaction to the increasing misery in a great many countries of the world that the Bank of Canada came up with all these regulations governing chartered banks, the printing of money, interest rates, etc. For 22 years, specifically from 1934 to 1956, the Bank of Canada maintained a basic interest rate of 2 per cent which made it possible for it to survive through the difficult years of the depression, World War II, the post-war boom, and part of the inflation which accompanied this boom.

As I was saying a moment ago, the chartered banks were limited to a ceiling of 7 per cent on loans from 1934 to 1944. At the time of the decennial review, this rate was reduced to 6 per cent for the period from 1944 to 1967, when it was decided to lift the ceiling on interest rates, without saying that this was a way to fight inflation. We realize today that the result has been quite the opposite As a matter of fact, this may be the most inflationary period ever, together with record unemployment. In 1967, we celebrated the centennial of Confederation. On that occasion, Canadians paused to consider the road already covered. Well, they came to realize that over the past 100 years, our chartered banks had accumulated total assets of some $100 billion. You will note that from 1967 to 1973, those same banks have reached assets of $75 billion. In hardly seven years, they have more than doubled the assets they had reached after their 100 first years.

Thus it can be suggested that a good part of that extraordinary increase was due to the removal of the ceiling on interest rates which grew from 6 and 7 per cent up to 13.5 and 14 per cent those last few days. Today, when we consider the national product, we find that it amounts to $190 billion and yet the federal government managed to show deficits. Indeed, as recently as last week, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announced in the House of Commons that the estimated

Bank Act

deficit would be roughly $8 billion. For this year, it is expected that it will go as high as $11 billion. Meanwhile, those who have the privilege to create credit, generally known as banks, were reporting net assets of $26 billion. Is that not cause for one to wonder? I think so.

If I may, I would like to quote from an article entitled "The Issues as I See Them," published in MacLean's of September 15, 1935. At that time, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King said the following, and I quote from the article which was translated from English into French:

The Liberal Party thinks that credit is a public matter which does not concern bankers alone but which also affects directly the average citizen. The party is in favour of the immediate creation of a national central bank duly incorporated which would be responsible for rediscount and which would ensure the issuing of money according to public needs. A central bank is necessary on the one hand to determine the monetary reserve according to the national, social and industrial needs of the Canadian people, and on the other hand to deal with matters of international trade and exchange.

As a national central bank has been created by the present government since the disclosure of the Liberal policy on this subject, I think it is necessary to stress here that the Bank of Canada as it now is is a far cry from the institution viewed by the Liberal Party. As have stated several of our prominent economists, the Bank of Canada follows a fascist model. It is in fact a private company which has the power to control the volume of money in the country. I must repeat what I have already told Parliament when protesting over the fact that government was relinquishing to a private institution the control of the country and the nation's money. Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile. One of the Liberal Party's main objective will be to return to the nation what it lost, and to establish a duly constituted national central bank.

Mr. Speaker, 44 years later, we are hanging from the cliff. The unemployment rate is at a record high. Our dollar is not worth what it used to, and is continuing to decline. Inflation is hitting us on all sides, and so on, and so forth.

I would like to quote from a newspaper article by Louis-Philippe Roy that appeared on August 17, 1939:

Here is an unsolved mystery: Where does money come from? Years go by and the depression continues. It was supposed to last three, five years at the most, but it has been with us for 10 years and real prosperity is nowhere in sight yet. Why does depression last so long? Why so much unrelenting unemployment? Why such famine in the midst of plenty? The present depression has a feature that is unique in history: millions of human beings live in misery while in many countries wealth is destroyed: milk is sent down the drain, coffee is burned, farmers are paid to reduce production. And in this country of ours, there is no lack of wealth, nor transportation to distribute it. We have an industrial work force that is rusting at idle and transport corridors often devoid of traffic.

If Providence has been generous to us, if goods are everywhere, if the soil waits but for man's work to yield its riches, the cause of this depression certainly is not the poverty of our Canadian land.

Is it that production is not well run? No. Manufacturers, just as farmers could produce more if their products were to move.

Ask mothers why there is nothing on their tables. Ask fathers why they are getting hungry. Ask children why they are getting skinny. Ask merchants why their business is not thriving. Ask professionals why they do so much work on credit. Everyone's answer will be: because there is no money!

No money! This is what people in government say to those asking for help, industrialists to those asking for work, consumers to businessmen asking for

February 28, 1978

Bank Act

orders, businessmen to wholesalers. The same answer everyone gives everyone else!

No money? Billions and billions are spent on means of destruction. To prepare for the great kill there is all the money needed. War industries are working at capacity.

So there is money!

Would it be that its role is to prepare man's destruction? However it would seem that money was invented to provide for trade in produce and manufactured products, and also the sale of services.

If the world is suffering, it is not because for the most part trade is paralyzed? Then money is not fulfilling its normal function?

Who is to blame?

Certainly not the Lord. Neither is Nature, because money can exist independently from seasons and weather; it is immune to draught and grasshoppers. Its manufacture is limited to the availability of gold, they say, a big joke.

During the 1914-18 war there was little gold available and a great deal of money. The United States have piles of gold and yet 13 million unemployed cannot earn money. Never has Canada witnessed such a production of gold these years and look at the results. Must the government be blamed for it? I believe so because government, Mr. Speaker, seems to be powerless or paralyzed in the face of unemployment, inflation and all those who tell it what to do. Yet let us not forget that our governments are as poor as the individual; municipal governments, provincial governments, the federal government have only the money we pay them in taxes. They are the ones who borrow from banks, yes. The public administration which gives banks the power to make money has to ask the bank and pay large interests to obtain credit to administer the country and give the unemployed something to eat. Money, currency, credit, is that the same thing? To what principle are they subject in the manufacture of money, the issuance of currency, the distribution of credit? What do they demand in return and why? So many questions without answers in our school books. Yet the problem seems crucial at this time. Why that mystery about the origin of money? Is it not high time to put an end to that mystery? It is high time to scrutinize this problem of money which seems to be one of the causes of the present economic slump because it is true that current conditions of social economic life are such that a very considerable number of men are finding it most difficult to earn their bread.

So, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to try and help the population lift the veil of mystery over the origin of money. How does book money start? It starts, of course, when a credit is registered in a bank book without reducing anything elsewhere. Book money does not start when I deposit $10 at myh bank or my caisse populaire. It does not start because that account is opened by a reduction in my pocket money. It is a simple conversion of pocket money into book money. Book money does not start either when the car dealer sees his account increase by $2,000 after he sells a car. That increase of $2,000 in his account is the result of a decrease of $2,000 in mine. But book money is accumulated when a sum is deposited in an account without reducing another's account or emptying another's pockets.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, using, of course, a fictitious name. Mr. Jones, a manufacturer, wants to extend his factory. He does not have the money to pay for materials, labour and equipment. With $100,000, he could carry out his plans; later, with an increased production and sales, he could easily pay back the money. He then goes to his banker who agress to lend him the money, against the security given by

Mr. Jones. How is the loan worked out? The banker gives to Mr. Jones what is called a discount cheque worth $100,000. M. Jones goes to the cashier. As he is not interested in carrying such a sum, he simply deposits th cheque which is credited by the cashier to his account. All Mr. Jones has to do now is to make out cheques whenever he needs to pay for materials, labour or equipment.

When Mr. Toupin leaves the bank, he has a credit account of $100,000. No other account was debited, not one cent or one dollar has left one pocket or one drawer. Everyone has exactly the same amount on their account or on the books as before, but Mr. Toupin has $100,000 more. There are $100,000 more in the country in the account of Mr. Toupin. This is not an account from savings, from money that already existed and that was saved, this is a borrowing account from new money born from the decision of the banker, from a simple pen stroke and an entry in a credit account. This is where and how money comes into being: in a bank through a loan in the form of credit, but also in the form of a debt to be repaid with interest.

About one tenth of the cheques made by Mr. Toupin to pay his bills will be cashed in at the bank against coins or paper money; the other nine tenths will simply be deposited and will simply transfer the amount from the new credit of Mr. Toupin to the credit of other people. This is the result of present trade practices and the banker is well aware of it. He can easily loan against security ten times as much money as he has in reserve; he is the only one who can do this, no private moneylender has this magic wand. And the banker is authorized by his charter to do this. The Canadian legislation even allows him to loan up to 20 times the amount of his reserve. This is the money-making system established by the banks and legalized by our government.

I would add that the government itself when it needs more money than it can immediately levy through taxes also goes to the banks. It borrows in exactly the same manner as Mr. Toupin, but it gives as security the future taxes that it will collect from Canadian citizens. The government also promises to repay with interest and becomes a debtor of the bank to which it has delegated an absolute power, that of creating the currency of the country. The banker makes money, but we should note that he does not do so for himself, he does it for the borrower. Moreover, the banker is not giving this money away, he loans it, and this money is not put into circulation forever. The borrower must repay it within a certain time.

In the case of Mr. Toupin, what will happen of course is this: The banker will first withdraw from the account of Mr. Toupin the amount of the interest; if the loan is for one year at 7 per cent, the interest is $7,000. The banker will subtract $7,000 from the credit of Mr. Toupin and transfer it to the credit of the bank in the interest account. So, Mr. Toupin will have only $93,000 to his credit. When he starts paying his bills or his employees, using a cheque, progressively Mr. Toupin

February 28, 1978

will circulate those $93,000, but he must consider he has to pay his loan back within a year. Therefore Mr. Toupin is going to sell his products and make enough profit to earn $100,000 within a year to pay back the bank in one shot or every month according to the terms of the contract. Mr. Toupin invested $93,000 and extracted $100,000 from the public; that is the way he will generate that money.

As Mr. Toupin repays the bank, it will credit the discount which was charged when the $100,000 were generated. And when the $100,000 will be entirely paid back, the discount account will balance and that will be the end. Figure money, bookkeeping money will die at the same place where it was born. No new money will be created and put in circulation and in the same way, by creating the same debt, the consumer must pay that debt through the purchases he makes. As far as government is concerned, it is exactly the same thing except the taxpayer rather than the consumer has to foot the bill. However, until now the government does not pay back money but it defers maturity by issuing new bonds sometimes with a lower interest rate. That is why the national debt of all industrialized countries will never be settled but will increase instead as they have to borrow again for new projects. And that is why taxpayers must pay hundreds of millions every year to service national debts. As we can see, money is made by people with a stroke of the pen. Money is not eternal; it is destroyed by the same people who made it according to the terms of the birth certificate.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Sinclair McKnight Stevens

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, on entering the debate on Bill C-16, which represents the second extension this government has asked this parliament to endorse in respect of the existing Bank Act in Canada, it is wise that we first take some cognizance of how the banking industry now stands in Canada, and how the near-banks, including the credit unions, trust companies, loan companies and finance companies, stand in relation to our chartered banks. Before we go further in considering whether this extension should be granted, I think it would be wise if we got a better perspective of why, on the last day of February, we are considering another extension to the Bank Act, which should have been extended as of June 30 last year.

I would suggest we have in this legislation before us tonight a very vivid example of the ineptness of this government over the past few years. There may be things that sneak up on this government or that surprise the government, and would perhaps surprise any government, but surely the one thing that any government in power in Canada could have anticipated was the revision of our Bank Act in 1977. It was a 10-year Bank Act, and on June 30 everybody knew that, unless it was further extended for another ten years, or extended as the government chose to do on March 31 of this year, the business of banks in this country would literally disintegrate. There would be no banks. Their constitution, which is the Bank Act,

Bank Act

would no longer be in existence. Although the government was well aware of that fact, it chose not to take the necessary action to see to it that we did have a 10-year review of our banking situation and then a proper Bank Act introduced and passed in this House by the first deadline.

Having said that, I suggest we in this country missed a tremendous opportunity, an opportunity that may well have relieved some of the anxiety we now feel in respect of our crippled dollar. I suggest this because one of the things we have done well in this country is banking. We have healthy and strong banks which, unlike some of our industries, are able to be competitive with the largest banks in the world. I suggest there is a matter of reciprocity involved. We have been active in our banks. Our banks have been very successful in the United Kingdom, the United States and in other countries. They have brought back huge profits to this country as a result of their activities. As a matter of fact, at the present time our Canadian chartered banks have approximately $100 billion in domestic assets and $50 billion in foreign assets. In short, one-third of our total banking industry today is active around the world, doing what I would suggest we in Canada must try to get more industries doing; that is, making the world their oyster. In truth we are a tremendous international banking country, and that is a credit to us in Canada.

There is a certain feeling of reciprocity involved. If you choose to do business in another country-and I refer to banking activity-it is only natural that that country will expect to do some business in your country in return. There are many banks that are anxious to do business in Canada. They feel they can contribute in the sense of making Montreal, Vancouver or Toronto significant financial centres if given the right to participate in these markets.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

What about Winnipeg?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Sinclair McKnight Stevens

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stevens:

This is known to the government and it has been known for years. In fact, the interest shown by these banks is such that it is estimated that in Canada there may be as many as 60 foreign banks carrying out some type of operation already, in the sense that they have agencies or representative offices here or, as some classify it, suitcase type operations. Some 60 foreign banks are active in Canada in the sense that they are waiting to get the nod to become active participants in our banking community if the Bank Act so permits.

Let me be more specific. In Toronto it is estimated there may be over 40 foreign banks presently maintaining offices, certainly as lookouts, listening posts or as training stations, as some describe them, but, in any case, indirectly carrying on active banking business. In the Commerce Court in Toronto there are 26 foreign banks which maintain offices of a banking nature. According to the Bank Act, it is an offence to use the title "bank" unless the bank is one of the scheduled banks to the act. I invite any hon. member to go through Commerce Court and see the number of banks which probably display

February 28, 1978

Bank Act

their signs in that complex. Presumably there has been absolutely no criticism from Ottawa.

Let there be no doubt: I am saying that this is doubly wrong. If the Bank Act indicates that the title "bank" should not be used with respect to financial activities unless the bank is a chartered bank under that act, that is the law and it should be enforced. The government is wrong to allow this encroachment to take place with virtually no regulation.

On the other hand, it is totally wrong for the government not to realize this interest on the part of foreign banks. They give them lip service and encouragement through the white paper, which has been referred to in this debate, but they then let these banks sit in limbo. I know of at least 40 banks which opened offices over 2xh years ago in anticipation of this Bank Act being passed and putting them in a position of carrying on active banking activities. I am referring to banks such as the Deutsche Bank which has assets of $44 billion. It has an office in Toronto. It is awaiting an opportunity to do business. Perhaps it is indirectly doing some business at the present time. There is also the Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank of Japan. It has $43 billion in assets. Also it is waiting to do business. There is the Banco do Brasil which has $39 billion in assets and is waiting. Also the Credit Lyonnais, the Fuji Bank, the Societe Generate, the Dresdner Bank, the Mitsubishi Bank, the Sanwa Bank, the Barclays Bank, the Bank of Tokyo and the Industrial Bank of Japan are waiting to do business. In the sense of maintaining offices, they are actively waiting to get into our banking system. They feel Canada can be made into an international banking community, yet they have not received the satisfaction of a proper regulation in the sense of having a Bank Act passed in Canada which will permit them to legalize their activities.

The reason I referred to that list is that it is interesting to note that every one of those banks has larger assets than our largest bank, the Royal Bank of Canada. The 50 largest banks listed in the Fortune list of the largest banks outside of the United States have total assets amounting to $1,287 billion. When one considers the potential which exists for Canada if those banks are encouraged to become participants in the Canadian banking community, and adds to that the participants from the United States, it is just great.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Alastair William Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. Gillespie:

What about the Western Bank?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Steve Eugene Paproski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Paproski:

The hon. minister should stop making noises.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order. The hon. member for York-Simcoe has the floor.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Sinclair McKnight Stevens

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stevens:

I have not heard the hon. minister speak so loudly in the House for weeks.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Alastair William Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. Gillespie:

Perhaps you have not been in the House.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Sinclair McKnight Stevens

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stevens:

I wish the hon. minister would listen to what I am saying.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Alastair William Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. Gillespie:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

The hon. member for York-Simcoe has the floor for the purpose of making a speech. I suggest hon. members listen.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Alastair William Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. Gillespie:

How are the deposits in the Western Bank now?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Sinclair McKnight Stevens

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stevens:

I would have thought the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) would be tracking down a few of the payoffs which have occurred in the Crown corporations that he is responsible for.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Steve Eugene Paproski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Paproski:

That shameful minister!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Alastair William Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. Gillespie:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
PC

Sinclair McKnight Stevens

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stevens:

Perhaps the hon. member should do that, instead of talking about something he does not have one tittle of knowledge about.

There is an opportunity in Canada, if the Bank Act is revised to permit international banking activities in Canada under proper regulation. That opportunity should not be missed. It is most unfortunate the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) and the Hon. John Turner have systematically postponed the revision to the Bank Act. I will go through the sequence of how they did that tomorrow. It is unfortunate that on the eve of the first extension to the Bank Act there is a request for a further one-year extension from the end of March. That is the first point I should like to make.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink

February 28, 1978